Brexit: Article 50 Has Been Triggered !

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Whereas Corbyn's communist Labour party would never have dreamed of doing anything like that...

I never said they wouldn't whereas Osem (as usual) implies they are the only ones who would consider capitulating to unrealistic demands .


Cheers


Dave

[Osem]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

You mean just like your beloved Conservatives have done to form yet another 'coalition' governement that nobody actually voted for


Cheers


Dave

Didn't see my mention of the SNP, Greens, Lib Dems then? Odd because you quoted it.

Also Labour are the official opposition so clearly what they say/do is more important than the rest.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Osem

Beloved Conservatives? Really? Hatred of Labour and their track record doesn't require love of the alternative you know. The Tories are the least worst option right now and at least they honoured the previous PM's promise of a referendum unlike the Labour party who reneged on theirs.

As for coalitions, minority governments and the like, forgotten the Lib-Lab pact have you? Wasn't that long ago that your chum Corbyn wanted his own minority government. I suppose another Labour Govt. which even fewer people voted for would be much better in your opinion. Classic hypocrisy as usual.

Ooops , my mistake don't know where I got the idea you where true blue - maybe something to do with the disdain you seem to show for anyone else....


As the blues now seem to be realising how popular some of the Labour policies are they have obviously realised to stay in power they need to look to the left and learn.


Anyway suppose we should stick to the topic.


Cheers


Dave

[Osem]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Ooops , my mistake don't know where I got the idea you where true blue - maybe something to do with the disdain you seem to show for anyone else....


As the blues now seem to be realising how popular some of the Labour policies are they have obviously realised to stay in power they need to look to the left and learn.


Anyway suppose we should stick to the topic.


Cheers


Dave

Strangely I haven't seen you challenge my supposed disdain for 'everyone else', only when it's Labour. Maybe you just don't like your beloved Labour criticised.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Isn't that pretty much how any economically diverse alliance (country) works? eg the UK? - more regions cost the country more than they contribute.


Cheers


Dave

No. that is not how 'pretty much' it should work because collectively, the EU is not a Country.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Isn't that pretty much how any economically diverse alliance (country) works? eg the UK? - more regions cost the country more than they contribute.


Cheers


Dave

Countries work that way because they act, with the consent of the people, as a single democratic unit.

The EU is not a single democratic unit. Our contributions have been financing projects in foreign countries. It is altogether different than the funding of a new bypass around Hull.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

a sample of 27 is more accurate than a sample of 1 ,thank you for pointing that out .

It's easier to predict the actions and opinions of 27 governments than it is just one and that's the one for the country you live in?

[Travelstar]

Originally Posted by Chris

Countries work that way because they act, with the consent of the people, as a single democratic unit.

The EU is not a single democratic unit. Our contributions have been financing projects in foreign countries. It is altogether different than the funding of a new bypass around Hull.

I'm curious why you have a problem with us funding 'foreign countries'. Of course there will be remitters and beneficiaries in any transaction. The hope was by helping other countries within the EU would help create an even bigger market and therefore make everyone richer.

It also worth reminding you that the UK's contribution to the EU budget is time compared to all other outlays.

In the fiscal year ending in 2016, total UK public spending was £761.9 billion. The UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.6 billion, however the UK received £2.8 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK's net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £10.8 billion.

£10.8bn out of £761.9bn is a tiny traction of our annual expenditure. The return from that £10.8bn outweighs our spending on many other areas.

Originally Posted by Travelstar

I'm curious why you have a problem with us funding 'foreign countries'. Of course there will be remitters and beneficiaries in any transaction. The hope was by helping other countries within the EU would help create an even bigger market and therefore make everyone richer.

It also worth reminding you that the UK's contribution to the EU budget is time compared to all other outlays.

In the fiscal year ending in 2016, total UK public spending was £761.9 billion. The UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.6 billion, however the UK received £2.8 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK's net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £10.8 billion.

£10.8bn out of £761.9bn is a tiny traction of our annual expenditure. The return from that £10.8bn outweighs our spending on many other areas.

Hope springs eternal, however there is at least one ghost airport in Spain that I can think of off the top of my head.

I have no problem with foreign aid as a concept, however I believe it should be controlled by the British government, not handed over to a bureaucracy in Brussels and then handed on as if it's their largesse. It seems you agree with the notion that foreign aid, where possible, should ultimately be of benefit to the benefactor, for example in the creation of a market for our goods. I agree with that too, and I think the British government is better placed to ensure our foreign aid is spent to that end.

Quibbling over the amount of our contribution is somewhat besides the point, in any case. It was an argument for or against leaving the EU, and that's an argument that was decided over a year ago. There is no point re-running those arguments now. Nevertheless, while £10bn may be only a small proportion of our overall annual expenditure, it is still in absolute terms a very large sum of money and one that I am glad will now be under our control.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

Hope springs eternal, however there is at least one ghost airport in Spain that I can think of off the top of my head.

I have no problem with foreign aid as a concept, however I believe it should be controlled by the British government, not handed over to a bureaucracy in Brussels and then handed on as if it's their largesse. It seems you agree with the notion that foreign aid, where possible, should ultimately be of benefit to the benefactor, for example in the creation of a market for our goods. I agree with that too, and I think the British government is better placed to ensure our foreign aid is spent to that end.

Quibbling over the amount of our contribution is somewhat besides the point, in any case. It was an argument for or against leaving the EU, and that's an argument that was decided over a year ago. There is no point re-running those arguments now. Nevertheless, while £10bn may be only a small proportion of our overall annual expenditure, it is still in absolute terms a very large sum of money and one that I am glad will now be under our control.

... and if there's sufficient pressure from the electorate it may well be that a good proportion can be spent on the NHS which is what so many people seem to be exercised about.

[Travelstar]

Originally Posted by Chris

Hope springs eternal, however there is at least one ghost airport in Spain that I can think of off the top of my head.

The EU is definitely not perfect. A number of schemes which were partially funded with EU money were poorly thought through. Mistakes also happen with national funding. I am sure we can all think of projects which probably should not have been invested in by the British government.

Originally Posted by Chris

I have no problem with foreign aid as a concept, however I believe it should be controlled by the British government, not handed over to a bureaucracy in Brussels and then handed on as if it's their largesse. It seems you agree with the notion that foreign aid, where possible, should ultimately be of benefit to the benefactor, for example in the creation of a market for our goods. I agree with that too, and I think the British government is better placed to ensure our foreign aid is spent to that end.

The EU makes policy at an overall EU level. This is to rise above national governments (at the appropriate times) and seek to help make policy and fund projects which help the overall European Union succeed (i.e. single market). Do you really want all of the 28 member states making decisions on every project across the entire union? That would make for very poor decision making. Also handing this funding and decision making back to national governments would mean that there are no funds available to help fund projects which benefit more than one member state.

Originally Posted by Chris

Quibbling over the amount of our contribution is somewhat besides the point, in any case. It was an argument for or against leaving the EU, and that's an argument that was decided over a year ago. There is no point re-running those arguments now. Nevertheless, while £10bn may be only a small proportion of our overall annual expenditure, it is still in absolute terms a very large sum of money and one that I am glad will now be under our control.

I'm sorry, but your comment above is absurd. If we took that approach, then perhaps all of you should have stopped complaining after the 1975 vote when we voted to join/remain part of the EEC/EU.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Travelstar

Do you really want all of the 28 member states making decisions on every project across the entire union? .

After we have left, the 27 can do whatever they choose to do. Britain will make our own independent decisions.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by passingbat

After we have left, the 27 can do whatever they choose to do. Britain will make our own independent decisions.

Yup, they can spend as much time as they like arguing the toss amongst themselves choosing which EU rules they do/don't obey and who's going to make up the shortfall when the UK's huge contribution to the Brussels coffers disappears.

[Travelstar]

Originally Posted by passingbat

After we have left, the 27 can do whatever they choose to do. Britain will make our own independent decisions.

As expected, you have dodged the actual topic about what is happening now.

Originally Posted by Osem

Yup, they can spend as much time as they like arguing the toss amongst themselves choosing which EU rules they do/don't obey and who's going to make up the shortfall when the UK's huge contribution to the Brussels coffers disappears.

As expected, you have dodged the actual topic about what is happening now.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Travelstar

As expected, you have dodged the actual topic about what is happening now.



As expected, you have dodged the actual topic about what is happening now.

What is happening now is that we are leaving the EU and as someone who firmly believes the EU is based on a fatally flawed concept and has no future, I'm very comfortable with that prospect and believe the UK's future is more secure in our own hands.