Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that we
do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are doing
is simply "shooting the messenger"

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

We were desperate to leave the EU. Now want to delay that point to suit
ourselves, regardless of how that may effect the EU. Pie in the sky. You
don't hand in your notice to an employer you hate (and he knows it) and
expect him to be flexible about working that notice.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:09:42 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that we
do this and insisting that we do that

I'm casually watching 'Nothing to declare UK' and it's funny to see
all the people having stuff confiscated and destroyed because the
people *weren't* coming in from the EU. ;-)

So what of all the 'booze cruises' and people taking vans over to
France or doesn't that still happen in any case?

This looked quite sober reading (and from Feb):

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses

Cheers, T i m

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the other
countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should be
given the opportunity

So on that basis, I think that it is completely unacceptable for the
unelected, unaccountable, jumped up, EU administrator to say "go and get out
now!" before he can have possibly be advised as to the feelings of the
complete cohort of ministers.

tim

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:57:40 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the other
countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should be
given the opportunity

So on that basis, I think that it is completely unacceptable for the
unelected, unaccountable, jumped up, EU administrator to say "go and get out
now!" before he can have possibly be advised as to the feelings of the
complete cohort of ministers.

Speaking as a remainer, I'd think that an understandable but very
risky tactic. However the Brits aren't the only ones capable of risky
tactics. I agree with Dave that Europe would say if you've got to go,
go now. The prospect of the process being about to start now, and not
when the Brits feel like it is probably loosening a few bowels amongst
the Brexit leadership and might make them more willing to grab at a
face-saving better offer when it is put to them by the council of
ministers, maybe as early as next week. Remember the Irish and the
Lisbon Treaty?

Nick

On 25/06/16 17:45, Nick Odell wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:57:40 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the other
countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should be
given the opportunity

So on that basis, I think that it is completely unacceptable for the
unelected, unaccountable, jumped up, EU administrator to say "go and get out
now!" before he can have possibly be advised as to the feelings of the
complete cohort of ministers.

Speaking as a remainer, I'd think that an understandable but very
risky tactic. However the Brits aren't the only ones capable of risky
tactics. I agree with Dave that Europe would say if you've got to go,
go now. The prospect of the process being about to start now, and not
when the Brits feel like it is probably loosening a few bowels amongst
the Brexit leadership and might make them more willing to grab at a
face-saving better offer when it is put to them by the council of
ministers, maybe as early as next week. Remember the Irish and the
Lisbon Treaty?


I dont think there is any mechanism by which the EU can eject a member
state is there?


But then with incompetent ****s like Shulze and Druncker, they probably
have never even read the EU treaties at all.

The left in the UK, and the EU are revealing themselves for what they
a nasty incompetent bigoted power grabbers and gravy train riders.


Nick



--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 25/06/2016 16:57, tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the
other countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should
be given the opportunity


I would argue that it is not possible to make a sensible decision about
leaving the EU until you know the terms and conditions of any future
trade and other agreements. The EU are unlikely to offer what we might
think of as favourable terms as they do not wish to encourage others to
leave.

It appears, from what I heard on the radio, that we don't even have
enough experienced staff to run the negotiations properly.


--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:10:13 +0100, Michael Chare
wrote:

On 25/06/2016 16:57, tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the
other countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should
be given the opportunity


I would argue that it is not possible to make a sensible decision about
leaving the EU until you know the terms and conditions of any future
trade and other agreements.

Of course.

The EU are unlikely to offer what we might
think of as favourable terms as they do not wish to encourage others to
leave.

Quite. And :

"During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to
the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as
normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or
decisions on its own withdrawal."

So much for the 'negotiation we were promised?

It appears, from what I heard on the radio, that we don't even have
enough experienced staff to run the negotiations properly.

Doesn't look like we will need any ... ;-(

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/...ng-article-50/

Cheers, T i m

Well they problem is that they have got to appear to be firm, as there are
other countries who are limbering up to try to tweak the rules for
themselves. The big problem for us seems to be that this choice is not
exactly what most of the people wanted, despite the vote.
I think they wanted to say **** off government and what about us not in
London?

However from what I've been hearing its turning into wrinklies want out,
yooung wanted in, and we could see some kind of backlash in the country
over this with regions persecuting the outers .
Youung versus old and region against region.
Inf only the EU could see the wood for the trees here they could run a
united states of Europe but with some local opt outs that could be dispensed
with gradually as the standards of living ironed out. I feel sorry for the
Welsh, as they are net winners being in the EU, but now where will the money
come from?

We shall see, its not too late to have a rethink, but it looks like the EU
will want to use the stick not the carrot on their other descentors which I
think will hasten the break up not stop it. Junkers is a bit of an idiot.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tim..." wrote in message
...
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

tim

"T i m" wrote in message
...

This looked quite sober reading (and from Feb):

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses


Thanks

The only one that many people won't have known about
already is probably

quote

Article 50 provides that the EU will negotiate a new agreement with the withdrawing
country
over two years. That can be extended, but only by unanimous agreement. The article also
specifies that, when agreeing a new deal, the EU acts without the involvement of the
country
that is leaving.

/quote

So that basically rather than going in there and negotiating the best deal for the UK -
a scenario
accepted by many commentators - the UK will have to stand in the corridor outside the
headmasters
office and then be called in, once the likes of Rumania and Poland have finally decided
what her
fate should be.

Humiliating ? No of course not.

The rest of the article concerning the disastrous consequences for the UK economy should
be already well known.


michael adams

....

On 25/06/2016 19:27, T i m wrote:
"During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to
the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as
normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or
decisions on its own withdrawal."

Even if that were the broad intent and actuality, there are things like
the European Medicines Agency which is based in London. I can't see that
remaining there for two years, and then suddenly moving on the last day
of year two. Still less can I imagine the 27 being happy for it to
remain located in London beyond two years. So, I suspect they are likely
already close to deciding a new location and packing up whatever they
will take with them as soon as possible.

That would not, in my view, constitute continued participation in other
EU business as normal.

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:
On 25/06/2016 19:27, T i m wrote:
"During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to
the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as
normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or
decisions on its own withdrawal."

Even if that were the broad intent and actuality, there are things
like the European Medicines Agency which is based in London. I can't
see that remaining there for two years, and then suddenly moving on
the last day of year two. Still less can I imagine the 27 being happy
for it to remain located in London beyond two years. So, I suspect
they are likely already close to deciding a new location and packing
up whatever they will take with them as soon as possible.

That would not, in my view, constitute continued participation in
other EU business as normal.


Well as the drugs companies are complaining about how slow the EMA
is, this would look like progress.

michael adams wrote:

quote
Article 50 provides that the EU will negotiate a new agreement with
the withdrawing country over two years. That can be extended, but
only by unanimous agreement. The article also specifies that, when
agreeing a new deal, the EU acts without the involvement of the
country that is leaving.
/quote

So that basically rather than going in there and negotiating the
best deal for the UK - a scenario accepted by many commentators - the
UK will have to stand in the corridor outside the headmasters office
and then be called in, once the likes of Rumania and Poland have
finally decided what her fate should be.

I don't think it's saying the EU excluding the leaving country *decides*
what happens to the leaving country, rather that the EU excluding the
leaving country *negotiates* with the leaving country.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:35:35 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 25/06/2016 19:27, T i m wrote:
"During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to
the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as
normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or
decisions on its own withdrawal."

Even if that were the broad intent and actuality, there are things like
the European Medicines Agency which is based in London. I can't see that
remaining there for two years, and then suddenly moving on the last day
of year two.

Nope.

Still less can I imagine the 27 being happy for it to
remain located in London beyond two years. So, I suspect they are likely
already close to deciding a new location and packing up whatever they
will take with them as soon as possible.

Well, I think it's still early days on this relationship breakup. We
are currently in the 'threats and crying' stage and hope to get the
decree Nisi before the end of the year. At that point some may accept
it's serious and others will wait for the absolute two years later
before changing their stationary. ;-)

That would not, in my view, constitute continued participation in other
EU business as normal.

Nope ... 'talk to my solicitor'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

quote
Article 50 provides that the EU will negotiate a new agreement with
the withdrawing country over two years. That can be extended, but
only by unanimous agreement.The article also specifies that, when
agreeing a new deal, the EU acts without the involvement of the
country that is leaving.
/quote

So that basically rather than going in there and negotiating the
best deal for the UK - a scenario accepted by many commentators - the
UK will have to stand in the corridor outside the headmasters office
and then be called in, once the likes of Rumania and Poland have
finally decided what her fate should be.

I don't think it's saying the EU excluding the leaving country *decides* what happens
to the leaving country, rather that the EU excluding the leaving country *negotiates*
with the leaving country.


I think this point has already been made in another post

The agreement and negotiations take place among the remaining members
as to what deal they're going to offer the UK. Then the UK is allowed back into
the room and given the choice of accepting or rejecting the new deal .*

If this goes on for longer than two years, then the existing deal remains in place
including the £350 million per week or whatever it is ,which the UK contributes
to the EU.

Basically the UK is losing £350 a week until it agrees to whatever Poland,
Rumania etc decides to give it.

As others have said there's nothing to stop the UK breaking whatever treaties it
likes; just so long as nobody minds the pound sterling losing its status as
a reserve currency, dropping like a stone and ranking alongside the
Zimbabwean Dollar or the Argentinian Peso at the bottom of the bucket

* Possibly it could have been better expressed -

The article also specifies that, when agreeing a new deal [among themselves],
the EU acts without the involvement of the country that is leaving.


michael adams

....

On 25/06/2016 21:00, Capitol wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On 25/06/2016 19:27, T i m wrote:
"During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to
the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as
normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or
decisions on its own withdrawal."

Even if that were the broad intent and actuality, there are things
like the European Medicines Agency which is based in London. I can't
see that remaining there for two years, and then suddenly moving on
the last day of year two. Still less can I imagine the 27 being happy
for it to remain located in London beyond two years. So, I suspect
they are likely already close to deciding a new location and packing
up whatever they will take with them as soon as possible.

That would not, in my view, constitute continued participation in
other EU business as normal.


Well as the drugs companies are complaining about how slow the EMA
is, this would look like progress.

The EMA might well be too slow.

However, it does seem to be the body which oversees mutual recognition
procedures which, at least potentially, allow faster introduction of a
medicine to other countries once approved in one country.

One way in which that might directly benefit the UK is actually in terms
of medicine costs. One medicine, which a few years ago cost £12 a month,
has rocketed to about £250 in the UK. The Greek equivalent is less than
two euros - and seems to be very acceptable to many patients. The mutual
recognition process just might open the door to the Greek product
becoming available to the NHS.

Further, the costs of doing additional approvals for the UK only might
be too high and end up with us not getting some medicines, at least in
the shorter term.

--
Rod

On 25/06/2016 21:40, michael adams wrote:
Snip
As others have said there's nothing to stop the UK breaking whatever treaties it
likes; just so long as nobody minds the pound sterling losing its status as
a reserve currency, dropping like a stone and ranking alongside the
Zimbabwean Dollar or the Argentinian Peso at the bottom of the bucket
Snip

Hey! I'll have you know I've got several thousand of they Argentine
Pesos in my wallet right now and with the pound plummeting as it has,
they are starting to look veeeerrrryyy attractive!

Nick

On 25/06/2016 21:40, michael adams wrote:




Basically the UK is losing £350 a week until it agrees to whatever Poland,
Rumania etc decides to give it.

Don't a bad deal assume that these countries have nothing to sell to us?

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2016 21:40, michael adams wrote:




Basically the UK is losing £350 a week until it agrees to whatever Poland,
Rumania etc decides to give it.

Don't a bad deal assume that these countries have nothing to sell to us?

Sorry, its a £350 million contribution actually, as in the previous
sentence.

The whole Brexit argument is based on the claim that we're
net contributors to the EU. In which case the earlier the Brexiters
can rid themselves of this weekly £350 million contribution the
better. Which we can only do by accepting whatever crumbs the
likes of Poland and Rumania are willing to throw us from the table.

Basically as net beneficiaries of the EU its in the interests
of Poland and Rumania to keep the UK dangling at the end
of the hook, and coughing up the weekly £350 million for
as long as possible.

And who knows within the two years Turkey may have joined
as well. With the UK standing outside in the corridor.

As to your other point I don't know what the current balance of
trade is between the UK and the likes of Poland and Rumania;
and I'd imagine what there is largely dependent on the number
of Poles and Rumanian currently living in the UK. But in the
great scheme of things and total EU revenues, I'd imagine it
hardly amounts to the proverbial hill of beans.



michael adams

....

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2016 16:57, tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting
that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the
other countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should
be given the opportunity


I would argue that it is not possible to make a sensible decision about
leaving the EU until you know the terms and conditions of any future trade
and other agreements.

But it impossible to ever know that.

The EU are unlikely to offer what we might think of as favourable terms as
they do not wish to encourage others to leave.

Yes, but there is no need for favourable terms.

It appears, from what I heard on the radio, that we don't even have enough
experienced staff to run the negotiations properly.

Don’t need any negotiations, Britain out of the EU is free to trade
with the EU under the WTO rules, just like all of the US, Canada,
India, China, Taiwan, Australia, Korea etc etc do fine.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:10:13 +0100, Michael Chare
wrote:

On 25/06/2016 16:57, tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting
that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if
the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the
other countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should
be given the opportunity


I would argue that it is not possible to make a sensible decision about
leaving the EU until you know the terms and conditions of any future
trade and other agreements.

Of course.

The EU are unlikely to offer what we might
think of as favourable terms as they do not wish to encourage others to
leave.

Quite. And :

"During the two-year negotiation period,

You don't know that there will be a 2 year negotiation period.
That is just the time at which certain things happen if there is
no agreement to disagree.

EU laws would still apply to the UK.

Not if Britain chooses to make an obscene gesture in the
general direction of an intransigent EU and pulls the plug
on the EU, as it is completely free to do any time it chooses.

Article 50 doesn't say it can't do that.

The UK would continue to participate
in other EU business as normal,

It has already stopped doing that with the
resignation of the British EU Commissioner.

but it would not participate in internal EU
discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal."

So much for the 'negotiation we were promised?

Britain was never promised any negotiations.

It appears, from what I heard on the radio, that we don't even
have enough experienced staff to run the negotiations properly.

Doesn't look like we will need any ... ;-(

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/...ng-article-50/

Brian Gaff wrote

Well they problem is that they have got to appear to be firm, as there are
other countries who are limbering up to try to tweak the rules for
themselves. The big problem for us seems to be that this choice is not
exactly what most of the people wanted, despite the vote.

I think they wanted to say **** off government and what about us not in
London?

There arent enough of those to get that result and it doesn’t explain
the result seen in Scotland and Northern Ireland etc either.

However from what I've been hearing its turning into wrinklies want out,
yooung wanted in,

There certainly was a real variation like that.

and we could see some kind of backlash in the country over this with
regions persecuting the outers .

Not even possible to do that.

Youung versus old and region against region.

Politics has always been like that.

Inf only the EU could see the wood for the trees here they could run a
united states of Europe but with some local opt outs that could be
dispensed with gradually as the standards of living ironed out.

That was always contrary to the way the EU operated right from the start.

Yes, that could well be their undoing now that huge numbers of EU citizens
choose to move within the EU to better their personal circumstances. But it
should have been obvious that that was going to happen because that has
been going on in europe for millennia now. And not just in europe either.

I feel sorry for the Welsh, as they are net winners being in the EU, but
now where will the money come from?

What comes from the EU will be gone and they will get to like that or lump
it.

We shall see, its not too late to have a rethink,

Yes it is.

but it looks like the EU will want to use the stick not the carrot on
their other descentors

Yes, that is how they operate.

which I think will hasten the break up not stop it. Junkers is a bit of an
idiot.

It isn't just Junker, it has always been the way the EU operates.

"tim..." wrote in message
...
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

tim

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"T i m" wrote in message
...

This looked quite sober reading (and from Feb):

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses


Thanks

The only one that many people won't have known about
already is probably

quote

Article 50 provides that the EU will negotiate a new agreement with the
withdrawing country
over two years. That can be extended, but only by unanimous agreement. The
article also
specifies that, when agreeing a new deal, the EU acts without the
involvement of the country
that is leaving.

/quote

So that basically rather than going in there and negotiating the best
deal for the UK - a scenario
accepted by many commentators - the UK will have to stand in the corridor
outside the headmasters
office and then be called in, once the likes of Rumania and Poland have
finally decided what her
fate should be.

Britain doesn’t have to do anything like that. Just say "we're off, like
that or lump it, bye"

Humiliating ? No of course not.

On Saturday, 25 June 2016 16:29:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

We were desperate to leave the EU. Now want to delay that point to suit
ourselves, regardless of how that may effect the EU. Pie in the sky. You
don't hand in your notice to an employer you hate (and he knows it) and
expect him to be flexible about working that notice.


We shall do as we see fit.
**** the EUSSR. As they told Camoron over his "negotiations".
It is doomed anyway.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

quote
Article 50 provides that the EU will negotiate a new agreement with
the withdrawing country over two years. That can be extended, but
only by unanimous agreement.The article also specifies that, when
agreeing a new deal, the EU acts without the involvement of the
country that is leaving.
/quote

So that basically rather than going in there and negotiating the
best deal for the UK - a scenario accepted by many commentators - the
UK will have to stand in the corridor outside the headmasters office
and then be called in, once the likes of Rumania and Poland have
finally decided what her fate should be.

I don't think it's saying the EU excluding the leaving country *decides*
what happens to the leaving country, rather that the EU excluding the
leaving country *negotiates* with the leaving country.


I think this point has already been made in another post

The agreement and negotiations take place among the remaining members
as to what deal they're going to offer the UK. Then the UK is allowed back
into
the room and given the choice of accepting or rejecting the new deal .*

Yes.

If this goes on for longer than two years, then the existing deal remains
in place including the £350 million per week or whatever it is ,which the
UK contributes to the EU.

Like hell it does. Article 50 says nothing even remotely like that.

And doesn’t say anything like that about the free
movement of EU citizens to the leaving country either.

Or that the leaving county has to continue to
observe EU regulations or directives either.

Basically the UK is losing £350 a week until it agrees to whatever Poland,
Rumania etc decides to give it.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

As others have said there's nothing to stop the UK breaking whatever
treaties it likes;

Or just deciding that they no longer will be a party to them.

No treaty ever requires the signatories to continue with
a treaty forever, regardless of how circumstances change.

just so long as nobody minds the pound sterling losing its status as a
reserve currency,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

dropping like a stone and ranking alongside the Zimbabwean Dollar or the
Argentinian Peso at the bottom of the bucket

Even sillier than you usually manage.

* Possibly it could have been better expressed -

The article also specifies that, when agreeing a new deal [among
themselves],
the EU acts without the involvement of the country that is leaving.

But that can be trivially avoided by not invoking Article 50 until it suits
the leaving country.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2016 21:40, michael adams wrote:




Basically the UK is losing £350 a week until it agrees to whatever
Poland,
Rumania etc decides to give it.

Don't a bad deal assume that these countries have nothing to sell to us?

Sorry, its a £350 million contribution actually, as in the previous
sentence.

The whole Brexit argument is based on the claim that we're
net contributors to the EU. In which case the earlier the Brexiters
can rid themselves of this weekly £350 million contribution the
better. Which we can only do by accepting whatever crumbs the
likes of Poland and Rumania are willing to throw us from the table.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever, with that last.

Basically as net beneficiaries of the EU its in the interests
of Poland and Rumania to keep the UK dangling at the end
of the hook, and coughing up the weekly £350 million for
as long as possible.

They don’t have any capacity to do that. Britain is free to make
and obscene gesture in the general direction of the EU if it is
actually stupid enough to go that route and leave whenever
it likes, or it can just wait the 2 years and leave then.

And who knows within the two years Turkey may have joined as well.

Not a chance. There isnt the slightest possibility of them ever
getting even close to complying with what the EU requires to
even be considered as qualified to join, and there isnt even
the remotest possibility that they would be admitted with
all those MILLIONS of 'refugees' in that country that would
be free to move anywhere in the EU if they did. Even if
Turkey was admitted in spite of those considerations,
and it wouldn’t, it is literally impossible for it to be in
the EU in those 2 years.

With the UK standing outside in the corridor.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Britain is free to make
an obscene gesture in the general direction of the EU and
say that if that is the best that is on offer, its leaving, right now.

As to your other point I don't know what the current balance of
trade is between the UK and the likes of Poland and Rumania;

Sweet **** all except what the Poles and Rumania who are in Britain
choose to buy in Britain that comes from Poland and Rumania.

and I'd imagine what there is largely dependent on the number of Poles and
Rumanian currently living in the UK.

Of course it is.

But in the great scheme of things and total EU revenues, I'd imagine it
hardly amounts to the proverbial hill of beans.

Duh.

On 25/06/16 19:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
However from what I've been hearing its turning into wrinklies want out,
yooung wanted in
I see you are tuned in to the establishment propaganda.

That is of course largely crap.

And even if there was an element if truth in it, who has the most
experience of the real world, and politics,? A 22 year old just out of
UNI? Or a 70 year old who can remember life before the EU, and who has
seen governments and even nations, rise and fall?

To be old, is to have seen, if not everything, a hell of a lot MORE than
a teenager or a 20-something.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 25/06/16 22:01, Nick Odell wrote:
On 25/06/2016 21:40, michael adams wrote:
Snip
As others have said there's nothing to stop the UK breaking whatever
treaties it
likes; just so long as nobody minds the pound sterling losing its
status as
a reserve currency, dropping like a stone and ranking alongside the
Zimbabwean Dollar or the Argentinian Peso at the bottom of the bucket
Snip

Hey! I'll have you know I've got several thousand of they Argentine
Pesos in my wallet right now and with the pound plummeting as it has,
they are starting to look veeeerrrryyy attractive!


Pound coming up faster than the Euro.

Nick



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 25/06/16 22:09, alan_m wrote:
On 25/06/2016 21:40, michael adams wrote:




Basically the UK is losing £350 a week until it agrees to whatever
Poland,
Rumania etc decides to give it.

Don't a bad deal assume that these countries have nothing to sell to us?

Poland has been remarkably polite in its response. They aren't huge EU
fans either.

Being told to shut down their coal and nuclear power and build
windmills, throwing millions out of work..


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

"Nick Odell" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:57:40 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting
that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the
other
countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should be
given the opportunity

So on that basis, I think that it is completely unacceptable for the
unelected, unaccountable, jumped up, EU administrator to say "go and get
out
now!" before he can have possibly be advised as to the feelings of the
complete cohort of ministers.

Speaking as a remainer, I'd think that an understandable but very
risky tactic.

It wasn't a tactic

It was an acceptable outcome that would see us gaining less in return for
getting the deal done quicker.

It would see them losing less, in return for getting the deal done quicker.

They don't want to taken that route, just fine by me.

On a 20 year timetable, I don't think that this is a war that they can win,
we just have to be prepared to lose a lot of battles on the way.

tim

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2016 16:57, tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Listening to the Euro stuff on the news as I sit here

And there's all this stuff about how the EU officials are insisting
that
we do this and insisting that we do that

and I can't help but come to the conclusion that much of what they are
doing is simply "shooting the messenger"

I'm concluding they are doing *exactly* what 'we' would have done if the
positions were reversed.

And you really can't say you weren't warned.

You have to be Turnip to behave like a c**t and expect others to be
gentlemen towards you.

I'm sure that a lot of us who voted Leave did so in the hope that the
other countries might come up with a better offer for us to stay in.

If that were to happen that offer would have to come from the council of
ministers, who don't meet until next Monday.

Now, that may be very unlikely to happen but I do think that it should
be given the opportunity


I would argue that it is not possible to make a sensible decision about
leaving the EU until you know the terms and conditions of any future trade
and other agreements. The EU are unlikely to offer what we might think of
as favourable terms as they do not wish to encourage others to leave.

It appears, from what I heard on the radio, that we don't even have enough
experienced staff to run the negotiations properly.

That's because we haven't needed them for so long,

But,

We are the 5th largest economy in the world
We have the second best set of universities in the world (no-one else in
Europe even comes close)
We have one of the top 5 most desirable locations that the "elites" want to
live in.

The idea that we cant go out and employ the worlds best to these new roles
is nonsense

tim

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Britain doesn’t have to do anything like that. Just say "we're off, like
that or lump it, bye"

Of course, pet. Lets just tell the entire world any treaty we sign isn't
worth the paper it's printed on. Just the thing when attempting to
negotiate new trade deals with the Rest of the World.

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 09:56:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

To be old, is to have seen, if not everything, a hell of a lot MORE than
a teenager or a 20-something.

That's why I guffawed with laughter when Red Ed urged older voters to
learn from the "wisdom of the young" and vote Remain. What a tosser!