upupup wrote: » here's what he said;.."The backstop may lead to a border poll which may result in Ulster joining the republic of Ireland against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland"????
Strazdas wrote: » If your sum total knowledge of the EU is precisely zero, it's the easiest thing in the world to convince you it's a dictatorship, it's corrupt, it's trying to take over Britain etc. The big fault of successive British governments is they made absolutely no attempt to sell the EU to the public or talk up its positives, it was just this thing going on in the background that people didn't know much about. The icing on the cake was that hawkish Eurosceptic Cameron becoming PM and talking about the union purely in negative terms.
upupup wrote: » A brexiteer on sky news today at midday talking about the backstop problem..I dont know if he was confused or just had no idea but this is what he said which left me a bit confused. here's what he said;.."The backstop may lead to a border poll which may result in Ulster joining the republic of Ireland against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland"????
lawred2 wrote: » my MIL is over from Scotland telling me how she recently listened to Farage and "how he just talks facts all the time - you know facts like the EU is corrupt" I normally try to contain myself but it was out before I could stop myself - "just how the absolute f**k is that a verifiable fact? - that's a f**ing opinion - and a moronic one at that" spare room tonight
FreudianSlippers wrote: » It's just confusing that you keep saying RoI if you're not talking about a soccer team is all.
devnull wrote: » The problem is though as much as people debunk it on twitter, only me and you are going to see that, the average Joe that they target with this spam isn't going to see it being debunked, sadly.
CelticRambler wrote: » The maths are there in Dytalus' second post: UK pays £13bn to the EU (after rebate); the UK receives £4bn from the EU in financial assistance, including farm subsidies; Total annual payment from UK to EU = £9bn Total annual payment from UK to NI = £10.8bn So if the "£350m a day" was a good enough reason for England to want to leave the EU, it won't be long before it's a good enough reason for England to boot the Paddies out of the UK.
downcow wrote: » It wasn’t me raised the soccer team and I never discussed or mentioned it. I am already under pressure from mod for not being careful enough how I word my replies to pretty predjudiced stuff directed at me. So I refuse to discuss the soccer team here. I need to stay squeaky clean. Mind you I would love to on another thread!
Hurrache wrote: » It's been debunked, quite easily, by experts on Twitter the last few days.
WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020, ITS WORSE THAN THE SO CALLED DEAL, IF 99% OF THE BRITISH THINK THIS THE DEAL IS BAD JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAIMERS..“What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all. 1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed. 2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s. 3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty. 4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled - but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.) 5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK. 6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today. 7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals. 8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs. 9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas. 10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights 11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights 12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty 13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation 14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent 15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy 16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them 17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealths 18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc 19: The UK loses control of its judicial system 20: The UK loses control of its international policy 21: The UK loses full control of its national policy 22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right. 23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program 24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction 25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty 26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020 This is the future that the youths of today think we stole from them? They should be on their knees thanking us for saving them from being turned into Orwellian automatons, if we escape from control of the EU.
prawnsambo wrote: » There's a simpler way of expressing it. Duplicating the devolved administrative functions that the EU carries out on behalf of all its members has cost the UK £4.2 billion so far. And they are a long way from duplicating all aspects. And these aren't once-off costs. They will continue for as long as the UK is outside the EU. Thousands of civil servants (7,000 the last time I looked) are tasked with the project. The requirement is for thousands more in customs, revenue, inspection regimes, technical areas like standards and a raft of other areas that I can't even begin to think of. If they get out of this with less than 20k staff, they will be doing well. But the cost will be astronomical. And all those costs will be incurred regardless of what kind of brexit is chosen.
ilovesmybrick wrote: » The simple answer is that the EU spends a rather large amount on peripheral and deprived regions that are not being taken care of, nor will they be, by central government. In terms of whether there's a net loss or gain on the contribution to the EU is a rather misleading concept as the benefits of EU membership go beyond the payments and do not break down as simply as that. For example, the UK may pay more in and get less out directly. However, access to the single market produces economic boosts that will not be reflected well on a simple balance sheet. Like the Horizon 2020 schemes which are an indirect economic benefit that leads to a more attractive research environment. This desire to calculate payments in and out is a very simplistic and misleading metric. On a personal level I may make a loss on my personal taxation towards the country I live in based on any payments for health care or social welfare I take out, but that loss would not take into account the upkeep of infrastructure or the benefits of social cohesion and a stable society.
downcow wrote: I know I need to be extra careful about language I use. But any chance of answering my question?
downcow wrote: » I know I need to be extra careful about language I use. But any chance of answering my question?
10000maniacs wrote: » If I was a Northern Irish farmer, I would be seriously thinking of selling off a substantial percentage of my livestock to marts in the ROI in the next month or so.
Dytalus wrote: » The EU has, from it's EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) provided just shy of €170 million so far during the 2014-2020 funding cycle for Northern Ireland. This funding is dedicated to development of farming regions, rather than direct subsidies to farmers. Meanwhile, through the common agricultural policy funding, Northern Ireland was given roughly €220 million for 2014-2020 in pillar 2 funding, and over €2 billion in Pillar 1. That's a lot of money the UK is going to have to start paying their farmers in Northern Ireland to make up for lost EU Funding on top of the already £10 billion a year they spend propping up NI anyway. To say this is not a problem (or, as you phrased it "I don’t agree with the two negatives you outline") is being a little bit too hopeful.True, the UK contributes considerably more than that per year to the EU budget, but that all gets pooled into other funds, like the various EU Structural and Investment Funds..which prioritise the poorer regions of Europe in terms of giving funding - a lot of which are in the UK. Are those regions going to be getting money alongside NI farmers? How much? Will the UK be able to afford it, or will it all get pooled into London like so much of their money does? Since the EUSF are geared towards propping up poorer regions, the underdeveloped parts of the UK have been supported - effectively - by the wealthier regions in Germany and France which get proportionately less due to their greater development. Do you think the British government will properly balance the funding and subsidies which previously came out of EUSF funding, or will they (as HMG has a history of doing) prioritise Britain over NI? You're pinning a lot on the good will of HMG towards NI, when they've shown time and time again that NI is considered more a thorn in their side than an worthwhile member of the Union.
downcow wrote: » I struggle to completely understand all the figure here. Is the not what the Eu do best. Just muddy the finances so as we can’t get a handle on it. It would be helpful if you could tell me does UK pay in more that we get out? That seems to be the key as to whether they can afford to replace any Eu support NI is getting
RobMc59 wrote: » The point about smuggling is a fair point but that's not all Spain are complaining about(they want Gibraltar) and in view of the disputed enclaves in Morocco(which I thought had been ceded!) is massive hypocrisy
jm08 wrote: » I don't see the relevance of the status of the Canaries when it comes to smuggling, workers rights etc. between Spain and Gibraltar. What Spain wants is for Gibraltar to apply the same rules as it does to level the playing field if they want to retain access to the EU.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Because after the next election (which could be very soon) no-one in London will care about what the DUP ruled out or in.
Dytalus wrote: » The EU has, from it's EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) provided just shy of €170 million so far during the 2014-2020 funding cycle for Northern Ireland. This funding is dedicated to development of farming regions, rather than direct subsidies to farmers. Meanwhile, through the common agricultural policy funding, Northern Ireland was given roughly €220 million for 2014-2020 in pillar 2 funding, and over €2 billion in Pillar 1. That's a lot of money the UK is going to have to start paying their farmers in Northern Ireland to make up for lost EU Funding on top of the already £10 billion a year they spend propping up NI anyway. To say this is not a problem (or, as you phrased it "I don’t agree with the two negatives you outline") is being a little bit too hopeful. True, the UK contributes considerably more than that per year to the EU budget, but that all gets pooled into other funds, like the various EU Structural and Investment Funds..which prioritise the poorer regions of Europe in terms of giving funding - a lot of which are in the UK. Are those regions going to be getting money alongside NI farmers? How much? Will the UK be able to afford it, or will it all get pooled into London like so much of their money does? Since the EUSF are geared towards propping up poorer regions, the underdeveloped parts of the UK have been supported - effectively - by the wealthier regions in Germany and France which get proportionately less due to their greater development. Do you think the British government will properly balance the funding and subsidies which previously came out of EUSF funding, or will they (as HMG has a historyof doing) prioritise Britain over NI? You're pinning a lot on the good will of HMG towards NI, when they've shown time and time again that NI is considered more a thorn in their side than an worthwhile member of the Union.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » It has absolutely nothing to do with the EU and Ireland (why you continue to post about the soccer team is ultimately very confusing) - the UK will need a border in the event of a no-deal Brexit to comply with WTO trading rules. Trying to sell this as something the EU is forcing on Ireland/NI is ridiculous.
