'Thanks for the war, now pay up' says Juncker.

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • Really - well why not endeavour to support your claim that "The notion that the EU desperately needs us to remain is naive", with a more rational argument that the EU officials are well paid....an extremely difficult task for you admittedly, but who knows, that may lead to enabling you to debate properly - by attempting to provide credible evidence for your assertions.

    I do wish you could write more clearly or without leaving out a word that completely changes the meaning of what you're trying to say. For example: where you say ".... rational argument that the EU officials are well paid ....." I think you've accidentally left out "than" between "argument" and "that".

    Heck, you not only foul up your own comments, you also foul up mine!

    "The notion that the EU desperately needs us to remain is naive. The EU leaders have huge salaries, huge pensions, huge expense accounts and they and their immediate family will still be on this gravy train even after the EU economy falls apart".

    I hardly need to provide evidence for the second of these two sentences. And hopefully you are capable of figuring out that the second sentence backs up the assertion of my first sentence. To make the connection perhaps you need to understand that decisions can also be based on reasons which are emotional, irrational, selfish, etc. Maybe the deeper problem is that you need to understand that an "assertion" without "evidence" is called an "opinion" and that an exchange - even a contest - of opinions helps to stimulate a debate?

    Imagine a debate between androids (Artificial Intelligence) which, stuffed full of information, can draw conclusions or predictions and even estimate the probability of each conclusion prevailing, but will have zero capability of forming an opinion. Is that your idea of a debate?

    Right now, you seem to be in a twilight zone, in that you don't offer an opinion (which would be proof of being a human rather than an android) but nor do you write clearly (which would be proof of being an android).

    I doubt we are going to find common ground. Assuming your reply will be along the same lines as your previous ones, my standard recommendation is that you should "be fruitful and multiply" ... but in only half that number of words.

  • I do wish you could write more clearly or without leaving out a word that completely changes the meaning of what you're trying to say. For example: where you say ".... rational argument that the EU officials are well paid ....." I think you've accidentally left out "than" between "argument" and "that".


    Heck, you not only foul up your own comments, you also foul up mine!

    Well you are certainly correct in pointing out that I erroneously missed out the word 'than' - but it certainly didn't 'foul' up yours - you are more than capable of doing that yourself - and my point was still valid, as your claim was , and still is nonsense.

    Whilst the EU officials are undoubtedly extremely well paid, it is ridiculous to claim that that fact alone makes it naive to believe that the EU are desperate for the EU to remain.......there are several valid reasons for the EU to wish the UK remain in the EU, with the loss of the EU's subsidy from the UK being a prime one, and the fact that clearly , many people, in all EU member states earnestly support the formation of the USSE - which even you should be capable of realising.

    You certainly are a strange person if you believe that a perceived 'insult' on a forum , a) replaces debate, and b) is somehow a threat to democracy.

    I hardly need to provide evidence for the second of these two sentences. And hopefully you are capable of figuring out that the second sentence backs up the assertion of my first sentence. To make the connection perhaps you need to understand that decisions can also be based on reasons which are emotional, irrational, selfish, etc. Maybe the deeper problem is that you need to understand that an "assertion" without "evidence" is called an "opinion" and that an exchange - even a contest - of opinions helps to stimulate a debate?

    I certainly wouldn't expect you to - because, as I have already pointed out, providing credible evidence to support your claims, is something that you generally appear not to do.....and even 'opinions' usually have a basis of 'facts' , whether true or not, which generate their formation.

    Edited once, last by Stevlin (November 17, 2017 at 6:10 PM).

  • Who will blink first?

    David Davis has said the EU must be willing to give ground too if further progress in Brexit talks is to be made.

    He told the BBC the UK has "been offering some creative compromises and not always got them back", insisting that "nothing comes for nothing".

    Many EU countries want to move on in the talks because they can see how important it is to their economies, he told political editor Laura Kuenssberg.

    Theresa May has been told she has two weeks to put more money on the table if the EU is to agree to begin Brexit trade talks before the end of the year.

    EU Council President Donald Tusk said he was "ready" to move onto the next phase of Brexit talks, covering future relations with the UK.

    But he said the UK must demonstrate more progress on the "divorce bill" and the Irish border by early next month.

    David Davis was in Berlin yesterday for talks and said that the EU needs to compromise a little and May has been meeting Tusk today.

    As has been the case since Article 50 was triggered back in March, the EU do not want to negotiate, or at least that's how it seems. If we're past Christmas and into the New Year and they still don't want to talk trade, then it's all over.

    May has supposedly already offered them more money, but this story today is saying that's not enough and Tusk is demanding more. If May gives into EU demands, her government will collapse. If she doesn't do what the EU demands, the Brexit negotiations will collapse.

    Sometimes I don't envy politicians, it's a lose, lose situation for her. Really, she needs to go and have someone the Conservatives can unite behind and someone who the EU will take a little bit more seriously.

    I don't know if anyone saw This Week last night. Michael Portillo was carping on that we should pay the bill as it would be "worth it."

    As one of those articles above states and as I've been saying, what the EU want is for us to agree line-by-line the formula, the method, for working out the divorce bill. By doing so, and to his credit Davis has been stalling the EU on this, if we agree the method to work out the final figure, it would in effect be agreeing to the actual final figure. It would be easy for the EU to work out the final sum once the method is agreed to. That's what the EU is demanding we do. Sod 'em!

    If May gives in to the EU demands, the country will never forgive her.

  • That's why she's in a lose-lose situation, Nigel.

    What's cheaper at the end of the day? Losing trade with the EU on single market grounds or having Comrade Corbyn as PM?

    Going by what the Comrade Shadow chancellor said recently about borrowing many, many billions of pounds, I think it would be cheaper for the country to walk away from the EU, rather than give in to them. But I never was any good at maths, so who knows.

  • It shouldn't matter if the Brexit negotiations stop, as far as the UK is concerned , as the default basis of trade is already established - and is likely to result in the UK Treasury actually collecting revenue from EU trade, instead of subsidising the EU to benefit from it. All the UK will have to do is register/agree it's tariffs with the WTO.

    Naturally,those UK businesses that trade with the EU won't like that, but they should really be getting used to the idea that the UK tax payer will no longer subsidise their tariff free 'boon'. It may well of course register with the EU that their bluff has been called......and possibly stir them into action instead of 'trying it on'. May should NOT increase her so called offer to the EU.....unless the amount to be offered is a true reflection of what UK commitments can be properly supported .....including an amount in recognition of UK 'share' of assets.

  • May has already said we are going to keep funding various EU organisations as its in our interests to do so, post Brexit. So these EU tactics seem nothing more to scare others within the EU from leaving than actually being sensible and doing a proper deal with us.

    Paying a 'fair' contribution for participation in one or more EU organisations is one thing, paying a subsidy, and accepting loss of legislative primacy in order to access so called Free Trade is something else again. However, to 'scare' the EU, we would have to refuse to agree or nominate ANY so called divorce bill UNTIL we have an agreed trade deal.

    I do realise that won't happen - which is a shame - because no deal really is better than a bad deal - and the latter is all we have had for over 40 years - but that is probably the only way to make the EU see sense.

  • The return of David Miliband.

    (click the link above to watch his interview)

    Although this is a few days old, I thought it was interesting that Tony Blar's heir apparent has decided to show his face now, presumably he's still in New York.

    In the interview, he thinks by coming out of the EU, we're losing influence in the world as we did such a great job within the EU. Obviously he never looked at the history of the major votes in the EU, when the UK got outvoted every time.

    Also interesting that as the hysteria around Comrade Corbyn is starting to fade a little, we've had both Tony Blair announcing he might return to front line politics and Milliband brother No 1, the one the Labour MPs actually liked all popping up at the same time. It's called positioning, nothing to do with Brexit what so ever.

  • Oh, Oh......:cursing::thumbdown::thumbdown:

    Three French words favoured by Michel Barnier could land Britain a £101billion Brexit bill.

    The EU chief negotiator has come up with a formula which would see the UK still contributing to EU coffers six years after we have left on March 29, 2019.

    Barnier’s French catchphrase, “reste à liquider”, translates as “yet to be paid”.

    I don't need three words for Barnier in response to that, I just need two: The first word begins with F and the second word is Off. Who's he kidding?

    Britain is preparing to pay its Brexit divorce bill with a figure to be revealed in weeks, Philip Hammond announced.

    The Chancellor yesterday said the Government would make its offer in time for the December 14-15 Brussels summit and added: “Whatever is due, we will pay.”

    All the newspapers and media over the past few weeks have said all the same thing, in that we're going to give into the EU demand and hand over a load of cash. If that's the case, it's bye bye May.

  • There is broad agreement among ministers that the government should increase its financial offer to the EU as the UK leaves, the BBC understands.

    But this is only in return for the EU moving on in December to talks about a future trade deal and an implementation phase after the UK's departure in 2019.

    And there was no substantial discussion of possible amounts that could be paid at a cabinet committee meeting.

    If Thatcher were still alive, she'd say this: "weak, weak, weak," but instead of using her famous phrase to describe the Europeans, it would be to describe our PM and this useless government.

  • If Thatcher were still alive, she'd say this: "weak, weak, weak," but instead of using her famous phrase to describe the Europeans, it would be to describe our PM and this useless government.

    Now where the hell did Thatcher leave her notorious handbag?!! It would appear that there is a great need for it in the UK Cabinet - never mind in Europe.

    Perhaps paying this ridiculous tribute to the UK, ( unless being tied in to what could be deemed to be owed because of UK participation in the EU budget etc.), should be put to a referendum - after all, it is OUR money, not the Cabinet's. It would be interesting to see what the 'Remainers' generally think about it.

    We have never been 'married' to the EU, so the ill-named divorce payment should just be thrown out. IF, the UK participated in the EU budget until 2021, then the UK should leave the EU in 2019 as declared, but continue to subsidise the EU until 2021, whilst retaining free - access.

  • May is going to offer the EU more money on Friday. They demand, we roll over. Pathetic.

    Indeed - hence my comment about Thatcher's handbag needing to be used in the UK Cabinet!! ;o)

    Unfortunately however, that exemplifies the 'qualities' of our MPs........get her out quickly NOW - and appoint Rhees Mogg as PM - he at least is one of the few MPs that talks sense with regard to leaving the EU.

  • We must know what we are paying this money for , just handing over money for Jack all in return will end up one way only, we will not see a Tory government again for years and years.

    We cannot have second rate armed forces and emergency services just to placate the EU and subsidise their own incompetence!

  • This nonsense has gone on since March with the EU hoping we'd fold into their demands. Clearly they were right.:cursing:

    What kind of a negotiation is this? AND when we do (if we do) start talking trade with them, who's to say what unreasonable demands they come up with next?

    I don't want Corbyn in power under any circumstances, but I agree with you Nigel, for the many that voted to leave, people will not understand what we are doing giving up front guarantees to the EU on handing them vast sums of our dosh. They won't understand why we are handing any dosh to them at all.

    I agree with you about the armed forces too. Expect a lot more threads on these types of subjects from me.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!