and now it's I WAS ONLY JOKING.

You're deluded if you think anyone cares if you have them on ignore. We can still read your nonsense posts and reply to the delight of other more reasonable, knowledgeable people.

It's all very well thinking the current deal would pass through parliament if changes were made to the backstop but the EU have already said they will not reopen the withdrawal agreement so what is going to happen next?

I don't run away. I just put you on ignore when you start the personal stuff. I'm amazed Chezlaw puts up with your nonsense and doesn't do the same tbh.

I quite like talking to you nd listening to what you have to say when you're actually saying something tho, not just attacking people or arguing about truly nitty or totally off-topic points (see previous posts about betting stuff for example).

Interesting bet but one that requires some knowledge of Wolves.

I tend to stay away from markets that depend on having more knowledge than the market (unless you count using historic data, which is how I bet on racing), and try to judge if too many people are taking one side of an event so it can be opposed (natural herding instinct of the betting male). This forum, Betfair and other forums and pub life in general has been very helpful in that regard (as too is the ability to lay on the exchanges).

EU starting to sweat too, and one of their number suggested 5 year limit the other day. They want that 39 bill too.

Run away = avoid answering posts, which people have accused you of more often than you should feel comfortable with.

Sorry about the off topic betting stuff, if you're not interested.

Interesting question but I have no idea. Depends far too much on how it goes, how's its perceived to be going, what the EU does, what the r.o.w does, what trade deals we've done etc etc.

Yeah, I overstated that, I don't mind off topic. It's the personal stuff I find distasteful. There's only so many times you can put up with being called a racist (directly or by implication) or a liar before it is 'ok that's enough of that for now'.

I don't mind being called stupid in its various forms though, that's just banter and to and fro.

The future of Scotland would be a major factor. If they become independent that's several million voters gone, with the majority voting to remain.

If EU reformed and implemented subsidiarity properly (and lost political/fiscal union as its main goal), I'd be all for joining/staying in. (I am also not a lover of its rules-based approach to stuff, should be principles-based and light-touch, but that's a different argument maybe)

I think supranational agreement is definitely the level of environmental decisions, worker rights, trading and service provision standards, and basic human rights. And travel infrastructure.

I think free capital movement is sketchy, and people movement is not a suitable item for supranational level decisions (I think the only reason the EU want free movement of people is to build its own status as the de facto seat of sovereignty rather than member states). I also think natural resources (such as fishing grounds) are not something to be dictated about supra-nationally (excepting environmental controls).

It's when it tries to pull everything else into its sphere (eg the Euro makes money its sphere) that I strongly object.

Ireland could leave the EU is a perfectly acceptable answer to the whole does it want a border or not question.

If it wants to be in the EU, which is a trade block, a border with non members is going to be a a reality of that arrangement.

If it decides having no border is more important than what it feels it gains from being a member of the trade block, it can leave it.

The border is not some political insistence of the EU, its a reality of how commerce and economic activity must operate inside/outside a trade block.

This is something I hear a lot, and it's way overstated.

Even to the UK 39Bn is a fraction of 1% of GDP and would be amortised over several years, amounting to very little; to the EU it's a drop in the ocean.

I think it's being used mainly for its a) ethical value (paying one's dues), b) symbolic value and c) as a future warning to other states about the cost of leaving.

I think it's overstated too, but it's there in the mix.

I think we should pay it, but don't see anything wrong making the payment steps based on progress of talks, keeps the EU's attention that way. It's any hint we won't pay all we agreed to that I wouldn't like to see.

The leverage to us of withholding is minimal, while I think it looks scummy to withhold part of what we acknowledge we owe if the other side are after full payment - it's not like we can't afford it and we don't want to end up looking like that Eli Elezra chap to trading partners we want good deals with, do we?

International image/reputation is an important thing in business and politics - even some of the yanks in Politics say unpleasant things about the UK.

I disagreed with May's decision to pay up without anything except goodwill back, but that's what she decided and she's PM - so we should, indeed pay up, if nothing else because we said we would.

The thing is, I understand the 39 bill is only due if the agreement is made.

Is that right? Or has the flannel of the press confused me?


PS. I'm not one of those that say we should pay nothing if it doesn't work out, btw. That's reprehensible, we have some commitments (maybe not 39 bill as that's a negotiated rather than clearly owed and billed settlement, but there's surely some)

I thought the £39Bn was up front to enter into the finer points of free trade agreements once we reached a deal (basically the cost of getting free trade really), but I could be wrong.

Also, I don't believe either of us know what the actual, real amount owed is, or even if it can be arrived at definitively because so much will be future cost.

It might be negotiable with the EU of course, which if they agree I'm fine with. I just don't want us being stuck with the look of people who try to whine and welch their way out of agreed sums.

This language of "pay up" is despicable. That is money we owe from things to which we have committed. It is absurd that people should seek to use it as leverage.

It's worse than absurd, it's cheap and scammy.

I hate to say it but in conversations with workmates most of the leavers were under the impression that £39Bn was a vast sum of money to the UK, because as it turned out a) they had nfi what the GDP of UK is and b) they were thinking in terms of annual payments, not one-off lump sums.

These are the same people who barely bat an eyelid at shelling out £500-£1k every 5 years for a new TV.

lol leavers as usual

Lol seriously brexiteers are still saying this? Did we not laugh at them enough last time?

It's a formula that was agreed to that covers our obligations from the past up to the end 2020. 39B is an estimated total based on that formula.

Refusing to pay our obligations would be scummy and isn't on the cards - boris & co are playing a tad fast and lose with the truth. What the Uk could do is refuse the formula and consider every obligation as it arise (there's also assets so it's not one way). This would be a disaster for all but the lawyers/etc - it's like the difference between a couple agreeing a straightforward divorce settlement that's close enough instead of bitterly arguing over every individual thing in court.

The law is untested so it's possible the UK could be really scummy and get away with it but I doubt anyone would do that in practice


Indeed.

On the other side we can be reasonably confident that demographics will help the remain/rejoin unless something so dramatic happens that people like you and me don't want to rejoin either - only thing I can think of is the far right getting control in Brussels and some key Europe countries

Cross-party group of MPs pull second referendum amendment plans, blaming lack of Corbyn support

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/se...jeremy-corbyn/

I believe that's technically correct but is a bit of an angle shoot as the understanding was that that had been agreed come what may.

I assume none of have a clue how fair a deal the 39B (or the underlying formula ) beyond that both sides seemed ok with it.

I wont be in future as I don't want to see the forum nuked.

The new rules seem to be really helping - the discussion is already far better and that's during a lull in brexit news. Some banter is fine of course.

same here on all points mate