Britain nears abandoning Brexit trade deal hope - The Telegraph

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

I used to vote Tory, 30 years ago, but now I wouldn't vote for anyone.

It's true what you say about Labour & the unions, but it's just big business that has the Tories in their pockets/corruption.

I believe that every penny involved in politics a should be accounted for and that it's public money.

What's called bribery & corruption in Thailand is called a 'donation' in the UK.

I remember some years ago a Tory guy trying to convince people that the only reason people bribe the Tories is because they think their awfully nice chaps, they're giving them 10's of thousands and they do not expect anything whatsoever in return.

Well, I am an awfully nice chap, but I have been given sod all...........????

[Andrew65]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Well, I am an awfully nice chap, but I have been given sod all...........????

Like me, you forgot the nod & the wink when you handed over the 'brown envelope'.????

[7by7]

19 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

49

you should at least be glad that you are not Norwegian

why? Norway is the land of saying no thank you to EU and European happiness TWICE, and still breathes

 

on the other hand there are many 49ers in Norway, difficult to master as they are they are still quite popular

 Norway is a member of the EEA, which means it is part of the single market. This includes the free movement of people and it is also in the Schengen area.

 

As such it is subject to all EU directives pertaining to such, but has no say over those directives.

 

Being in the single market means that there are no tariffs or other customs fees on trade between Norway and the EU, but food and beverages are excluded. Fishing and agriculture incur over €100 million of tariffs annually due to customs fees. Joining the European Union as a full member would eliminate these fees and lead to lower food prices in Norway.

 

Due to it's participation in many EU initiatives, Norway contributes to funding for those initiatives. Throughout the programme period 2007–2013, the Norwegian contribution increased substantially in parallel with the development of the EU programme budget, from €130 million in 2007 to €290 million in 2013. For the EEA and Norway Grants from 2004 to 2009, Norway provided almost €1.3 billion.

 

But as Norway is not an EU member, it has no voting rights, no say on how this money is spent.

 

(Source)

 

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, nauseus said:

Who knew who would be leading and in government after the referendum? Dodgy Dave said he would be carrying on (dodging) after all. 

 

Johnson and the rest of Vote.Leave made promises during the referendum campaign about how the EU would roll over and give us everything we asked for.

 

The old "they need us more than we need them" pony which I see you are still peddling!

 

May's deal would have delivered on most of those promises.

 

Johnson and his pals put personal ambition ahead of country and made sure that deal was scuppered.

 

Johnson is now PM and is desperate for the EU to accept his deal, which is basically the same as May's; apart from selling out the people of Northern Ireland.

 

Unsurprisingly, the EU are basically saying "You could have that deal, but turned it down. Up to you to present something new on which we can try and reach an agreement."

Edited August 22, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[CorpusChristie]

Just now, 7by7 said:

 

Johnson and the rest of Vote.Leave made promises during the referendum campaign about how the EU would roll over and give us everything we asked for.

 

 

Quite obviously that was a  prediction of how future talks would progress and it wasnt a "promise"

[7by7]

7 hours ago, transam said:

The information was provided by the Government, but YOU keep talking about Cummings, he is an employee of the Government. Now go back and un-twist....????

 

It is obvious that you have not bothered to read, or even click on, any of the links I provided.

 

Had you done so you would have seen that links lead to, and therefore the information in question comes from, not from any government source, but from Vote.Leave's own campaign literature!

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Johnson and his pals put personal ambition ahead of country and made sure that deal was scuppered.

The politicians who didnt want Brexit at all , voted against it 

The politicians who wanted a full Brexit , voted against a BRINO because it was only a partial exit .

Had either group had decided to vote for what was offered, it would have been passed through 

Both the remainers and full leavers were  equally responsible for Mays deal not getting passed

[Andrew65]

36 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Norway is a member of the EEA, which means it is part of the single market. This includes the free movement of people and it is also in the Schengen area.

 

As such it is subject to all EU directives pertaining to such, but has no say over those directives.

 

Being in the single market means that there are no tariffs or other customs fees on trade between Norway and the EU, but food and beverages are excluded. Fishing and agriculture incur over €100 million of tariffs annually due to customs fees. Joining the European Union as a full member would eliminate these fees and lead to lower food prices in Norway.

 

Due to it's participation in many EU initiatives, Norway contributes to funding for those initiatives. Throughout the programme period 2007–2013, the Norwegian contribution increased substantially in parallel with the development of the EU programme budget, from €130 million in 2007 to €290 million in 2013. For the EEA and Norway Grants from 2004 to 2009, Norway provided almost €1.3 billion.

 

But as Norway is not an EU member, it has no voting rights, no say on how this money is spent.

 

(Source)

 

 

But as Norway is not an EU member, it has no voting rights, no say on how this money is spent.

...does it excuse them from having to spend billions bailing-out countries like Spain, Ireland & Greece who refused to tax their people properly?

[bert bloggs]

I really cannot understand why they keep going on about ,what was said or not said ,its over .we are leaving the EU ,remainers can howl and bang on for ever ,

move on ,its over YOU LOST .nothing is going to change that . 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

 

Never mind the pedantry. Red the top line:

 

 

17.4 Billion is about 350 Million per week.

Rebates come and go. They will never be irreversible with the crooks in Europe, who can simply increase our contribution when they like. 

EU spending in the UK is all our own money trickling back to EU causes, which will be now decided by the UK not Brussels.

 

 The second line then deducts the rebate/correction/discount, or to call it by it's legal name the ‘Fontainbleau abatement, from this amount to produce the actual figure paid.

 

 

That rebate, negotiated by Thatcher, could in theory have been cancelled every 7 years when the MFF is renewed. But doing so would have required a unanimous decision in council. So, had we remained a member, we could have, would almost certainly have, vetoed it.

 

So the situation never arose at any time between it coming into effect in 1985 and Brexit.

 

Indeed, in 2018 the ECJ ruled that were we to cancel article 50, we would stay in the EU “under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state”. That means the UK would keep all the opt-outs and the EU budget rebate we had at the time.

 

See OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA delivered on 4 December 2018 Case C‑621/18 for the ruling in full.

 

As for the actual budget and each member's gross contribution, this is decided democratically by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Whatever figure was decided for the UK, our rebate, calculated as a percentage, reduced it. As can be seen for 2018 above and also, for anyone who can be bothered to look them up, for every year since 1985.

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by 7by7
typos

[melvinmelvin]

38 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Norway is a member of the EEA, which means it is part of the single market. This includes the free movement of people and it is also in the Schengen area.

 

As such it is subject to all EU directives pertaining to such, but has no say over those directives.

 

Being in the single market means that there are no tariffs or other customs fees on trade between Norway and the EU, but food and beverages are excluded. Fishing and agriculture incur over €100 million of tariffs annually due to customs fees. Joining the European Union as a full member would eliminate these fees and lead to lower food prices in Norway.

 

Due to it's participation in many EU initiatives, Norway contributes to funding for those initiatives. Throughout the programme period 2007–2013, the Norwegian contribution increased substantially in parallel with the development of the EU programme budget, from €130 million in 2007 to €290 million in 2013. For the EEA and Norway Grants from 2004 to 2009, Norway provided almost €1.3 billion.

 

But as Norway is not an EU member, it has no voting rights, no say on how this money is spent.

 

(Source)

 

 

Not quite, but close. Ahh! wiki, thought so.

 

re directives and having no say;

the EEA treaty actually stipulates that EEA members not being EU members can say NO to directives,

this is a trick EU members can't pull

 

(as for having a say, the way many important directives are developed one can have a say, indeed, but no formal power)

 

yes, there are 3-4 areas exempted from the EEA treaty,

many, not all, politicians still find great comfort in that

 

what you say about programmes-grants-say-contributions is kinda skewed and narrow

we contribute a lot but also get a lot of r&d euaccs back

some programme investments are decided upon onesidedly by Norway, some not,

when I say onesidedly that means both what to spend satang on and how much satang to spend

 

---

all in all, it ain't that bad on the sideline, grass is greener yonder

 

 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

FTAs don't have the same EU rules, especially after negotiation.

I never said that they did; What I said, and you quoted, was "If you think a FTA doesn't have rules agreed to by both parties, then you really are as naïve as your posts suggest!"

 

And you accuse me of twisting other's words!

 

The rest of your post is mere repetition of your usual mantras. Repeated so often that one wonders who it is you are really trying to convince; could it be yourself?

[7by7]

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

Quite obviously that was a  prediction of how future talks would progress and it wasnt a "promise"

 Not how it was presented at the time!

 

Like @transam, you should read Vote.Leave's campaign literature!

[transam]

51 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

It is obvious that you have not bothered to read, or even click on, any of the links I provided.

 

Had you done so you would have seen that links lead to, and therefore the information in question comes from, not from any government source, but from Vote.Leave's own campaign literature!

You are right, I ignore most of your links attached to condescending and biased print.

But I don't have anyone on TVF ignore. ????

[transam]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 Not how it was presented at the time!

 

Like @transam, you should read Vote.Leave's campaign literature!

We have left.....

[CorpusChristie]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 Not how it was presented at the time!

 

Like @transam, you should read Vote.Leave's campaign literature!

Where do they actually "promise" that the "EU would roll over and give us everything we wanted " ?

[7by7]

41 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

But as Norway is not an EU member, it has no voting rights, no say on how this money is spent.

...does it excuse them from having to spend billions bailing-out countries like Spain, Ireland & Greece who refused to tax their people properly?

 

I'm sorry, but what is it you didn't understand about "they have no say on how the money is spent?"

 

They pay the agreed amount, and the EU decides how to spend it. Norway has no say on that.

[CorpusChristie]

30 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The second line then deducts the rebate/correction/discount, or to call it by it's legal name the ‘Fontainbleau abatement, from this amount to produce the actual figure paid.

 

 

That rebate, negotiated by Thatcher, could in theory have been cancelled every 7 years when the MFF is renewed. But doing so would have required a unanimous decision in council. So, had we remained a member, we could have, would almost certainly have, vetoed it.

 

So the situation never arose at any time between it coming into effect in 1985 and Brexit.

 

Indeed, in 2018 the ECJ ruled that were we to cancel article 50, we would stay in the EU “under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state”. That means the UK would keep all the opt-outs and the EU budget rebate we had at the time.

 

See OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA delivered on 4 December 2018 Case C‑621/18 for the ruling in full.

 

As for the actual budget and each member's gross contribution, this is decided democratically by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Whatever figure was decided for the UK, our rebate, calculated as a percentage, reduced it. As can be seen for 2018 above and also, for anyone who can be bothered to look them up, for every year since 1985.

 

Based on a net contribution of €11.7 (£9.6) billion in 2016, the UK Treasury estimated the 2017 rebate amounted to €6.6 (£5.6) billion reducing the ultimate UK contribution for the 2017 budget to €10.4 (£8.9) billion.^[

 

 

Calculating the size of the UK's annual rebate was complex.^[9] Broadly, the UK got back 66% of the difference between its share of member states' VAT contributions and its share of EU spending in return. The European Commission set out the detailed calculations in a working document.^[10]

The calculation of the rebate for any one year was budgeted and paid for the following year, and the payments were subject to revision for up to three further years.^[

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

 

  Proves quite clearly that it was a rebate from the previous year and NOT a reduction on any given year

[7by7]

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

The politicians who didnt want Brexit at all , voted against it 

The politicians who wanted a full Brexit , voted against a BRINO because it was only a partial exit .

Had either group had decided to vote for what was offered, it would have been passed through 

Both the remainers and full leavers were  equally responsible for Mays deal not getting passed

If Johnson, Rees-Mogg, the ERG and their bedfellows voted for May's deal, it would have passed.

 

It always amuses me when Brexiteers call May's deal 'BRINO' because Johnson's preferred deal is, apart from selling out Northern Ireland, virtually identical in all significant details!

 

[7by7]

Fair enough, @melvinmelvin.

 

One point, though

36 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

we contribute a lot but also get a lot of r&d euaccs back

Careful what you say. According to the Brexiteers here, that is no excuse for paying it in the first place!

[CorpusChristie]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

If Johnson, Rees-Mogg, the ERG and their bedfellows voted for May's deal, it would have passed.

 

 

 

Yes, that is HALF of what I said , the other HALF of what I said was that if the Remainer camp in Parliament had voted Mays deal through, it would have passed . 

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, transam said:

You are right, I ignore most of your links attached to condescending and biased print.

But I don't have anyone on TVF ignore. ????

Yes, make sure you don't get new information, it might make you well informed.

[7by7]

15 minutes ago, transam said:

You are right, I ignore most of your links attached to condescending and biased print.

So you are calling Vote.Leave's campaign literature "condescending and biased!"

 

Really?

 

17 minutes ago, transam said:

But I don't have anyone on TVF ignore.

Where have I said that you did?

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Where do they actually "promise" that the "EU would roll over and give us everything we wanted " ?

 A metaphor, but read the literature and you'll see that whilst they didn't use those actual words; they promised it.

[CorpusChristie]

Just now, 7by7 said:

 A metaphor, but read the literature and you'll see that whilst they didn't use those actual words; they promised it.

If you provide me with the literature where they promised it, I will read it 

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Proves quite clearly that it was a rebate from the previous year and NOT a reduction on any given year

No, it doesn't.

 

As your wiki link says, the calculations were complex. But basically next years budget was calculated this year and as part of that calculation, so was the rebate.

 

Even if you are 100% correct; we never actually paid that money to the EU; it was deducted from our budget contribution before we paid.

 

But however it was worked out and paid, Boris Johnson's claim that we paid the EU £350 million a week was a lie.

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Yes, that is HALF of what I said , the other HALF of what I said was that if the Remainer camp in Parliament had voted Mays deal through, it would have passed . 

 

Many Tory Remainers did just that. Add on Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the ERG then the deal would have got through!

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

If you provide me with the literature where they promised it, I will read it 

 I already have.

 

Hint; click on the blue bit of text!

[3NUMBAS]

the threats by the  eu to stop uk truckers from going to europe will hurt them most as most trade is inbound to the uk from euro zone and UK  will reciprocate ..

sticking points are eu wants plenty of free fish from uk waters and they want uk to abide by eu rules neither of which will happen as theyre unreasonable

[Loiner]

58 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The second line then deducts the rebate/correction/discount, or to call it by it's legal name the ‘Fontainbleau abatement, from this amount to produce the actual figure paid.

 

 

 

That rebate, negotiated by Thatcher, could in theory have been cancelled every 7 years when the MFF is renewed. But doing so would have required a unanimous decision in council. So, had we remained a member, we could have, would almost certainly have, vetoed it.

 

So the situation never arose at any time between it coming into effect in 1985 and Brexit.

 

Indeed, in 2018 the ECJ ruled that were we to cancel article 50, we would stay in the EU “under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state”. That means the UK would keep all the opt-outs and the EU budget rebate we had at the time.

 

See OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA delivered on 4 December 2018 Case C‑621/18 for the ruling in full.

 

As for the actual budget and each member's gross contribution, this is decided democratically by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Whatever figure was decided for the UK, our rebate, calculated as a percentage, reduced it. As can be seen for 2018 above and also, for anyone who can be bothered to look them up, for every year since 1985.

 

 

Had Boris & Co not saved from the clutches of the EU, that is how much they would have us pay. Thank god for the big red bus.