So our government and their legal advisers are wrong then, because they have admitted that we do. It's just the amount that is in dispute - understandably so.claretandy wrote:It's not like that at all, we have abided by the terms, given our 2 year notice and are still paying until we leave, after that we aren't obliged to pay anything.
How noble of you. Tell me then, BennyD, what are you prepared to lose, personally, for Brexit to become a reality? Could you give us a brief list of what you're prepared to sacrifice? I'll give you mine:BennyD wrote:Btw, for me, the sooner it happens the better, whatever the cost.
I think you're posting opinions without knowing what you're talking about.Damo wrote:The EU protects the rights of young workers by making them unemployable.
Removing the 35 hour cap will massively help young people in this country, that want to get on in life
and here's Article 4 which is referenced in the aove articleArticle 8
Working time
1. Member States which make use of the option in Article 4 (2) (b) or (c) shall adopt the measures necessary to limit the working time of children to:
(a) eight hours a day and 40 hours a week for work performed under a combined work/training scheme or an in-plant work-experience scheme;
(b) two hours on a school day and 12 hours a week for work performed in term-time outside the hours fixed for school attendance, provided that this is not prohibited by national legislation and/or practice;
in no circumstances may the daily working time exceed seven hours; this limit may be raised to eight hours in the case of children who have reached the age of 15;
(c) seven hours a day and 35 hours a week for work performed during a period of at least a week when school is not operating; these limits may be raised to eight hours a day and 40 hours a week in the case of chidren who have reached the age of 15;
(d) seven hours a day and 35 hours a week for light work performed by children no longer subject to compulsory full-time schooling under national law.
2. Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to limit the working time of adolescents to eight hours a day and 40 hours a week.
3. The time spent on training by a young person working under a theoretical and/or practical combined work/training scheme or an in-plant work-experience scheme shall be counted as working time.
4. Where a young person is employed by more than one employer, working days and working time shall be cumulative.
5. Member States may, by legislative or regulatory provision, authorize derogations from paragraph 1 (a) and paragraph 2 either by way of exception or where there are objective grounds for so doing.
Member States shall, by legislative or regulatory provision, determine the conditions, limits and procedure for implementing such derogations.
Prohibition of work by children
1. Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to prohibit work by children.
2. Taking into account the objectives set out in Article 1, Member States may make legislative or regulatory provision for the prohibition of work by children not to apply to:
(a) children pursuing the activities set out in Article 5;
(b) children of at least 14 years of age working under a combined work/training scheme or an in-plant work-experience scheme, provided that such work is done in accordance with the conditions laid down by the competent authority;
(c) children of at least 14 years of age performing light work other than that covered by Article 5; light work other than that covered by Article 5 may, however, be performed by children of 13 years of age for a limited number of hours per week in the case of categories of work determined by national legislation.
3. Member States that make use of the opinion referred to in paragraph 2 (c) shall determine, subject to the provisions of this Directive, the working conditions relating to the light work in question.
I was posting in reply to the link you posted re young workers. So we're you hence your comment about people being exploited by the Tories when they leave school. God only knows why you have changed your argument to one about 13 and 14 year olds.Imploding Turtle wrote:I think you're posting opinions without knowing what you're talking about.
Here's the relevent portions of the law:
and here's Article 4 which is referenced in the aove article
Not ignoring the morally repugnant idea that it should be OK to work children as young as 13 years old as many hours as an employer or terrible parents like, but one of the arguments your lot made against remaining in the EU was cheap migrant labour. Explain to me how cheap migrant labour is a bad thing but even cheaper/free child labour is a good thing. And if you don't think companies will exploit the **** out of this deregulation then you've not been paying attention.
Then after you've explained that away you can tell me why you think it should be OK to work 13 year olds for 40, 45, 50, 60+ hours a week as if we're a third-world country.
Source
The Tory in question was talking about the 35 hour cap. You said removing it would be massively beneficial to young people. The 35 hour cap protects people from age 13 to 18. My argument didn't change.Damo wrote:I was posting in reply to the link you posted re young workers. So we're you hence your comment about people being exploited by the Tories when they leave school. God only knows why you have changed your argument to one about 13 and 14 year olds.
But, seems as you mention it, my son is 15 years old. He has worked most of the summer, doing manual work for a friend of mine. He has earned a fortune and is now looking forward to getting back to his studies, and making sure he gets enough qualifications to not be breaking his back on a building site for the rest of his working life.
You can always rely on Imploding multiple log boy to amuse and enlighten the discussion, with clips, memes and graphs cant you!Ightenclaret wrote:I think that's actually me last year, but hilarious nonetheless.
RingoMcCartney wrote:
You can always rely on Imploding multiple log boy to amuse and enlighten the discussion, with clips, memes and graphs cant you!
My favourite one was the day after the brexit vote and Imploding Turtles Head posted a graph of the FTSE 100 which showed an immediate drop.
This according to the Turtles Head was absolute and irrefutable evidence that the vote was a disaster. He was like over excited child who'd found The Golden Ticket! "Look! Look !!" He clucked like a immature Henny Penny! This was the apocalypse that he'd warned us about!! "Look!Look ! Look at the calamity unfolding before us! Just look at the graph!" Regular updates were sent from the Turtle bunker at all hours of the day! So convinced that the economic sky was falling in according to the graphs posted!!
What's really really funny and amusing, is they seem to have dried up since the stock market has reached record levels!!!!!
RingoMcCartney wrote:We.........havent..............left..............yet......
nil_desperandum wrote:Well if you didn't say it, who did?
You can dissect the Farron article in as much depth as you want, but he doesn't even imply such a thing. It is quite clear that he is referring to English clubs who paid significantly more to European clubs, because of the low value of sterling. He even quotes the figures.
It's not even as though Farron was making something up. I'd already read it on online, and it was headlines in "The Sun" of all papers.
It's a non-story really. Anyone who's been abroad recently knows that they are paying between 10 and 20% more for everything due to the exchange rate, and of course we are starting to experience this at home as the cost of imported goods is pushing up inflation.
This effect is amplified when it comes to a transfer fee of £20 million. (i.e. it costs millions more).
On the other hand, you could argue that a wealthy football club, has plenty of money, and can choose whether or not, and how they spend it, whereas the real victims of the weak pound are hard-working families, and the less well-off, who have no option but to pay inflated prices for food, and may have to forego holidays abroad.
I'm struggling to find something in this post that isn't made up.RingoMcCartney wrote:You can always rely on Imploding multiple log boy to amuse and enlighten the discussion, with clips, memes and graphs cant you!
My favourite one was the day after the brexit vote and Imploding Turtles Head posted a graph of the FTSE 100 which showed an immediate drop.
This according to the Turtles Head was absolute and irrefutable evidence that the vote was a disaster. He was like over excited child who'd found The Golden Ticket! "Look! Look !!" He clucked like a immature Henny Penny! This was the apocalypse that he'd warned us about!! "Look!Look ! Look at the calamity unfolding before us! Just look at the graph!" Regular updates were sent from the Turtle bunker at all hours of the day! So convinced that the economic sky was falling in according to the graphs posted!!
What's really really funny and amusing, is they seem to have dried up since the stock market has reached record levels!!!!!
Imploding Turtle wrote:Ringo: The rebounding stock markets after the referendum are proof that Brexit is a success
Also Ringo: Your criticism of Brexit is premature because we haven't left yet.
"No one can possibly know what might happen in the future, but this hugely improbable scenario which I've just pulled out of my arse will certainly happen in the future."BennyD wrote:There you go again; when we get out the £ might well soar against the Euro, no one knows. You certainly don't. However, it certainly will soar when the Euro implodes and all the major players have to try and start up their original currencies. I hope you are ready for a barrage of 'I told you sos' when this thing finally plays out.
A classic indeed!Greenmile wrote:"
(Classic thread, btw - Ringo is the gift that keeps on giving.)
They will, once they've ascertained whether we can be trusted to keep to the commitments we've already made, or not. I'd imagine that fact would have something of a bearing on any future relationship.dsr wrote:"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
This is clause 2 of Article 50. How can they take account the framework for the future relationship, if they won''t talk about trade?
Very noble of you, but largely irrelevant. When we leave I'll pay my dues, as will you the only difference between us being that I'm happy we're out whereas you will be bitter and twisted to the end of time. I prefer my future to yours.JohnMcGreal wrote:How noble of you. Tell me then, BennyD, what are you prepared to lose, personally, for Brexit to become a reality? Could you give us a brief list of what you're prepared to sacrifice? I'll give you mine:
Nothing.
I agree, both parties should stick to commitments, but as a second issue pointed out in that link I just put above, surely The Hague is the impartial judge on what those commitments are? I would hazard a guess it is far below what the EU are trying on. Let's suggest going there.Greenmile wrote:They will, once they've ascertained whether we can be trusted to keep to the commitments we've already made, or not. I'd imagine that fact would have something of a bearing on any future relationship.
Really?CrosspoolClarets wrote:...The Telegraph's business editor has always been tentatively on the Remain side....
I'm sure you read the Telegraph more than I, but the article I linked gave lie to your claim that "The Telegraph's business editor has always been tentatively on the Remain side", especially given it was published not long before the actual vote and has a headline that reads, in part, "Why I am voting to leave the EU" - not really the words of a Remainer, no matter how tentative.CrosspoolClarets wrote:Yes Greenmile that was after months of suggesting we shouldn't leave. He then became a soft Brexiter as the attached suggests from pre-referendum suggesting anything other than EFTa is insanity. His latest articles are getting more hardline by the week. He is just one of many commentators swaying that way. I sense a shift in the tide.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... fe-way-to/
A quality post.CrosspoolClarets wrote:Just catching up on these comments. I think these comments were reported more widely than many think. Not just in Ireland. As said yesterday a very obvious, crass and futile attempt at winning back working class voters for Remain.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/p ... y-11093705
They are fighting a losing battle. While EU loving loonies like Tony Blair, Matthew Parris and AC Grayling are regularly in the press denouncing Brexit as insane, the writers who were Remain are beginning to lose faith. The Telegraph's business editor has always been tentatively on the Remain side and now is for a soft Brexit but todays article is starting to suggest a feeling that we should just walk away (apols for paywall). The tide is turning, hence the desparation of Open Britain in their misguided footie research (misguided because as I suggested yesterday the next overseas TV deal will translate to even more pounds due to the low exchange rate and thus will reward clubs, not punish them).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... orce-bill/
Sorry I missed this yesterday, but yet another fine, level headed post.CrosspoolClarets wrote:The Remoaners are getting increasingly desparate and are now using footie as a vehicle for their dim message.
Farron is about as dim as they get, but it isnt just him, Open Britain tweeted the same today and used the word "forced" to pay more due to the exchange rate. Not sure they understand football.
Like typical Remoaners they seem to be forgetting 3 things:
1. It isnt good to buy overseas anyway, buying British like the Clarets do helps recirculate money into our economy, gets us a better international team and helps Brits play in the top league. Win, win. Or, in our case, Win, Lose, Draw
2. Nobody is forced to do anything, like I said above.
3. Premier League fotball is an export, not an import. The TV money coming in from overseas exceeds the money paid to overseas (and if it doesnt it should do). Thus, if it lasts long enough to affect new TV deals, the exchange rate leads to more money for clubs, not less.
We already established very early in the thread, that this report was in several papers, inc. The Sun, which isn't generally regarded as pro-remain. One thing all the reports have in common, however, is that none of them link "Inflated transfer fees" to Brexit, which was the header for this thread.CrosspoolClarets wrote:Just catching up on these comments. I think these comments were reported more widely than many think. Not just in Ireland. As said yesterday a very obvious, crass and futile attempt at winning back working class voters for Remain.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/p ... y-11093705
]
So as I predicted earlier today, (edit: now yesterday), £36 million was the opening offer. Sunday Times reports today that Theresa May is now offering £50 million.nil_desperandum wrote:So our government and their legal advisers are wrong then, because they have admitted that we do. It's just the amount that is in dispute - understandably so.
It was widely reported a month ago that we had offered 36 billion as our exit fee. So that's our opening offer I presume.
I think your answer lies in the part which you chose not to highlight in bold:dsr wrote:"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
This is clause 2 of Article 50. How can they take account the framework for the future relationship, if they won''t talk about trade?
No, you mean just over half of those who voted on a specific day.IanMcL wrote: Anyone who voted Brexit is a misguided and deceived person. Just over half the population are, apparently. Damn shame for us all.
This guy has an idea.nil_desperandum wrote:No, you mean just over half of those who voted on a specific day.
Millions weren't allowed to vote, (some of whom are most adversely affected by this), and roughly a third of those who were eligible to vote didn't do so. (In many cases this wasn't down to laziness or apathy.They genuinely felt that they weren't given enough information and weren't in a position to cast a vote either way. There wasn't a box that said, "not sure enough to vote either way, and don't want to just make a guess on such an important issue".)
David Davis has just dismissed this out of hand.nil_desperandum wrote:So as I predicted earlier today, (edit: now yesterday), £36 million was the opening offer. Sunday Times reports today that Theresa May is now offering £50 million.
This seems to suggest that she no longer believes that "No deal is better than a bad deal".
Edit: BILLION, of course.
(Thanks for the prompt IT. Just woke up and realised what the Bravo was for! Must be more careful when typing so late on a Sat night!!).
Surprise, surprise. What did you expect him to say? He's hardly going to make a major announcement / proposal of that magnitude in the context of an informal interview.claretandy wrote:David Davis has just dismissed this out of hand.
"none of them link "Inflated transfer fees" to Brexit, which was the header for this thread.nil_desperandum wrote:We already established very early in the thread, that this report was in several papers, inc. The Sun, which isn't generally regarded as pro-remain. One thing all the reports have in common, however, is that none of them link "Inflated transfer fees" to Brexit, which was the header for this thread.
It's a total non-story.
Basically, clubs who have spent heavily in Europe, have had to cough up significantly more due to the weak pound. Well - tell us something we didn't already know. Everything's more expensive, if you buy in another currency, and obviously the more you spend the more it affects you.
The weak pound isn't the cause of "inflated transfer fees", and none of the reports claim it has.
All partsRingoMcCartney wrote:"none of them link "Inflated transfer fees" to Brexit, which was the header for this thread.
It's a total non-story."
"The weak pound isn't the cause of "inflated transfer fees", and none of the reports claim it has."
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk ... 91135.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Liberal Democrats have said.
The fall in the value of sterling since the EU referendum has meant Premier League teams have paid out an extra £114 million in summer transfer fees"
"No fan wants to see their club having to pay more for their summer signings but that is what has happened.
“The fans who pay for their tickets, the club merchandise and their TV packages want the most value they can for their money – a weaker pound means that just isn’t the case.
“I do recognise as a Blackburn Rovers fan this has affected my team less than some this year – but this is yet another reminder of the real cost there is to Brexit.”
One more time for you nil desp-
"THIS IS YET ANOTHER REMINDER OF THE REAL COST THERE IS TO BREXIT"
What part of the above QUOTES are not an attempt to link brexit to inflated transfer fees!? I mean really!
Tall Paul wrote:All parts
Tall Paul wrote:You would appear to be the horse in this instance Ringo.
It's been pointed out to you numerous times what Tim Farron's words actually mean but you still continue to misinterpret them.
As I suggested, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
No he's not. It's pretty obvious that he's not if you'd read it. Point to the bit where he refers to UK-to-Europe exports.dsr wrote:Exports to the EU are currently about £240 billion per year. Is Chris Webster suggesting not only that exports to the EU will stop absolutely, and furthermore that exorts to the EU are more or less pure profit, no costs attached? He's wrong.
Because deliberately stupid people would take it seriously.Why post such a meaningless (probably tongue in cheek) letter as if it meant something?
Could you for just for once stop using that word Remoaners it sounds stupid and is stupid.RingoMcCartney wrote:Round and round we go!
Look. Tim Farron appears to be unaware that proper politicians are now returning to Westminster this week. He's so desparate to pin bad news on Brexit that he's got the fact that the political silly season is over and the football season's started!
And simultaneously, the usual gaggle of message board Remoaners, have got themselves into a communal hissy fit, trying to deflect and deny the fact that he's a 3rd rate politician, spouting glaringly obvious top quality Remoaner B.S.!
Words used to describe people who voted to Leave-smudge wrote:Could you for just for once stop using that word Remoaners it sounds stupid and is stupid.
You seem to use it in every post.
You are using this stupid word to describe a great many people who are genially concerned for the country after leaving Europe.
RingoMcCartney wrote:Words used to describe people who voted to Leave-
Xenophobe, gullible, knuckle dragger, Nazi, uneducated, less sophisticated, racist, white van man, Little Englander, thick, stupid, easily lead, geriatric, extremist, isolationist.
Word used to describe people who voted to Remain-
Remoaner.
The thing is, Ringo, if someone referred to Leave voters as any of those Every. Single. Time. Then no one would listen to them. Just like if someone constantly referred to Remain voters as "remoaners" it would actually validate any opinion that anyone held regarding that particular someone being an idiot. A thick, stupid, knuckle dragging, uneducated idiot.RingoMcCartney wrote:Words used to describe people who voted to Leave-
Xenophobe, gullible, knuckle dragger, Nazi, uneducated, less sophisticated, racist, white van man, Little Englander, thick, stupid, easily lead, geriatric, extremist, isolationist.
Word used to describe people who voted to Remain-
Remoaner.
