Quantcast
Should the UK remain a member of the EU - Page 636 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Anny Road

Should the UK remain a member of the EU

  

299 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the UK remain a member of the EU

    • Yes
      242
    • No
      57


Recommended Posts

Jesus this is tough.

 

Do you think negotiations with the EU will be easier before or after several years of hostile litigation?

 

Ind

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus this is tough.

 

Do you think negotiations with the EU will be easier before or after several years of hostile litigation?

Indeed but the real point is any settlement going to be paid in instalments over many years not in a lump sum. The question of the EU trousering the dosh and then telling us to fuck off doesn't arise

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn’t leverage then why would the EU just agree to discuss it whilst or after the trade deal then? It really is simple. I can’t understand how you are failing to see that. Also why wouldn’t the UK have just agreed a figure?

 

All I’m seeing again is the same old nonsense. “We will lose credibility.” With who exactly? We are left to negotiate with the EU anyway and they want us to fail so why give them 50bn to just do what they’re going to do anyway? The rest of the world aren’t going to give a shit that we didn’t pay the EU 50bn into a budget that has no impact on them. Again just complete nonsense. They will want to negotiate a trade deal that will benefit their country. They’re not going to say “we aren’t taking you’re money you didn’t settle a bill with the EU.” Do you realise how stupid that sounds?

 

Any major business here is going to reconsider its position here because we are leaving the EU. It will have nothing to do with us paying the Brexit bill. You’re just muddying the waters on the specific point.

 

Any nation that we're looking to sign new trade deals with will give a shit that we pulled out of our trade deal with the EU and didn't pay up what we owed because, well, no court could enforce payment (even if that were true). I'd imagine most big business looking to invest here would also baulk at our second-hand car dealer fuck you attitude to legally binding deals, as would the banks that we still borrow billions from every year.

 

Look at it on a personal level - would you be happy to enter into a financial partnership with an organisation that you knew had just pulled out of a previous financial partnership with another party and left that party to pay the bills that the organisation you were looking to deal with had previously agreed to pay?

 

How could you be sure that they wouldn't tell you to fuck off and pay their bills once they decided they could get a better deal elsewhere? And if you couldn't be sure, why would you enter into a deal with them?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


David Davis: I’ve done all my homework in excruciating detail … Davis: …but, er, the dog ate it … Davis: Okay it’s more of a summary … Davis: I have not done my homework and it would have been wrong of me to do the homework


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that this 'divorce' bill is nothing more than us being expected to meet our EU obligations that we've committed to up until the date we leave, as you'd be expected to do of any society you are a member of, and that continued access to the customs union and single market will require further regular payments.

 

I suppose you could use the payment as a negotiating tool for a trade deal, but if you were the EU, if you were faced with someone dicking you about over their existing obligations, why would you contemplate giving them future access not knowing if they'd meet the payments, or constantly trying to renegotiate the payments for doing so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you could use the payment as a negotiating tool for a trade deal, but if you were the EU, if you were faced with someone dicking you about over their existing obligations, why would you contemplate giving them future access not knowing if they'd meet the payments, or constantly trying to renegotiate the payments for doing so?

 

Every Brexiteer is convinced that the EU is bluffing. If the EU digs in on something, it's a sign they are bluffing. If the EU agrees to something, it's a sign they are bluffing. This is why the UK agreed to the sequencing proposed by the EU, something David Davis had said would be 'the row of the summer' then accepted on the first day of negotiations. Fine, we'll agree to it now because you will fold later. Should happen any day now . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I suppose you could use the payment as a negotiating tool for a trade deal, but if you were the EU, if you were faced with someone dicking you about over their existing obligations, why would you contemplate giving them future access not knowing if they'd meet the payments, or constantly trying to renegotiate the payments for doing so?

 

However they dress it up it is effectively payment in instalments for a trade deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any nation that we're looking to sign new trade deals with will give a shit that we pulled out of our trade deal with the EU and didn't pay up what we owed because, well, no court could enforce payment (even if that were true). I'd imagine most big business looking to invest here would also baulk at our second-hand car dealer fuck you attitude to legally binding deals, as would the banks that we still borrow billions from every year.

 

Look at it on a personal level - would you be happy to enter into a financial partnership with an organisation that you knew had just pulled out of a previous financial partnership with another party and left that party to pay the bills that the organisation you were looking to deal with had previously agreed to pay?

 

How could you be sure that they wouldn't tell you to fuck off and pay their bills once they decided they could get a better deal elsewhere? And if you couldn't be sure, why would you enter into a deal with them?

More of these fucking stupid analogies. You’ve somehow managed to confuse the UK refusing pay their share of EU budget for the next few years because we are leaving with a trade deal. The whole post is completely baffling and it makes you appear like a complete idiot. If a new country enters into a trade deal with us that is not the same as becoming a member of the EU.

 

All that happens in a trade deal is that you agree what tariffs or quotas (hopefully none) that each side will place on each other. We generally import more than we export so countries will be more than happy to take out money because we are growing their economy. They are not going to give a shite about us not paying some agreed budget amount to an organisation they aren’t part of and as far as I’m aware we aren’t joining another EU type organisation where countries have to worry about our previous behaviour involved in them. I can’t believe I’m actually having to type this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However they dress it up it is effectively payment in instalments for a trade deal

No. That comes after this is agreed.

 

Any deal offered will still be better than no deal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. That comes after this is agreed.

Any deal offered will still be better than no deal though.

Nothing is signed off till everything is done and dusted. It will be an agreement in principle on a figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that this 'divorce' bill is nothing more than us being expected to meet our EU obligations that we've committed to up until the date we leave, as you'd be expected to do of any society you are a member of, and that continued access to the customs union and single market will require further regular payments.

 

I suppose you could use the payment as a negotiating tool for a trade deal, but if you were the EU, if you were faced with someone dicking you about over their existing obligations, why would you contemplate giving them future access not knowing if they'd meet the payments, or constantly trying to renegotiate the payments for doing so?

I think you’re right Anubis. From their point of view they will be thinking who do these cunts think they are. They agreed to this budget so they should pay their share. On top of this though I don’t think they’ve got any intention of giving us access to the single market. I think the UK govt knows that as well. If they did they would just say okay the Brexit bill is this and on top of that the access to the single market is going to cost you this. Instead they have outright refused to talk about it. That’s because they want the Brexit bill paid before they tell us to fuck off regarding trade and that’s the reason the UK hasn’t agreed it.

 

In terms of them being worried about dicking about etc the EU easily just say your payments to access the single market are up front.

 

The EU wants the UK to fail and there is less chance of that happening if we get access to the single market. They do not want us making a success out of it as it will encourage others to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of these fucking stupid analogies. You’ve somehow managed to confuse the UK refusing pay their share of EU budget for the next few years because we are leaving with a trade deal. The whole post is completely baffling and it makes you appear like a complete idiot. If a new country enters into a trade deal with us that is not the same as becoming a member of the EU.

 

All that happens in a trade deal is that you agree what tariffs or quotas (hopefully none) that each side will place on each other. We generally import more than we export so countries will be more than happy to take out money because we are growing their economy. They are not going to give a shite about us not paying some agreed budget amount to an organisation they aren’t part of and as far as I’m aware we aren’t joining another EU type organisation where countries have to worry about our previous behaviour involved in them. I can’t believe I’m actually having to type this out.

 

I never suggested it was. But you must be a special kind of stupid if you think that us welshing on agreed payments with one body (the EU) on the basis that no-one can make us pay up isn't going to impact on any other body considering dealing with us. 

 

Trust might not count for much in your little world, but it would to people who are negotiating deals involving billions of pounds and the stability of their nations or corporations. And why would they trust us if we do as you think we should?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never suggested it was. But you must be a special kind of stupid if you think that us welshing on agreed payments with one body (the EU) on the basis that no-one can make us pay up isn't going to impact on any other body considering dealing with us.

 

Trust might not count for much in your little world, but it would to people who are negotiating deals involving billions of pounds and the stability of their nations or corporations. And why would they trust us if we do as you think we should?

Your post is an absolute car crash mate. Seriously go back and read it. We are exiting the EU not a trade deal. The thing I’m suggesting to not pay has got fuck all to do with a future trade deal with a non-EU country. If we sign a trade deal with one of these countries it will have mutually beneficial rules. If we were to back out on them and start trying to charge tax on imports they would just respond in kind and tax their goods or set quotas. I don’t understand how you are mixing up the EU agreed budget with a trade deal. These countries have the chance to access the UK’s import industry which will make them money. They aren’t going to turn that down because the UK didn’t pay into a budget or some organisation they’ve got no part of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post is an absolute car crash mate. Seriously go back and read it. We are exiting the EU not a trade deal. The thing I’m suggesting to not pay has got fuck all to do with a future trade deal with a non-EU country. If we sign a trade deal with one of these countries it will have mutually beneficial rules. If we were to back out on them and start trying to charge tax on imports they would just respond in kind and tax their goods or set quotas. I don’t understand how you are mixing up the EU agreed budget with a trade deal. These countries have the chance to access the UK’s import industry which will make them money. They aren’t going to turn that down because the UK didn’t pay into a budget or some organisation they’ve got no part of.

 

You might try reading back my posts before responding as you did. I only wish I'd read through all your posts on is before I bothered trying to engage in debate with someone who hasn't the first clue about/ regard for the concept of trust and reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might try reading back my posts before responding as you did. I only wish I'd read through all your posts on is before I bothered trying to engage in debate with someone who hasn't the first clue about/ regard for the concept of trust and reputation.

Fucking comical. I’ll add that to a list of the reasons why we should pay the Brexit bill. Come back when you’ve read a book on economics mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking comical. I’ll add that to a list of the reasons why we should pay the Brexit bill. Come back when you’ve read a book on economics mate.

Our credit rating and ability to borrow? Been pointed out several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our credit rating and ability to borrow? Been pointed out several times.

I could have sworn he wrote the concept of trust and reputation. Maybe I’m wrong though. Do you want me to post a link to the LFC official site and tell you it’s an article on the leasehold scandal to prove he said it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammond confirms to committee that the UK will pay what it owed regardless of whether or not the UK gets a trade deal.

 

Also confirms that the government haven't discussed what kind of deal it wants and that the costs of a no deal will dwarf the money owed to the EU.

 

Erm, I thought we were paying having had assurances about trade. Quick, someone phone Phil. He's not speaking off the provided script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have sworn he wrote the concept of trust and reputation. Maybe I’m wrong though. Do you want me to post a link to the LFC official site and tell you it’s an article on the leasehold scandal to prove he said it?

I mentioned credit rating, reputation has a bearing. So?

 

Do you think not paying will have a negative impact on our credit rating and ability to borrow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned credit rating, reputation has a bearing. So?

 

Do you think not paying will have a negative impact on our credit rating and ability to borrow?

I’m not sure, you tell me? I’m sure our ability to pay anything we loan back is more important.

 

That’s wasnt my point though and hasn’t been. You know the one you keep skirting around and changing the subject on. I’ve no doubt the UK will be massively damaged economically by leaving the EU. I’m not a leaver. I’ve kept you off hide Rico because I thought you were less tedious than some of the people I’ve got on hide but you’ll know why if you don’t get any responses in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure, you tell me? I’m sure our ability to pay anything we loan back is more important.

 

That’s wasnt my point though and hasn’t been. You know the one you keep skirting around and changing the subject on. I’ve no doubt the UK will be massively damaged economically by leaving the EU. I’m not a leaver. I’ve kept you off hide Rico because I thought you were less tedious than some of the people I’ve got on hide but you’ll know why if you don’t get any responses in future.

Are you mental? This morning I was ‘a boring Tory who writes nonsense’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • Virgil Van Dijk says Liverpool were prepared for a stern test of their credentials when they came up against the free-flowing RB Salzburg side on Tuesday night.

      After surviving a storming fight back from the Austrian outfit in their game at Anfield two months ago, they knew that they were facing a team who do not fear anyone.

      Speaking after the game to the Official site after the 2-0 victory which sealed Liverpool’s passage to the knockout stages, Van Dijk was proud with the way his team came through.

      “We had to be ready - and ready for a very tough night because they are a good side.

      “They play a little bit similar to what we try to do, direct and try to get in behind the defence and stretch them. They did well.

      “We had to be ready and we dealt with it and then obviously at the end of the first half we had the opportunities to score for 1-0, maybe 2-0 with Naby but unfortunately we didn't do that.

      “In the second half we were very mature and played a great second half."

      Despite the scores locked at 0-0 at the half time interval, it was a first half full of captivating and free flowing Football.

      With the game still on a knife-edge, Van Dijk said it was all about showing their quality when it truly mattered.

      “The belief is always there but you have to show how much you really want it.

      "I think especially the second half we can look back good on. 

      “The goals we scored were very good, the whole second half I think everyone looked comfortable.

      “Obviously at times they broke on us and that's the quality they have as well and you have to give them credit for that, too, and we dealt with it pretty well."  

      Van Dijk was clearly delighted for Naby Keita who opened the scoring against his former side and hoped it was the start of something special for the 24 year-old midfielder.

      "It was a big night for him and I'm very happy for him to be that important and hopefully he can keep being important like the rest of the boys.

      “He's a very good player and we all can see that and today he showed it with the goal as well."

      The talismanic defender poked fun at the profligacy of Mo Salah on the evening, saying it was all part of his plan to keep the fans on the edge of their seats.

      “He could have made it a little bit easier for us tonight!   "I told him that as well, that he tried to make it a little bit more excited for the crowd maybe.

      “He missed a chance in the first half, a big one, but you see his goal in the second half and that's the quality he has got, like the rest of the players.

      But Van Dijk saved his highest praise for his captain in Jordan Henderson.

      He is a fantastic player, a fantastic captain and everyone is looking up to him and he is very important for us,"

      “Like him, we have everyone that we need, and today he was very important with the assist and also in the game as well."



       
      View full article
    • I didn't mean to put Everton  I meant arsenal 
    • Jürgen Klopp has hailed the resilience and intelligence of his side after Liverpool passed a searching test against RB Salzburg on Tuesday.

      Two goals in as many minutes just before the hour mark by Naby Keita and a brilliant Mo Salah finish were enough for the Reds to progress to the knockout stages.

      While the result may look routine in the record books in the years ahead, it was anything but as the visitors had to be at their defensive best to keep a clean sheet against their high octane opponents.

      What would have undoubtedly impressed Klopp the most was that his side were able to get the job done once again in a pressurised situation.

      A loss in this fixture would have meant Europa League duty, which would have been a massive blow to confidence within the squad.

      But the mentality that this team has been built upon came to the fore and Klopp told the assembled media pack afterwards about the pride he felt, as well as paying a glowing tribute to their opponents.   The Mirror reported the manager as saying:

      “I couldn't have more respect for what Salzburg are doing.   "You see how good they are, how good they were in the first game, how good they were against Napoli.

      “You could come here as current Champions League winners and misunderstand it.   "But my team is so smart, and I really love it that they listen and put a shift in like that.

      “ Salzburg were unbelievably strong especially in the first half but we were as well and were ready for the fight. 

      “We should have scored in the first half and then in the second half, it's not easy to keep that intensity but we scored the goals.”

      Salah had what you could describe as a mixed evening at the office.

      He was unusually wasteful in front of goal, but made up for that with a goal from an incredibly acute angle which only the very best of players could even contemplate of scoring.  

      "How do I explain it? Thank God I don't have to! It was for sure the most difficult situation he had tonight.

      “He played really well but didn't score in the situations we expect him to score, staying on track and making such a decisive but difficult finish says probably much more about him than all the other goals he scored.

      “He stayed concentrated, believed in the next moment and it was a very, very good goal. A sensational finish.”


       
      View full article
    • "Flounder?? I can't even catch her!!"
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

×