Brexit: Germany says not time to discuss Article 50 extension

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, superal said:

Visions of rats leaving a sinking ship ? does that mean we get our country back , lessen the burden on our hospitals , housing , indigenous employment and education , then bring it on

Sorry, no it doesn't mean any of those things. The burdens you speak about are mostly brought about by immigrants from outside the EU, which are the majority of immigrants to the UK. Brexit will do nothing to stem that tide.

 

Also, it has been shown, time and time again, that migrant workers from the EU produce a net input into the economy, rather than a burden. They also take jobs that British workers won't take, particularly the so called disaffected British youth. If every EU immigrant were to be sent home tomorrow, British manufacturing and farming would be in deep doggy doo, to say nothing of the NHS.

[JAG]

I wonder, am I alone in detecting some (perhaps unconscious) irony in using a photograph of a German politician addressing a conference on "issues of a hundred years of German Polish policy" to accompany a report of same German politician commenting on German Government umh, reaction to and involvement in possible events driving UK relationships with Europe.

 

Maybe it is just my warped sense of humour...

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, Spidey said:

Actually, the figure was almost halved from the Eu's opening gambit. Also, a considerable amount of that was what we were contractually obliged to honour, no matter what the outcome of negotiations.

 

We will still end up shelling out billions even with a no deal Brexit.

Which is why many of us are still waiting for an explanation as to the "considerable amount of that was what we were contractually obliged to honour, no matter what the outcome of negotiations"....

 

Has anyone published how 39bn has been calculated??!

 

I agree that is has halved from the eu's opening gambit....., but there is still no explanation or calculations as to any money possibly owed!

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Which is why many of us are still waiting for an explanation as to the "considerable amount of that was what we were contractually obliged to honour, no matter what the outcome of negotiations"....

 

Has anyone published how 39bn has been calculated??!

 

I agree that is has halved from the eu's opening gambit....., but there is still no explanation or calculations as to any money possibly owed!

It was published in the early days of negotiations. Initiatives, treaties, agreements bla, bla, bla, that we had already signed on and committed to.

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Which is why many of us are still waiting for an explanation as to the "considerable amount of that was what we were contractually obliged to honour, no matter what the outcome of negotiations"....

 

Has anyone published how 39bn has been calculated??!

 

I agree that is has halved from the eu's opening gambit....., but there is still no explanation or calculations as to any money possibly owed!

Well there is Lord and Lady Kinnocks' pension pot to be maintained for a kick off...

 

How did the mantra go?

 

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his means."

[Snow Leopard]

17 hours ago, Spidey said:

No. The culprits are the knobs who voted leave. From the beginning, we were always going to end up in this mess no matter who did the negotiating on the British side.

 

Did you really think that the rest of the EU membership were going to let us leave quietly and amicably?

What knobs do you mean? 52% of the vote. People are not knobs because they have a different opinion to you. 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Spidey said:

It was published in the early days of negotiations. Initiatives, treaties, agreements bla, bla, bla, that we had already signed on and committed to.

No it wasn't - otherwise the eu's original demands for cash wouldn't have halved.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, JAG said:

Well there is Lord and Lady Kinnocks' pension pot to be maintained for a kick off...

 

How did the mantra go?

 

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his means."

Yep, a big lump was set aside to pay for all the, soon to be redundant MEP's, pension funds.

 

The cheekiest git is Farage, who is taking serious Wonga from us, via the EU.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

No it wasn't - otherwise the eu's original demands for cash wouldn't have halved.

The money that we are contractually committed to is much less than the final settlement, but still billions.

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, Spidey said:

It was published in the early days of negotiations. Initiatives, treaties, agreements bla, bla, bla, that we had already signed on and committed to.

Guess again.

 

We're not legally obliged to pay 39 Billion, only a fraction of that.

 

The EU's massively inflated demands for the divorce payment (close to 100 Billion to start with) were the equivalent of a bitter old hag trying to take her husband to the cleaners because he'd decided that he'd had enough of her sorry old ass and wanted a clean start.

[Snow Leopard]

11 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Sorry, no it doesn't mean any of those things. The burdens you speak about are mostly brought about by immigrants from outside the EU, which are the majority of immigrants to the UK. Brexit will do nothing to stem that tide.

 

Also, it has been shown, time and time again, that migrant workers from the EU produce a net input into the economy, rather than a burden. They also take jobs that British workers won't take, particularly the so called disaffected British youth. If every EU immigrant were to be sent home tomorrow, British manufacturing and farming would be in deep doggy doo, to say nothing of the NHS.

The actual outcome should have been decided before the referendum vote. But the unelected eurocrats didn't want to give anything or negotiate at the time.  

 

The turn of events since is the outcome of these idiots who didn't want to listen to the people of the UK in the first place because they saw no need to.

 

That is where your problem is. Not with the UK. 

 

In case you didn't know it. Democracy involves listening to the people who are going to vote for you.

 

Problems and issues have a way of sorting themselves out in the long run. 

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Guess again.

 

We're not legally obliged to pay 39 Billion, only a fraction of that.

 

Which is exactly what I said in a subsequent post. Do try to keep up.

[mfd101]

2 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

In case you didn't know it. Democracy involves listening to the people who are going to vote for you.

 

Problems and issues have a way of sorting themselves out in the long run. 

I should have thought that any half-intelligently run democracy requires the voters to have a clear knowledge and understanding of current issues BEFORE they vote so that the collective outcome can be at least half rational ...

[Mavideol]

17 hours ago, bartender100 said:

If we leave without a deal there will only be one loser, and its not the UK

Really????? who else

[Enki]

19 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Regardless of whether Brexit is a good thing or not, this bungled leaving process has turned into a national humiliation for the UK, being gleefully watched around the globe.

 

The main culprits are the spineless government and manipulating civil service, neither of which want to do what the referendum vote told them to do.

The referendum was not binding, it was more or less just a "lets ask the population" ... interviews show that the population actually does not want the BREXIT ... however the Prime Minister wants it ...

 

Stupid situation.

 

The BREXIT itself will be a disaster to the UK economy, actually it is already ... the health care system is collapsing at the moment, and tourism or bigger hotels / guest houses too ... I read a long article about it 5 month ago ... don't remember the details.

[Spidey]

8 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

The actual outcome should have been decided before the referendum vote. But the unelected eurocrats didn't want to give anything or negotiate at the time.  

That's because we wanted to negotiate without triggering Article 50. As soon as it was triggered the negotiations started.

 

There was nothing to prevent the government from doing this without a referendum and then holding a referendum, leave or remain, once negotiations had been concluded.

 

I honestly can't see how anyone, brexiteer or remainer, could argue that it was better to hold a referendum before the negotiations rather than after the deal was concluded and all of us could see what was on the table.

 

 

[Snow Leopard]

4 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

I should have thought that any half-intelligently run democracy requires the voters to have a clear knowledge and understanding of current issues BEFORE they vote so that the collective outcome can be at least half rational ...

It was half rational, Actually a wee bit more than half rational. 52% rational to be exact. 

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Which is exactly what I said in a subsequent post. Do try to keep up.

So why did you say "It was published in the early days of negotiations. Initiatives, treaties, agreements bla, bla, bla, that we had already signed on and committed to."?

 

What you should have said is "The EU are furious that we have the temerity to leave and therefore simply dreamt up a ridiculous amount of money that we are not legally obliged to pay, in an attempt to squeeze every last drop out of us to prop up their budget shortfall."

 

That would have been more accurate.

[Enki]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's not as bad as all that. It's bad, but not that bad. The EU in toto has a GDP of about 18 trillion dollars. The UK's share is about 2.6 trillion dollars. Which means that a about 14 percent of the EU's GDP belongs to the UK. This doesn't track exactly with the amount of trade between the UK and the rest of the EU but it does give a clearer idea of their relative strengths.

Ha ha ha ... you seem to have less clue as the pro BREXIT voters.

What exactly has GDP to do with trade? Hu? assuming 50% of UKs GDP would be trade with the EU ... BOING!

Assuming only 1% of UKs GDP is based on trade with the EU ... unlikely.

See: using GDP is completely meaningless ...

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

The actual outcome should have been decided before the referendum vote. But the unelected eurocrats didn't want to give anything or negotiate at the time.  

 

The turn of events since is the outcome of these idiots who didn't want to listen to the people of the UK in the first place because they saw no need to.

 

That is where your problem is. Not with the UK. 

 

In case you didn't know it. Democracy involves listening to the people who are going to vote for you.

 

Problems and issues have a way of sorting themselves out in the long run. 

LOL.

 

Would it make things better, if I apologise that Mr Junker didn't call each UK person personally, but instead he and Mr Tusk talked with UK's PM May, who represented UK during these negotiations?

 

It was May's job to listen to her people. After all UK and EU were on opposite sides of the negotiation table. 

 

But I guess, there will always people some people and influencers who will keep on blaming EU for UK's internal issues. 

[Snow Leopard]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

That's because we wanted to negotiate without triggering Article 50. As soon as it was triggered the negotiations started.

 

There was nothing to prevent the government from doing this without a referendum and then holding a referendum, leave or remain, once negotiations had been concluded.

If you can actually remember this before the referendum. Cameron went to Brussels on quite a few occasions to get things changed with regards to the UK in the EU. It fell on deaf ears. Hence the current situation we are in.  

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

So why did you say "It was published in the early days of negotiations. Initiatives, treaties, agreements bla, bla, bla, that we had already signed on and committed to."?

 

What you should have said is "The EU are furious that we have the temerity to leave and therefore simply dreamt up a ridiculous amount of money that we are not legally obliged to pay, in an attempt to squeeze every last drop out of us to prop up their budget shortfall."

 

That would have been more accurate.

Because that wouldn't have been true. The monies that we couldn't negotiate away were made public, but only made up a portion of the final settlement agreed to.

[Snow Leopard]

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

LOL.

 

Would it make things better, if I apologise that Mr Junker didn't call each UK person personally, but instead he and Mr Tusk talked with UK's PM May, who represented UK during these negotiations?

 

It was May's job to listen to her people. After all UK and EU were on opposite sides of the negotiation table. 

 

But I guess, there will always people some people and influencers who will keep on blaming EU for UK's internal issues. 

This is before May and any referendum in the UK. These idiots you mentioned were so smug. 

[Enki]

15 hours ago, smedly said:

... they are being used by Germany for cheap labour in return for handouts ...

Sorry, you got everything reversed. EU workers earn in Germany the same as any German worker, that is the point of the EU.

And UK poor regions voted for BREXIT because they don't want to pay a fair wage for a polish or estonian worker ... 

And now you have a mass exodus of workers from the poorer regions of the EU because they all know they have to go after the BREXIT, but are smart enough to go already.

Ever looked at a hospital around you? They all work under emergency conditions, staffed only half, EU doctors and nurses gone ...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

This is before May and any referendum in the UK. These idiots you mentioned were so smug. 

Perhaps the leaders and MEPs of 27 other countries saw through that one member country's one party was playing party politics to gain their internal power. 

 

That's not a reason to change principles of huge rule based system. 

 

Compare that to DUP wishing the British monarchy to step down, because they have internal fight of power who should lead the party. How would you react to such an demand in such circumstances?

 

 

[Spidey]

15 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

If you can actually remember this before the referendum. Cameron went to Brussels on quite a few occasions to get things changed with regards to the UK in the EU. It fell on deaf ears. Hence the current situation we are in.  

That's because he was no Maggie Thatcher, limp wristed Eton toff who hadn't a clue. Everyone, including Farage, walked all over him. Complete waste of space as a Prime Minister.

[Snow Leopard]

7 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Perhaps the leaders and MEPs of 27 other countries saw through that one member country's one party was playing party politics to gain their internal power. 

 

That's not a reason to change principles of huge rule based system. 

 

Compare that to DUP wishing the British monarchy to step down, because they have internal fight of power who should lead the party. How would you react to such an demand in such circumstances?

 

 

What are you talking about? DUP wanting to get rid of the monarchy?

 

I don't think you have ever been to Northern Ireland, have you?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

What are you talking about? DUP wanting to get rid of the monarchy?

 

I don't think you have ever been to Northern Ireland, have you?

What are you talking about Tories wanting to get rid of the EU?

 

.. makes sense in similar manner.. 

 

I assume you wouldn't take the DUP members who demand such thing too seriously.

[Snow Leopard]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

That's because he was no Maggie Thatcher, limp wristed Eton toff who hadn't a clue. Everyone, including Farage, walked all over him. Complete waste of space as a Prime Minister.

I am not arguing with you on this point. But the fact remains that the idiots in Brussels didn't listen to the British people in 2 previous elections where UKIP won massive broad-based support across the country and also prior to the referendum.  

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Snow Leopard said:

I am not arguing with you on this point. But the fact remains that the idiots in Brussels didn't listen to the British people in 2 previous elections where UKIP won massive broad-based support across the country and also prior to the referendum.  

The had 1, that's right, ONE MP elected to parliament and he was a sitting MP who had defected from the Tory party. Massive support? Really?