rockingrobin

1 hour ago, aright said:

In Mastermind parlance I think this is referred to as Specialist Subject   "Stating the bloody obvious"  

Between 2009 and 2014 the UK was outvoted in 98% of the cases covering budgets and 92% covering constitutional and inter institutional  affairs in the EU Parliament. 

With only 10% of the votes in the EU Parliament it hardly puts us in a good negotiating position does it?

The EU wants even more integration, a continental army, a single asylum agency, more budgetary and tax integration all this while ignoring regional and national uprisings that reject the values and ambitions  of the Brussels cabal.

For the fourth time of asking can you tell us what you perceive our position of strength to be and how we could use it within the EU to negotiate and realise our ambitions? 

  

The UKs  position of strength can be highlighted from its current position of cherry picking which part projects it can opt into as well as opt out .

 2 examples ,

the UK opts out of  shengen , but chooses to opt in the shengen information system. 

UK opts into the Dublin arrangements , but opts out of the quota system.

On Brexit the UK will want to remain part of these arrangements , but whether it will be allowed to keep its current opt outs is not guaranteed

This guide maybe of interest

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm11033

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

I would assume that if she is not living in the UK she would not be liable for the inheritance taxes there.

It is my understanding that inheritance tax is paid by the deceased estate, therefore the beneficiaries domicile is irrelevant for this purpose.

However the beneficiaries domicile and relationship (spouse) can affect liabiltiy of the payment.

As suggested expert consutation is required

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You have missed the most important part. The UK's position was perfectly valid, and quite solid immediately after the referendum. Since then, powerful remainers have relentlessly undermined and weakened that position to the point we are at now. The daft thing is, they are going to fail, but they are going to cost the UK a lot of money and put it in a far weaker position than it should have been in. But UK inc. will still do just fine in the short term, and great in the medium-to-long term. And history will judge the remain traitors very poorly (the war criminal Blair, in particular). All imo, of course.

Was it not T.May who called an unecessary general election ,after sending the art 50 notification, who in her words said the country had come together but not parliament.

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Yes.

 

We never (?) hear about emigrants to/from the EU appealing to the ECJ, but I'd be interested to learn about the cases - and the outcome of those cases.

 

We already know that the ECJ decided that the UK denying state pension inflation increases to pensioners in some (non-EU) countries was acceptable.....

What is your source for ECJ denying pension uprating for non EU countries

31 minutes ago, smedly said:

divided by all 28 nations not just the UK

 

The issue is not about the UK having some financial obligations, I think most would agree that it is possible, the real problem is how the demand is being presented (blackmail) and justified (or rather "not justified) and then there is the ridiculous amount, there is simply no way the British people will agree to paying the EU 100b or even 50b Euro and 20b is pushing it, every tax payer in the EU is equally responsible for the EU running costs not just the UK Germany and France.

The monies have already been committed by all member states but not paid yet

55 minutes ago, smedly said:

you know what's even funnier - people like you making statements like this without being able to explain why, owe money to whom how much and why, go for it because you'll be the first, your mate Junker Tusk and Barnier haven't been able too.

 

Get ready for the UK to walk because that's what happens next

 

The EEC was great........what went wrong 

The money owed comes from the MFF and RAL, projects in progress and awaiting payment , (which can be due upto 3 years after the MFF)

The difficulty with calculating a final figure is determining what monies are due to flow back to the UK  from the projects.The value that would have arisen if the UK had remained in the EU.

Which programs the UK want to remain part of and those it wishes to buy out of. For example the UK has stated it wants to remain in the EU security systems, and I would speculate that it would chose to buy out of the pension obligations.

Of course you are correct , the UK could walk away .

Yes , on ground floor, not sure if it signposted, just past the counters heading towards the food mall.

Cost and opening times , dont know.

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Yes of course in 4 years time you can vote out who you don't like, but I'm afraid we cannot vote out Juncker and the rest of the gravy train. We are/was stuck with Juncker till he decides to go, what a disgrace that man is, but non of the remainers ever mention him, perhaps selective memory?

I believe Mrs May went to Brussels today to try and talk to the EU negotiators, but they are doing their damnest to scuttle any negotiatons and didn't/wouldn't talk to her, they are acting like children.

There is no such thing as a soft brexit, we either leave or not leave, but having one foot in their door is not leaving.

And as for the money we owe, what is it? Nobody knows. Its like going in a car showroom and saying 'I want to buy a car' and the salesmen saying 'ok that'll be £20,000 please, and then you say 'but what do I get for that' and his reply will be, we will tell you tell you that after you've paid. It just doesn't make any sense!

The car sales analogy is incorrect. The financial obligations  known when the UK made the commitments. 

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Yes of course in 4 years time you can vote out who you don't like, but I'm afraid we cannot vote out Juncker and the rest of the gravy train. We are/was stuck with Juncker till he decides to go, what a disgrace that man is, but non of the remainers ever mention him, perhaps selective memory?

I believe Mrs May went to Brussels today to try and talk to the EU negotiators, but they are doing their damnest to scuttle any negotiatons and didn't/wouldn't talk to her, they are acting like children.

There is no such thing as a soft brexit, we either leave or not leave, but having one foot in their door is not leaving.

And as for the money we owe, what is it? Nobody knows. Its like going in a car showroom and saying 'I want to buy a car' and the salesmen saying 'ok that'll be £20,000 please, and then you say 'but what do I get for that' and his reply will be, we will tell you tell you that after you've paid. It just doesn't make any sense!

I dont recall anybody from the vote leave campaign advocate leaving without a deal during the referendum 

1 hour ago, smedly said:

and what is missing, well the EU have so far been unable to publish a figure and reason for that is because they would then have to publish how they reached that figure

 

Every citizen in the EU (580 odd million) have an equal responsibility towards the running bill of the EU - not just the UK

 

They are demanding but unable to establish the facts - 20b is the offer and it seems that they will either have to agree to that or get nothing at all and I think you will find that every tax payer in the UK future and present will agree with that, so the EU needs to think again.

 

It has been mentioned before that this amounts to nothing less than a form of blackmail I happen to agree with that and if the demand doesn't change then the UK should just walk away not matter what, I believe it is getting close to that. 

The 20b was not the divorce settlement, but the payment for the 2 yr transition period. The florence speech acknowledged that the UK would honour its commitments , but this has not translated into the negotations. From the speeches of the last round of talks , the UK do not know or unwilling to state which of the commitments they are willing to pay for.

16 minutes ago, smedly said:

and you believe the EU can survive the UK just walking away.........really ?

 

 

I will predict what will happen if the UK walks away now

 

In 2-3 years after the UK leaves the EU will approach the UK proposing a trade deal.

If the UK walks out without any agreements , how will  the non and tehnical trade barriers be overcome

10 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I was chatting with a Spanish expat friend at dinner a few months ago, and conversation got around to Spanish democracy. He told me the story of the last attempted coup (which I vaguely remembered) when Francoist army officers took over parliament. It was the then young King Juan Carlos stepping into the breach with a televised statement condemning the coupmakers which took the wind out of their sails. There was no significant intervention from the European executive.

I dont understand

The attempted coup took place in 1981 and lasted 1 day, Spain joined the EU in 1986

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What is wrong with you?  Why are you insulting me and telling me to get under my bridge for asking if you know something that is neither in your previous posts nor in your links?

 

As I have clearly stated, I understand that you can enter in this way without any financial requirement, but it also says that after three months you must meet local requirements, as I also stated these requirements vary, some state that you must prove not to be a burden, others that you must be employed, as you above acknowledge there is a requirement not to be a burden, my question was if you know if the individual states measure this in the same way as they do for their respective spouse visas or in some other way?  You keep repeating irrelevant things as if you have not even read my questions, so I really should take a look at yourself before accusing others of lacking anything.

Can you provide where UK legislation states after 3 months you have to meet local requirements

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Except the question I asked three times has still not been answered, one last time, if your spouse enters an EEA country under this rule then it states that after 3 months they will have to meet local rules, if you cast your mind back to when I first joined this conversation I was referencing the different amounts that different countries deem to be sufficient not to become a burden with regard to their spouse visas, you claimed that it was not allowed to set a threashold under this route but according to what you have posted local regulations need to be met after three months, these local rules vary, some specify that you must be able to support yourself, I presume that the amount considered enough to not become a burden remain the same for the residency as they are for a spouse visa, but this is not mentioned anywhere that I cqn find, just ambiguous statements such as, demonstrate an ability to support yourself.  Do you know if they are the same or not?  If they are the same, then what difference does any of this make?  After all, you could just go to that country on a spouse visa, get residency after months and then move to the UK under the freedom of movement rules, what differnce does the EEA ruling actually make if you must meet the same local regulations regarding income threshold after three months, or are they different?

I cannot see anything in the UK eea rules that specify , must be able to support yourself after 3 months.

The initial residence rights , do state that if the EEA national and family member is  an unreasonable burden on the state then the right to reside does not apply.

There is no such statement for extended residence, only that they must be a qualified person.

The  Burden criteria is defined for migrants in the categories of student and self sufficient

(a)they exceed the maximum level of resources which a British citizen (including the resources of the British citizen’s family members) may possess if the British citizen is to become eligible for social assistance under the United Kingdom benefit system; or

(b)paragraph (a) does not apply but, taking into account the personal circumstances of the person concerned and, where applicable, all their relevant family members, it appears to the decision maker that the resources of the person or persons concerned should be regarded as sufficient.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1052/made

43 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I have read all the posts on Brexit and I would like to say how I feel and say it in words. I can't say it better than this.

 

 

Maybe somebody could inform everybody which treason act to use.

If as you state , this represents your feelings then I would suggest you inform the UK police as treason is a criminal offence

deleted

22 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The EEA regulations state that you must also meet the local requirements, otherwise the family migration rules would be superceded by the EEA for the UK.

deleted

25 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Which is precisely why (IMO) the Brit. govt. should announce that as it's been made v clear that the EU has no intention of negotiating, only dictating - the UK is leaving at the end of the 2 year period.

 

Far from ideal for either side, but at least it provides some clarity/reduces uncertainty and gives businesses time to plan for the future - on the assumption that WTO rules will apply.

Relying on WTO is a non starter

Tarrifs don't stop trade , it is the application of non tariff barriers, such as regulatory conformity

 With no agreement for mutual recogniton of standards, then containers are stopped at ports whilst the goods are proven to conform to required standards.

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The issue is the EU don't want, or can't, provide details of the "monies owed". And their figure seems to grow every time it's mentioned.

 

There stance is negative. Simply say "non" and demand you come back with more. It seems their objective is either to screw the UK ruthlessly and regardless of actual factual reality and/or to make the UK leave on very bad terms.

 

And that, showing the others how much of a "benefit" it is to remain and tow the EU line is their only objective.

With reference to the financial commitments

The UK have agreed to honour commitments undertaken, but are unwilling to actually state what these are

5 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The fact is, if the UK want to leave the EU with any reasonable deal, they have no choice but to accept the EU terms, because the EU can stonewall right to when article 50 is enacted in March 2019. Which means the UK has to start from scratch, a situation that could be ruinous to the economy. Not that I would wish or want a 'no deal' and for the government to belatedly plan for this is an indication that the Tories are incapable of obtaining what is 'best for Britain' - as May continues to spout.

The public's and government perception of a No Deal may differ.

However the UK walking away without any agreements is not plausible. If the treasury statement of funding for such an outcome is correct. 

As any business knows , if the finance department is not willing to fund a project , it is not going to happen

2 hours ago, coconuthead said:

let's see if the UK gov will shelter criminals from interpol

There are a number of examples where the UK have provided refugee status to individuals with active Red Notice's. Some of these individuals have been arrested whilst in other countries, but then later released .

32 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

With all the mayhem in the world, it is doubtful, Interpol or any other agency is going to spend much time on this.  They may think the ease of her escape was a political convenience and therefor not worth much effort. 

 

That is the rumor anyway.  The car that allegedly took her has no trace of her. 

Interpol constitution , Art 3 ensures the organisation neutrality is not compromised .

Activities of a political, military ,racial , and religous nature are prohibited .

33 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

Unless she applied some time before, knowing she would have to do a runner.
None of it strikes me as an impulse action. It would seem that she had plenty of time to hide significant assets and plan her escape, and possibly put an asylum request in motion months ago.
Just my idle musings among the many. 

14 minutes ago, JAG said:

I believe that you have to have left your country and arrived in the UK before you can apply for asylum.

Mind you, I would imagine that her application would be dealt with rather more quickly than some undocumented chap from Sub Saharan Africa who arrives at Dover perched on the rear bumper of a TIR lorry...

The right to seek asylum is given in the 1949 UDHR

The having left your own country is a definition of a refugee from the 1951 convention

It would be my speculation that an alleged breach of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights will be the basis for such asylum request

1 hour ago, smedly said:

The UK is leaving the EU.....fact

 

How that happens is yet to be determined

 

Some things that will not happen

 

The UK will not hand over 100b or even 50b Euro, some that are claiming the talks are going nowhere might want to share what they would do at this point - just hand over the money right ?. It seems the EU is giving no alternative - it is they who are saying pay up or walk away

 

It is the EU that are blocking an open border plan with the Irish republic because it will become an EU border with a foreign country - the UK

 

The other issue about the European court having some sort of jurisdiction over UK law is also a none runner

 

All the above is being played out for one reason only - to try and derail the UK's exit from the EU and create as much political social instability and unrest in the UK as they can, right now it is looking like the UK is getting ready to walk, if they do walk and the UK doesn't implode on itself and brexit continues then the EU will have failed with their "plan A to derail brexit"  and will have to get back to the table with serious talks

 

Personally I'd have walked many weeks ago 

It is not the EU blocking the open border with Ireland, but the practicalties of WTO rules.

If the  EU was to allow such a position it would be in immediate dispute with over states requesting similar favourable outcomes under the MFN .

This is the reason that the EU requires that the issue of NI is dealt with in phase 1 , and not part of any trade agreement.