5 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

I have a question, a genuine question. I will prequalify it by stating that I am an ardent remainer (because I do not have access to the right to vote nor the NHS having lived away for so long so the only thing that I have PERSONALLY , and want to keep, is the right to freedom of movement in Europe for myself). 

 

My question is ......

 

If the deal negotiated by May has been rejected by Parliament 3 times already WHY will the EU not accept to renegotiate?

 

Surely there is NO other option to renegotiation other than for the EU and IRE to be playing a game to cause the fall of a member states government and that should be illegal IMHO.

 

I cannot get my head around why the EU nor IRE will not accept that renegotiation is required?

 

 

so sorry to hear of your inconvenience you will suffer when the uk leaves the eu, however your last sentance says it all about why we voted to leave.

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

“Very bloody unlikely to absolutely untrue” is closer to the mark.
Apart from working expats in Thailand, who goes to work in a foreign country to pay more tax than the locals?

People like me. I was a self employed expat from 1999 until 2009 and I worked on short (a couple of months) and long term (longer than a year).

 

I worked in Holland, Belgium, the UK, Holland again, France, Germany, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand.

 

Sometimes I paid tax and sometimes I didn't, depending on the contract length. In the mobile phone industry there were hundreds of people like me.

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Is that a deliberate fake statement or do you not realise that the UK will not be able to export to the EU unless they meet all EU regulations.

In a no deal situation manufacturers that need to prove conformity will be required to use one system for sale in the UK and the EU system for sale in the EU.

Double bureaucracy, but it was all going to be so easy.

"eu regulations"was the main reason we left.

17 minutes ago, kingdong said:

"but they likely".says it all 

It is known that they are younger on average than UK citizen and it is also known that consumption of health services increases with age. Or do you have evidence that contradicts these two observations? Statistics also show that EU immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than UK citizen which means they also pay their share of taxes.

2 minutes ago, kingdong said:

"eu regulations"was the main reason we left.

Yet you’ll still have to comply with it. Isn’t it ironic? 

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

"eu regulations"was the main reason we left.

Yet you’ll still have to comply with it. Isn’t it ironic? 

I guess they will only export to the rest of the world without EU regulation. Then everything will be perfect - except US regulations, Chinese regulations, … 

6 minutes ago, candide said:

It is known that they are younger on average than UK citizen and it is also known that consumption of health services increases with age. Or do you have evidence that contradicts these two observations? Statistics also show that EU immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than UK citizen which means they also pay their share of taxes.

suppose its likely all the eu citizens  you see massing in diy superstore carparks waiting for a days work in the building trade are all registered for national insurance commitments and paying tax too?

23 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The EU talked about this for months with the UK government. And both agreed to a deal. They called it the backstop.

And then the UK government didn't like anymore what they agreed to.

elaborate,so the british government didn,t like being told what to do and when to do it in their own country?

22 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

That's how voting works, we do that regularly?

Either if something changed, or every x years.

 

You already voted to join the EU in 1975, why vote again, right?

ask cameron

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Figures aplenty have been produced; all dismissed as 'Project Fear' by Brexiteers because they cannot dispute the facts. So what's the [point?

"figures" or facts?

19 minutes ago, kingdong said:

suppose its likely all the eu citizens  you see massing in diy superstore carparks waiting for a days work in the building trade are all registered for national insurance commitments and paying tax too?

Are they considered as employed or unemployed in official statistics?

46 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Back in 1972 how would anybody have managed to get to see a copy of Hansard? Common oiks like the majority of the public would probably never heard of Hansard and would have little idea of what was going on in parliament. So it would be quite easy for any government to pass legislation on anything and get it on the statute books.

Well it still wasn't that easy (17 votes) but if there had been a referendum then (assuming that it would have been respected and acted upon (not like this one so far)), then we would not have gone in. 

3 minutes ago, candide said:

Are they considered as employed or unemployed in official statistics?

as they,re seeking work in the "black economy"it,s highly likely they,re copping all sorts of benefits such as housing etc which they get by "actively seeking work" don,t know what someone who comes here to ponce and work cash in hand is technically classified as,if you don,t mind me saying old boy you really should try to get out and about a bit more.

People like me. I was a self employed expat from 1999 until 2009 and I worked on short (a couple of months) and long term (longer than a year).
 
I worked in Holland, Belgium, the UK, Holland again, France, Germany, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand.
 
Sometimes I paid tax and sometimes I didn't, depending on the contract length. In the mobile phone industry there were hundreds of people like me.

Trust me Bill, I know all about that.
The question is “Who apart from working expats in Thailand....”
The answer is: For sure none of the EU wage slaves in UK.

EU have UK in a head lock so they think but a big surprise is coming to this evil bunch of second hand car dealers running the worlds biggest ponzi scheme..

6 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

I have a question, a genuine question. I will prequalify it by stating that I am an ardent remainer (because I do not have access to the right to vote nor the NHS having lived away for so long so the only thing that I have PERSONALLY , and want to keep, is the right to freedom of movement in Europe for myself). 

 

My question is ......

 

If the deal negotiated by May has been rejected by Parliament 3 times already WHY will the EU not accept to renegotiate?

 

Surely there is NO other option to renegotiation other than for the EU and IRE to be playing a game to cause the fall of a member states government and that should be illegal IMHO.

 

I cannot get my head around why the EU nor IRE will not accept that renegotiation is required?

 

 

because like adolph they cant accept that their EU reich will last 1000 years come what may

8 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

EU have UK in a head lock so they think but a big surprise is coming to this evil bunch of second hand car dealers running the worlds biggest ponzi scheme..

Why do the Brexiteers have all the loonies on Thai Visa?

24 minutes ago, kingdong said:

as they,re seeking work in the "black economy"it,s highly likely they,re copping all sorts of benefits such as housing etc which they get by "actively seeking work" don,t know what someone who comes here to ponce and work cash in hand is technically classified as,if you don,t mind me saying old boy you really should try to get out and about a bit more.

So, from what I understand, they are not counted as 'employed'. Your post does not challenge the fact that statistics show that EU immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than UK citizen.

 

As you just confirmed, people who are officially employed tend to pay more tax than those who are not.

19 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Everyone is trading with the EU, so congrats for that achievement! 

 

I assume you conveniently didn’t include in your calculation what will be earned through import duties etc.? Same as you conveniently ignored the billions the UK is losing? (Not to mention that it was the UK PM who said he will not talk to anyone.)

 

UK reliance on the EU market: 50% of trade 

EU reliance on the UK market: 7% of trade 

Nuff said. 

 

1/   Continued trade with untied hands not only to the EU 27 member states but also the 36 global countries that have free trade agreements with the EU and have indicated that they will continue to trade with the UK after Brexit .  

 

2/ Calculations , why ? nothing will change , same as before . Billions loss for the UK ? twas the case whilst an EU member but a saving of 10 billion per year after leaving ( 2017 figures ) .  BJ unwilling to talk to anyone ? I do not believe that for a second 

 

3/ You just dont get it ,  do you think that on November the 1st all of a sudden the EU & UK will cease trading ? your figures are irrelevant .

The EU team are livid and hurting as one of their big players has escaped , simile , the caged bird that finds the cage door open and flies to freedom .

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Some of the debate is enlightening and interesting but your date is incorrect. The debate was in 1971, when Heath was already Prime Minister, so it would have been difficult to publish in 1969.

 

You really are a master of context manipulation.

You are perfectly aware that the paper published in Dec 1969 was following the meeting of the heads of EC states laying out the future of the EC.

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

At this point in time they are all up to date and already conforming to the EU standards and if the manufacturers keep to that there should be no problem.

 

Unless of course the EU makes a problem of it.

 

Before Brexit the widget is OK. After Brexit the widget is still made the same way so there really should be no problem.

The EU have not changed anything as far as they are concerned it remains the same as now.

It is the UK that dispensed with the EU notified bodies within the UK and now manufacturers that wish to sell to the EU must get their product tested and certified by an EU entity. This will significantly increase the costs on manufacturers that wish to export.

As the UK government has rendered the current certification arrangement in the UK obsolete they are forced to introduce an alternative arrangement for domestic sales, another hefty bill on the taxpayer.

It is not a question if goods are good enough, by law you must prove it, and that proof does not come cheap.

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Here's one snip from what Sir Derek Walker-Smith had to say. Very insightful:

 

"We would suffer this surrender of sovereignty, unique and irrevocable. But, heavy as it is, it could be but the first instalment. At present, the Community is an economic community, not concerned with defence and foreign policy. But if there is to be any question of increased power—that is the bait dangled before us to make the loss of sovereignty less clearly unacceptable—the Community would have to proceed to a political unity capable of unified decision on defence and foreign policy."

 

 

As I said MP's were not ignorant of what was involved.

There may not have been any internet but there was certainly political leaflets coming through the letterbox with monotonous regularity.

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes. And here is the 3rd and last reading from 1972:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/jul/13/european-communities-bill 

 

Interesting here that any talk of a referendum (Peter Shore) was quickly squashed The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 284. Close eh?  51.5% - funny old world!

 

 

 

I am quite happy to be corrected if that is the case. Following the vote previously posted Heath made a statement to the effect that the UK had decided in principle to join the EC. If that statement was invalid then I stand corrected.

It does not however detract from the fact that parliament knew exactly what they were doing and the decision was not that of Ted Heath.

The end of the matter.

14 hours ago, kingdong said:

"eu regulations"was the main reason we left.

Unless you do not want to trade with Europe they will still apply.

You should also remember that many countries accept good on the basis they are subject to EU regulation.

Brexit was always about cherry picking the regulations but as soon as the EU say no more cherry picking, it is all their fault.

19 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

 

I cannot get my head around why the EU nor IRE will not accept that renegotiation is required?

 

The points in contention are tied up in EU law, something the UK refuses to accept.

The EU will only consider alternatives that remain within the law and the UK in 3 years has been incapable of producing any valid alternatives. The ball is well and truly in the UK court.

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

You really are a master of context manipulation.

You are perfectly aware that the paper published in Dec 1969 was following the meeting of the heads of EC states laying out the future of the EC.

Manipulation? Your only link was to the Hansard HoC debate of 1971. That was what I was referring to.  

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

As I said MP's were not ignorant of what was involved.

There may not have been any internet but there was certainly political leaflets coming through the letterbox with monotonous regularity.

I am quite happy to be corrected if that is the case. Following the vote previously posted Heath made a statement to the effect that the UK had decided in principle to join the EC. If that statement was invalid then I stand corrected.

It does not however detract from the fact that parliament knew exactly what they were doing and the decision was not that of Ted Heath.

The end of the matter.

Leaflets with monotonous regularity? Your home must have been very privileged. 

 

You can see the link so believe it or not. Entry into the EEC was debated in both houses but not for that long, relative to the importance of the decision. Yes, I have agreed that Parliament made the decisive vote. But you will not acknowledge that Heath pushed the effort to join and used lies and deception to achieve his goal.

 

There was no referendum in 1972, when, if there was going to be one, was the obvious time for it. Why do you think Wilson organized one only 3 years later?

 

I have a question, a genuine question. I will prequalify it by stating that I am an ardent remainer (because I do not have access to the right to vote nor the NHS having lived away for so long so the only thing that I have PERSONALLY , and want to keep, is the right to freedom of movement in Europe for myself). 
 
My question is ......
 
If the deal negotiated by May has been rejected by Parliament 3 times already WHY will the EU not accept to renegotiate?
 
Surely there is NO other option to renegotiation other than for the EU and IRE to be playing a game to cause the fall of a member states government and that should be illegal IMHO.
 
I cannot get my head around why the EU nor IRE will not accept that renegotiation is required?
 
 

Maybe a picture explains it better?

As a bonus here's a video of your chief negotiation scientist falling over his own feet:

The british arrogance is astounding (not yours personally) [emoji848]

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

1 minute ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Maybe a picture explains it better?

As a bonus here's a video of your chief negotiation scientist falling over his own feet:

 

The british arrogance is astounding (not yours personally)

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk
 

 

Wow a tweet full of insults and she has got right to the heart of the problem. The fact that the UK was put in this position by Teresa May who managed to screw it up in 3 years is not mentioned. 

 

However, Gove who has only been in his job for less than a couple of weeks, is lambasted by some girl who appears to know everything.

 

I makes me wonder at times how, with all the university degrees floating around how I managed to survive to my 75th year so far without one.

 

None of the ranting posts or tweets I have read seem to come up with any alternative apart from remain.

39 minutes ago, billd766 said:

None of the ranting posts or tweets I have read seem to come up with any alternative apart from remain.

Why would they if they want to remain.... ????

 

Nothing you guys say makes any sense.... 

 

The UK didn't get put in this situation by May, you could have already exited if you wanted, you could have had that deal or you could have just remained. 

 

But all you guys can do is make drama and play games, skrewing over your own youth. 

1 minute ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Why would they if they want to remain.... ????

 

Nothing you guys say makes any sense.... 

 

The UK didn't get put in this situation by May, you could have already exited if you wanted, you could have had that deal or you could have just remained. 

 

But all you guys can do is make drama and play games, skrewing over your own youth. 

you should add they started the blaming game.... it's not us it's them 555