On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:24:37 +0000, James Harris
Post by James HarrisPost by MMOn Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:04:23 +0000, James Harris
Post by James HarrisPost by MMOn Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:22:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James HarrisPost by MMOn Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James HarrisPost by MMOn Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James HarrisPost by MMPost by YellowOn Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James HarrisPost by MMPost by pullgeesBut of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.
Not accepting, asking. You. You're the one who said " When the others
want to change the rules, why should we agree?"
Presumably, you based that question on some rule or other that you
believe was changed without our agreement. I was merely asking you
which rule that was.
Do you have the answer yet?
Your presumption that my point was based on a specific rule is
incorrect. As above, you asserted that the UK "securing opt outs" was an
indication of the EU's beneficence and tolerance towards the UK. Quite
apart from how hard British PMs have had to fight for the "privilege"
(as you see it) of keeping to the rules that we had previously accepted
there is the small matter that concessions, once made, are almost
impossible to rescind. I was saying that these things should not be
privileges or concessions or acquiescences. They should be rights. Nor
should countries have to fight for the right to engage with the others
as suits them best. Nor, indeed, should countries by locked in to
schemes that are extremely hard to get out from. The whole EU model is
too rigid and inflexible and is causing anger across Europe. But it
doesn't need to be that way. The EU should think again, but is failing
to do so, it being wedded to the systems it has put in place already, no
matter how bad they are. I would hazard a guess that the EU almost NEVER
thinks of loosening its grip and passing controls back to the nation
states. All its thoughts are to go the other way and grab more power.
First, the EU "model" is not causing anger across Europe.
I disagree. Have you seen how many border fences have gone up
unilaterally in what is supposed to be a free-movement area? Are you
aware of the the rows that Brussels is having with Eastern states such
as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia? How do you think people feel in
once-thriving areas where their children have had to move to find work?
If you don't believe me, look at the rise of anti-EU feeling in Germany,
Italy and France.
Well, I dis say that some countries want different things and despite
your litany of woe above, no other EU nation wishes to leave the EU.
Post by James HarrisPost by MMSure, some
countries want different things, but are prepared to discuss them, not
just walk away. As for suggesting that our special treatment should be
accorded to us as of right, that's plain ridiculous.
Why should you call it "special treatment"? Why not just say that some
countries don't want to do everything the others do? The EU only tries
to coerce members into compliance because it wants everyone to follow
the same rules - whether they want to or not.
Countries are perfectly free to do what they wish to do, including
leaving. They just need to abide by the rules of the treaties they
signed when they joined, and subsequent treaties.
You can't just sign a contract then weasel out of it. You ~may~ be
able to *negotiate* your way out, however, which is what the UK
government is now doing, reluctantly for most MPs.
Post by James HarrisPost by MMWe knew what we
were signing up to.
Agreed. We signed up to a common market, not a superstate.
Yes, and the timeline never stops evolving:
1951 European Coal and Steel Community
1954 European Defence Community
1957 EEC (Treaty of Rome)
1961 Britain attempts to join EEC
1968 The European Community customs union is completed
1973 Britain joins the EEC
1979 European Monetary System
1987 Single European Act (Treaty of Rome modified)
1991 Maastricht Treaty
1993 Treaty on European Union takes effect
1997 Amsterdam Treaty
2004 New constitution signed
We were trying since 1961 to become part of this expanding Union of
European nations and knew all along exactly what joining it meant.
Post by James HarrisPost by MMAlso, the EU has already said that there will have
to be reforms. It has introduced many reforms in the past, so that's
nothing new. Juncker back in March presented options for reforming the
bloc to shore up its unity and popular support. What Britain wants is
to have its cake and eat it, and the EU ain't having that. Quite
rightly.
Why should we or Denmark or Sweden or Romania or Croatia do what Mr
Juncker thinks is best?
He can only propose reforms. You seem to be saying that he orders
countries to do his bidding without any intervention by any of the
other bodies in the EU.
Post by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisAnd the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Because that was not what we signed up to when we joined. We agreed to
follow the correct procedures, which we did, and secured opt-outs to
which the EU agreed.
But why should we have had to "secure opt outs"? Why should a country
not simply be able to join schemes if it wanted to? If the schemes were
good ones, wouldn't countries be queueing up to join them?
The rules. Read the Terms and Conditions we agreed to when we joined
or when new treaties came along later. We want special treatment? Then
we're going to have to negotiate.
The rules say that some changes can only be made with unanimity. What's
wrong with that?
Nothing, if that's what has been decided democratically. Point to
where it wasn't, if you can.
Post by James HarrisIncidentally, your Mr Juncker wants to move many more decisions to QMV
so that individual states can have more rule changes imposed on them
without their agreement.
And how successful has he been in achieving that?
Post by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisWhy
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Very interesting that you now accept we'll be paying around £50bn to
leave the EU, as if this was the plan all along when of course no
mention whatsoever was made of this by the Leave campaign teams.
I'm not sure where you get that from. I would be behind the UK paying
its membership fee up until when we leave but not much more than that.
The £50bn is not the membership fee. It is to settle payment
commitments for future projects that we agreed to.
I accept that we could continue to fund some projects. For example, if
there is a bridge in Bulgaria which is halfway across a valley we the
British taxpayer may well agree to fund it to completion. But I don't
see why we should fund projects the EU hasn't even started yet and which
we will not benefit from.
It makes no difference that projects have not been started *yet*. What
matters is what we agreed to participate in, even if the bridge is not
due for another ten years.
Post by James HarrisAnd don't you agree that the EU should start to adjust to a new, lower,
budget? It has to negotiate new spending from Jan 2021 anyway. But so
far it is trying to increase spending!
The EU costs us very little and gives us such a lot. Our £8bn net
contribution is a tiny slice ofn Britain's total GDP. It's peanuts,
relativelt speaking, compared to the other payments the treasury has
to make. It's even less than the amount we allocate to overseas aid!
Post by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisPost by MMPost by James HarrisNations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.
OK. No, I was saying that the EU member states should be completely free
to join or stay away from (or even leave) EU schemes, as best suited
their own people. If the EU designed good schemes then nations would
want to sign up to them, wouldn't they! But as you know, the EU says
that one size fits all, and nations are expected to conform.
Any club, and the EU is no exception, expects its members to abide by
the rules and follow procedure. If any member wants special treatment,
that is fine as long as the correct procedures are followed.
I doubt there's any member which has stuck by the rules more than the
UK. In fact, the rules say that on 29 March 2019 the EU is set to lose
its power over the UK. There is no/nada/zero requirement for the UK as
the seceding state to make any more payments of any kind. Are you happy
with that? Or is it that you only like EU rules when they suit your
prior beliefs?
It is now accepted that the so-called "divorce" payment will be spread
over many years, perhaps as long as 40 years. But whatever it is, we
committed to sharing the costs of future projects and we cannot weasel
out of them.
That's nonsense. If you want to fund the EU far into the future why
don't you set up a standing order? We as a country are duty bound to pay
our dues, nothing more.
Okay, so nothing more than £50bn over 40 years it is!
MM