Posts by Stevlin

    I very much doubt it will be accepted by parliament Fidget - even though most MPs are basically Remainers, I doubt that even they would accept a blatant ignoring of the democratic referendum by tying the UK into the EU........ and even worse, ( as MPs will see it), as undermining their own 'Parliamentary sovereignty' to authorise a withdrawal from the EU ......... Indeed, requiring the EU's permission to leave is undoubtedly a 'concession too far' - even for the most ardent of Europhiles I would guess.

    If this deal goes through (as it currently stands), then I can imagine it will all hit the fan.


    Most of the general public are fed up to the back teeth of politicians riding roughshod over or ignoring the electorate. We finally get a say in the future of our country, and the politicians supported it, but this 'agreement' surely has to be some form of 'punishment'.


    If this deal goes through (as it currently stands), then I can imagine it will all hit the fan.


    Most of the general public are fed up to the back teeth of politicians riding roughshod over or ignoring the electorate. We finally get a say in the future of our country, and the politicians supported it, but this 'agreement' surely has to be some form of 'punishment'.

    Talking about making exporting to the EU difficult .... the VAT system on digital services is a total dogs dinner, and unlike the UK VAT system there is no minimum value, so even the smallest transaction has to go through the nightmare procedure. The UK wanted a minimum annual limit, as we have for VAT, but the EU said no. The VAT MOSS system helps a little, but is a lot of work for small traders, and produces negligible VAT.


    Unfortunately, leaving or remaining in the EU won't help us with this, as they apply it to worldwide sales into the EU. It is in effect just another import tariff, but a very clumsy one.

    Well it could be claimed that VAT is also a 'dogs dinner' taxation system, which is an extremely inefficient taxation system, and which is readily open to fraud via the claim back system and the numerous exemptions and concessions.

    I'm not sure that 'friction free' is quite true. Less friction is a more reasonable description, as rules of origin and the like still have to be complied with, so there is still a lot of paperwork to be completed and yes, even checks to be made but not to the same extent as non-EU trade.

    If coming via the EU, then as I said, all the correct documentation will have been processed.....however. as I have also stated , we already conduct more trade via non-EU countries, which is not via frictionless trade.... so, more border /customs recdruitment - but the vast majority of countries are NOT in a ridiculous political EU type entity - yet they manage OK........

    With regard to your first point, that was indeed the initial response from the EU, but it appears they have subsequently changed their mind....https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-can-sign-trade-deals-while-in-single-market-brussels-rules-grvz62qkv. and incidentally, whilst a member of the EU then clearly the UK can ONLY trade with any country, EU members or not, via EU terms, including their established WTO tariffs.where no trade deal exists.

    As well as meeting any required specification , a country without a trade deal with the EU will have to export to any EU member state via the EU WTO tariffs.

    Wrt you point 3 - having a Trade deal with the EU is NOT mandatory for trading

    with it.....it merely means trading will be conducted via WTO rules if no trade agreement exists.

    Wrt your point 4 - ALL trade is conducted via either a trade deal, or, via WTO rules.....with the latter trade being undertaken via tariffs lodged and agreed with the WTO.

    Next - the bulk of the UK's trade is now conducted outside of the EU - unlike 1973.

    Friction free trade is ONLY conducted via the EU - so imports from non-EU countries to the EU will not be friction free - unless via another EU country, which will have ensured the appropriate rulings have been applied.

    You final point about Brexiteers is somewhat bizzare, unless you fatuously believe that that the UK association is only trade!!

    If that was the case, there would be no requirement for that ridiculous Parliament would there?? Nor the irresponsible lack of border controls outside of a formal federation of states....The EU is ACTING as a United States of Europe.......but it isn't - yet, is it ?

    It's odd that Osborne described May as the walking dead when he himself looks like something 2of the night." I particularly rate Rory Stewart from that list, an academic, yes, but he knows his stuff and Dominic Raab was, until recently, the justice minster and very impressive in parliament in all the Brexit related debates.


    Re Boris and his idea about the Irish border, I agree. That's got to be the solution, the only alternative is towers, guard dogs and barbed wire. That didn't go down well when all that stuff used to along the border.


    I think Boris has the attributes to make good speeches, but I think he is just too cocky for his own good and anyone who knows him describes him as habitually lazy too, not good for a PM.

    Absolutely not the only way!! As we are staunch allies of the USA, I'm positive that we can enlist the help of our good mate Trump, who will undoubtedly provide us with the 'wherewithall' to enable the UK to build a huge, unscalable wall , and get the Mexicans, or maybe the Irish, to pay for it!!

    It snowed heavily here 3 nights ago - so the next morning, quite early, I made a snowman -

    8:10 A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn’t make a snow woman.

    8:15 So I made it into a snow woman - in just a couple of ticks!!

    8:19 The nanny of the neighbours complained about the snow woman's voluptuous chest.

    8:20 The gay couple living nearby grumbled that it could have been two snowmen instead.

    8:25 The vegans at no.12 complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and are not to decorate snow figures with.

    8:28 I am now being called a racist because the snow woman is white.

    8:31 The Muslim gent across the road wants the snow woman to wear a headscarf.

    8:40 Someone called the police who showed up to see what was going on.

    8:42 I am then told that the broomstick of the snowman needs to be removed because it could be used as a deadly weapon.

    8:43 I am overheard muttering to myself "Yeah, I could shove it up ...."

    8.44 I am then immediately arrested, blindfolded and flown to the police station in a helicopter.

    8:55 My phone is seized and thoroughly checked as I am grilled about having any previous arrests.

    9:00 I'm on the news as a suspected terrorist bent on stirring up trouble at this sensitive time.

    9:10 I am asked if I have any accomplices.

    9:29 A little known jihadist group has since claimed it was their plot.

    Just heard Donald Trump boasting on the TV - when asked what sort of abilities did he possess that would prove to be very useful as President of the USA he replied - " well I don't wish to brag, but am very quick in assessing the correct solution to be applied to solve a problem....for instance, last week I completed a jigsaw after just 46 days - and the box stated 2 to 4 years!!" - impressive eh??

    I'm happy to pay for anything I use and since I watch BBC then I am happy to pay for it, also like I said I like the fact they don't show adverts, where people may have the choice to pay for Sky and feel happier in that context my biggest problem with Sky is you pay for it and yet they still show adverts.

    Then presumably, you would be happy to pay a direct subscription to the BBC whenever /if you wish to watch one of their programmes......just like people who watch Sky premium channels do.

    So essentially May has agreed to paying a bribe and still they could shaft us over the trade deals, seems like this Tory government have surpassed levels of incompetence and stupidity that even Labour could ever hope to achieve.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that Labour could, and would undoubtedly act as equally stupid, and as incompetent as the Tories have on Brexit. Indeed, even more so, as they are more inclined to cancel Brexit, by virtue of retaining full blown access to the Single Market....and continuing to pay for it - in more ways than one.

    Well, as some might infer by the title of this thread, I might like to see the back of the Royal Family, but it shows no sign of slowing down anytime yet, they're even expanding!


    Congratulations to both of them.

    Indeed - you have made that perfectly clear....albeit, without being able to illustrate how the UK would be improved via becoming a republic.

    The UK's monarch is incorporated via a constitutional monarchy, which means that in reality, it provides a symbolic and non-political head of state. The UK's political power is invested in Parliament, and this of course provides democratic governance.....or does it??

    For instance, the UK can go to war at the behest of the PM.....without him/her seeking Parliamentary approval - which sort of suggests that the UK PM does indeed have 'presidential 'equivalent' powers................

    A constitutional monarchy, is advised by the Prime Minister and other close advisers when required to make governing choices. The monarch still has three political rights, which are the right to be consulted, the right to be advised, and the right to warn. And the parliament isn’t necessarily free to just do whatever they want because the monarch still holds these formal powers, albeit they presumably would soon be abolished or ignored if Parliament so wished.

    Yes, I've just come in to all this after a morning of Christmas shopping, so already in a foul mood only to be met with all the back patting and smiles on the "deal."


    As you said, Michael Gove has said that the ECJ will have a time limited role for EU citizens in the UK post Brexit. That time limit will be for seven years. It's the case of which court is supreme in this matter. We voted for our court to be supreme, so which is it? No one is saying.


    Yes and yet again, no mention of our people in the EU, not that I particularly care much about them. They made their choice to move abroad, so they can get on with, but the silence on their rights is deafening.

    Well we appear to have that answered now. As posted on anotherbthread - https://www.theguardian.com/po…juncker-tusk-markets-live

    It's astonishing, isn't it? We still don't know!


    The tv news is saying 30-40m, but silence from the government.

    There are sufficient details apparently to realise that , as expected, it is the UK that has 'caved in' - not ju8st wrt the ridiculous 'divorce' 'tribute' to be paid, but it seems that UK citizens in the EU ".....are concerned that while EU citizens living in the UK will continue to have the freedom to move and work around Europe, they will not, leaving them “landlocked” in the country they have settled in". https://www.theguardian.com/po…juncker-tusk-markets-live

    A warning shot has just been fired at May in PMQs from Reece-Mogg, quote:


    "When you next go to Brussels will you apply some paint to your red lines as I fear they went a little pink on Monday."


    The first public response from the Conservative Brexiteers to the fiasco on Monday.

    Yep - I am certainly warming to Reece - Mogg - despite his hyphenated surname!!

    Wrt the bold statement, ( in more ways than one) -maybe you could provide some credible evidence to support your crystal ball reading...or did you use Tarot cards???

    For example - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…tside-the-european-union/ from someone who at least can claim to have some first hand experience in such matters.

    I'll copy your Ireland comments over the border threads later and respond there, but as for May, we still don't have details of what she has agreed to. The EU weren't panicking earlier, they were laughing their heads off.

    Indeed - as they always have been - but , IF, and it is a large 'IF', the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', as both May and the EU have claimed, that £40/50 billion or whatever, would be predicated on the EU granting the UK a favourable post Brexit deal...................and the EU would certainly start panicking if they don't get that huge , undeserved fortune from the UK.....their finances are pretty ropey, and Germany and co. cannot/ will not continue to subsidise the EU dream without the second highest contributor for very long......but equally, they cannot afford to agree a free trade agreement with the UK either - so don't get too carried away with their apparent carefree attitudes.......the panic button cannot be too far away.

    I don't think we can really leave the EU without a proper border. With modern technology there's no need for physical barriers and guard towers which seems to be the bone of contention with the DUP.

    Well the theory of that seems OK......but the practicalities have yet to be demonstrated, and as you say, there really should be a 'proper' border - and 'electronic ' coverage is hardly providing that is it?

    Don't get me wrong - I too wouldn't like to jeopardise the 'peace' process which has been mooted - but frankly, the EU and UK has to be border 'controlled', and without knowing the details it is rather difficult to assess the effectiveness of what is being postulated. After all, our record of illegal immigration is hardly anything to write home about, despite non-EU immigration being so-called controlled.

    I don't care whether he wears a suit made in Harley Street or not, I do care that on one hand he campaigns against the EU and on the other, will take a pension from them (which he is legally entitled to) but is he morally entitled to it?

    Why??? His entitlement to that pension has nothing whatsoever to do with his belief that the UK would be better off out of the EU........It isn't a question of his entitlement to the pension being a 'moral' one - it is an actual entitlement. One should perhaps applaud him for possibly jeopardising continuation of his 'gravy train' - on the assumption that a longer service as an MEP would produce a higher pension.....albeit, he doesn't really need it.....

    I don't think so, Heero.


    The Conservatives didn't want to have any agreement with those Neanderthals, but its those same people who may now determine our fate.


    I thought when we voted Brexit, it was meant to be us that determined our fate, not others.

    Good - if the EU agreed with the UK then it is unlikely to be in the UK's favour......maybe it might encourage May to grow a bit more backbone..... or at least get the EU panicking for a change.

    Personally, I believe that technically at least, there should be a 'hard' border, as there is between all other external EU states which abut with non -EU states.

    On the BBC One O'clock news, every EU official that was interviewed is beaming....:| They're all happy, but what about us, those that voted for Brexit?

    Perhaps that is because a so called 'agreement' is being claimed on the UK/ Irish, N/S border - a potentially huge stumbling block.....but apart from that particular issue, I'd frankly rather leave without a deal - and save the £50 billion for our own use - less what we ACTUALLY owe - and sod all that goodwill gesture nonsense.

    Too many EU member states have been enjoying a 'free ride' at our, and a few other countries expense for far too long now, it is high time they faced reality. The same goes for those UK businesses that have been enjoying tariff free trade at the UK taxpayer's expense.

    Stevlin's conclusion that the EU is expecting their citizen's right to prevail over non-EU citizens' is probably justified insofar as the EU is wedded to the concept of a "United States of Europe". That said, I still think that eligibility rights for citizenship in each country or "EU state" should be based on accepting and complying with that country's/state's rules of behaviour. I only refer to race or ethnicity or religion as a profile predictor, certainly not as a label in itself that should determine eligibility for an application of citizenship. It is the behaviour rather than the label that matters. If I balk at granting citizenship to people who, for example, want to broadcast a call for prayer 5 times a day, or have forced marriages, or hold street protests because a perfectly acceptable play offends their religious or life-style sensibilities, or whose women choose or are forced to wear masks or headgear that conceal their faces in public places, I am balking not because of who they are - I don't care if they are Muslims, Mormons or Martians - I just don't want to live in a society that chooses to accommodate an increasing number of people who behave that way and whose above-average birthrate over the next few decades will create new de facto norms for society.

    Don't generally disagree with your comments - but other than EU citizens being able to be judged in terms defined by the EJC, ( which in itself should definitely NOT be allowed in ANY non-EU country), I cannot think of any other specific right that an EU citizen should wish to 'retain'......but in any event, ALL legal migrants in the UK should have the same rights, irrespective of their nationality........which clearly would rule out any 'additional' rights because of EU citizenship.

    The Times reported a few days ago (I can't publish a link or any part of the article as it's behind a paywall) that May has committed Britain to pay into the EU coffers for the next 40 years... Yes, you read that right. The bulk of the money would be paid over the next 10 years with smaller incriminates thereafter for the remaining 30.:S

    Whereas nothing surprises me wrt the UK's response to EU dictats, I do find that ongoing 40 year contributory period hard to believe - unless it is associated with a 40 year paid for access to the EU Single Market......similar to a Norwegian agreement....but the EU wouldn't grant grant that without attaching an absolutely huge bill......and that couldn't be kept quiet either.

    Remember, 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed'........and that works two ways!!

    But we don't know what May has done. If she's given the EU a written commitment to pay, could that be seen as being a contract?

    The Conservative MPs were very muted in PMQs yesterday. I was expecting a riot from the brexiteers, but they said nothing.


    If she plays fast and loose, she will be gone. I guess all will become clear on Monday.

    Not if that 'commitment' is also 'qualified' by the EU's 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' claim - albeit, even without a deal, and any legal requirement to pay a divorce bill, I've no doubt whatsoever that the UK would inevitably pay what 'they' believed was due.......we do like to 'play cricket', and further 'our' reputation for doing so.

    I think that EU citizens and other immigrants already here legally should have the right to stay as long as they are contributing and aren't found guilty of any criminal offence which carries a prison sentence. Which is not to say they should be given automatic citizenship.

    Absolutely - as you say, non-EU citizens who have also contributed , and have not committed criminal activities should have the same rights as EU citizens resident in the UK. The 'race' of any individual is totally irrelevant.....and the reference to Paulette Wilson just epitomises the level of some of the 'jobsworths' in the Home Office.

    a)Well the question shouldn't puzzle anyone. The question is clearly addressing the EU's wish for 'retention' of EU citizen rights after the UK has left the EU......in other words, 'post Brexit'. That suggests that the EU are expecting 'more rights' for EU citizens resident in the UK that non-EU legal migrants, resident in the UK are entitled to....

    b) I would have thought that most people would realise that 'non-EU citizens' is a matter of different nationalities rather than races. After all, many countries are now multi -racial.......

    Agree.


    Why should they be treated any differently? Whether EU or non EU, all immigrants should be treated the same. Who wants to bet that's what'll happen? No, me neither!


    I am sure along with handing buckets load of our dosh over, May will give EU immigrants preferential treatment too.

    That is what I believe also - which is nothing more than discrimination......so shouldn't be allowed. Positive 'action' is of course legal in the UK, ( to get around being accused of being discriminatory), but I don't see how that can be applied to EU citizens.....unless of course, they have an ethnic minority background,