Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News0 min ago
Now We Know..
The EU are willing to delay a project and increase other member states costs just to prove a point that doesn’t need making.
https:/
We might as well just trot off now rather than go begging for scraps from an organisation that would rather cut off its nose to spite its face.
https:/
We might as well just trot off now rather than go begging for scraps from an organisation that would rather cut off its nose to spite its face.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We have already said that we would like our £1billion investment back in that case. We have also refused to hand over encryption tech to the French firm Thales, thereby stalling the project. Tell them that if we are out we want our investment back and then trigger the virus or spying software that any sensible government would have written into it's software. We are quite capable of developing our own system anyway.
I wonder why the little Englander remainers are so keen to point out the EU are right and proper to be so belligerent but the UK must not at any cost be the same?
It is a complete fallacy that only EU members ca be part of the Galileo project. Just look to the list of contributors to it as already stated.
The EU want to class the UK as a third party and not a trusted partner. Well if that’s they way they want to play it so can we.
It is a complete fallacy that only EU members ca be part of the Galileo project. Just look to the list of contributors to it as already stated.
The EU want to class the UK as a third party and not a trusted partner. Well if that’s they way they want to play it so can we.
cassa333
The contributors were contractors to the build of the system. They are not the owners. The owners are the EU. They paid for it, so they decide who work on it and who uses it.
More than likely the UK will get to use the system, but will lose jobs in supplying and maintaining the on-going project. But will not have any say in the running of it, or access to any data it caches.
The contributors were contractors to the build of the system. They are not the owners. The owners are the EU. They paid for it, so they decide who work on it and who uses it.
More than likely the UK will get to use the system, but will lose jobs in supplying and maintaining the on-going project. But will not have any say in the running of it, or access to any data it caches.
// Cameron tried //
Cameron moved his party (and therefore the British Government) from the powerful centre majority party in the EU Parliament, to some far right bonkers group who had no power at all.
https:/
He sideline the country long ago and then when he needed influence it was too late.
Cameron moved his party (and therefore the British Government) from the powerful centre majority party in the EU Parliament, to some far right bonkers group who had no power at all.
https:/
He sideline the country long ago and then when he needed influence it was too late.
Only an intelligent negotiator thinks that if you leave the EU, you should still get agreement on mutual benefits from remaining in a European project that all have contributed to, and wish to continue. Only a disgruntled individual prioritising hitting out at the other side in pique, at the negotiating table, would refuse or be difficult claiming it's "a benefit of membership". It's clearly a multinational venture.
Let’s get this straight shall we.
Cameron tried to reform the EU in one small area of the whole and failed miserably. If you are deluded enough to think that any other attempt to reform it from within by us would work any better then you are welcome to that belief but it dosnt make it real.
Galileo has many participants from all over the world making financial and work commitments to it. That is a fact. By not allowing the UK to contribute in much the same way is childishness to say the least. The same can be said for security and nuclear and such like.
The EU is a protectionist racket and there is little wonder that they are acting in this way. TBH it is just more of the same overarching reason the majority voted to leave.
If this is how they treat a friend, pushing them to third party status rather than trusted friend there is little hope for the other 27 in it.
We will be paying into the EU for ever for access to things that we should not have to. A true free trade agreement will not be negotiated by them unless we agree to their conditions and pay a huge monetary price.
There may be a trade war looming with the US so why not just get out and start a fresh. Once out negotiating may be more straightforward when everyone will know what is what.
Cameron tried to reform the EU in one small area of the whole and failed miserably. If you are deluded enough to think that any other attempt to reform it from within by us would work any better then you are welcome to that belief but it dosnt make it real.
Galileo has many participants from all over the world making financial and work commitments to it. That is a fact. By not allowing the UK to contribute in much the same way is childishness to say the least. The same can be said for security and nuclear and such like.
The EU is a protectionist racket and there is little wonder that they are acting in this way. TBH it is just more of the same overarching reason the majority voted to leave.
If this is how they treat a friend, pushing them to third party status rather than trusted friend there is little hope for the other 27 in it.
We will be paying into the EU for ever for access to things that we should not have to. A true free trade agreement will not be negotiated by them unless we agree to their conditions and pay a huge monetary price.
There may be a trade war looming with the US so why not just get out and start a fresh. Once out negotiating may be more straightforward when everyone will know what is what.
“It was built and financed by the European Union.”
The EU does not have any money. It only has use of funds provided by the five net contributors. But that aside, it is quite obvious that the UK’s contribution (about 20%) towards the cost of the project was not simply for its construction but also for its use. It is utterly childish of the Euromaniacs to act in the way they have over this project. The UK has accepted its share of liabilities for future EU projects to which it had committed before Brexit. It should be entitled to its share of the assets it has already paid for.
The EU does not have any money. It only has use of funds provided by the five net contributors. But that aside, it is quite obvious that the UK’s contribution (about 20%) towards the cost of the project was not simply for its construction but also for its use. It is utterly childish of the Euromaniacs to act in the way they have over this project. The UK has accepted its share of liabilities for future EU projects to which it had committed before Brexit. It should be entitled to its share of the assets it has already paid for.
The problem there, NJ, is that you are assuming honesty and good faith - two things which the negotiators on the EU side seem pathetically short of.
Another mean-spirited, self-serving and ludicrously childish piece of posturing - which will only confirm in most minds that we were right to refuse to continue bankroll a contemptible, corrupt and increasingly dirigiste organisation.
Another mean-spirited, self-serving and ludicrously childish piece of posturing - which will only confirm in most minds that we were right to refuse to continue bankroll a contemptible, corrupt and increasingly dirigiste organisation.
"It's. not. possible."
Yes it is, Zacs. There are no problems that cannot be overcome, including the Irish border question. To overcome them to the mutual benefit of the remains of the EU, however (which is particularly desirable for them as they run an £80bn annual trade surplus with us) requires goodwill on both sides. And that is sadly lacking because the political dogma behind The Project lacks any pragmatism.
Yes it is, Zacs. There are no problems that cannot be overcome, including the Irish border question. To overcome them to the mutual benefit of the remains of the EU, however (which is particularly desirable for them as they run an £80bn annual trade surplus with us) requires goodwill on both sides. And that is sadly lacking because the political dogma behind The Project lacks any pragmatism.
It's not NJ, otherwise we wouldn't have Cassa and TTT moaning every week about the complications. Their threads (and to some extent your comment - although I do appreciate you have a deeper insight than most) don't even scratch the surface of leaving without considerable damage to trading relationships, let alone the amendment of legislation (i.e. the conversion of EU laws to British constitutional law).
I suspect Cassa and yourself are preaching from a slightly 'Ivory Tower' standpoint in that you're retired and whatever happens will have little effect. In other words you can afford to make bold statements like 'let's just leave'.
I suspect Cassa and yourself are preaching from a slightly 'Ivory Tower' standpoint in that you're retired and whatever happens will have little effect. In other words you can afford to make bold statements like 'let's just leave'.
You don't really know my employment status, Zacs, but no matter.
I understand that forty-odd years of integration with the EU cannot be undone at the stroke of a pen. The fault for that lies with all the individual nations who have consigned themselves to such a situation by signing the various - ever more integrationalist - treaties. But we are where we are.
The issue really is about the will of the EU to see a sensible conclusion reached. It is very much in their interests (or more properly the interests of the remaining 27) to see that, as far as possible, life continues with as little friction as possible. That goodwill is clearly sadly lacking and this Galileo issue is but one manifestation of that. There is no reason why the UK cannot continue as active partners in that project. We have contributed money, expertise and resources towards its completion and the notion that we become a Third (i.e. "not to be trusted") nation when we leave demonstrates to me the mindset of the Euromaniacs. In their mind there are EU members and non-EU members, nothing else.
I don't expect (or want) the UK to be granted any privileges which EU membership bestows if it means making big concessions to that organisation. My "red lines" are freedom of movement; general financial contributions (though not those to specific EU projects in which we continue to take part); leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union; the end of supremacy of EU law over UK law and the end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Our continued participation in Galileo crosses none of those lines and it would be mutually beneficial for us to continue to participate. But the Euromaniacs' stance really sums up their entire approach to Brexit. It must not succeed. With that abundantly clear the UK's approach should be entirely different.
I understand that forty-odd years of integration with the EU cannot be undone at the stroke of a pen. The fault for that lies with all the individual nations who have consigned themselves to such a situation by signing the various - ever more integrationalist - treaties. But we are where we are.
The issue really is about the will of the EU to see a sensible conclusion reached. It is very much in their interests (or more properly the interests of the remaining 27) to see that, as far as possible, life continues with as little friction as possible. That goodwill is clearly sadly lacking and this Galileo issue is but one manifestation of that. There is no reason why the UK cannot continue as active partners in that project. We have contributed money, expertise and resources towards its completion and the notion that we become a Third (i.e. "not to be trusted") nation when we leave demonstrates to me the mindset of the Euromaniacs. In their mind there are EU members and non-EU members, nothing else.
I don't expect (or want) the UK to be granted any privileges which EU membership bestows if it means making big concessions to that organisation. My "red lines" are freedom of movement; general financial contributions (though not those to specific EU projects in which we continue to take part); leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union; the end of supremacy of EU law over UK law and the end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Our continued participation in Galileo crosses none of those lines and it would be mutually beneficial for us to continue to participate. But the Euromaniacs' stance really sums up their entire approach to Brexit. It must not succeed. With that abundantly clear the UK's approach should be entirely different.
//he notion that we become a Third (i.e. "not to be trusted") nation when we leave demonstrates to me the mindset of the Euromaniacs.//
But a Third Country is a non-member of the EU. That's what we have chosen to become, so that's what we are. For obvious reasons, the EU has limits on information and data it can share with third countries.
The UK contributed all of the resources you describe, and then decided to throw away the basis on which it has access. The EU did not make that decision for them. The fact that we have a completely incoherent foreign policy is our responsibility.
But a Third Country is a non-member of the EU. That's what we have chosen to become, so that's what we are. For obvious reasons, the EU has limits on information and data it can share with third countries.
The UK contributed all of the resources you describe, and then decided to throw away the basis on which it has access. The EU did not make that decision for them. The fact that we have a completely incoherent foreign policy is our responsibility.
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Food & Drink21 mins ago
