Juncker may have hit the nail accidentally on the head when he said that the UK/British government is in a different to the EU/him. The problem is that our galaxy is called the Milky Way and I'm not sure what galaxy Juncker is in. People in Alpha Centauri wouldn't be this ignorant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39816044
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Seems about right to me. English is going to lose importance in Europe. Inertia will keep it going for a while maybe but it can't be as important as before.
Congratulations America
You're delusional. Let alone the fact its a key language for two members still - Ireland and Cyprus. Let alone the fact that nearly twice as many Europeans [even excluding Brits] speak English than any other language. Let alone the fact that it is almost everyone's second language so if a German wants to speak to an Italian they can do so in English as they both speak that.
English is the global language of business. If Europe wants to turn its back on that, it won't be the globe or England that gets hurt.
The Commissions own lawyers advised that a Brexit bill is legally impossible to enforce
You do realize that you guys need us more than we do need you?The Commissions own lawyers advised that a Brexit bill is legally impossible to enforce
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No, I don't - and certainly not to a blank cheque €100bn bullshit fishing expedition that represents about 8 years net payment. Not a chance.
You do realise if we thought the EU was so brilliant and needed it we would have voted to remain right? You're acting like a jilted partner that expects unlimited coitus after divorce because the wife filing for divorce needs the husband more. Err, no.
And the delusions of grandeur show their face again. Listen, Rand, absolutely no one is waiting with bated breath for the UK. Not a single country. You are not offering anything special any other country couldn't offer as well.
Everyone else has their ducks in a row. And everyone else also knows that you'll need new trade agreements to at least partially make up for the massive losses you will take.
That puts you in a very disadvantaged position with everyone - because if they don't reach a new agreement with you, what will they have lost? Nothing. Which means that no one will be willing to agree to something where they don't get off better than before.
Or to put it more mathematically: Everyone starts at zero. And they are not agreeing if they don't end up with a positive number.
Meanwhile, you start at -100 (minus one hundred).
And your analogies are a massive fail as well: It's economics, stupid. If you don't uphold contracts you signed, how willing do you think other countries will be to enter contracts with you when you show that you're unwilling to uphold them as soon as they become inconvenient?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Incorrect. They advised that the rationale and calculations behind the latest much larger figure for the Brexit divorce bill would likely be impossible to enforce.The Commissions own lawyers advised that a Brexit bill is legally impossible to enforce
At issue is the matter of how to deal with what the UK believes to be its share of EU assets (disregarding for a moment the fact that those assets are not owned by the member states but by the EU itself). What the person in charge of the divorce bill question advised against was the deliberately provocative cherry-picking of various items in the account--as well as taking a very aggressive position on future commitments--in order to arrive at a maximally inflated figure. It is not a divorce bill per se that was said to be legally impossible to enforce although I can certainly see why the perennially deceitful tabloid press--on which you seem to base your views--would be having a field day with this "revelation".
Last edited by Aimless; 05-07-2017 at 11:21 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
And the relevance? If you are like that there's no use making any further deals with you.The Commissions own lawyers advised that a Brexit bill is legally impossible to enforce
Congratulations America
Let us not disregard it entirely as that is the very fact the lawyers (and I) spotted straight away. Any A-Level student who studies finance let alone someone who has dealt with accounting for a living, like myself running my business, could spot the immediate flaw in suggesting the assets are owned by the EU itself. Do you know what the opposite of an asset is? It is a liability. Any organisation anywhere has both assets and liabilities, the two are inseparable. It is a perfectly logical and fair suggestion to say that the EU owns all assets. However that also clearly means that the EU also owns all liabilities. You can't have one without the other. If the EU owns all assets and all liabilities then the divorce bill is simple - it is zero. We pay our dues until the day we leave and that is it, the EU without us continues owning all assets and owning all liabilities. Since the liabilities are believed to exceed assets considerably, then that is not a very smart position for the EU to take in these negotiations though, hence why this silly notion is being shot down so swiftly. Somebody got greedy in suggesting they could screw us out of the assets without thinking threw what that meant.
If you had your ducks in a row there wouldn't be this hysteria trying to put a looming black hole in your budget onto the UK's shoulders. You again seem to be of the impression that the UK are supplicants here rather than the ones who are prime movers in choosing to leave. This wasn't an accident for us, we didn't stumble and slip through the exit, we haven't made a mistake. The EU for too long took the UK for granted and now we've decided enough is enough and we are out, if you want to continue to take us for granted then fine, we will leave without a deal if need be. So long, farewell and good luck.
As for contracts, we're honouring ours in full. We signed a contract to be in a club with a two year exit clause. We have invoked our two year exit clause. Now the clock is ticking and once the two years are up we are out and that is that. No more payments to you.
I think the most sensible way for the UK to approach these negotiations once May has won her election mandate is to say that the EU does indeed own all assets and owns all liabilities too. The UK will take on assets and liabilities that are based in the UK, like UK pensioners and will make continued payments to the EU for a three year transition period of 50% of our current net post-rebate obligations. That gives you approximately €20bn towards your black hole. In exchange for that we get continued unfettered access to the market (with continued free movement obligations etc) but no voting rights etc during that period while a final trade deal is agreed, with an expectation to get a reciprocal free trade Treaty that covers goods and services without free movement or voting etc and we will then pay on a case by case basis for anything we are a part of that incurs costs like Erasmus etc. Take it or leave it if you want Europe.
Right. Good luck with that. That's batshit insane and anyone with half a brain will tell you so.
Good riddance.
You still seem to cling to this notion that you're something special. You're not. Again, there's not a single country on Earth which is waiting for you.
Except for the US, maybe, because they can finally fuck you over properly now that you're on your own.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Not to mention that you're following a leader which is not willing to defend her own judges when being labelled as traitors against the people by your disgusting media.
If German newspapers had done the same thing I know exactly which pictures your tabloids would have used once again. Probably because they secretly admire the guy.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
This may come as news to someone as authoritarian as you but I believe in freedom of the press. It's not the job my PM to censor the media.
... no one said that May should censor the media.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No he said the Prime Minister should "defend the judges" from the media. I shudder at whatever that is meant to mean. The judiciary are more than capable of defending themselves without the executive challenging the free press.
I would infinitely prefer a "disgusting" free press to a docile subservient press.
What it means is that it may sometimes be appropriate for a nation's leader to express support and respect for the judiciary and publicly disapprove of heinous attacks on said judiciary. Just as it may sometimes be appropriate for other politicians to do the same. For an example see recent events in the US. If you believe that amounts to censorship or is in any other way exceptionally unseemly then whatevs. The judiciary is one thing Brits would actually be justified in being somewhat proud of but I guess it would be in character for you lot to spit on that as well.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't spit on my judiciary I am proud of my judiciary and I am proud that they are more than capable of rebuffing any tabloid fury on their own terms. I fail to see any reason for the nation's leader to get involved in an issue that doesn't involve her between the judiciary and the press.
A free press and a free judiciary are critical to a free state and the executive should not be against either. It was not her fight and it would be inappropriate for her to get involved.
As for the US I don't see how recent events in the US are backing you up. In the US we have a political leader launching broadsides against the press and the judiciary. Do I respect that? Hell no! You want my leader to be attacking the press like America's leader is? No thanks, count me out of that. I find the American President attacking the press/judiciary to be concerning and unhealthy and I do not want my Prime Minister to do that.
Funny how the Brexit crowd didn't share that rhetorical support for the media when the media challenged their bogus claims.
Hope is the denial of reality
It's what the constitution demands. But you don't care much for laws unless they say exactly what you think they should say to start with, so it shouldn't surprise anyone protecting judges from unfair attacks would make you shudder. After all, in your political tradition Judges should rather follow 'gesundes Volksempfinden' than the Law.
Congratulations America
Be honest: I have always backed our media and supported vigorous and free speech have I not? Have I ever supported the government clamping down on or otherwise pressuring the media?
The constitution demands no such thing. If you believe the constitution demands the government puts pressure on the media then once more I am delighted to soon no longer be sharing a political union with someone as unhinged as yourself.
As for protection, again what protection do the judges need? The judges are more than capable of protecting themselves. If by "protection" you are proposing action to stifle speech then yes that makes me shudder. The only "constitution" regarding the media that I have ever held any respect for says as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
European courts repeatedly wanting to stifle the free press is one of my biggest grievances that I have never respected. Our PM should never be in the business of telling the press what they can and can't say. Just as the press can never tell the judges what they can and can't say.
Judges have no protection if not by the executive.
Congratulations America
Bullshit. Headlines are just words and judges are more than capable of using words too to protect themselves from other words.
God, you are a moron. You really can't see how your tabloids literally copy the NSDAP's mode of attack.Bullshit. Headlines are just words and judges are more than capable of using words too to protect themselves from other words
The word "propaganda" is probably completely unknown to you. And this moronic notion of "it's just words" is too stupid to fathom.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Insults and Godwin invocation, you wins the interwebs well done. Oh no, you don't.
I'm sure the NSDAP were very happy to have free press that attacked them vigorously and a media that held each other to account as well as holding the judiciary to account. Oh no, they didn't have that either.
The tabloids are the mouthpiece of the government here aren't they like under the NSDAP. Oh no, they follow their own agenda wrong again there.
I must be a moron as I can't see a single point you are making that is not obviously fallacious.
Gesundes Volksempfinden so to say.
Congratulations America
Yeah right. Would take a really warped or dishonest view of Nazi Germany to believe they had a free press. Which are you, warped or dishonest?
Then again since you're criticising us for having too free a press and for our PM not clamping down on free speech, maybe you're trying to admire the fascists abolishing the free press? Afterall it was just suggested our PM should be more like Trump and have a go at the media so why not Adolf next. I think I'll pass thanks.
Last edited by RandBlade; 05-10-2017 at 03:33 PM.
But it's just words!
And please. If you don't defend your judges when they're labelled as "traitor to the people" by your despicable tabloids just because they happen to pass a ruling you didn't like then you don't get to harp on about "free press".
Do you know what's even more important than your precious "free press"? A judicative which is able to do its job without being attacked by the lowlives you call "press". Criticism is okay. Calling for their summary execution, that's not okay.
There's no such thing as unlimited freedom. And you're currently paying the price for letting those morons run amok with racism and isolationism. There's no such thing as a free lunch, Rand. Everything has a consequence and if you think that "free press" trumps all, then you're in for a very rude awakening.
You are an idiot. And you repeatedly have shown so.
You know what she should have said? "Guys, I know you're allowed to write whatever you want. But I'd like to remind you that we have independent judges as well as an independent press. And you kind of need those judges to stay independent because otherwise you may just get shut down by those same judges."
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
If I'm not prepared to have my Prime Minister interfere with the press, I don't get to harp on about a "free press"? What kind of messed up logic is that. The very logic of having a free press entails that the press is free to write what it wants whether I agree with it or not.
A judiciary that is able to do its jobs "without being attacked by the lowlives I call "press"" is NOT more important. The judiciary must be held to account my the press as must the executive, that means the press must be free to "be lowlives" if they wish as you call it.
Who called for a summary execution? Besides it just being firm language the penalty for treason isn't a summary execution, at the best of times it would require a trial not just a summary execution - and who is in charge of trials? Oh yes, the judiciary. Not only that, but capital punishment was abolished for treason two decades ago.
I would rather err on the side of having "too much freedom" than not enough freedom. I couldn't less of a flying fuck if you think we have too much freedom.
I fail to see why the PM needed to say anything at all or how her saying what you said would have changed anything whatsoever or made it worthwhile. Nobody, not even the Daily Mail, proposed ending the independence of the judiciary. They went for a vitriolic headline, that is their right. I rolled my eyes at it, that is mine. End of story.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote