Jump to content

Brexit Negotiations


Bud the Baker

Recommended Posts


4 hours ago, The Original 59er said:

Britain’s net contribution last year was £8.6 billion, up from £4.3 billion in 2009.

A major cause of the increased contributions was Mr Blair’s decision to agree to a 7 per cent cut in the rebate during negotiations on the last EU budget deal. If you aggregate the added contributions since 2009 probably cost the country several billions on op of our 'normal' contributions.

 

So not quite everything that Captain Charisma negotiated was an advantage to us!

You've talked about costs but our EU contribution is an investment.

Do do you know what the return on that £8.6 billion investment is?

Any clue at all?

I'll give you a start. Scientific research funding into the UK from the EU is £1-2bn alone I believe.

I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess at the amount of trade we gain from due to the lack of tarriffs (arrgh spelling!).

The point is that when you are talking about investments, you can't provide a list of the costs if you want to appear to be unbiased.

 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
It's less than three years since the referendum and even my Fawlty memory recalls the prevailing mood of Leave voters which was "take back control of our borders" i.e. a hard Brexit, harder even then May's deal! To suggest that Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for is extremely patronising. That we haven't been able to secure the "easiest deal in history" is a far stronger argument against Brexit.
 
What amazes me is the Hard Brexit argument that since parliament rejected the deal it's now up to the EU to offer us something better.Even if the EU was so inclined (and we all know they're not) what could they offer that would secure a majority at Westminster? :wacko: 
There were at least 2 main groups campaigning to leave, plus various political groups and politicians. They didnt all campaign on the basis of taking back control of our borders.
Still waiting on someone explaining what taking back control of our borders actually means.

Some believed we would be better off economically, either individually or collectively.
Some believed that the NHS would get 350 million a week.
Some were racist.
Some believe the EU to be akin to a superstate denying is sovereignty.
I'm sure some had other reasons as there were 17 million people who voted to leave.

So if you believe the prevailing mood was all down to controlling the border or that they all wanted a hard brexit then your memory is indeed fawlty!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, antrin said:

How can you enjoy a debate when you don't grasp the basics?

That must be very frustrating.

I my friend can debate if required to, but there seems little point in debating with an intellect that is unable to grasp the basics, my answer to you was bollox, because if you talk bollox you get bollox as an answer.  My definition of leave, oddly enough coincides with many dictionary definitions, ie; Leave............. to depart, exit, go away, abandon, evacuate, vacate, ........... none of those; or at least as far as I am aware,  involve sticking sharp sticks in your eyes, or poking hot irons up your arse, or following Sevco, but HEY whatever rocks your boat.  If you would like a sensible debate you need to debate sensibly.  I put NO WORDS into my interpretation of ''leave' .   Many others have but I, my good friend haven't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
You've talked about costs but our EU contribution is an investment.
Do do you know what the return on that £8.6 billion investment is?
Any clue at all?
I'll give you a start. Scientific research funding into the UK from the EU is £1-2bn alone I believe.
I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess at the amount of trade we gain from due to the lack of tarriffs (arrgh spelling!).
The point is that when you are talking about investments, you can't provide a list of the costs if you want to appear to be unbiased.
 
f**k scientific research, well be getting blue passports and 350 million a week for the NHS.

What a time to be alive!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
14 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
You've talked about costs but our EU contribution is an investment.
Do do you know what the return on that £8.6 billion investment is?
Any clue at all?
I'll give you a start. Scientific research funding into the UK from the EU is £1-2bn alone I believe.
I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess at the amount of trade we gain from due to the lack of tarriffs (arrgh spelling!).
The point is that when you are talking about investments, you can't provide a list of the costs if you want to appear to be unbiased.
 

f**k scientific research, well be getting blue passports and 350 million a week for the NHS.

What a time to be alive!

YES ...............     but only if you have Private Health Care insurance (and be sure not to contaminate the wards of the Plebs PLEASE) 

Oh and that 350 million.  ..................   should pay for about twenty minutes consultation from some rich fat Barstuard of a consultant

Mrs Thatcher has a lot to answer for.

 

RANT over for the moment     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

There were at least 2 main groups campaigning to leave, plus various political groups and politicians. They didnt all campaign on the basis of taking back control of our borders.
Still waiting on someone explaining what taking back control of our borders actually means.

Some believed we would be better off economically, either individually or collectively.
Some believed that the NHS would get 350 million a week.
Some were racist.
Some believe the EU to be akin to a superstate denying is sovereignty.
I'm sure some had other reasons as there were 17 million people who voted to leave.

So if you believe the prevailing mood was all down to controlling the border or that they all wanted a hard brexit then your memory is indeed fawlty!

So it wasn't the only reason why people voted leave - I didn't say it was but I still say the prevailing mood in the Leave camp was "taking back control of our borders", it's just another fault of the Remain campaign that they didn't pursue the argument that Freedom of Movement was beneficial to any great degree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
YES ...............     but only if you have Private Health Care insurance (and be sure not to contaminate the wards of the Plebs PLEASE) 
Oh and that 350 million.  ..................   should pay for about twenty minutes consultation from some rich fat Barstuard of a consultant
Mrs Thatcher has a lot to answer for.
 
RANT over for the moment     
The last Labour government gave the doctors a bountiful contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

Andrea Leadsom on news earlier "Just because you reject a deal in it's entirety, doesn't mean you reject every element of it"
This is the calibre of the cunts trying to lead us through this, no wonder we are in the position we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
17 minutes ago, jaybee said:
Impressive, judging by the current crop, I wasn't sure they could spell contract, never mind draw one up,

The Dr's, the government or Labour politicians? emoji3.png

PLEASE don't Ricky.....ise me for this; but I can claim to know and have worked with a few of the current crop of Politicians, (both in Scotland and in Engerland) of those, I would trust or consider supporting three or maybe four, sad isn't it.  The rest I would consign to oblivion.  My idea of a Politician is someone who doesn't want to be a Politician, desire to become one should debar you; from ever being one. but hey ..... that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

There were at least 2 main groups campaigning to leave, plus various political groups and politicians. They didnt all campaign on the basis of taking back control of our borders.
Still waiting on someone explaining what taking back control of our borders actually means.

Some believed we would be better off economically, either individually or collectively.
Some believed that the NHS would get 350 million a week.
Some were racist.
Some believe the EU to be akin to a superstate denying is sovereignty.
I'm sure some had other reasons as there were 17 million people who voted to leave.

So if you believe the prevailing mood was all down to controlling the border or that they all wanted a hard brexit then your memory is indeed fawlty!

Immigration and sovereignty were by far the biggest reasons for voting Leave. All the other reasons are really sideshows and red herrings.

I'm not even prepared to say that the immigration thing was necessarily significantly racist either.

I have found some research evidence to back that up. First paragraph. I don't know who these guys are though so it may be biased but nevertheless it might be worth a quick look:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/peoples-stated-reasons-for-voting-leave-or-remain/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, antrin said:

Are you the same person day to day?

Or is your body renewing in myriad ways, constantly?

Or is your alleged scientific bent in some obscure, irrelevant silo - with no access to general knowledge?

If you want me to respond to you, you should learn how to quote properly. That way your opinion doesn't disappear in the morass of other posts.

As for that last bit in bold? Go and talk to someone else unless you can find a more agreeable way to debate what is actually a pretty interesting topic.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

Andrea Leadsom on news earlier "Just because you reject a deal in it's entirety, doesn't mean you reject every element of it"
This is the calibre of the cunts trying to lead us through this, no wonder we are in the position we are.

Actually she is right. :lol:

It's a common tactic to have 90% of a deal agreed and then some twat puts in a red line and presents the entire thing as a single package. They tried it with Scottish football reforms by sticking in the Colt team thing on top of a heap of otherwise good stuff. They tried it with the Good Friday agreement by trying to get the Nationalists to effectively "surrender" to the Unionists. You have to wonder what utter bellend could expect them to agree to that.

 Don't be too quick to dismiss her on this.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
4 hours ago, antrin said:

Are you the same person day to day?

Or is your body renewing in myriad ways, constantly?

Or is your alleged scientific bent in some obscure, irrelevant silo - with no access to general knowledge?

If you want me to respond to you, you should learn how to quote properly. That way your opinion doesn't disappear in the morass of other posts.

As for that last bit in bold? Go and talk to someone else unless you can find a more agreeable way to debate what is actually a pretty interesting topic.

Edited 2 minutes ago by oaksoft

I think antrin is a D.P.W.A.D. ie; a dangerous person with a dictionary.  If you wish to debate; you really need to THINK about what you are saying, there is a logical process ............. if this; then that etc and  I don't see any of that in your arguments.......................,sticks in your eyes and things up your bum don't really tend to be taken seriously as postulations  with regards to Brexit.  Perhaps you too should go to bed and let the adults talk.  B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Actually she is right. [emoji38]
It's a common tactic to have 90% of a deal agreed and then some twat puts in a red line and presents the entire thing as a single package. They tried it with Scottish football reforms by sticking in the Colt team thing on top of a heap of otherwise good stuff. They tried it with the Good Friday agreement by trying to get the Nationalists to effectively "surrender" to the Unionists. You have to wonder what utter bellend could expect them to agree to that.
 Don't be too quick to dismiss her on this.
Silly me, taking the words
entire and every
literally
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jaybee said:

I think antrin is a D.P.W.A.D. ie; a dangerous person with a dictionary.  If you wish to debate; you really need to THINK about what you are saying, there is a logical process ............. if this; then that etc and  I don't see any of that in your arguments.......................,sticks in your eyes and things up your bum don't really tend to be taken seriously as postulations  with regards to Brexit.  Perhaps you too should go to bed and let the adults talk.  B)

Are you talking to me with that bit in bold or antrim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, saintnextlifetime said:

By doing what. .

Where to begin?

Claiming we have no money to fund things like the NHS. Then selling it off to private companies who prioritise profit over care. Example: we have billionaire Richard Branson sueing the NHS because he hasn’t been given more contracts.

We have austerity measures but somehow they found £1bn to bung the DUP, they continue to find money for the ever pointless trident, they can write off MP expenses. The House of Lords continues to increase in size and with that increases the £300 dished out to each Lord who does the difficult task of clocking in. No austerity for them, funny that. Check some of the “expenses” lists MPs have claimed for. Absolute nonsense. 

Benefit claimants have seen money slashed. Bedroom tax is shambolic. The Rape Clause to claim tax credits for a third child is abhorrent. The ATOS “Fit for work” tests are not fit for purpose. Benefit sanctions leave people moneyless. Many have died either from starvation, or suicide when their debts have climbed too high. In some cases the threat of benefit cuts or being fit “found to work” when they really aren’t has also lead to suicides. The large amount of food banks opening shows how much the poor have suffered over the last 8 years.

But who gets the blame for a lack of money? Foreigners, immigrants, asylum seekers. Benefit claimants. The EU is apparently at fault. The government has allowed these groups to take the blame to take the heat off themselves.  As a result we have seen a more right wing Britain develop, increasing the hate of anyone foreign. You fine well know some leave voters voted in the hope EU citizens would be kicked out. The torrents of abuse aimed at refugees is sickening. This government has always deflected the real reasons for lack of money while spunking loads on shite elsewhere and allowing others to take the blame. The last 8 years has seen our beloved NHS being sold off, an increase in racism, an increase in poverty and an increase in homeless numbers. But also an increase in the pockets of the rich. Of course the Tories have f**king destabilised Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...