And people are still prepated to vote Labour!!

[Imploding Turtle]

Very true.


But the same can be said with us, if/when TM gets a massive majority.

Lol. You think Corbyn is the left-wing equivalent to Le Pen?

[Imploding Turtle]

I also look at the fact that for me if a leader says he wont use nuclear weapons for our defense then he is not worthy of being in charge.
the last time we had leaders who said that ''peace in our time'' lets throw away our defenses we ended up with a disturbance in Europe ( and yes I know he was a Conservative so lets learn from these lessons.)

So WW3 might happen if we elect Corbyn>


I'm laughing bcause i remember laughing at another idiot say we might see WW3 if we vote a certain way.

[boatshed bill]

Hi bill, the winter of discontent - when many, many trade unions went on strike - was winter 1978/79. Jim Callaghan was Labour Prime Minister, kept in "power" by the support of the Liberals (no Lib-Dems in those days). The IMF had been brought in to rescue the UK economy a couple of years earlier. A "prices and incomes" policy had been in place for a couple of years, inflation was running very high.

Margaret Thatcher was elected PM in May 1979 - and the Conservatives were in power for the next 18 years.

There were coal miner strikes (and power generation, from memory) in the early 1970s when Ted Heath was PM - leading to the first series of 3 day working weeks and power black outs of a few hours at a time.

I think the unions named 1978/79 as the winter of discontent. Of course, the press and everyone else also latched on to this label.

And so did I, because I was seriously discontented at the time.

[Imploding Turtle]

Er, hate to be a historical pedant and all that and debunking ********, but after Munich, Britain established the Radar chain and bought in Hurricanes and Spitfires into the RAF, all under Chamberlain.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... venty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

an* historican pedant

[Imploding Turtle]

If you believe this you really are stupid, every time Druncker opens his big mouth it adds another 10 to the massive Tory majority.

Careful now. You'll have complete retards saying youre calling people "stupid" purely for disagreeing with you.

[Imploding Turtle]

(And yes, Imploding Turtle, you did warn me. Several times...)

I want to point out that i've no problem with people being ****** off with this negotiating position we're in. I jsut won't put up with people blaming Remainers for it, which is what people like Moffitt are trying to set up.

[boatshed bill]

I want to point out that i've no problem with people being ****** off with this negotiating position we're in. I jsut won't put up with people blaming Remainers for it, which is what people like Moffitt are trying to set up.

I'm struggling to see why this arguement (Should I stay or should I go now) is relevant to the original question.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm struggling to see why this arguement (Should I stay or should I go now) is relevant to the original question.

It isn't. Maybe read beyond the original post to understand why it relevent to the discussion.

[claretandy]

I heard it said from several sources that article 50 was written in such a vague way as to make it extremely difficult to leave. You have to wonder why they did this if the EU is such a good thing.

[Lancasterclaret]

You don't get this debating lark at all do you?

If you repeat made up stuff you heard from your flag waving mates down the pub, you'll get shot down by people who know what they are talking about.

So, after that gentle warning, care to share your sources?

[ClaretMoffitt]

I want to point out that i've no problem with people being ****** off with this negotiating position we're in. I jsut won't put up with people blaming Remainers for it, which is what people like Moffitt are trying to set up.

To quote the your fancy piece..

"well I love that you know what is in my head"


And we are the second biggest net contributor, other smaller nations have already stated they will not fill our share of the contributions. They NEED that money, that is pensions, expenses, operations, etc. At a time of euro-skepticism around Europe, you think having a few billion added onto membership fees with go down well? Answers no.

Second, theres the well talked about trade issue. Noises have already been made in the EU camp that they will NOT limit free trade, as fears amongst domestic businesses started to grow more concerned; because whether you want to believe it or not, they DO actually need our trade. Germany in particular has enough of a problem with economically inactive people since they decided to throw their doors open to the worlds poor, you really think she wants to risk her manufacturing too?

Third, our financial sector is one of, if not the biggest in the world. You think they are going to want to restrict access to that? What possible benefit would that have on them? All it would do is hurt themselves to hurt us. They aren't that stupid. They are making tough noises right now, which is really scary to a few of the more delicate souls on here, but the truth is they are posturing. Just like TM is posturing.

I will make you a bet, right now.

That we don't pay anything even near the region of 100b euros, and that we get a free trade deal when all this is done. Feel free to save this.

[Lancasterclaret]

That we don't pay anything even near the region of 100b euros, and that we get a free trade deal when all this is done. Feel free to save this.

Will we have to pay for this access?

London is still going to be a massive financial centre, no one is doubting that, but how many jobs will go to other European financial sectors? And over what period of time?

How long will the economic dislocation be felt for when we do leave? A year? a couple of years? a generation? a couple of generations?

Its not as simple as saying "I bet when all this ends we get a free trade deal"

[nil_desperandum]

I will make you a bet, right now.

That we don't pay anything even near the region of 100b euros, and that we get a free trade deal when all this is done. Feel free to save this.

Just to clarify what we are betting on:
Define "near the region of". Would this be less than 60 billion? (because that's still a lot), less than 40 billion??, (still significant), less than 10 billion, (still more than some are prepared to accept). Please define.

A free trade deal at what cost per year? How much would you be prepared for us to contribute to the EU for this deal? (Again you need to define what you are predicting and prepared to place money on).

[ClaretMoffitt]

Just to clarify what we are betting on:
Define "near the region of". Would this be less than 60 billion? (because that's still a lot), less than 40 billion??, (still significant), less than 10 billion, (still more than some are prepared to accept). Please define.

A free trade deal at what cost per year? How much would you be prepared for us to contribute to the EU for this deal? (Again you need to define what you are predicting and prepared to place money on).

Less than 40b, to settle agreed programs (assuming we would still gain benefit from them) up until the point of leaving, or the time taken for those particular programs to cease.

Free trade will be exactly that, free trade, if we have to pay a fee in order to trade, its not free trade. Now, will we pay some goodwill fee as part of that 40b? Possibly, I don't know the true numbers involved, and neither does anyone here. The EU do, and our Government do. So to try and take me into the finer details here is not going to work is it?

I'm guessing of what I know, and what I have seen. Just like everyone else on here.

[nil_desperandum]

Free trade will be exactly that, free trade, if we have to pay a fee in order to trade, its not free trade.
I'm guessing of what I know, and what I have seen. Just like everyone else on here.

I'm afraid that's just not possible. If they offered us free trade for nothing then firstly, one can assume that Switzerland and Norway would immediately demand the same, and then of course 27 other EU states would start to ask "why are we paying to be in the Single Market when non EU members get access for free?"
Free trade for the UK - at no cost - would effectively mark the beginning of the end of the EU trading block, so there's no chance of the EU agreeing to it.

[ClaretMoffitt]

I'm afraid that's just not possible. If they offered us free trade for nothing then firstly, one can assume that Switzerland and Norway would immediately demand the same, and then of course 27 other EU states would start to ask "why are we paying to be in the Single Market when non EU members get access for free?"
Free trade for the UK - at no cost - would effectively mark the beginning of the end of the EU trading block, so there's no chance of the EU agreeing to it.

Could argue the same with Scotland for Wales, they don't get free prescriptions and university though. Its all about negotiations, leverage, weight. We have more than they do (Norway/Swiss).

[Paul Waine]

Based on discussion above, UK contributes, after Thatcher's discount, £13bn to EU - before we receive $4bn from EU. Article 50 allows a 2 year period to leave, but we are still members during those 2 years (except latest EU maps already show UK as non-member, OK they are preparing...).

I assume during the 2 year leaving period that UK will pay contributions as normal.

So, what is the "leaving settlement" about? £50b, for example, equates to either 4 years (at £13bn/year) or 5 1/2 years (at £9bn). Where is this in Article 50 "if a member state leaves, they will continue to contribute for 4 (or more than 5) further years.

I can understand in the scheme of governments pretending that civil service pension obligations don't exist until the staff start collecting their pensions that there are UK obligations to settle EU civil service pension liabilities, to the extent that these pensions will now be paid by other EU member states (I've also heard that the EU staff pensions are very, very, generous - it would be interesting to get some publicity for these details). And, I can understand in the scheme of very poor EU accounting records that there are some invoices that might have been "lost down the back of the sofa" and the EU wants to settle some of these while the UK is still a contributor...

Can anyone throw any light on any of this?

[Paul Waine]

I'm afraid that's just not possible. If they offered us free trade for nothing then firstly, one can assume that Switzerland and Norway would immediately demand the same, and then of course 27 other EU states would start to ask "why are we paying to be in the Single Market when non EU members get access for free?"
Free trade for the UK - at no cost - would effectively mark the beginning of the end of the EU trading block, so there's no chance of the EU agreeing to it.

Hi nil_d, why do I get the sense that "access" to the single market is being sold a little bit like a protection racket? What happens to all the money that the EU collects for access to "their" single market? Earlier this week Nick Clegg attributed the single market to Margaret Thatcher - otherwise it wouldn't exist. Did Thatcher also introduce the idea of the "protection racket" or is that something that has been added later?

I might see if I can find out the basis for Norway's and Switzerland's agreement to pay for access. Anyone already know this?

[nil_desperandum]

Hi nil_d, why do I get the sense that "access" to the single market is being sold a little bit like a protection racket? What happens to all the money that the EU collects for access to "their" single market? Earlier this week Nick Clegg attributed the single market to Margaret Thatcher - otherwise it wouldn't exist. Did Thatcher also introduce the idea of the "protection racket" or is that something that has been added later?

I might see if I can find out the basis for Norway's and Switzerland's agreement to pay for access. Anyone already know this?

Hi Paul,
I think most of us can agree that it's a very complicated issue, and i don't know how these sums of money are arrived at. One thing I'm absolutely certain of however, is that the EU can't possibly offer us a deal by which we will have free access to the Single Market whilst its own members (+the Swiss and the Norwegians pay for it).
I don't understand how anyone can believe that the EU would shoot itself in the foot by even considering this.

[Lancasterclaret]

Could argue the same with Scotland for Wales

Not similar at all, mainly due to the them being countries in the UK, and not independent (yet!)

I know the Canada deal is different (but that took seven years to negotiate) and that is probably the route that you are thinking off, but that will take time. Best bet with this is that we have a transitional agreement until this is signed, but again, is that what both parties want?

The Swiss/Norwegian systems means they pay, and they also accept free movement of people (which I suspect is a non-starter with us) for free trade.

I favour the Swiss.Norwegian model to be honest, as it wouldn't dislocate our economy, but I understand that its just not acceptable at this moment in time (or at least that is the impression)

[Sidney1st]

Not similar at all, mainly due to the them being countries in the UK, and not independent (yet!)

I know the Canada deal is different (but that took seven years to negotiate) and that is probably the route that you are thinking off, but that will take time. Best bet with this is that we have a transitional agreement until this is signed, but again, is that what both parties want?

The Swiss/Norwegian systems means they pay, and they also accept free movement of people (which I suspect is a non-starter with us) for free trade.

I favour the Swiss.Norwegian model to be honest, as it wouldn't dislocate our economy, but I understand that its just not acceptable at this moment in time (or at least that is the impression)

Former Greek finance minister said we have gone about Brexit all wrong.

His opinion is we should've asked for a Norwegian deal for the next 5 years and then started negotiations for Brexit.
That way the main big hitters in the EU would probably be a bit more relaxed as they possibly won't about in 5yrs due to elections and therefore won't be need to be seen as acting tough with the Uk.

[Lancasterclaret]

He's wrong with everything apart from the conclusion which you've identified.

Thing is would that have been acceptable from a UK point of view?

[Sidney1st]

Would a Norway style deal as a stop gap whilst negotiations are commenced?

We will never know because it was offered as an option unfortunately, both sides ran around singing in out in out shake it all about it felt like.

[Lancasterclaret]

It would make perfect sense, but its not acceptable to the Government at the moment.

I'll keep banging on about this till I'm blue in the face, but if they can keep the economy going well (which a Norway agreement would defintely do), then the rest of the issues with Brexit would be surmountable.

Its really frustrating that the its far less than 50% of the electorate who are stopping some common sense being applied.

[Paul Waine]

Not similar at all, mainly due to the them being countries in the UK, and not independent (yet!)

I know the Canada deal is different (but that took seven years to negotiate) and that is probably the route that you are thinking off, but that will take time. Best bet with this is that we have a transitional agreement until this is signed, but again, is that what both parties want?

The Swiss/Norwegian systems means they pay, and they also accept free movement of people (which I suspect is a non-starter with us) for free trade.

I favour the Swiss.Norwegian model to be honest, as it wouldn't dislocate our economy, but I understand that its just not acceptable at this moment in time (or at least that is the impression)

From my (brief) research this morning Norway's deal is as part of European Economic Area (EEA), whereas Switzerland has a series of bilateral agreements with EU. (Switzerland has rejected EEA and EU membership in referendums, margin of 50.3% to 49.7% rejected EEA in 1992). The EU website describes the way the EU budget is spent: "The EU budget supports growth and job creation. Under the cohesion policy, it funds investment to help bridge economic gaps between EU countries and regions. It also helps develop rural areas in Europe."

And sources: "The EU's sources of income include contributions from member countries,  import duties on products from outside the EU and fines imposed when businesses fail to comply with EU rules. The EU countries agree on the size of the budget and how it is to be financed several years in advance. 
The 3 main sources of revenue are:
a small percentage of gross national income (usually around 0.7%) contributed by all EU countries -  the largest source of budget revenue. The underlying principles are solidarity and ability to pay – though the amount may be adjusted to avoid over-burdening particular countries.
a small percentage of each EU country’s standardised value-added tax revenue, usually around 0.3%.
a large share of import duties on non-EU products (the country that collects the duty retains a small percentage).
The EU also receives income tax from EU staff, contributions by non-EU countries to certain EU programmes and fines on companies that breach EU rules and regulations."

https://europa.eu/european-union/about- ... -income_en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

It would make perfect sense, but its not acceptable to the Government at the moment.

I'll keep banging on about this till I'm blue in the face, but if they can keep the economy going well (which a Norway agreement would defintely do), then the rest of the issues with Brexit would be surmountable.

Its really frustrating that the its far less than 50% of the electorate who are stopping some common sense being applied.

Hi Lancs, I'm learning a few things this morning.

Both Norway and Switzerland are subject to many EU laws. It appears the reason why Switzerland rejected membership of EEA (1992) was the scope of EU laws. Switzerland has some more limits on the application of EU law than Norway has.

As application of EU law to UK was a major part of the "leave" debate, I can't see that following either a Norway or Switzerland style relationship with EU is an option for UK. In fact, EU laws are applicable, but you aren't part of the legislative process would be a hard sell.

Re 52:48. Interesting to see the margin in Switzerland in 1992 (as above) - and no indication that this continues as an issue in Switzerland today.

[Lancasterclaret]

The supremacy of UK law and the freedom of movement appear to bother a lot more people than me Paul!

As I said earlier in the thread (and the other one) is that if the economy is ticking along nicely, and the majority are benefiting, then no one really cares about much else.

[Paul Waine]

The supremacy of UK law and the freedom of movement appear to bother a lot more people than me Paul!

As I said earlier in the thread (and the other one) is that if the economy is ticking along nicely, and the majority are benefiting, then no one really cares about much else.

Yes, too true. The EU would be a good organisation to be part of - if it didn't have the ambition to become the "United States of Europe" and over-run all the individual national boundaries.

I still feel, that if EU had been patient in 50 years or more time there might have been a popular demand to create USofE. However, we should look at the precedents of (1) United States of America and how the federal/state systems operate and (2) Russia and Soviet Union.

Reading the EU website, as I've done this morning to research the EU budget, gave me a feeling that I was reading George Orwell.

[aggi]

We make up about 6% of the contribution to the EU, it's not an insurmountable gap for them.

The trouble with the Norway model is we're basically moving ourselves into a worse position just to placate people who are stamping their feet. We'll still have to abide by a whole raft of EU rules (there's no way to have a free trade agreement with substantially different rules, different safety legislation, arbiters, legislation, etc will lead to one side or the other having an unfair advantage) but we've lost the ability to influence, negotiate and veto those rules.

As for the benefits for the EU of not being part of the free trade for financial services, the most obvious is that somewhere in the EU can pick this up. There have already been attempts in the past to remove Euro clearing from the UK, this didn't happen as we were part of the EU, once we leave the single market that judgement will no longer protect us.

Hamburg, Frankfurt, Paris, Luxembourg have all been courting the finance houses. There have already been stories of small scale moves from the City to Europe due to the uncertainty around Brexit and I know that a large number of the banks and fintech companies already have contingency plans in place.

[claretandy]

You don't get this debating lark at all do you?

If you repeat made up stuff you heard from your flag waving mates down the pub, you'll get shot down by people who know what they are talking about.

So, after that gentle warning, care to share your sources?

One source was that EU programme that laura kuensberg did on bbc2.