Sunderland gets what it voted for...

[jasonzyx]

Before I answer that question again. Tell me first do we pay the membership fee in advance to the EU or for the previous year?

I honestly do not know the answer., I'm hoping you do.

The EU membership fee is different to the Divorce settlement. The divorce settlement is for expenditure agreed in the previous budget period plus any future agreed expenditure (in future budget periods) and probable expenditure.
But the final actual figure of the membership fee is paid one year after the agreed budget, to allow for final calculations of the EU revenue and expenditure.

The budget for a year is determined in advance, but final calculations of payments required from each member state are not completed until after the budget year is over and information about revenue and expenditure is available, and correction mechanisms have been applied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union​

 

[Bodd]

if someone wanted you to do some work for them, and you knew that they had a record of entering into agreements and then reneging on them, walking away without paying what they owed, how keen would you be to take the job on?

If I found this information on digging into the company I would be cautious.. If I dug more and found that the said customer gave a date and plenty of that they would not pay any more. I'd think that they acted honestly..
The final settlement.? I could not possibly judge as I know that both parties valuations would be diffrent.

 

[jasonzyx]

If I found this information on digging into the company I would be cautious.. If I dug more and found that the said customer gave a date and plenty of that they would not pay any more. I'd think that they acted honestly..
The final settlement.? I could not possibly judge as I know that both parties valuations would be different.

The final settlement has not yet been agreed, and will not be agreed for many years. The divorce agreement is only an estimate.
However that 'estimate' has been agreed within the (also agreed) Withdrawal Agreement (subject to the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed).
The WA was not agreed on condition of the acceptance of Parliament. It was agreed by the UK's representative (and the EU's representative), who expected UK Parliament to agree to it. (The EU Parliament agreed to it.) The EU parliament always had a say (and the nation states were always consulted) in that agreement. The UK parliament was only allowed a say after the agreement was finalised.
So from the UK side the process was flawed, and the WA has been reneged upon by the UK.

 

[durhamplumber]

Well looks like the big US lobbyists are gearing up to screw the UK over.

Lobbyists for big firms made more than 130 demands, which include:

Changing how NHS chiefs buy drugs to suit big US pharmaceutical companies

Britain scraps its safety-first approach to safety and food standards

Law changes that would allow foreign companies to sue the British state

Removal of protections for traditional British products.


https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USTR-2018-0036-0107

The US pharmaceutical business lobby wants to change the British system for evaluating drugs in a way that would suit American firms.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America berates the NHS’s current risk-averse system, designed to guard the publicly-funded service against paying for ineffective and overpriced drugs, as “rigid” and a “blunt containment tool”.

In a submission to Trump’s trade department, the group goes on to say the UK’s “narrow approaches health technology assessments, such as rigid cost-effectiveness methodologies, should not be the principle framework for assessing value.”

I give up at the madness of Brexit. You have voted to be poorer. WHY?

Its worth it.

 

[durhamplumber]

Because being poorer is better than kow-towing to Johnny Foreigner, of course.

View attachment 158605

Spot on.

 

[durhamplumber]

The French wine producers know this will all get sorted out one day and we will trade nicely again. By then of course we may have grown fond of new world wines from a cross the globe, and no longer have a taste for the French stuff.

Finger on the pulse Bodd.

 

[SirGalahad]

Its worth it.

So you would pay higher drug prices, medical equipment prices, healthcare but for a reduced service.

Paying more for less.

Troll off.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Its worth it.

Perhaps you should campaign for Durexit and stop relying on the south-east.

 

[JohnD]

Perhaps you should campaign for Durexit

I understand that the city of Durham voted Remain 55.7%

Perhaps DP could spend his time haranguing the locals.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Apparently Qashqai is Arlene Foster's pet name for Theresa May...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I found this information on digging into the company I would be cautious.. If I dug more and found that the said customer gave a date and plenty of that they would not pay any more. I'd think that they acted honestly..

In the case of leaving the EU and refusing to pay anything, which the no-deal headbangers advocate, your last analogy there would be the customer simply unilaterally declaring one day that he wasn't going to pay anything he already owed, not giving notice that at some point in the future he was going to stop accruing any new debts.

 

[Vinty]

The final settlement has not yet been agreed, and will not be agreed for many years. The divorce agreement is only an estimate.
However that 'estimate' has been agreed within the (also agreed) Withdrawal Agreement (subject to the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed).
The WA was not agreed on condition of the acceptance of Parliament. It was agreed by the UK's representative (and the EU's representative), who expected UK Parliament to agree to it. (The EU Parliament agreed to it.) The EU parliament always had a say (and the nation states were always consulted) in that agreement. The UK parliament was only allowed a say after the agreement was finalised.
So from the UK side the process was flawed, and the WA has been reneged upon by the UK.

You are talking ****** mate ,the UK didn't renege on anything ,the UK government derives its authority from Parliament and not the other way around as you seem to think.
Any agreement between the representatives of the UK government and the EU has to be ratified by Parliament.
In this case Parliament was unhappy with the deal negotiated by the government and refused to endorse it.
Even remainers voted against it,
What if the UK had ratified this deal and the EU had refused to ratify it ,would you have accused the EU of reneging.

 

[SirGalahad]

EU had refused to ratify it ,would you have accused the EU of reneging

You just make up stuff as you go along.

May deal was agreed by 27 members in November and then she took it to Parliament who voted against it.

 

[Vinty]

You just make up stuff as you go along.

May deal was agreed by 27 members in November and then she took it to Parliament who voted against it.

Don't you understand how the democratic process works.
It doesn't matter what Mrs,May agreed or that 27 other countries ratified it.

It was a negotiation between two parties the EU and the UK, for any agreement to be legally binding it has to be ratified by both Parliaments .
In this case the UK refused to ratify Mrs Mays deal, that means there is no deal.
That is how the democratic process works,do you believe the EU should force the UK parliament to accept Mrs Mays WA.

 

[Vinty]

You just make up stuff as you go along.

May deal was agreed by 27 members in November and then she took it to Parliament who voted against it.

Why are you taking my post out of context.
I said IF the EU had refused to ratify this deal ,I didn't say that the EU had refused to ratify this deal.
Reread my original post and apologise please.