Jump to content

BREXIT

JohnfromUK

By JohnfromUK,
in Off Topic

 Share

Recommended Posts

Raja Clavata

Raja Clavata

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, panoma1 said:

But you posted as mistake number 1, that Cameron should have gone straight back to the EU, after the referendum result, and tried to drive concessions etc etc! Well once the referendum result was in, going back to get concessions.....for what purpose? It could only be In order to stay in? The UK voted to leave.......staying in after the referendum result, even with negotiated concessions would, as I said, be ignoring democracy, the referendum result and Brexit.....

Read back, I stated referendum aside...

But in the big scheme of all the accusations of wrong doing directed at remainers, this would have been small beer.

8 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Reaminer logic is found wanting yet again!

Err, no, by the same logic a proportion of leavers can’t interpret basic commentary correctly. Have another go and perhaps read what was posted rather than just blindly back your cohorts.👍

8 hours ago, ordnance said:
 

I think it was well structured, stay or leave. 

Fair enough. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

oowee

oowee

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, SpringDon said:

The treaty does not differentiate between business and infrastructure, indeed in a privatised free market economy does a differentiation exist? The treaty just states that aid is incompatible with the common market should the 5 following criteria be met.

  1. "the use of state resources"
  2. "the measure must confer an advantage to certain firms"
  3. "the advantage must be selective"
  4. "the measure must distort competition"
  5. "affect trade between member states"[11]

 

To the second point 

https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/0h3_1_the_truth_about_the_european_union_food_defcit_and_the_dumping_impact_of_its_domestic_subsdies_june_26_2018.pdf

Search for eu food dumping, there’s lots of hits.

 

Financing infrastructure is not State Aid as it does not breach rules 2, 3 or 4. 

Dumping yes lots of hits little evidence beyond areas of concern (food aid distortions) legal challenges to definitions and measures. I can't find a case of sanction against the EU. That may be because i have not looked in the right areas but more likely a reflection of the power of the EU we will be up against. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpringDon

SpringDon

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, oowee said:

Financing infrastructure is not State Aid as it does not breach rules 2, 3 or 4. 

It really is. Say boris johnson’s Brother sets up a company “Old Etonian Bridge Building & Kebabs” and gets the contract for the bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland. Incompatible with the common market? I think so but it would be infrastructure so have it your way.

Dumping yes lots of hits little evidence beyond areas of concern (food aid distortions) legal challenges to definitions and measures. I can't find a case of sanction against the EU. That may be because i have not looked in the right areas but more likely a reflection of the power of the EU we will be up against. 

A lot of accusations against leave voters reference nationalism and hiding behind borders and fear of foreigners. Membership of  a protectionist bloc is the same but the borders and foreigners are a bit further away. I don’t know the -ism when a group of nations are involved but that’s what it is.

One should not be a member of a gang if the only motivation for staying is fear of their power should one leave. It’s  a terrible cliche to say “be the change you want to see” but I said it anyway.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rewulf

Rewulf

Posted
Posted

Any here on the remain side fancy rubbishing this ?

If you owned 16.1pc of the European Investment Bank (EIB) would you give it away free to the other wealthy members as you leave the EU?

That’s what Philip Hammond, the former chancellor and his team of civil servants have done.

Hidden in Theresa May’s discredited Withdrawal Treaty, ex-Chancellor Philip Hammond (then also on the Board of Governors of the EIB) gifted it €7.5bn of taxpayer's money for no concessions. He then accepted a 12-year repayment of €3.5bn with no interest, from a bank making €5bn profits in just the last two years.

The ultra-Remain ex-chancellor was prepared to leave the UK credit card open over a decade to ensure the EIB can continue to lend on non-commercial terms to the EU 27 at UK taxpayer risk.

The UK is also treaty-bound for another €36bn of “callable capital”. This is money we will pay to underpin the EIB if the eurozone collapses. Additional toxic risk exposure comes through the EU Budget which guarantees €500bn of EIB loan note risk that we would be exposed to during any “transition”. It is a truly toxic trick, conjured up by Hammond and his team.

But how did this happen?

Under May’s Withdrawal Treaty, the UK’s initial EIB capital contributions, mostly given in 1973, of €3.5bn – in today’s money roughly €35bn – can be repaid in 12 instalments of around €300m a year.

This is a non-commercial bargain for the highly profitable, triple-A-rated institution. Located in Luxembourg, with annual staff costs of €1bn and an average tax-free staff salary of a cool €294,000, this is no ordinary bank.

The EIB lends where others will not and carries a high risk of default should another eurozone crisis materialise. Since the 2008 banking crisis, EIB lending has been politically driven, to prop up the eurozone. And lend it has, throughout the euro crisis, where today it has a balance sheet of €500bn of loans to countries like Greece, whose businesses have received €18bn in loans, or 10pc of GDP, so that the Greek economy can repay over-exposed French and German banks.

Under May’s Withdrawal Treaty, the UK taxpayer would be on the hook for the next 12 years.

And it gets worse. Loan note holders have the right to recover from solvent guarantors. That could be a massive hit to the UK economy, long after we are gone, if the euro or the eurozone economies collapse.

Adding to this risk, the EIB is exempt from EU banking rules. It lends in a highly leveraged way, holding just 0.1pc on the balance sheet reserves for non-performing loans, compared to 3-5pc for real banks.

So, can these bankers go to jail if they get it wrong?

No. EIB staff aren’t afraid of going to prison. May’s treaty grants them immunity from prosecution – there is no jail hazard for EIB staff. And what does the EU intend to do with this get out of jail free card? It has authorised the EIB to lend to Iran, and May and Hammond wanted London to be the Wild West in which the EIB could operate with impunity from US sanctions.

But maybe we get something for this risk?

No. The UK has never been paid a penny in dividends and our economy has only benefited from 8.2pc of the loan portfolio, despite having 16.1pc of the equity, historically for safe high-tech purchases like satellites and infrastructure loans and now being spent on EU companies manufacturing and installing wind farms and other green projects, whose returns are underwritten by UK taxpayer subsidies. No wonder the EU says nothing can be changed.

So, what’s the remedy?

The Brexit Party says that after rejection of May’s Withdrawal Treaty and UK departure on WTO terms, the EIB must repay our €11bn of capital in full. The UK loan book, currently €41bn, should also be returned to the UK along with related contingent liabilities.

This will be the initial investment into a new British Investment Bank, designed to deliver much-needed infrastructure spending and long term “patient capital” for vital projects. The bank would be exclusively a UK lender and have a AAA rating. Its remit would be investment in the UK regions, for example revitalising Great Britain’s Fishing and Coastal Ports.

In a final twist to this toxic tale of Remainer scheming, the Brexit Party calls for a Royal Commission to investigate how the UK Government and civil service managed the process of exiting the EU with such ineptitude. Important lessons can and must be learned as the UK returns to the path of self-governance.

Mays’ non-Withdrawal Treaty is designed to bind the UK and its economy to the euro project, without a UK vote or voice. It should be rejected in its entirety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oowee

oowee

Posted
Posted (edited)

Happy i did not vote for that one. 

The U.K.'s stake in the EIB represents some €40 billion in capital commitment. The bulk of that cash pile is sitting in the U.K. and is only made available if the EIB requests it. The EU lender itself only holds around €3.5 billion of the U.K.’s money.

In principle, Britain’s exit from the EU in 2019 will force the country to pull out of the EIB and withdraw that paid-in capital in stages, over a 12-year period, according to the agreement that the Commission published together with the U.K., outlining the progress made in the first phase of Brexit talks.

the UK will receive its share of any subsequent recoveries.

Similarly, as the financial operations supported by the net asset of the European Coal and Steel Community in liquidation and of the European Investment Fund decided before the withdrawal date, mature, the UK will receive its share.

The UK considers that there could be mutual benefit from a continuing arrangement between the UK and the EIB. The UK wishes to explore these possible arrangements in the second phase of the negotiations.

Edited by oowee
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rewulf

Rewulf

Posted
Posted (edited)

When we get this sorted, hopefully after weve left, there really ought to be some investigations into some of this sort of activity.

Its borderline fraudulent, without doubt cronyism, and sure fire negligent use of public money.

Id also like to see some of the investors and donators to remain groups scrutinised, weve had 2 years of mud slinging at leave UK , lets check out the opposition too.

People like blair and major need to explain why they are working to undermine this countries negotiating position, I would like them to explain WHERE they are furthering the aims of the UK, and its people.
People like soubry , letwin and benn , also need a thorough investigation, as there appears to be a conflict of interest as paid representatives of the PEOPLE.

Miller and spouse have clearly benefited financially on the misery and monetary cost to the taxpayer.

The swamp is deep and foul smelling.

Edited by Rewulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
old'un

old'un

Posted
Posted

I remember when the media and others were calling Boris a bumbling buffoon and not fit for PM, well I think he has took a few by surprise, lets hope he can now deliver Brexit on the 31 October and get us out of this mess.

The vote was remain or leave, not remain half in, or remain half out, leave won so lets get it done, out with no deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oowee

oowee

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, old'un said:

I remember when the media and others were calling Boris a bumbling buffoon and not fit for PM, well I think he has took a few by surprise, lets hope he can now deliver Brexit on the 31 October and get us out of this mess.

The vote was remain or leave, not remain half in, or remain half out, leave won so lets get it done, out with no deal.

Why so? You mean with his under the desk fumblings? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
old'un

old'un

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, oowee said:

Why so? You mean with his under the desk fumblings? 

No, he is a bit smarter than people give him credit for.

his under the desk fumbling as you call it is just remainers trying to bring him down in anyway they can.

out on the 31st, I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rewulf

Rewulf

Posted
Posted
Just now, Raja Clavata said:

I think he'll be gone before then to be honest.

Maybe he will , maybe he wont.

But it wont be because someone takes a sexual impropriety accusation seriously .

And it wont be because what hes trying to achieve is unpopular with the electorate.

It certainly wont win labour an election, or stop them losing a whole raft of seats, their own policies will do that on there own.

No , if he goes , its because he is seen as a major threat to the remain MPs and there aims.

WHEN this matter is put before the people, thats when the reckoning comes, if Boris has to sacrifice himself , he will, but he will make sure it makes Brexit happen as a consequence.
Thats whats called acting with conscience and integrity, NOT what you think is best for YOURSELF.

Ill say it again, remain do not, did not , and will not ever, have the numbers to get their way.
They are delaying the inevitable, and it will cost them all the more the longer it takes, this particularly relates to labour and SNP MPs.

It wasnt so long ago we were talking about the destruction of the tory party, Boris put them back together, thats worth something.

Now were talking about the destruction of the labour party, do you think the commissar can do the same :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
old'un

old'un

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

What and play my ace card, no thanks 🤪

Well I think he will see us out of the EU on the 31st, like I said he is a bit smarter than people gave him credit for....but, within the next few weeks one of us will have egg on their face, hope its you. ;)

Edited by old'un
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...