GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

HairyOb1   
6 minutes ago, kzb said:

No I don't believe it is for fun.  It's part of "soft power".   Norway is a wealthy nation, per capita, and it may well think voluntary payments to various causes is beneficial to its interests.  The point is, the payments are ultimately under the control of Norway itself, and Norway decides what it pays into and what it does not.  That is the main point.

Almost 50% of total payments?

I don't believe it, sorry, but that's pretty insane to think they are.  It's a substantial amount.  I can't imagine one other country that would wear a voluntary payment of almost doubles it's commitments, for 'soft power' given it has no power at all, even slightly.

Interesting to note they can veto our EEA/EFTA membership if wanted it.  Anyone in that agreement could.  Any one country has veto power over our potential membership.  What I've read is that they are not too sure letting in such a large economy into it would be destructive.

Edited by HairyOb1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Almost 50% of total payments?

I don't believe it, sorry, but that's pretty insane to think they are.  It's a substantial amount.  I can't imagine one other country that would wear a voluntary payment of almost doubles it's commitments, for 'soft power' given it has no power at all, even slightly.

Interesting to note they can veto our EEA/EFTA membership if wanted it.  Anyone in that agreement could.  Any one country has veto power over our potential membership.  What I've read is that they are not too sure letting in such a large economy into it would be destructive.

Twice in one day you sound like a climate change doubter.

On the basis of evidence and analysis versus your belief; you call it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Option5   
Just now, kzb said:

No I don't believe it is for fun.  It's part of "soft power".   Norway is a wealthy nation, per capita, and it may well think voluntary payments to various causes is beneficial to its interests.  The point is, the payments are ultimately under the control of Norway itself, and Norway decides what it pays into and what it does not.  That is the main point.

Norway gets what it considers to be, all the advantages of being in the EU but keeps control of it's own tariffs on trade etc. It considered this a deal worth paying for and operates from a position of power (financially). This half in half out stance also removes a lot of pressure to join the euro which is generally considered undesirable by Norwegians.

The open borders bit is what is making the Norwegian populace uneasy about Europe.

Norway also has very little "class" structure so looking down on others is not in their nature, hence the desire to help others. However misguided their actions may be they're generally done with good intentions.

Consider the fact that Norway was rocked by a home grown terrorist who killed 77 and injured 209 in a horrendous act. So given that how did they react and what over the top laws were enacted to control the people? One new law was brought in, you can only buy an amount of fertiliser in proportion to the area you farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HairyOb1   
9 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Twice in one day you sound like a climate change doubter.

On the basis of evidence and analysis versus your belief; you call it out!

No, not evidence, as he said himself - Interpretation...

Now you can probably see why I think you act as though you've been educated by sheep from time to time.

I disagree completely with it, as logically, and that's how I am looking at it, it makes no sense at all.  10%?  Yeah, possibly.  But almost the same amount as they already pay, for nothing other than 'good will', or 'soft power' (whatever the hell that means).  Sorry, don't buy it.

That's all you've presented - an Interpretation.  No hard evidence, interpretation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dave Beans said:

That's Oliver Norgrove (AFAIK)...

http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk/

There are rumours floating around, is that Mrs May is about to give notice to leave the EEA...

Thanks, just had a read on Dr North's EUReferendum blog. Guess the outcome of those UKgov visit's to the EFTA politicos over the last 18 months will be forthcoming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

No, not evidence, as he said himself - Interpretation...

Now you can probably see why I think you act as though you've been educated by sheep from time to time.

I disagree completely with it, as logically, and that's how I am looking at it, it makes no sense at all.  10%?  Yeah, possibly.  But almost the same amount as they already pay, for nothing other than 'good will', or 'soft power' (whatever the hell that means).  Sorry, don't buy it.

That's all you've presented - an Interpretation.  No hard evidence, interpretation...

Well his 'interpretation" is 22pages long and he is an ex foreign secretary. That has a great deal more face validity than your Victor Meldrew "I don't believe it!".

o-VICTOR-MELDREW-570.jpg?7

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/european-policy/Norways-relations-with-Europe/financil-contribution/id684932/

Edited by GrizzlyDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pig   
2 minutes ago, Option5 said:

Norway gets what it considers to be, all the advantages of being in the EU but keeps control of it's own tariffs on trade etc. It considered this a deal worth paying for and operates from a position of power (financially). This half in half out stance also removes a lot of pressure to join the euro which is generally considered undesirable by Norwegians.

The open borders bit is what is making the Norwegian populace uneasy about Europe.

Norway also has very little "class" structure so looking down on others is not in their nature, hence the desire to help others. However misguided their actions may be they're generally done with good intentions.

Consider the fact that Norway was rocked by a home grown terrorist who killed 77 and injured 209 in a horrendous act. So given that how did they react and what over the top laws were enacted to control the people? One new law was brought in, you can only buy an amount of fertiliser in proportion to the area you farm.

Actually I think that's the 'natural' human condition.

Yesterday somebody fell off a bus trying to get off. Within literally one second somebody had raced over, shortly followed by 4/5 people. They all kind of stood around making sure he was OK - (I was of course busy taking notes to inflict on some of the 'kipper fecktards I know) before somebody walked him over to a cafe.

Its politics, that screws this up through an individual or individuals taking power - that maligns and distorts saying well, best if you learn from your mistakes you idiot I'm not interrupting my day too why should it mess everybody else up ? or nah sod it you're black brown Irish Polish (canine lol!) or feck me now somebody will have to wash the pavement you should pay or go buy a mop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Option5   
1 minute ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Well his 'interpretation" is 22pages long and he is an ex foreign secretary. That has a great deal more face validity than your Victor Meldrew "I don't believe it!".

Boris Johnston is the current Foreign Secretary, just saying, :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It will be fascinating to see how the politics of this plays out. Assuming May is forced to concede a parliamentary vote on the final deal, she is likely to find herself trying to whip her MPs into backing a hard or no deal exit, while Labor is offering the Norway option.

If she lost that vote a general election would be unavoidable, and most likely followed by a Corbyn victory  

Normally you would think that no prime minister would allow themselves to find themselves in that position, but given the amount of  bad feeling already generated by the negotiation could May successfully execute the u turn required to apply for ongoing EEA/EFTA membership.  

   

Surely Labour can't miss an open goal...?

As posted above, have to wait for May's announcement on the 21st...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-04/may-s-brexit-speech-could-delay-next-brexit-talks-round-eu-says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Option5   
1 minute ago, pig said:

Actually I think that's the 'natural' human condition.

Yesterday somebody fell off a bus trying to get off. Within literally one second somebody had raced over, shortly followed by 4/5 people. They all kind of stood around making sure he was OK - (I was of course busy taking notes to inflict on some of the 'kipper fecktards I know) before somebody walked him over to a cafe.

Its politics, that screws this up through an individual or individuals taking power - that maligns and distorts saying well, best if you learn from your mistakes you idiot I'm not interrupting my day too why should it mess everybody else up ? or nah sod it you're black brown Irish Polish (canine lol!) or feck me now somebody will have to wash the pavement you should pay or go buy a mop.

 

True, my point was that how can people comment on what Norway does or doesn't do unless they can think like a Norwegian and have Norwegian values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HairyOb1   
5 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Well his 'interpretation" is 22pages long and he is an ex foreign secretary. That has a great deal more face validity than your Victor Meldrew "I don't believe it!".

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/european-policy/Norways-relations-with-Europe/financil-contribution/id684932/

...and it's still just an interpretation...

 

2 minutes ago, Option5 said:

Boris Johnston is the current Foreign Secretary, just saying, :D

Quite...

download.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Option5   
Just now, HairyOb1 said:

...and it's still just an interpretation...

 

Quite...

Stop it, I'm taking the mickey out of both of you equally :D

I'm therefore an equal opportunities mickey taker............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Futuroid said:

David Cameron wasn't for Brexit, so why would be the one to define what shape it should take. Surely that was something that those in favour of it, those pushing it should have done BEFORE the vote?

As for Nissan's gains. Those gains might well be in Europe, when they shut down and leave the UK as well (as they would under a "hard Brexit" scenario). Especially when you consider Nissan are part of the Renault group so they have a range of EU plants to choose from in order to manufacture their cars!

 

Goldfish moment, again. 18 months on and still trotting out whimpers.

What did Cameron say he would do, as the UK PM, if the people voted to Leave in the referendum? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

Goldfish moment, again. 18 months on and still trotting out whimpers.

What did Cameron say he would do, as the UK PM, if the people voted to Leave in the referendum? 

Baa;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kzb   
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Exactly, like paying for Amazon Prime to get better delivery.

So you can order your cherry bakewell cake and get it delivered whenever, or voluntarily pay for a different service agreement and get to eat it the next day!

 

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85515

This is quite old now (April 2015) but Richard North thought our payments under the "Norway Option" could be as little as £1.8 billion net.  Worst case scenario £4 billion net.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riedquat   
8 hours ago, Futuroid said:

David Cameron wasn't for Brexit, so why would be the one to define what shape it should take. Surely that was something that those in favour of it, those pushing it should have done BEFORE the vote?

As Prime Minister his job, and the Government's, was to run the country under whatever circumstances the country happened to be in, and in reponse to whatever happens whilst he was in office. Furthermore being the one who gave the referendum puts extra responsibility on him. He was in charge, asked people what direction they wanted the country to go in, then ran away when he didn't like the answer, rather than acting responsibility and preparing a course of action for whichever way the vote went. His own personal preferences were no excuse to abdicate his responsibility for preparing for either outcome, and failing to do so was highly irresponsible. If he wasn't prepared to plan to do his best for the country for either outcome he had no business calling the referendum in the first place.

Those pushing for it could come  up with whatever plan they liked, since they weren't the ones in government, and weren't running for government, all that could be done there was to lay out possible options and their vision. The government would be under no obligation to take them on (beyond "leave").

This has been discussed numerous times since the referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kzb said:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85515

This is quite old now (April 2015) but Richard North thought our payments under the "Norway Option" could be as little as £1.8 billion net.  Worst case scenario £4 billion net.

 

Norway option £4.3bn..."Bespoke" FTA £4bn...

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/BrexitMonograph003.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kzb   
1 hour ago, HairyOb1 said:

Almost 50% of total payments?

I don't believe it, sorry, but that's pretty insane to think they are.  It's a substantial amount.  I can't imagine one other country that would wear a voluntary payment of almost doubles it's commitments, for 'soft power' given it has no power at all, even slightly.

{EDIT}

From that site DG linked.  It looks like you might be right about the "insane" bit:

Norway also pays "Norway Grants", which are often mistakenly confused with the EEA grants.  Norway has set aside €804 million for the current five-year funding period of “Norway Grants”, which is an average of £134 million per annum.  These grants are purely voluntary (as a foreign policy initiative by Norway) and are not part of the EEA agreement –other EEA countries do not contribute to these grants.   Daniel Hannan relates how when asking Icelandic civil servants why Norway paid these extra grants “two civil servants looked at each other awkwardly and one said: “Because those Norwegian Euro-officials are f***ing crazy!”  

http://euquestion.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/cameron-watch-how-much-does-norway-pay.html?m=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

As Prime Minister his job, and the Government's, was to run the country under whatever circumstances the country happened to be in, and in reponse to whatever happens whilst he was in office. Furthermore being the one who gave the referendum puts extra responsibility on him. He was in charge, asked people what direction they wanted the country to go in, then ran away when he didn't like the answer, rather than acting responsibility and preparing a course of action for whichever way the vote went. His own personal preferences were no excuse to abdicate his responsibility for preparing for either outcome, and failing to do so was highly irresponsible. If he wasn't prepared to plan to do his best for the country for either outcome he had no business calling the referendum in the first place.

Those pushing for it could come  up with whatever plan they liked, since they weren't the ones in government, and weren't running for government, all that could be done there was to lay out possible options and their vision. The government would be under no obligation to take them on (beyond "leave").

This has been discussed numerous times since the referendum.

Quite. 

Hopefully, in an effort to finally quell the whimpers, this 87 page, Select Committee report will suffice:

Quote

...While the Government did not support a Leave vote, they nonetheless had a constitutional and public obligation to prepare for both outcomes from the referendum. In 1975, Whitehall undertook contingency planning for a possible vote in favour of withdrawal from the European Communities and there was no adequate reason for a refusal to prepare for either eventuality in 2016. Though we were relieved to learn that work was undertaken within the Civil Service on the potential implications of a Leave vote, Civil Servants should never have been asked to operate in a climate where contingency planning was formally proscribed by the Government. We recommend that in the 6 Lessons learned from the EU Referendum event of future referendums civil servants should be tasked with preparing for both possible outcomes. The presumption should be that the sitting Prime Minister and his/ her administration will continue in office and take responsibility for the referendum result in either eventuality. We recommend that the Government heed the lessons from this referendum of the implications of the use of the machinery of government during referendums on public trust and confidence in the institutions of government.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubadm/496/496.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Errol   

Ignoring anything else, Cameron's behaviour was just cowardice in the extreme.

I don't like him particularly, but he should have been man enough to stay and lead the country through to leaving the EU and the single market. Instead he just threw his toys out the pram and fled in abject terror. He made no effort to hide his shocking cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kzb   
33 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Norway option £4.3bn..."Bespoke" FTA £4bn...

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/BrexitMonograph003.pdf

I feel I have to point out again (for those who have joined the thread recently), there is significant doubt over this "rebate", and there are misunderstandings about import duties.  This document takes the official rebate figure as read.

No-one can explain exactly how the rebate works.  What we do know is 66% of EU projects in the UK are subtracted from the rebate.  But not from the current year, it goes forward to subsequent years.   So it might not be as big as we are lead to believe.

Import duties collected in the UK are apparently not included as part of our contribution.  That is because it is an EU customs border, not a UK customs border.  Nevertheless about £4billion is collected in the UK and handed over to the EU.  We get 20% of this back to cover collection costs.

 

Edited by kzb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kzb said:

I feel I have to point out again (for those who have joined the thread recently), there is significant doubt over this "rebate", and there are misunderstandings about import duties.

No-one can explain exactly how the rebate works.  What we do know is 66% of EU projects in the UK are subtracted from the rebate.  But not from the current year, it goes forward to subsequent years.   So it might not be as big as we are lead to believe.

Import duties collected in the UK are apparently not included as part of our contribution.  That is because it is an EU customs border, not a UK customs border.  Nevertheless about £4billion is collected in the UK and handed over to the EU.  We get 20% of this back to cover collection costs.

Which might explain why the EU were dumbfounded, shocked, flabbergasted, exposed:

Quote

...

British negotiators spent three hours launching a painstaking, line-by-line rebuttal of the EU’s demands for €100bn divorce settlement to the barely concealed fury of EU negotiators.

"There was total amazement,” the EU source said, “Everyone was completely flabbergasted that this young man from Whitehall was saying that the EU's preparation on the financial settlement was 'inadequate'. It did not go down well."...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/30/brexit-showdown-eu-left-flabbergasted-british-negotiators-dismantle/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.