UK will have to give up all EU perks after Brexit, François Hollande warns

[Mayhem]

1. Why would they?
2. They'll have to find another reason in a couple of years

1. Because the reason for them wanting a rebate left the Union?
2. no they do not

[Rockyreg]

1. Because the reason for them wanting a rebate left the Union?
2. no they do not

Will they not have got accustomed to paying less though?

[Deleted]

Source? Because subsidising an industry has never been about "what you need" and more about "what you can afford". What steel production is surplus will be sold to China anyway, as their hunger for steel dried up the global market in the past 2 decades very much.

'source?' so you have not checked into anything you are saying and are just giving your opinion? i see, will exit this conversation now.

[Mayhem]

Will they not have got accustomed to paying less though?

Who cares? The reason for their rebate left!

[Dangg]

Sucks balls for me PERSONALLY as I order from Amazon.uk quite frequently.

[HeiAggra]

I just think is funny how the english persons say if Uk is punished other contries will leave the EU!
Scotland says HI!

[Rockyreg]

Who cares? The reason for their rebate left!

Probably the members who get no rebate at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

I just think is funny how the english persons say if Uk is punished other contries will leave the EU!
Scotland says HI!

That assumes that Scotland is in favour of joining the EU, which it isn't. Like the UK they just want the single market

[Noradin]

'source?' so you have not checked into anything you are saying and are just giving your opinion? i see, will exit this conversation now.

Obviously you will exit, because you have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

That assumes that Scotland is in favour of joining the EU, which it isn't. Like the UK they just want the single market

Maybe in your head that assumption is there, but it certainly isn't in any way connected to the sentence you quoted.

[Rockyreg]

Obviously you will exit, because you have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -


Maybe in your head that assumption is there, but it certainly isn't in any way connected to the sentence you quoted.

Sorry I forgot you are european. The majority of the electorate of Scotland is not in favour of joining the EU

[Mayhem]

Probably the members who get no rebate at the moment.

Why would the member who get no rebate care about members getting accustomed to a rebate? It´s set to end in 2020.

[baskev]

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-at-bad-moment

I agree with Hollande 100%. UK brought itself in a very bad position with that retarded unfortunate choice of theirs. I think they didn't bet on Trump winning, but even if they were right its a step backwards.



The future is in unions and not in divisions. UK must not be allowed to leave AND keep the privilege of accessing the single market. It will only fuel the fire of the EU skeptic parties.

I also foresee a lot of drama within the Kingdom. I am not sure how Scotland will react when their products and services will have a hefty tax on them to export in EU.

What do you guys think? Should UK be allowed to keep the whole pie?

Their are several things: what people want to happen and What will happen.

People want what hollande says. You leave the club, you loose all the rights to use the pool, enter the club or play golf. And loose your caddy scottie in the progress

But most likely. Their will be some deals for expats and for your caddy. So it will still cost UK stuff. But some of the country club stuff he can still use.



Still find Brexit and trump to must idiotic political things of the last 30 years. And that includes a bush jr president and a president that likes to get BJ on the job......

Brexit.....holy crap that people where that dump to fall for it. Being promised stuff and not seeing the effect it will have on the longer term. And why did people vote for it??? Because they believed that EU was costing them money, forcing refugee's into your country and they where taking your jobs....
Lets see: EU costing them money, it also cost money to do business without being in the EU. As for the extra costs....yes you will not have to pay for them..but wales and other parts of the UK will loose eu money they are getting.

Refugee's: Yeah its a problem. But you had it the easiest with blocking them coming in.... On top of that the numbers that are entering are not as scary for you as for other country's in europa.

Jobs: Lol...all the jobs that are lost right now because its economically bad to go to the UK. Or all the jobs British people do not want to do...work the lands, serve people in the bars/restaurants etc....

Its just like with all these far rights idiots...they promise you golden toilets, free iphones and ( insert car of liking). But you do not see you will not get any of it. It will cost you allot of your money and rights. And all they do is get away with it. Or am i wrong and is Farage still working to help with the brexit

[Pann]

That assumes that Scotland is in favour of joining the EU, which it isn't. Like the UK they just want the single market

Until the question is asked of the Scottish people that is nothing more than assumption on your part.

[Flarelaine]

Sorry I forgot you are european. The majority of the electorate of Scotland is not in favour of joining the EU

Technically, this is true. They are in favour of remaining, not having to join again.

[Noradin]

Sorry I forgot you are european. The majority of the electorate of Scotland is not in favour of joining the EU

How is that relevant to the post you quoted?
Is it just some random, unproven factoid you like to throw around whenever there is a space you can type it in?

[Deleted]

Their are several things: what people want to happen and What will happen.

People want what hollande says. You leave the club, you loose all the rights to use the pool, enter the club or play golf. And loose your caddy scottie in the progress

But most likely. Their will be some deals for expats and for your caddy. So it will still cost UK stuff. But some of the country club stuff he can still use.



Still find Brexit and trump to must idiotic political things of the last 30 years. And that includes a bush jr president and a president that likes to get BJ on the job......

Brexit.....holy crap that people where that dump to fall for it. Being promised stuff and not seeing the effect it will have on the longer term. And why did people vote for it??? Because they believed that EU was costing them money, forcing refugee's into your country and they where taking your jobs....
Lets see: EU costing them money, it also cost money to do business without being in the EU. As for the extra costs....yes you will not have to pay for them..but wales and other parts of the UK will loose eu money they are getting.

Refugee's: Yeah its a problem. But you had it the easiest with blocking them coming in.... On top of that the numbers that are entering are not as scary for you as for other country's in europa.

Jobs: Lol...all the jobs that are lost right now because its economically bad to go to the UK. Or all the jobs British people do not want to do...work the lands, serve people in the bars/restaurants etc....

Its just like with all these far rights idiots...they promise you golden toilets, free iphones and ( insert car of liking). But you do not see you will not get any of it. It will cost you allot of your money and rights. And all they do is get away with it. Or am i wrong and is Farage still working to help with the brexit

it is easy to just spout off nonsense but lets look at what the FACTS show is happening with real statistics.

their are easy access points in the EU for refugees travelling from the middle east. if you look at the number of refugees crossing these boarders then yes a simpleton would come to the conclusion that well its worse than the UK so stop complaining. now lets look just a tiny bit further before trying to use this as an argument.

the number of refugees crossing into the EU is not the sole issue. the majority of these refugees are planning a route through these inital entry point countries into MAINLY the UK and Germany.

if you look at the time that refugees are spending in some EU countries you will quite easily see that it is days and sometimes week or 2 before they have left the initial entry country en route to germany or the UK.

is this speaking for all refugees? no ofcourse not so that is not a counter argument. BUT as the DATA SHOWS it is the vast majority.

[Noradin]

And what will the UK leaving the EU change in regards to those refugees?
Will you open your borders for them (unlike right now)?

Are those the FACTS* to you want us to look at?

Do you have a link to your "real statistics" or is it enough for you if they exists in your mind?

*(Those need to be in all caps, right? To distinguish them from plain old facts?)

[Deleted]

If LePen wins, France is out. If France is out, everyone is out. Even if she doesn't win, it seems the public in many other nations are against the EU as well. Perhaps I will be wrong but, it's hardly a wild notion that isn't shared by millions of others.

Lol. France won't vote to leave, too many subsidised farmers.

[Teleros]

No, it was because the banks rated sub-prime mortgages with a rating that didn´t reflect their value and sold them off because the housing market was robust and nothing ever happened, well until people couldn´t afford their 3 mortgages on their 4 houses and simply left them to the banks who couldn´t resell them because everyone already owned a house or two.

Why did the banks do all those sub-prime mortgages though? Answer: because the Clinton administration leaned hard on them - "oh, well not doing mortgages to poor blacks is racism, don't'cha know?" kind of thing.

As everyone uses debt based currency there is little to no problem with debt, especially not if the vast of it is owed to themselves.

That's not how it is though - most Western countries are in horrific amounts of debt just due to state pension schemes for example. I have to work to pay for my grandparents' pensions, and my parents' when they retire, and my kids will have to work to pay for mine (not that I expect to get one, mind you), etc.

You have two options with debt: either pay it back, or renege on it. We've done a pretty good job of kicking the can down the road, but we're getting to the stage where that can is getting too heavy to kick.

It is that simple though, the regultions aren´t, but not enough regulations usually is what causes the fuck ups because if you can do it legally it´s really hard to get caught.

The banks are generally smart, insofar as they don't like to give money to people who probably can't pay it back, because they lose money. Had Clinton not twisted their collective arm, you wouldn't have had anywhere near the disaster that we ended up having. Now sure, you could also say "let's have a regulation that prevents banks loaning money to people that probably won't pay them back", but then you're back at square one - namely, everyone calling you racist :P . Back in the 90's, that was a serious accusation :P .

And who will pay for all of that? People who have no influene in the matter.

I mean the voters, who of course have influence in the matter. Look, if you want to vote for bigger and bigger government, financed on the back of massive amounts of debt... you're gonna have to pay up sooner or later. Maybe you'll be lucky and enjoy the fruits of your grandchildren's debt slavery until you die, but that seems a very narcissistic and downright evil way to live.

Now, if you want to pay for bigger & bigger government off the back of taxes, or sovereign investment funds, or something like that... well simply put, the profit-hungry bankers can't really do much to screw with you. Maybe if you join the ERM at the wrong level, like the UK did, sure... but at least in terms of debt, a country with little to no debt is a country the bankers can't punish.

You´re ok with your standard of living falling because bankers want to get rich fast without caring for the consequences? That´s like saying "it should be promoted for engineers to build bad bridges because the government should be punished if it´s irresponsible with its money" totally ignoring that the people driving over those bridges are the ones who will die.

Not the best analogy.

The problem with your line of thinking is, that without the rules the government has to become better at doing the job of the bankers so they can´t be irresponsible. Then you don´t need the bankers at all.

You don't need to be an investment banker to not take on massive debt. That's literally all it boils down to.

There are a few really basic principles that any government should adhere to if it wants a stable economy. Things like "don't go massively into debt*" and "don't print money / adulterate the coins", basically. Sometimes these things can't be helped - such as in a major war, or if there's a gold rush and you happen to be on the gold standard - but on the whole, if you stick to a few simple rules like that, your economy will survive things like a banking crisis much better.

*This goes for double when your economy is not in recession. If you are going to go into debt on a semi-regular basis, then for God's sake build up cash reserves in the good years to pay for the years when you go into debt.

Uhm, your example is missing something. You´ve explained what the UK can do (debatable) but not what it gets in reverse for implementing that regulation.

Oh, I was just thinking of ways the UK might be able to bribe an EU member to not vote to extend the negotiating period for Brexit. It requires unanimity from the European Council to extend the deadline you see, and the members of said council are all heads of state / government from the EU nations. That obviously means they're thinking about domestic politics more than EU-level ones half the time. Now... Belgium has an election in May 2019, and Finland in April... possibly some of their MPs nervous about their seats would like a few more jobs (or just job security) right around election time...?

You mean except for current EU regulations? Yes you can do that and see the deal you just signed with the EU being revoked because of breaking exactly the rules you agreed on upholding until you actually leave the EU, demonstrating that an agreement with the UK isn´t worth the paper it´s written on. You can´t negotiate deals, yes you are allowed to discuss trade.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-deals-eu-says

Right, and what's the EU going to do after the fact if those "discussions" just so happen to be an ideal basis to negotiate a trade deal on?



Nobody - but nobody - will seriously think that "agreements with the UK aren't worth the paper they're written on" because the UK government did what any sane government did. Okay that's a lie, because clearly you will think the UK is being too naughty for words. The rest of the world, where realpolitik governs, will shrug and say "WTF did you expect?" and happily sign deals with the UK.

You still don´t get that part of what is currently in London has to be by law within a EU member country. So the EU isn´t taking from London it´s keeping it within the Union. You can´t expect to take stuff with you that doesn´t belong to you when leaving.

But it does belong to the UK, because it's there, right now, in the UK, employing Brits, paying British taxes, operating under British law, and all that jazz. If that business leaves the UK because the EU won't let it remain there, then the EU has taken it from the UK. Let's not pretend the EU isn't transferring jobs, businesses, and taxes from the UK to the EU if passporting isn't allowed for UK banks.

I mean, look:

1. The UK has, let's say, 100,000 bankers.
2. The rest of the EU has, let's say, 20,000 bankers.
3. 20,000 bankers are taken from the UK pile and moved into the EU pile by the EU.
4. But - according to you - the EU hasn't taken any bankers.

/headdesk

[stomination]

The 60 billion pounds bill the UK has to pay before they can even negotiate leaving the EU is going to be the most bitter pill.

True but so is the EU losing all the money that UK was giving them to be in the EU. Sooner or later one amount passes the other.

[Slant]

I don't think it is a case of the UK pointing fingers rather people who don't know they are talking about pointing fingers. But, yeah, UK energy policy, amongst many other things, has been an issue faced by the steel industry.

Well, yes. I meant Rockyreg in particular, rather than the UK Government. But given their history, the UK Government is quite open to this sort of reproach, because they have done just this kind of finger pointing often enough for me to generalize that they do it as well.

- - - Updated - - -

'source?' so you have not checked into anything you are saying and are just giving your opinion? i see, will exit this conversation now.

Bye, bye. Next time perhaps inform yourself about what the topic is.

- - - Updated - - -

That assumes that Scotland is in favour of joining the EU, which it isn't. Like the UK they just want the single market

Either you're incredibly ignorant or deceitful. No, Scotland isn't in favour of joining the EU. Mostly, because they already are in the EU. And they are very much in favour of remaining in the EU. Which is why they're so pissed off about the Brexit referendum that they're discussing having another secession referendum in Scotland. So... either you haven't read a paper, any paper in the past few months, ever. Or you're just... discussing a dream reality that only exists in your head. In the latter case, you should probably leave this forum. The bullshit-o-meter is pretty accurate here.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, and what's the EU going to do after the fact if those "discussions" just so happen to be an ideal basis to negotiate a trade deal on?

You missed the bit where nobody in the EU is actually talking to the UK about any matter remotely related to the Brexit? I mean, you can discuss semantics all day long, but the only question the EU member states are interested in at this point in time is "When will Britain trigger Art. 50?" and that's the extend of their "discussions" that may "be the basis to negotiate a trade deal".

Why bother investing time and money into "discussions" (I know, the little rebel in your head wants to call it negotiations, just so you can say fuck you EU once more), if Britain itself isn't even sure if they want to trigger Art. 50?

- - - Updated - - -

True but so is the EU losing all the money that UK was giving them to be in the EU. Sooner or later one amount passes the other.

True, I'm looking forward to the UK paying access fees without all those bullshit rebates. I think the EU may actually benefit from this shitshow in the end. :P