Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[4bars]

Did you actually read your own links? The EU is having to try and support the Libyan coastguard to prevent people smugglers, and has no say over who controls that coast guard. If some local warlord goes off reservation, is that the EU's fault? What would the alternative be? Don't support the Libyans, and instead let tens of thousands of people potentially drown at sea or be trafficked by people smugglers who may very well sell them off into sexual slavery, or indentured labour at the other end?

Yes I did, and the coastguards are well known warlords and smugglers themselves and the EU knows. Don't get me that the EU is tricked by them. The problem is that when this coastguards bring them back, they sell them again to the smugglers or directly as slaves and sexual slaves. And the EU pays the boat, the gas and the guns. I definitely think that EU should take better care of the refugees and migrants from a country (and area) that they disistabilized

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The EU are forced to choose between several shitty options, and then people like yourself accuse them of being responsible for the shitty option they had to choose. What SHOULD they do? What would you have done if you were in the EU leadership?

Mate, they are earning money, Is their feckING job to sort this things out, not me that is the one that pays (repeat, not anymore for now) I would do things differently, but of course I would not arrive at that levels of power with my ideas

The TTIP thing sure, I'm right there with you. How is the other stuff down to the EU though? Hell even TTIP is only going through because the governments of each country actually want it. I'm not sure how any of its specifically an EU issue.

I think I told you, States are as much responsible, but if the EU is useless in that matter, why we need it?

No matter how idealistic the EU parliament is (and it often is), the member states governments are always going to determine current direction. The reason I respect it though is because the EU itself tries to be more. It tries to encourage morality and equality and fraternity, and sets out hugely ambitious goals for the future of Europe. It doesn't always meet those goals, and maybe it never will, but personally I'd sure as hell rather be a part of a union that actually wants those things and works towards those things even if it falls short, than just a member state that doesn't really care about much more than maintaining a healthy economy for the next election.

And I agree in all that, that is why we have to be critics and speaking in forums and sharing our disconformity to push ideas as a connected community and keep ourselves informed

There are very good things in EU, but very bad too. In my opinion I expect way more from the EU to want further integration in it.

 

[Kentonio]

Mate, they are earning money, Is their feckING job to sort this things out, not me that is the one that pays (repeat, not anymore for now) I would do things differently, but of course I would not arrive at that levels of power with my ideas

So we're falling back on the bloke down the pub answer of 'not my job mate'? What if there isn't a good choice to make? Why do we assume that there's always a magical food option out there just waiting to be found?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Im referring to asylum seekers who come to Europe.

Ah ok, but then that's not unlimited amounts as you posted.

 

[devilish]

I agree, the harm is already done. What I am asking is for more regulation in selling arms and which wars where you can intervene in the future and to stop the hypocrisy to "why I have to take care of the refugees?" well, because your government did sell arms and wage on war and received money from that, and you are enjoying that money with public services. IN that sense, Germany did it decently, they received a big amount of immigrants and more important, the majority of the population accepted them as a decent human beings. Countries like Poland or Hungary and Spain don't do their share, and they enjoy EU advantages too.

About your points:

a) that is why triage exist
b) sort of agree

I don't agree much in closed borders. I am European for sheer luck, why I have more right to have a job than another that was born in a shit country for sheer unluck? I believe while a person can be productive, should be allowed and instead of punishing illegal workers, they should punish the company that hires them. But I recognize is a sketchy topic and clashes with the whole system and the collapse of it, but as a person that migrated and worked in several countries (some temporary others more seriously and even been mildly deported (as it was backpacking and I am a happy happy privileged first world countryman), I think immigration should be controlled for who you are and you do but not from where you are

Look I am all in favour of that, although rest assured that if Europe stepped out, then others will step in and Saudi will get weapons from elsewhere (China? Russia? US? UK?). What we need is pressure on a global level ie were these regimes will turn their heads around and find no help at all. We can only achieve that if

A- Europe (whose not perfect but is still the good guy here) is influential enough to influence the other blocs
B- The other blocs co-operate

Hence why I am so pro Europe

Regarding illegal immigration I assure you its a massive scam. Most immigrants aren't even refugees but asylum seekers. For years Malta received an endless stream of young males, strong enough to eat the likes of prime Vidic and Keane for breakfast with 1 token heavily pregnant woman on each boat. It seems 'war' doesn't effect women, children and elderly people. I've got mates at immigration and they tell you that most come to Europe with the same copy and paste sob story (they know what to say to remain) and knowing fully well that Europe can't send them back (no repatriation deal in those, perfectly safe, countries. )

Don't take me wrong, this is a European problem and its unfair for us, Spain, Greece, Italy and co to nanny hordes of immigrants all by ourselves. However I can see why other European countries don't want to be involved into it, especially since its stinks of a scam from miles away.

Honestly I like how the EU is handling things.

a- it is investing in the countries of origin thus helping the people who are truly in need (not just the ones who are strong/rich enough to travel half a continent)
b- its applying zero tolerance towards the trafficker's route.

Sure Libya, Turkey and co may not treat immigrants as well as they should do. There again its also up to the police of the world, the UN (it supposed to do something right?) and the rest of the world (including the African Union) to do something about that. If I am in Saudi Arabia and I get mistreated then I won't blame the Canadian government because of it. I would blame the SA government + Malta's government for not doing enough to protect me.

 

[devilish]

Ah ok, but then that's not unlimited amounts as you posted.

From official EU/Maltese/Italian government report There are millions of immigrants waiting to leave Libya and that number is increasing every day.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Mate, they are earning money, Is their feckING job to sort this things out, not me that is the one that pays (repeat, not anymore for now) I would do things differently, but of course I would not arrive at that levels of power with my ideas.

That's such a shocking attitude. If you don't know yourself how to do something better, best not comment/criticise on it I'd say. If you feel that strongly about it and need to comment, research deeper.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

From official EU/Maltese/Italian government report There are millions of immigrants waiting to leave Libya and that number is increasing every day.

Millions isn't unlimited in a World of 7 billion and increasing every day.

 

[4bars]

So we're falling back on the bloke down the pub answer of 'not my job mate'? What if there isn't a good choice to make? Why do we assume that there's always a magical food option out there just waiting to be found?

But is absolutely a right answer. I gave some answers previously, if you make lazy questions I will make lazy answers. I said it before. I would regulate and even prohibit the selling of arms at some countries (I would prohibit to any country, but you know is not possible). That is a simplified answer. Then localized projects. If they have the guts to military strike in foreign soil, I don't see what not to organize a invading humanitarian force, and yes, feck sovereignty. Or you are enough an asshole to military strike, be enough an asshole to invade for humanitarian reasons. Anyway, as you can understand, I would not reach anything near the power...maybe as a ranting bloke in a bar that someone like you might listen to say " but what you would do"?

 

[4bars]

That's such a shocking attitude. If you don't know yourself how to do something better, best not comment/criticise on it I'd say. If you feel that strongly about it and need to comment, research deeper.

Answered above. Lazy questions (as I already at least hinted what I would do) deserves lazy questions)

 

[Kentonio]

But is absolutely a right answer. I gave some answers previously, if you make lazy questions I will make lazy answers. I said it before. I would regulate and even prohibit the selling of arms at some countries (I would prohibit to any country, but you know is not possible). That is a simplified answer. Then localized projects. If they have the guts to military strike in foreign soil, I don't see what not to organize a invading humanitarian force, and yes, feck sovereignty. Or you are enough an asshole to military strike, be enough an asshole to invade for humanitarian reasons. Anyway, as you can understand, I would not reach anything near the power...maybe as a ranting bloke in a bar that someone like you might listen to say " but what you would do"?

You want to invade Libya for humanitarian purposes? Kill them to save them kind of thing? Because last I checked, invading someone doesn't generally make their citizens feel like you're the good guys.

As for lazy questions, I don't see why its lazy. You're castigating the EU for their choices, so its not unreasonable to ask you what they should have done instead.

 

[4bars]

You want to invade Libya for humanitarian purposes? Kill them to save them kind of thing? Because last I checked, invading someone doesn't generally make their citizens feel like you're the good guys.

As for lazy questions, I don't see why its lazy. You're castigating the EU for their choices, so its not unreasonable to ask you what they should have done instead.

I said that if you have the guts of military strike for your greedy and geostrategically purposes and destabilize a regime without knowing how the hundreds of clans works, have the guts to invade to bring humanitarian relieve. But is not the point, the point is that I would not even start. As when in Irak, international observers they were doing a good job controlling any weapons of mass destruction, but mr bushy went full force with lies and started all the mess (starting in Afghanistan with UK and less degree Spain and later on all the west) that we are in today. Instead of working from the inside with local forces to overthrown the regime, but is way more slow and of course, there is no money money money on it.

The lazy questions is because I already said not to sell arms to countries like finance Saudi Arabia and the likes, is reasonable if I did not say anything before hand. If you are lazy to read what I say I will be lazy to answer your questions too. Basically because I am at work . So at home I can extend myself

 

[Classical Mechanic]

. So at home I can extend myself

Settle down lad, current affairs threads are usually a little drier than that.

 

[schwalbe]

I said that if you have the guts of military strike for your greedy and geostrategically purposes and destabilize a regime without knowing how the hundreds of clans works, have the guts to invade to bring humanitarian relieve. But is not the point, the point is that I would not even start. As when in Irak, international observers they were doing a good job controlling any weapons of mass destruction, but mr bushy went full force with lies and started all the mess (starting in Afghanistan with UK and less degree Spain and later on all the west) that we are in today. Instead of working from the inside with local forces to overthrown the regime, but is way more slow and of course, there is no money money money on it.

The lazy questions is because I already said not to sell arms to countries like finance Saudi Arabia and the likes, is reasonable if I did not say anything before hand. If you are lazy to read what I say I will be lazy to answer your questions too. Basically because I am at work . So at home I can extend myself

I'm not sure if i really get you. What has the EU to do with arms deals? The EU also does not invade countries nor does it conduct any military strikes, it isn't a military alliance. That's usually what the US (Irak and a million other countries) or the NATO(Afghanistan...) is doing.

 

[4bars]

Settle down lad, current affairs threads are usually a little drier than that.

What do you mean? Sorry english not my first language

 

[4bars]

I'm not sure if i really get you. What has the EU to do with arms deals? The EU also does not invade countries nor does it conduct any military strikes, it isn't a military alliance. That's usually what the US (Irak and a million other countries) or the NATO(Afghanistan...) is doing.

I said it before, but I will repeat it again. The states are to blame, but as EU controls several aspects of the states and they have to comply, EU should as well control what and who do you sell arms (for example). If not, as in other important and humanitarian matters, I don't know why we need the EU, for that reason, I only would like a EU as a economic union and would not need further integration if they are not above the standards of the states that forms the EU, there is no need to do exactly the same as the states but at a bigger scale. Why I would like to sustain economically a bunch of bureaucrats that they do not improve what my countries bureaucrats already do wrong?

 

[Kentonio]

I said that if you have the guts of military strike for your greedy and geostrategically purposes and destabilize a regime without knowing how the hundreds of clans works, have the guts to invade to bring humanitarian relieve. But is not the point, the point is that I would not even start. As when in Irak, international observers they were doing a good job controlling any weapons of mass destruction, but mr bushy went full force with lies and started all the mess (starting in Afghanistan with UK and less degree Spain and later on all the west) that we are in today. Instead of working from the inside with local forces to overthrown the regime, but is way more slow and of course, there is no money money money on it.

The lazy questions is because I already said not to sell arms to countries like finance Saudi Arabia and the likes, is reasonable if I did not say anything before hand. If you are lazy to read what I say I will be lazy to answer your questions too. Basically because I am at work . So at home I can extend myself

The reason its not a lazy question, is because you're suggesting long term solutions to short term problems. You're basically saying 'well I wouldn't have gotten us into this mess in the first place!'. On the question of refugees, the EU didn't get us into this mess, but its responsible for dealing with many of the results regardless. Like so many times in politics, there's events happening and they need to be responded to now, not with a long term strategy change.

So I ask again, if the EU are dealing with the Libyan refugee crisis badly, what should they be doing? Bearing in mind that the EU has no army and the member states are certainly not going to invade Libya in some ill advised attempt to impose a new regime.

 

[schwalbe]

I said it before, but I will repeat it again. The states are to blame, but as EU controls several aspects of the states and they have to comply, EU should as well control what and who do you sell arms (for example). If not, as in other important and humanitarian matters, I don't know why we need the EU, for that reason, I only would like a EU as a economic union and would not need further integration if they are not above the standards of the states that forms the EU, there is no need to do exactly the same as the states but at a bigger scale. Why I would like to sustain economically a bunch of bureaucrats that they do not improve what my countries bureaucrats already do wrong?

The EU is not a state, it can't give itself the competence to control arms deals without the agreement of the member states.

 

[4bars]

The reason its not a lazy question, is because you're suggesting long term solutions to short term problems. You're basically saying 'well I wouldn't have gotten us into this mess in the first place!'. On the question of refugees, the EU didn't get us into this mess, but its responsible for dealing with many of the results regardless. Like so many times in politics, there's events happening and they need to be responded to now, not with a long term strategy change.

So I ask again, if the EU are dealing with the Libyan refugee crisis badly, what should they be doing? Bearing in mind that the EU has no army and the member states are certainly not going to invade Libya in some ill advised attempt to impose a new regime.

The EU did allow their States to put us in this mess and the States through the EU is complaining about the results of that mess. The respond right now is what I said, I would organize a humanitarian invasion. I know that the states would not do it. I am not telling you what the states would not do. I am telling you what I would do. If the EU can sort of force to accept quotes, why can not force them to do that? Again is a matter of political Will, and there are other channels that the EU can act like the UN.

Don't tell me what I already know, that the states of the EU would not do that. I am telling you what I would do, and impossible is nothing, it is the interconnected private and public interests that makes it so difficult but at the end is political will. Realistic? absolutetly not, as it is not realistic that I would arrive at that position of power. And I am not apeaking of imposing any regime. Just organize humanitarian settlements and local investments. They can rule the country as they wish meanwhile.

 

[4bars]

The EU is not a state, it can't give itself the competence to control arms deals without the agreement of the member states.

I wrote a too much cocky attitude answer before. I deleted it. Sorry about that

I will just post a link:

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/423/Sanctions policy

As the states are the ultimate responsible with them, the EU has guidance that goes towards a common policy. And that is discussed to a european level and the states agree or not. As we sanction Russia., north Korea and others, why they don't do the same for Saudi Arabia (for example)?

 

[Kentonio]

The EU did allow their States to put us in this mess and the States through the EU is complaining about the results of that mess. The respond right now is what I said, I would organize a humanitarian invasion. I know that the states would not do it. I am not telling you what the states would not do. I am telling you what I would do. If the EU can sort of force to accept quotes, why can not force them to do that? Again is a matter of political Will, and there are other channels that the EU can act like the UN.

Don't tell me what I already know, that the states of the EU would not do that. I am telling you what I would do, and impossible is nothing, it is the interconnected private and public interests that makes it so difficult but at the end is political will. Realistic? absolutetly not, as it is not realistic that I would arrive at that position of power. And I am not apeaking of imposing any regime. Just organize humanitarian settlements and local investments. They can rule the country as they wish meanwhile.

You're suggesting impossible solutions using powers that the EU don't have. The EU leaders unfortunately don't have that luxury.

 

[JPRouve]

The EU did allow their States to put us in this mess and the States through the EU is complaining about the results of that mess. The respond right now is what I said, I would organize a humanitarian invasion. I know that the states would not do it. I am not telling you what the states would not do. I am telling you what I would do. If the EU can sort of force to accept quotes, why can not force them to do that? Again is a matter of political Will, and there are other channels that the EU can act like the UN.

Don't tell me what I already know, that the states of the EU would not do that. I am telling you what I would do, and impossible is nothing, it is the interconnected private and public interests that makes it so difficult but at the end is political will. Realistic? absolutetly not, as it is not realistic that I would arrive at that position of power. And I am not apeaking of imposing any regime. Just organize humanitarian settlements and local investments. They can rule the country as they wish meanwhile.

How would you do that, where do you find the money and where do you find the men to execute that humanitarian invasion? Also what is a humanitarian invasion?

 

[4bars]

I will definetely will try to answer later, need to catch up at work. Of course expect a unicornish answer

 

[The Outsider]

NO parallel at all imo.

UK can decide to leave, catalonia no. UK is an existing entity that is part of organizations like WTA, EU, OTAN, Common wealth, etc...and has state structures and many other things. EU can't oppose the UK to leave

Catalonia has nothing of that and Spain can oppose and is backed by the international community

I still think there is, both countries UK and Catalonia pay more into a larger union (EU, union of Spanish provinces) than they take out.
Both get outvoted in those power blocks.

That's how I see it.

 

[Kentonio]

I still think there is, both countries UK and Catalonia pay more into a larger union (EU, union of Spanish provinces) than they take out.
Both get outvoted in those power blocks.

That's how I see it.

What did the UK get outvoted about? Last I checked the UK won something like 98% of the votes in the EU.

 

[Stanley Road]

It's not the eu fault( put on repeat )
It's the nation states( put on repeat )
Whats the eu made up of? Nation states( put on ignore, denial, whatever. )

 

[Green_Red]

This thread has been massively derailed. There should be a thread called "EU Immigration Policy Discussion". @Damien The last couple of pages have f all to do with Brexit...

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

On the whole British people have never liked anything that's different and that includes foreigners , being an island nation doesn't help but it's not a new thing. Slowly people get used to differences but it will still be a long time before this xenophobia reduces significantly.
If a referendum was held tomorrow it may be close one way or the other but people like those in the video still have no more clue now than they did 16 months ago.
Until the full implications slap them in the face it will be difficult to change their minds.

If the UK leaves and in a few years decide to come back , significant damage will already have been done and it would take many years to repair that damage.
I'd say they have three months to sort themselves out - banks, companies, investors want a clear idea what is going to happen by the latest early 2018, they have to decide their future and soon.

To be fair if that is really the way you think I don't like you very much and you are now foreign so I guess you may be on to something.

But on the other hand, really, most British people are knowably worse than French people or Germans in this regard? I doubt you can substantiate that claim.

 

[Silva]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41749270

Study of Brexit impact on Scotland won't be published.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

You can leave whenever and however you want, you don't need the EU permission and the EU never said anything close to that.

Bullshit,

Settle the money before we talk about anything else. So how much is that? You can't say but in context of the post to which I responded and you are seemingly taking issue with, you are willfully uninformed if you don't know how much. Numbers or butt out.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The UK isn't paying to leave the EU. The UK will pay it's obligations to have any hope of it's politicians being taken seriously again at some point in the future. The final amount will be decided by a process that adds up all the obligations, i'm sure this isn't news to you... I'm convinced the EU already knows how much it thinks the UK committed to, and is keeping its lips tight out of courtesy to Ms. May.

Brexiteers complaining about the EU has become amusing though. They still think they should have a say about the EU's actions, watching them on Sky news is great entertainment at the moment. The other night there was a tory saying: "We've moved enough now... bla bla Lancaster... bla bla Florence... It's time the EU moves now". Still hasn't understood that it's his governments job to get the EU to move, still hasn't understood how the EU works. As sad as I am to see the British leave... these tories can get lost.

Again the EU says pay or no further talks. My response, which you seem to take issue with is to a post which says if you can't put a figure on it you are willfully uninformed. So how much or butt out ?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Ah that's for free and you can leave now. The trouble is that the UK wants to leave the Union and yet it still wants to keep doing unrestricted business with this 'undemocratic' union. Well that's not going to happen unless the UK settles the so called three big issues

More bullshit,

Again the EU says pay or no further talks. My response, which you seem to take issue with is to a post which says if you can't put a figure on it you are willfully uninformed. So how much or butt out?

 

[Silva]

Ahead of us is still the toughest stress test. If we fail it, the negotiations will end in our defeat.

We must keep our unity regardless of the direction of the talks. The EU will be able to rise to every scenario as long as we are not divided.

It is in fact up to London how this will end: With a good deal, no deal or no Brexit.

But in each of these scenarios we will protect our common interest only by being together.

The EU is still keeping the door half open.

What we are talking about going into the new year are not trade talks. They are talks about the future partnership, and the framework for that future partnership, and that is what is specified in article 50. Those are not trade talks ...

The point about trade deals is that they are inordinately complex, legal, lengthy documents. They often run to thousands of pages. There is no way that a UK-EU trade deal as comprehensive as the one I think you’ll want to strike will be done in under a couple of thousand pages. Those couple of thousand pages are not going to be legally baked and done by October 2018. No chance. And, as I say, legally they are under a different article of the treaty.

Former British ambassador to the EU doesn't sound optimistic about a trade deal being agreed before the article 50 deadline.

 

[JPRouve]

Bullshit,

Settle the money before we talk about anything else. So how much is that? You can't say but in context of the post to which I responded and you are seemingly taking issue with, you are willfully uninformed if you don't know how much. Numbers or butt out.

No, I'm just telling you that whether the UK leaves or no has nothing to with any financial settlement, the only thing needed was to trigger article 50 and you did. Now if you want to have a trade deal with the EU after the buffer of two years then you will have to find a financial agreement, fix the border and citizens problems.

 

[4bars]

I still think there is, both countries UK and Catalonia pay more into a larger union (EU, union of Spanish provinces) than they take out.
Both get outvoted in those power blocks.

That's how I see it.

Does not matter about if you pay more or not. UK can decide to pay or not. A EU state can decide to not pay and they go out of the union. They have the choice. Catalonia no. Brexit is an option that UK decided and no one could avoided. Brexit, being wrong or right, is so sovereign decision

I will not asnwer the question @Kentonio and @JPRouve . I don´t want to derail more the thread

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

No, I'm just telling you that whether the UK leaves or no has nothing to with any financial settlement, the only thing needed was to trigger article 50 and you did. Now if you want to have a trade deal with the EU after the buffer of two years then you will have to find a financial agreement, fix the border and citizens problems.

Firstly you are crazy if you really believe that and the EU wouldn't have made it a prerequisite if that was true.

Secondly, the poster I responded to said you had to be willfully uninformed if you don't know the required amount.

So far in this thread, no one has answered that point, we are either all willfully uninformed including the poster I disagreed with or you can, as everyone else can, prove me wrong by posting the figure?

Otherwise, butt out because you can not add anything to this part of the debate.

 

[devilish]

More bullshit,

Again the EU says pay or no further talks. My response, which you seem to take issue with is to a post which says if you can't put a figure on it you are willfully uninformed. So how much or butt out?

The EU will butt out (or the UK will be kicked out, depending on how you see it) in 2019. Leaving is for free. However that doesn't come attached to a trade deal.

Regarding the figures, well, I am pretty sure that the UK negotiation team knows exactly what the figure is. They were the ones who wanted negotiations to be done under wraps and went ballistic whenever they spilled out to the public. In fact Davies had already said that he's got people checking line by line to make sure that its correct.

Not that it really matters though. The UK can decide to either pay and have some sort of a trade deal or leave with nothing.

 

[JPRouve]

Firstly you are crazy if you really believe that and the EU wouldn't have made it a prerequisite if that was true.

Secondly, the poster I responded to said you had to be willfully uninformed if you don't know the required amount.

So far in this thread, no one has answered that point, we are either all willfully uninformed including the poster I disagreed with or you can, as everyone else can, prove me wrong by posting the figure?

Otherwise, butt out because you can not add anything to this part of the debate.

I don't need to believe it, that's how the article 50 has been written. The second paragraph states that the treaties cease to apply from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification by the member state of his withdrawal.
So no I'm not crazy, it's not a matter of a belief but positive law. The absence of withdrawal agreement doesn't prevent the UK from leaving, they notified the EU and after two years the treaties will cease to apply.

 

[I Believe]

The UK can decide to either pay and have some sort of a trade deal or leave with nothing

For once you and I probably agree about something.

It will all be about money in the end, I suspect after Macron expressed his view that £20B is not enough, Merkel will come in with the final negotiation and a figure will be agreed, in part it will be a 'settlement bill', in part it will be to assure access to the EU markets. However Britain will, with one bound be 'free from the sinking ship' (if you are a brexiteer) or left hanging (if you are a remoaner.) Theresa as we all know is a reluctant brexiteer, so she will be pleading with Merkel and Macron to get a deal on trade, they know that and will demand as much as they can, but if those two decide they don't want one, then everyone goes over the cliff!

IMO Britain, because of the binary referendum result has only ever had one aim that is to leave the EU and because of Article 50, only two negotiation options and that is to leave without an agreement, or pay up to leave with one! I am one of those who think it will be around £80B (paid in instalments) and is a price worth paying, because the EU is now too big and too fractious, there are too many disparities across the economies of member states, for the Union to succeed unless it becomes one European super state, with a single (euro zone) currency, this is something Britain will never sign up to and hence it has to leave.

 

[Silva]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

To be fair if that is really the way you think I don't like you very much and you are now foreign so I guess you may be on to something.

But on the other hand, really, most British people are knowably worse than French people or Germans in this regard? I doubt you can substantiate that claim.

I don't think you like me very much so I'm probably right. Boo hoo hoo.
Just look around you, experience rather than living with one's head in the sand.

By the way because people haven't been personally informed of the figure that the UK have to pay doesn't mean the figures aren't there, remember May said they are currently going through it line by line. She won't tell the British people anything, she's already told you that.

Taking odds on when Davis will get the boot - before Xmas or will he survive into the New Year.

The Uk are expecting a deal to be finalised by March 2019 - yes the leaving deal, not the trade deal going forward, think someone should tell Davis.