Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[ceptimus]

Sorry, a short holiday prevented me coming back sooner. I brought up the flight point not to say that we wouldn't be able to use EU airspace I am sure we will rather all these systems that we will remain part of have a cost to run and we will need to pay our share. Therefore it is it not safe to assume that we will save all the money we currently contribute.

Where's your evidence that we will have to pay more to the EU for using their airspace than they will have to pay to us for using ours? And will the net transfer of money, if any (and in whichever direction) be any different than it is while we're still in the EU? Without figures you're just making more baseless Project Fear claims.

 

[abaddon]

I think you are right the 'deal' was good. The problem that caused it to fail to get parliamentary support was the addendum in the form of the backstop. The EU was requiring the UK to sign up to an eternal commitment when the rest of the deal was a temporary deal. This is an extraordinary thing to require. To require the other party to sign up to a commitment to the outcome of future negotiations that could only be exited from with the agreement of the other party before the negotiations had begun. The backstop was unnecessary if the deal had been signed. If the EU had deferred the backstop to the next stage of negotiations then the May deal would probably have got through.

The backstop was a british invention. The EU didn't come up with that.

 

[abaddon]

Where's your evidence that we will have to pay more to the EU for using their airspace than they will have to pay to us for using ours? And will the net transfer of money, if any (and in whichever direction) be any different than it is while we're still in the EU? Without figures you're just making more baseless Project Fear claims.

Still naively missing the point.

 

[Lothian]

Where's your evidence that we will have to pay more to the EU for using their airspace than they will have to pay to us for using ours? And will the net transfer of money, if any (and in whichever direction) be any different than it is while we're still in the EU? Without figures you're just making more baseless Project Fear claims.

I am not talking about paying for airspace. I am talking about the shared systems such as those which stop planes from flying into each other. Information systems that share police information, immigration systems, shared financial systems. Where we remain part of these systems we will have to pay for them meaning that we will not get a full saving. Is your view that where we remain in certain EU institutions we should not contribute?

 

[ceptimus]

I am not talking about paying for airspace. I am talking about the shared systems such as those which stop planes from flying into each other. Information systems that share police information, immigration systems, shared financial systems. Where we remain part of these systems we will have to pay for them meaning that we will not get a full saving. Is your view that where we remain in certain EU institutions we should not contribute?

You assume that all these systems belong to the EU somehow, and that every other country that uses them has to pay the EU for that privilege.

For the aircraft systems, can you show that non-EU countries have to pay the EU to use these systems and there are no reciprocal payments from the EU to those other countries? You could perhaps begin with Russia, Israel, and the USA.

Regarding the other shared systems, again they don't necessarily belong to the EU - there are truly international organizations like Interpol and the WTO.

Obviously if the UK wants to make use of the services of some EU organization after Brexit, AND the EU permits it, AND the UK thinks it's good value for money, then we'll pay for it. We're paying for it right now anyway, through our EU contributions, so it won't make much difference unless the EU wish to extort us.

 

[Lothian]

You assume that all these systems belong to the EU somehow, and that every other country that uses them has to pay the EU for that privilege.

For the aircraft systems, can you show that non-EU countries have to pay the EU to use these systems and there are no reciprocal payments from the EU to those other countries? You could perhaps begin with Russia, Israel, and the USA.

Regarding the other shared systems, again they don't necessarily belong to the EU - there are truly international organizations like Interpol and the WTO.

Obviously if the UK wants to make use of the services of some EU organization after Brexit, AND the EU permits it, AND the UK thinks it's good value for money, then we'll pay for it. We're paying for it right now anyway, through our EU contributions, so it won't make much difference unless the EU wish to extort us.

Thank you for agreeing that remaining in EU systems like Europol means that we we not get a full refund of our fee.

 

[jimbob]

Still naively missing the point.

I am not talking about paying for airspace. I am talking about the shared systems such as those which stop planes from flying into each other. Information systems that share police information, immigration systems, shared financial systems. Where we remain part of these systems we will have to pay for them meaning that we will not get a full saving. Is your view that where we remain in certain EU institutions we should not contribute?

I was going to say that it was a pre-computer understanding of international interactions, but it seems closer to a pre-radio understanding.

I'm sure in Victorian times, it wouldn't have been such a problem.

 

[ceptimus]

Thank you for agreeing that remaining in EU systems like Europol means that we we not get a full refund of our fee.

Yes but we can also charge the EU for accessing our systems so as to offset any such payments.

 

[Nessie]

I now have three friends/relatives who are now experiencing a huge drop in income or redundancy due to Brexit. Reality is starting to bite.

 

[abaddon]

Yes but we can also charge the EU for accessing our systems so as to offset any such payments.

But the point is not the payments. Why do you not grok this?

 

[Lothian]

Yes but we can also charge the EU for accessing our systems so as to offset any such payments.

Where we are currently using shared EU systems we often won't have our own and will have to develop them paying the full cost as opposed to 1/28th.

One major function of the EU is to offer economy of scale on shared initiatives.

Where there are separate national systems the EU will pay for a system to speak to them all. As one example EUCARIS joins to all the national vehicle databases. While each member state pays for their own systems, we fund DVLA, the EU funds the cost of EUCARIS which allows all the systems to connect to each other. Someone in Estonia can access DVLA info and we can trace the owner of a Lithuanian car in a hit and run. If we want to use these shared systems which are EU funded we will need to pay our share.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

But the point is not the payments. Why do you not grok this?

Because the British Empire is larger than europe, so clearly things will work out fine.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The unstated alternative reality proposed seems to be that 20-some odd countries all share responsibility for supporting a system that provides no value worth paying for and the wise people of the UK are not going to fall for it.

One of the easiest gambits you can run on a rube is that they should see things your way if they don't want to be a rube.

 

[ceptimus]

There are plenty more countries that are not in the EU than are in it. Reading most posters in this forum, you'd think all those other countries must be terribly deprived - but no! *gasp* I've visited several of those countries and they seem to get along just fine.

 

[Garrison]

There are plenty more countries that are not in the EU than are in it. Reading most posters in this forum, you'd think all those other countries must be terribly deprived - but no! *gasp* I've visited several of those countries and they seem to get along just fine.

Probably because those countries you visited haven't proposed committing economic suicide just to appease xenophobes like yourself.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There are plenty more countries that are not in the EU than are in it. Reading most posters in this forum, you'd think all those other countries must be terribly deprived - but no! *gasp* I've visited several of those countries and they seem to get along just fine.

Shoving words in other posters' mouths and then berating them for it...adds what to this discussion?

 

[Lothian]

There are plenty more countries that are not in the EU than are in it. Reading most posters in this forum, you'd think all those other countries must be terribly deprived - but no! *gasp* I've visited several of those countries and they seem to get along just fine.

True
There are many countries doing fine.

 

[Information Analyst]

True
There are many countries doing fine.
[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Free_Trade_Areas.PNG[/qimg]

Gasp! It's almost like being in a Free Trade Area or Zone is a popular idea...!

 

[ceptimus]

Yes trade associations are a good idea. Shame the EEC got ideas above its station and became the EU with its goal of becoming a political union, rather than just a trade bloc. Which of those other groups have a common currency, a supreme court, several presidents, total free movement, and all the other EU nonsense?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Yes trade associations are a good idea. Shame the EEC got ideas above its station and became the EU with its goal of becoming a political union, rather than just a trade bloc. Which of those other groups have a common currency, a supreme court, several presidents, total free movement, and all the other EU nonsense?

How many goalposts do you have, anyways?