Reynard
-
Posts
698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Reynard
-
-
2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
So answer the question, which word/words in the original post ("so which treaty deals entirely with the single market?") were you going to replace with "acquis"?
Come on, go for it, show everyone how intelligent you are and how much of a half wit I am. All you are doing at the moment is showing yourself squirming about in an SD fashion trying to make people forget what you said in the first place. Maybe it made sense in your head, but that's your problem, not mine.
"Don't change the subject, just answer the f**king question."
I wasn't going to change anything. It's you that's got a bug up your arse about f**k all here. I just added acquis because the entirety of Eu legislation is commonly known as that. The part of it relating to the single market is contained in the EEA treaty. That's the single market acquis. If we left the EU and stayed in the single market then we are subject to around 20% of the current EU acquis. Although its not strictly EU as its EEA. But I'm sure most folk can work that bit out for themselves.
Have you managed to admit that you're wrong about EFTA countries paying into the EU budget yet?
-
The EEA treaty is part of EU law because it deals entirely with the single market. As there are countries in the single market but not part of the EU that treaty deals with all their requirements for single market membership as well as EU member states. You can be a member of the single market but not in a customs union with the EU. You can be in the single market and not be in the EU. The EEA treaty deals exclusively with matters relating to single market membership. Or the part of the EU acquis relating to the single market.
-
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:
So which word/words in your original post were you going to replace with "acquis"? The only one I can see that you may be trying to replace is "treaty" but it wouldn't be accurate as acquis is not a treaty, it is "the accumulated legislation, legal acts, and court decisions which constitute the body of European Union law" and saying "so which acquis deals entirely with the single market?" would make no sense whatsoever.
As I said, stop trying to make yourself sound intelligent.
From your link (which, funnily enough, agrees with the one I provided, so I don't see why you bothered):
The Community acquis[1] or acquis communautaire (/ˈækiː kəˈmjuːnətɛər/; French: [aˌki kɔmynoˈtɛːʁ]),[2] sometimes called the EU acquis and often shortened to acquis,[2] is the accumulated legislation, legal acts, and court decisions which constitute the body of European Union law.
The EEA treaty deals entirely with the part of the acquis communautaire relating to the single market. Was this too hard for you? Clearly it was.
And then you decided yet again to get yourself totally bent out of shape about it. As you've been trying to shoot the messenger you better get down the range as you're a rotten shot. You keep mentioning intelligence. Is it because you are a bit chippy about the fact you're a half wit?
-
1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:
Stop trying to make yourself sound intelligent, you're just making a fool of yourself.
Your frantic googling has left YOU looking a bit glaikit to be honest.
-
1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:
Stop trying to make yourself sound intelligent, you're just making a fool of yourself.
-
Just now, Reynard said:
so which treaty deals entirely with the single market?
or acquis if you want to be accurate
-
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:
Your inability to read does not mean that I don't know what the single market is.
so which treaty deals entirely with the single market?
-
Just as the UK wont be paying into the EU budget after March next year.But they'll still be coughing up their share for Erasmus, and the various other projects that non EU countries can be part of. And pay to be part of as they wish.
-
2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
Where?
EFTA says that they contribute to the EU budget, you say they don't. Who should know best?
No, they dont contribute to the EU budget. They contribute to whatever EU projects they want to participate in. EFTA countries contribute to the operational costs of EFTA. Not to operational costs of the EU
-
Just now, Longtimecoming said:
You are a case in point.
Plenty of racism comes from you and your anti Scottish parties.
You believed Fudrage and bonkers Boris.
That makes you a fool or a racist.
I would go for both.
Well if you reckon thats what makes someone a racist then thats you're problem. As for who I believed, you'll probably have some evidence to back that up so that you can DEFINITELY call me a racist. as for foolishness, I'll just leave your post there as a monument to yours.
-
Just now, Slartibartfast said:
It was him that put his name to blog article (unless his son has the same first name). (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85515)
No, it doesn't. But it does give a pointer to hidden agendas.
Do you understand how research is done?
There are loads of folk doing that as requested.
-
2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
Where did I say that EFTA was part of the EU? I'll give you a clue - nowhere. Who's talking nonsense?
----------
This 112-113? (http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf)
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURE
Article 112
1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.
2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.
3. The safeguard measures shall apply with regard to all Contracting Parties.
Article 113
1. A Contracting Party which is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 112 shall, without delay, notify the other Contracting Parties through the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
2. The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation. For the Community, the safeguard measures shall be taken by the EC Commission.
4. The Contracting Party concerned shall, without delay, notify the measures taken to the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
5. The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application. Each Contracting Party may at any time request the EEA Joint Committee to review such measures.
---------
And EFTA paid into the EU budget, stop trying to split hairs. If you look at it your way then nobody in Britain contributes to the EU budget - individuals contribute to the government and the government contributes to the EU budget - also nobody contributes to the UK welfare, health, social security, defence or any-f**king-thing-else budgets. You really are being a prat here.
And, seeing as we are on this site, you are saying that nobody on here is contributing to buying a controlling stake in St Mirren, they are contributing to SMiSA. I think that should make it clear to everyone how disingenuous you are being.
----------
According to the EFTA site "There are two kinds of EU expenditure that the EEA EFTA States contribute to: operational and administrative."
----------
Back to you.
Already been covered. Try actually reading and also reading the links. If you can manage to do it without dry boaking.
EU expenditure in areas like Erasmus etc as shown to you already. Are absolutely NOT to do with operational costs of the running of the EU. you seem to be struggling with this.
-
2 minutes ago, Longtimecoming said:
God knows why. Brexit is a fools charter set to destroy the UK.
Not everybody who voted leave is a racist but every racist voted leave.
UKIP, BNP, Britain First, EDL, SDL all racist to the core and all campaigners for Leave.
We were told vote no in 2014 to remain.
We were lied to by English centred parties just for a change.
Which was totally correct. If Scotland had left the UK it was also leaving the EU.
Scotland isn't a member state of the EU, the UK currently is. And when the UK leaves so will Scotland as Scotland voted to remain part of the UK.
You were lied to by salmond who claimed Scotland would remain in the EU with all the same conditions and opt outs the UK had negotiated during its time of membership. He was lying. Scotland would have become a third state to the EU. None of the EU treaties would then apply to the newly formed Scottish state. That position was made clear by the EU at the time. It was Salmond who lied, nobody else.
As for the raaayciiists stuff. I'm pretty sure plenty of racists voted to leave. 400,000 folk that had voted SNP in the 2015 general election also voted to leave. Plenty of blood and soil racists among them too.
As for me, I voted to leave the EU, we decided back in 2009 that we needed to look at HOW we go about this as the Lisbon Treaty altered everything and rendered the old tory eurosceptics from the Maastricht days, and the likes of UKIP redundant. What they were peddling was no longer valid. And the method of leaving (article 50) had been written into the treaty so it had to be used or total chaos ensues. As it is, it looks like it will take us longer to leave because doing it via EEa has been made toxic by people like slartibartfast puppeteers who don't understand what the single market is.
But it WILL be an orderly leave of sorts and it WILL look a hell of a lot like EEA. Which is daft. But politics can be daft.
-
When you've got over trying to shoot the messenger how about you attempt to deal with the actual fact that you were wrong?
-
4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
You worked on a blog with Dr Richard North, eh? The guy who said this sort of stuff (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/17/richard-north-blog):
---
Back in July, North wrote a post entitled "Liar, liar!", as part of his ongoing campaign against the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri. In it, he said the following:
"What would be really interesting in this respect would be an examination of cultural attitudes to lying – why, for instance, Indians such as Rajendra Pachauri are practiced liars and why others find it difficult to accept that they are being lied to, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence."
In the comment thread, one of his supporters responded, "anything east of dover, not to be trusted!"
North then wrote: "There are a lot of Kermits to the west of Dover ... to say nothing of the Dagos and sundry others. These are to be trusted?"
This failed to elicit a single critical comment on his thread – unless, that is, he deleted them. Must try harder.
So last month he returned to this entertaining theme with the following observations:
"it is only a matter of time before some fool (many fools) tell us that it is the warmest year since Noah built his ark, warning that we are going to fry unless we pay zillions of dollars into the kitty for jungle bunnies and development corporations such as Oxfam."
Jungle bunnies eh? I don't think I've heard that term since Alf Garnett was on the air. But still, nothing but adulation from his small but adoring fan base. Four pages of comments, and not a single complaint about this term.
---
Doesn't exactly show him to be unbiased in his attitude to "foreigners" and therefore I think it would be advisable to take his opinions with a (rather large) dose of salt.
No. His son
None of which makes any of what was written here incorrect.
-
31 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
Just for clarity, I voted "Leave", so please don't lump us all in with the liars and racists. Irrespective of that, what he is claiming is at best disingenuous and at worst downright deceitful.
I'm not claiming anything other than that you're demonstratively talking nonsense and are doing it from a position of ignorance. You've been given all you need to check on this yet you display willful ignorance as if its a badge of honour.
Do you know how Iceland were able to stop capital from leaving their jurisdiction during their banking crisis? read article 112 of the EEA| treaty and find out.
-
1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:
The way I look at it, he wants to re-join EFTA, EFTA says they contribute to the EU Budget (as part of the EEA agreement) so, if we were in EFTA then we would be officially contributing to the EU Budget.
EFTA is a standalone organisation. IT is not a part of the EU. You've been shown that you're talking nonsense on this.
As you managed to to use google, maybe you'd like to try article 112-113 of the EEA treaty now. This deals with your "four freedoms"
Norway pay into the EFTA budget. NOT the EU budget.
They are bound by the EEA treaty as thats how EFTA countries can be a part of the single market. The single market is not part of the EU. The EU is a whole different thing. Its a political union and a treaty organisation. Norway is not part of it and doesn't contribute to any of the costs of operating that.
Maybe if you'd managed to actually read what I'd posted up instead of wallowing in your ignorance of the subject you'd get on a bit better.
-
2 minutes ago, Drew said:
Foxy is being a wee bit confrontational in his approach to this discussion....
I'm just annoyed that people still spread pig ignorance about what EFTA countries contribute money towards.
IT does get boring having to correct people constantly.
And I do believe I was being ridiculed earlier by some poster. So, if I respond in kind, which I didn,t, then it could be understandable.
Anyway. I've made my point, and its been backed up with some actual information that might help a few people understand the situation better.
-
3 minutes ago, smcc said:
There is no direct payment to the EU, but there certainly are several indirect payments. The net result is the same!
Those are by choice, for programmes like Erasmus and other things i detailed that they wish to participate in. All countries that wish to participate in them will contribute to the costs of operating them. They are separate from the EU budget. They contribute nothing to the operational costs of running the EU
-
It was a response to Oliver Kamm who was writing similar nonsense about Norway and EFTA countries in The Times. It was written prior to the referendum. So its not been a new thing to see this sort of total misinformation being spread around by ignoramuses and liars. Its clear that it works on some people who still think people like Kamm are "experts"
-
25 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:29 minutes ago, Reynard said:You can then admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
Wait a minute, your source is you? FFS!
The sources are shown. If you'd managed to read through it then you'd have seen that all sources of information are linked to.
You are trying to shoot the messenger rather than contributing anything worthwhile. You've been shown (with links) what Norway makes contributions to. Not a penny of that is to the EU budget. If you can prove otherwise then go for it.
You've been sold a lie sadly.
-
You can then admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
-
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:3 minutes ago, Reynard said:Your sources are wrong then. Plain and simple. Or deliberately misleading
OK then, what are your sources? Boris? SD?
Read the post above your head and learn something.
-
17 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
Sources: calculations based on European Commission data on the EU budget for EU countries, data received from the Directorate-General for Budget of the European Commission for the four non-EU countries upon request, Eurostat for GDP and population for all countries except GDP of Liechtenstein, which is based on UN data.
Your sources are wrong then. Plain and simple. Or deliberately misleading
Sevco FC ( 2012 ) v St Mirren Premiership 12/8/18
in Matchday & Travel Club
Posted
Battle of the duffers next week then. Aberdeen managed to go around 80 minutes at HOME against that mob down to ten men without scoring