European Parliament head Martin Schulz warns UK 'no a la carte' Brexit menu

[SgtRock]

14 hours ago, useronthenet said:

Assuming there will be an EU left, after the UK makes an exit. Most have forgotten the fact that the UK is the second biggest contributor to the EU pot. I wonder who will be prepared to make the shortfall?

 

Think Juncker is already addressing this point,

 

Quote

Juncker tells Italy to be GRATEFUL for EU BILLIONS - because there will be NO MORE

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/713583/Juncker-tells-Italy-be-grateful-for-EU-billions-because-no-more

 

He is leaving the V4 until last as the  big time,

[Scott]

A post containing disguised profanity has been removed.  

[Grouse]

just to lighten up the proceedings.......J

Edited September 25, 2016 by Grouse
trouble attaching image

[Dagnabbit]

 

"Der Spiegel" reported that the German finance ministry expects German contributions to the EU budget to rise by around 4.5 bn EUR (worst case).

 

Sounds like a lot but to put it into perspective: we will spend 20 bn EUR on refugees over this and the next year. The finance minister is talking about tax incentives in 2018 worth up to 15 bn EUR. In other words, we will manage.

 

And for those who are currently speculating that the EU will collapse: it is not going to happen because we (Germany) do not want that. I hope that annoys all EU-haters on this forum sufficiently.

Germany is but one country in the union.

You have just confirmed many people's suspicions with your statement that "what Germany commands, the EU has to obey"

Only in your dreams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

I don't undestand all this schadenfreude about the EU. Even Churchill wanted a United States of Europe. OK, a majority of Brits voted to leave (that doesn't make the decision correct by the way) but why wish harm to the rest of the EU. There's a contributor on here who is always so negative that I ignore his posts anyway. Such a bore. But I really don't get the negativity. Sure the EU needs improvement; reform even, but why the clear hatred? You just don't get it do you?

[CharlieK]

21 hours ago, jope said:

 

"Der Spiegel" reported that the German finance ministry expects German contributions to the EU budget to rise by around 4.5 bn EUR (worst case).

 

Sounds like a lot but to put it into perspective: we will spend 20 bn EUR on refugees over this and the next year. The finance minister is talking about tax incentives in 2018 worth up to 15 bn EUR. In other words, we will manage.

 

And for those who are currently speculating that the EU will collapse: it is not going to happen because we (Germany) do not want that. I hope that annoys all EU-haters on this forum sufficiently.

 

We have ways of making you do as we say,  Sieg Heil. 2 World Wars and you still think Germany rules. It may not be what Germany wants, but how is Germany going to stop it? Is Germany going to continue financing the EU, while integrating economic migrants who don't want to integrate?  

 

You voting for Merkel again are you?

Edited September 25, 2016 by CharlieK

[johnnywishbone]

The EU will die a slow death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CharlieK]

19 hours ago, dunroaming said:

jope

 

I voted to remain in the EU but only because I didn't think that it would collapse and because I figured it was better to try to get change from inside rather than outside..  However the indications are that brexit is causing a great deal of uncertainty now in the EU along with the immigration issues.  Germany is certainly the ringmaster and the most influential player.  What do you think will happen if Merkel is replaced?

 

Does it matter if she stays or goes, she has done enough damage. Merkel will go down in History as the one who destroyed the EU.

 

This is why the EU are in a rush for article 50. Eurocrat jobs on the line!  

Edited September 25, 2016 by CharlieK

[dunroaming]

I think that the EU needs radical reforms or it will fail in the future.  Unfortunately it appears that they are not willing to accept that and as a consequence of that the UK  voted to leave.  I believe that the EU is greatly beneficial to Europe but it needs to re-think it's policies. 

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, CharlieK said:

 

Does it matter if she stays or goes, she has done enough damage. Merkel will go down in History as the one who destroyed the EU.

 

This is why the EU are in a rush for article 50. Eurocrat jobs on the line!  

 

It doesn't matter in itself except she was more sympathetic to Britain leaving than most of the others.

[CharlieK]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

 

It doesn't matter in itself except she was more sympathetic to Britain leaving than most of the others.

 

looking out for German interests! As will all the other EU countries look out for their interests, including any attempt to stop eastern EU member's freedom of movement. 

what if the EU's strategy was to hang out the UK to dry if only short term, with all the referenda and elections hanging in the air what better way than to make an example of the UK if any other country tries to leave? Then when the dust settles they will come around to a better deal.

 

It's no so much about keeping the UK in as stopping others leaving that is why they want article 50 enacted asap. 

[Grouse]

19 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

We have ways of making you do as we say,  Sieg Heil. 2 World Wars and you still think Germany rules. It may not be what Germany wants, but how is Germany going to stop it? Is Germany going to continue financing the EU, while integrating economic migrants who don't want to integrate?  

 

You voting for Merkel again are you?

 

Codswallop

 

Certainly Merkel got it wrong over the migrant issue.

 

However, Germany will stay on top of the EU even if they have to fund much more of it.

 

Why? Because they're better than us and most other EU countries in just about every respect:

 

Beer

Education

Roads

Hospitals

Motor industry

Chemicals/Pharmaceuticals 

Housing quality

Town planning

Civil society

 

Shall I go on?

 

I think they WILL come up with a solution to the Muslim question...

Edited September 26, 2016 by Grouse

[johnnywishbone]

Care to opine on what the solution would be?
I have no clue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

11 minutes ago, johnnywishbone said:

Care to opine on what the solution would be?
I have no clue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was being ironic / facetious (the Jewish question?)

 

However, this is one of the reasons that I want to see robust action in Syria and elsewhere. We need ALL the Muslims shipped back to their own continents. If we have to support countries with nuclear power and large scal desal plants, so be it.

 

So the solution is fix things at source, then engage reverse...

[nausea]

I think the problem here is we have few "visionaries" trying to impose a top down "vision" on the people. OK, if you're Bismarck  or Hitler, you can do it,  Merkel I'm not so sure.

[CharlieK]

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Codswallop

 

Certainly Merkel got it wrong over the migrant issue.

 

However, Germany will stay on top of the EU even if they have to fund much more of it.

 

Why? Because they're better than us and most other EU countries in just about every respect:

 

Beer

Education

Roads

Hospitals

Motor industry

Chemicals/Pharmaceuticals 

Housing quality

Town planning

Civil society

 

Shall I go on?

 

I think they WILL come up with a solution to the Muslim question...

What has that got to do with anything? Either Merkel will survive or she will be voted out. If she is voted out who will take her place and have to political power to keep things on track? 

 

How does that translate when dealing with the Eurocrats, if left to them the UK would have to leave as in a hard exit. It will only be the self interest of individual countries that can hold the UK within the single market. Especially the main EU members, admittedly the visegrad 4 will protest against stopping free movement of people. 

 

The EU have no interest in making it easy for the UK to leave, far from it they have an interest in making it as hard as possible. With referenda and elections hanging in the air, the EU are more worried about other members leaving than they are keeping the UK in.   

[Grouse]

It's not a zero sum game

 

Do you understand?

 

As I have stated consistently from the start, these are complex issues. I do hope we have people who can sort this out to ALL our benefits.....

[Donutz]

Schulz is right ofcourse, if there is any form of cooperation between two parties then it can't be that one party gets to cherry pick whatever they desire. If you only wish to take the positive elements of a Union, trade agreement or such you simply won't get it. The EU is about working together. Each memberstate needs to contribute and the stronger more so then the newer and weaker ones which we attempt to strenghten and get up to strenght. In the long run that should level things out, meaning less of a burden to the strongest members.  If a country finds that this balance is unfair, which the UK did pretty much from day 1 and still not satisfied with the various exceptions that were granted to them, they can ofcourse leave and that is what the UK has voted to do. That's just fine, that's democracy, you can't force people to cooperate. But if you think that you can have a one way street... not going to happen. 

 

Since the EU and EEA aims to reduce obstacles and work to a more common market this means freedom of people, labour, goods and services.  Sure enough this should not overburden any member. The directives on freedom of movement aim to prevent abuse (EU nationals who are an unreasonable burden can be refused help or residency). The public in the UK rightfully or wrongfully feels like despite all that (eastern) Europeans are being a burden (taking their jobs or keeping wages low?). IMHO the best approach would be to try and find some way of fixing that, preferably from within (as either an EU or EEA member). If you keep the avarage citizen in mind it makes sense that such directives on a common market do not favour capitalist big business too much. Surely a solution can be found if you are willing to find a middle ground. 

As for Germany, it is the most important member of the EU and the most social. It's silly to speak of a 4th Reich. Merkel is doing a good job. I would not support her party (too conservative and I'm not German so I can't even vote there) but atleast she tries to think long term and not forget about the human aspects. Selfish parties like Alternative für Deutschland only think short term and in 'me, me, me'.  In the long term 'we, we, we'  is a much better and more sane approach.  Same applies to Brexit, they want put but whatever comes out, it should be a fair middle ground for both. We, we, we. 

I believe that together we can do a lot more good and all gain from it. Obviously the EU has serious flaws. It needs more transparency, more direct influence from the people and most of all a true desire to work together. Currently many EU directives take a long time to establish, since the member states often take a 'me, me, me, this new directive should suit me the most' approach and that simply does not work. 

[Xircal]

On 9/24/2016 at 6:01 AM, jacko45k said:

Why not?

That is what discussion and compromise is all about.

Perhaps it is time the EU leaders who the UK did not elect stopped telling the UK what it can and cannot do!

 

It's GB that will have to do the compromising though simply because it's not down to the European Commission to take the decision. All 27 member states have the right to veto any deal if they don't like it. The Visegrad Four which comprises of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia has already said that they will veto any deal which doesn't allow their citizens full free access to the UK.

 

GB can go back home and have a rethink and then come back with another proposal, but it all takes time.

 

in the meantime international companies with their headquarters in the UK will become very concerned at the lack of progress and may relocate to other EU countries. That will result in significant job losses which will affect the value of Sterling. That in turn makes government borrowing that much more expensive. GB has already lost its top rate AAA rating and if it's reduced again it'll only add to the pressure to capitulate and accept that the inevitable.

 

GB can stick to its guns and switch to WTO rules. But that brings tariff barriers and mountains of red tape with it. Britain will lose its passporting rights to the single market which will be disastrous for the City with major banks shutting up shop and moving to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris. Sterling will slide to an all-time low making the cost of imports that much higher which in turn will stoke inflation.

 

The BoE can raise interest rates to try and combat rising inflation but it will lead to higher borrowing costs. Businesses will go bust which will lead to even more job losses.

 

So I'm afraid to say that Britain needs Europe, not the other way around.

 

[jacko45k]

Well we shall have to see. The UK has democratically decided it does not want EU membership and there is a duty to obey that vote. Interest rates have actually gone down after the vote. The EU imports more to the UK than the UK exports to it, so Europe needs the UK market. If the EU lets any of the Visegrad Four control the block as a whole then I am glad to be out of it.

Time to get on with it.

Independent trade deals are also possible with non-EU countries.

[Grouse]

23 hours ago, Donutz said:

Schulz is right ofcourse, if there is any form of cooperation between two parties then it can't be that one party gets to cherry pick whatever they desire. If you only wish to take the positive elements of a Union, trade agreement or such you simply won't get it. The EU is about working together. Each memberstate needs to contribute and the stronger more so then the newer and weaker ones which we attempt to strenghten and get up to strenght. In the long run that should level things out, meaning less of a burden to the strongest members.  If a country finds that this balance is unfair, which the UK did pretty much from day 1 and still not satisfied with the various exceptions that were granted to them, they can ofcourse leave and that is what the UK has voted to do. That's just fine, that's democracy, you can't force people to cooperate. But if you think that you can have a one way street... not going to happen. 

 

Since the EU and EEA aims to reduce obstacles and work to a more common market this means freedom of people, labour, goods and services.  Sure enough this should not overburden any member. The directives on freedom of movement aim to prevent abuse (EU nationals who are an unreasonable burden can be refused help or residency). The public in the UK rightfully or wrongfully feels like despite all that (eastern) Europeans are being a burden (taking their jobs or keeping wages low?). IMHO the best approach would be to try and find some way of fixing that, preferably from within (as either an EU or EEA member). If you keep the avarage citizen in mind it makes sense that such directives on a common market do not favour capitalist big business too much. Surely a solution can be found if you are willing to find a middle ground. 

As for Germany, it is the most important member of the EU and the most social. It's silly to speak of a 4th Reich. Merkel is doing a good job. I would not support her party (too conservative and I'm not German so I can't even vote there) but atleast she tries to think long term and not forget about the human aspects. Selfish parties like Alternative für Deutschland only think short term and in 'me, me, me'.  In the long term 'we, we, we'  is a much better and more sane approach.  Same applies to Brexit, they want put but whatever comes out, it should be a fair middle ground for both. We, we, we. 

I believe that together we can do a lot more good and all gain from it. Obviously the EU has serious flaws. It needs more transparency, more direct influence from the people and most of all a true desire to work together. Currently many EU directives take a long time to establish, since the member states often take a 'me, me, me, this new directive should suit me the most' approach and that simply does not work. 

 

Eloquently put ?

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Well we shall have to see. The UK has democratically decided it does not want EU membership and there is a duty to obey that vote. Interest rates have actually gone down after the vote. The EU imports more to the UK than the UK exports to it, so Europe needs the UK market. If the EU lets any of the Visegrad Four control the block as a whole then I am glad to be out of it.

Time to get on with it.

Independent trade deals are also possible with non-EU countries.

 

Sorry, you don't get it.

 

Read Donutz' contribution again.

 

Sure, we're leaving! No argument. 

 

Doesnt make it the right decision though.....

[jacko45k]

13 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Sorry, you don't get it.

 

Read Donutz' contribution again.

 

Sure, we're leaving! No argument. 

 

Doesnt make it the right decision though.....

Doesn't make it the wrong decision either, not for the majority.

 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Doesn't make it the wrong decision either, not for the majority.

 

 

I wouldn't bet on a majority for Brexit now.

 

Too late though. 

 

Sane people know that Brexit is insane. Sadly, we're outnumbered in dumbed down Britain. Did you see the Little Michael Gove cartoon strip earlier?