Printable View
You clearly did not grasp what Kerr said. We run a budget deficit. He said that by not paying the amount we could either cut the size of the budget deficit or spend it. If we spend it we increase the deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brin
That said. You need to offset the gain of not paying them against the losss in tax receipts from companies shifting their operation away from Britain in the event of no deal and the loss in receipts caused by the downturn in the economy.
Brexiteers have been slinging out crude insults to the EU calling them everything from evil Navi dictators and a totally currupt union. The recent claim is the EU army is bullying other countries to stay.
Yet they come over all offended when Tusk state the absolute obvious that they campaigned and voted to leave the EU without a plan or clue as to what it entailed. Poor little loves.
Bang on the money Wan, Tusk's statement clearly meant for the leave campaign's leadership, and if you believed that bull, then you need to take a long hard look at yersen.....Quote:
Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller
You seem to have overlooked his "special place in hell" comment & you don't seem to consider this as a crude insult judging by the crude omission in your postQuote:
Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller
You also fail to mention the way the EU has treated the UK all the way through the past two & a half years Didn't notice him coming up with any plan for a sensible way forward
Not sure what he means when he says "plan" Does he mean a plan as to what the UK would do post brexit because if he does why does that concern him as it would be none of his business
Juncker said
"I believe in heaven and I have never seen hell, apart [from] during the time I was doing my job here. It's a hell."
Poor little love
Agree, Germany wont leave as its essentially a German based project their banks depend on it existing and underpin other countries through loans.Quote:
Originally Posted by John2
Its been quite ironic seeing countries like Greece suffer financially due to the terms imposed on them by German banks, only then to be "bailed out" by the same perpetrators.
It's starnge but as we see the progression of the EU from a free market to a law maker and inforcer some older generation French folk still see the EU project as a type of scurity against what happened in the early and mid 20th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by gm_gm
Quote Originally Posted by MillerBill View Post
they are going to lose their top benefactor who has been subsidising this dodgy organisation for far too long.
What makes you think Germany is going to leave the EU?
I think you may not have seen the irony in John's post gm
MMM , take a look at some of these quotes from Junker on democracy and how much respect he has for it .Quote:
Originally Posted by millmoormagic
If you think everyone who voted leave is a dolls head then fair enough but in my opinion anyone who wants to be run by people such as Junker and co need to look in the mirror too .
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uotations.html
This bloke on a message board sums everything up nicely for me:
"This problem can be resolved in any of the following ways: the DUP (and large parts of the Tory party) accept the backstop and the UK effectively remains in the EU without representation; Ireland leaves the EU and unifies with the UK; Ireland unifies with Northern Ireland; the UK leaves without a deal and therefore has political responsibility for the hard border and the ensuing return to inevitable criminality and violence; or finally, the UK remains in the EU.
None of these outcomes were presented in any form at all as consequences (far less objectives) during the 2016 referendum.
There are no other solutions. Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement was the only Brexit that was ever possible without destabilising Ireland’s peace process, which as the phrase insists, is a process which needs nurture, not a fact of life which is irrevocable.
The original ‘’negotiation’ and the present ‘renegotiation’ have been just noise, posturing, theatre and playing for time. It demeans us if we take it seriously and arouses nothing but disgust and contempt if we do not. It has allowed callow politicians like Javid and Hunt to take up ‘positions’ which they consider will advance their own careers and in which they have no conviction. It has nothing whatsoever to do with serious policy that prioritises national and global emergencies.
What Tusk is pointing out here, and what Martin Kettle obviously understands but doesn’t emphasise, is that these were ALWAYS the only solutions. Tusk’s objections (and he has made them colourfully so they will be heard) are that these were not compulsorily stated as part of a post-Brexit plan. People did not know what they were voting about, and whether it was at all achievable. Therefore, oddly enough, Donald Tusk is making a constitutional and procedural point.
Although people like Leadsom and Farage are indeed ‘confecting outrage’, as if they are personally offended by all this, the real critique is of the British constitution, which has allowed a party political infight to become a national crisis. Tusk is therefore looking to the future, in which, after Brexit, when the UK will be diminished (whatever happens next, it already has been) we must have a debate about our constitution and change it, so that decisions of national significance are not ever taken or resolved again without proper debate along established legal pathways.
Pandora’s box has been opened. There are now no answers to this national crisis that will resolve the fury that will be unleashed when a proportion of the population senses ‘betrayal’. We are at the very beginning of a national rage.
We can personalise this, and blame Cameron, but he did it because he could and because he thought it the best way out of a difficult problem of party management. He is a trivial man, entitled, arrogant and entirely lacking statecraft, but so are many world leaders, not least the American President. The key is to assume that they WILL do damage in pursuit of partisan interest if they are allowed – and then to limit their capacity to do so.
Whoever ‘wins’ the current conflict, we (the body politic) have managed to create a situation where politics for many years hence will be defined by betrayal, bitterness, anger and resentment. Public figures are already positioning themselves to point fingers and locate blame as if the whole thing can be localised to an individual or group and, even worse, that locating blame resolves anything. This is the fault of a political system which for too long we have assumed is functional, when it is transparently not."
Be specific. What would you cut it to? And why would you arrive at that specific figure and not lower?Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon