Brexit: Article 50 Has Been Triggered !

[ianch99]

Saw this in the Times a few days ago, interesting perpsective on immigration:

TheTimesQuote.jpg

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nomadking

1) It took several years to get the rebate, so all that time there was no rebate,
2) The rebate is far from guaranteed and if we had voted to stay it would almost have certainly been stopped. It had already been reduced.
Either way it is a TRUE reflection of what we have had to pay in the past, what they want us to pay, and what we would have to pay in the near future if we stayed.
IE if just one EU country disagrees with the rebate, then no rebate at all.

Your reply gives the impression that the UK rebate can be taken away without our say so. You forgot the minor point that the UK has a veto over the process that would scrap or reduce it. The EU leaders are required to approve the MFF unanimously.

See: Reality Check: How vulnerable is the UK's rebate?

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Mick

I do not call a £785,000 clean up bill, 'easy'.

Event Organisers to event guests: "Please take home your tents."

Guests to other guest friends: "Leave the tent and all the other crap just strewn about, the bins are full, but we cannot be arsed to clean up our own waste and place it in bags or carrier bags and take it home, you know, just to help out and still be friendly to the Earth."

I'm sure the cleanup bill is factored into the hefty admission charge. As for who caused the mess, how can you be sure it was labour voting youngsters who caused it all ? I'm sure there are slobs in all subsets of those attending.

As for the point about the clean up I suggested it was relatively easy, i.e. in comparison with fixing global pollution.

Originally Posted by daveeb

I'm sure the cleanup bill is factored into the hefty admission charge. As for who caused the mess, how can you be sure it was labour voting youngsters who caused it all ? I'm sure there are slobs in all subsets of those attending.

As for the point about the clean up I suggested it was relatively easy, i.e. in comparison with fixing global pollution.

I'm slightly perplexed. Nowhere have I said or accused the messy revellers, were Labour supporters ?

Originally Posted by Mick

You keep telling yourself this. I don't agree that any lie was given. I accept that the figure was clearly incorrect because it did not take into account regarding reductions for rebates & benefits. But I do not accept a lie was made.

And in any sense, it did not help me to sway my vote to leave the failing corrupt entity.

To go back to my original point, this is why a law against lying in politics would be unworkable. Politicians rarely outright lie, there is always a way out.

Originally Posted by Mick

First of all....these so called kids caring about the environment?

Stop taking the piss, remember Glastonbury Music Festival, where Corbyn preaching about saving the Earth, to these kids, blah blah?

Remember the scene after the event. Rubbish left everywhere by these caring kids you speak of.

[url]http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/glastonbury-festival-2017-mammoth-cleanup-begins-as-revellers-leave-behind-filth-and-waste-a3572861.html[/b]

'Kids' is a massive demographic (and incidentally Glastonbury trends older, 20-40 probably) and there will be people there who care about the environment to those who don't. I would suggest logic dictates it's more likely to be the latter who littered. A massive festival is always going to leave a lot of mess as well. None of this really negates that there are conscientious people, maybe skewed towards the young, who care about the environment.

Anyway Glastonbury plans for this, as any one holding a large event should, so the land would have been cleaned up before the entire organisation left the farm. I don't really see how this proves anything.

It's not about proving anything. I just refute the suggestion, the older generation are the cause for a warmer climate. Every human, that walks on this Earth is accountable.

Other issue is, how we got on to this topic when climate changes, has nothing to do with Brexit.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Mick

I'm slightly perplexed. Nowhere have I said or accused the messy revellers, were Labour supporters ?

I thought earlier in the thread there was a mention of the irony of Corbyn banging on about pollution to lots of applause then the mess left by the revellers, the inference being Corbyn followers were being hypocritical. I fully accept that you didn't say that it was Labour supporters yourself.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Your reply gives the impression that the UK rebate can be taken away without our say so. You forgot the minor point that the UK has a veto over the process that would scrap or reduce it. The EU leaders are required to approve the MFF unanimously.

See: Reality Check: How vulnerable is the UK's rebate?

As we are leaving it's a moot point now anyway.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Your reply gives the impression that the UK rebate can be taken away without our say so. You forgot the minor point that the UK has a veto over the process that would scrap or reduce it. The EU leaders are required to approve the MFF unanimously.

See: Reality Check: How vulnerable is the UK's rebate?

The level of the UK rebate is decided every seven years, as part of the EU's long-term budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is negotiated by the EU leaders.

That implies it has to be agreed afresh each time. For the 2020 agreement, everybody would have to agree the UK rebate for it to continue. If anybody disagreed, the rebate would no longer apply. If it was permanent then a decision wouldn't have to be made in order for it to continue, only for it to be stopped. A decision has to be made every 7 years, therefore it has to be positively approved each time.

What would happen if a country insisted on vetoing the long-term budget? Everything would grind to a halt, therefore realistically no country can veto it. Just as you occasionally see in the US when the Federal budget isn't agreed with the threat of "Shutdown", which does actually happen.

In 2012, the EP(European Parliament) called for the elimination of all existing correction mechanisms, including the UK rebate, adding that any new compensation schemes should be temporary in nature and based on objective economic criteria
...
In its reports on the operation of the own resources system, the European Commission has also highlighted a number of issues related to the UK rebate and the other correction mechanisms. In 2011, for example, the Commission said that the financing system was perceived as unfair by many stakeholders, with correction mechanisms playing a significant role in this perception. The Commission added that, while the UK rebate was perfectly justifiable when it was created in the 1980s (see section above on objective, origin and legal basis), the conditions underpinning it have since changed significantly (including a reduction in the share of the EU budget spent on agriculture; a smaller share of EU revenue originating from the VAT-based resource; and an increase in the relative prosperity of the UK in terms of GNI per capita).
...
In 2004 and again in 2011, the European Commission tabled proposals for reform of the own resources system.27 Both proposals included a significant overhaul of corrections, by eliminating all existing ad hoc mechanisms and introducing new provisions, to correct excessive negative budgetary balances, more in line with the principle of equal treatment. The aim was to address the above-mentioned concerns about complexity, opacity and lack of fairness that surround the existing correction mechanisms.

Austria, Germany, Holland, and Sweden also have their own system of rebates. We had an exemption to the "Social Chapter", but look what happened with the "Working Time Directive". It was forced upon us anyway. Blair relinquished part of the Rebate, so who's to say somebody else(eg Corbyn) wouldn't do the same?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

That implies it has to be agreed afresh each time. For the 2020 agreement, everybody would have to agree the UK rebate for it to continue. If anybody disagreed, the rebate would no longer apply. If it was permanent then a decision wouldn't have to be made in order for it to continue, only for it to be stopped. A decision has to be made every 7 years, therefore it has to be positively approved each time.

What would happen if a country insisted on vetoing the long-term budget? Everything would grind to a halt, therefore realistically no country can veto it. Just as you occasionally see in the US when the Federal budget isn't agreed with the threat of "Shutdown", which does actually happen.



Austria, Germany, Holland, and Sweden also have their own system of rebates. We had an exemption to the "Social Chapter", but look what happened with the "Working Time Directive". It was forced upon us anyway. Blair relinquished part of the Rebate, so who's to say somebody else(eg Corbyn) wouldn't do the same?

It's perfectly obvious to me that if we'd decided to stay in then the gates would have been very soon been behind us. Sadly our own 'remainer' leaders and the Eurocrats would very rapidly have further diluted our democracy and entwined the UK within Europe's web of laws, treaties etc sufficient to ensure leaving the club would effectively be impossible. So committed are these people to ensuring the objective of a single European state headed by Germany that they'll do virtually anything to make it happen. They have no respect for opinions which differ from their own and will not compromise on their objective. I believe time will tell we were better off leaving even though that was never going to be an easy option and doesn't make us immune from problems arising within the EU/Eurozone.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

To go back to my original point, this is why a law against lying in politics would be unworkable. Politicians rarely outright lie, there is always a way out.

What would be practical would be extending the existing advertising guidelines that cover products and services to include political party advertising. But turkeys never vote for Christmas, that's the sticking point!

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

It's not about proving anything. I just refute the suggestion, the older generation are the cause for a warmer climate. Every human, that walks on this Earth is accountable.

Other issue is, how we got on to this topic when climate changes, has nothing to do with Brexit.

Accountable for their actions, stands to reason imo that if you've been on the planet longer you've contributed to the problem longer, providing you're not in one of these indigenous tribes that haven't really been touched by "civilisation" or its technological advances for millenia, we can probably let them of the hook no matter their age

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

It's not about proving anything. I just refute the suggestion, the older generation are the cause for a warmer climate. Every human, that walks on this Earth is accountable.

Other issue is, how we got on to this topic when climate changes, has nothing to do with Brexit.

You felt that Mr K's statement "At least we've given them a nice ever warming climate... " suggested that older people were less responsible about the environment than younger people so navigated the debate towards Glastonbury.

Challenge me to find a link to global warming and Brexit and I'll do my best to oblige you. Here's a recent article by a leading nuclear scientist that discusses how Theresa May's Brexit will kill off her own plans for a green car revolution... which can't be good for global warming.

Over time, the UK will likely be able to closely replicate the relationship that currently exists with Euratom; however, we will have to leave Euratom in March 2019, giving us just 20 months to replicate something that has taken decades to create.
Many experts think it will take at least five years to put in place all the necessary arrangements, and that is generous given the Government is struggling over issues such as chlorinated chicken.
The reason every single expert in the civil nuclear industry, the nuclear medicine industry and scientists alike are so baffled by the Government’s decision is that it is completely unnecessary and has zero benefits. The best case scenario is that we spend an enormous amount of money, time and resources to create the same situation we have now. No one is calling for anything other than close scientific cooperation with our allies.
However, the risks are immense...
The Government has been clear about the need to decarbonise our electricity supply and that our transport should be powered by ever-greener electricity. This requires investment, policy certainty and a pragmatic and sensible approach to how we shape our energy policy.
Our decision to leave Euratom delivers none of these things. It is short-sighted, counter-productive and dangerous. That is why there is not a single advocate for our leaving Euratom – other than the Government’s lawyers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7877611.html

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You felt that Mr K's statement "At least we've given them a nice ever warming climate... " suggested that older people were less responsible about the environment than younger people so navigated the debate towards Glastonbury.

Challenge me to find a link to global warming and Brexit and I'll do my best to oblige you. Here's a recent article by a leading nuclear scientist that discusses how Theresa May's Brexit will kill off her own plans for a green car revolution... which can't be good for global warming.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7877611.html

Where on earth does it mention anything about green cars in your quote???