British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   Take it Outside! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/)
-   -   Post EU Referendum (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/post-eu-referendum-879308/)

InVinoVeritas Mar 22nd 2017 10:52 am

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Red Eric (Post 12210208)
Doesn't semantics concern the meaning of words? There can be a price (or even a heavy price) associated with joining or leaving something without it necessarily being anything of a punishment.

One might need to make an allowance for a slightly casual useage or translation. I don't know whether what Hollande said was particularly carefully prepared or translated - just mentioning it as a possibility.

People these days tend to latch on to comparatively minor details and then use them ad infinitum as proof positive of one thing or another.

He was also reported as saying in Brussels "Making a success of Brexit will spell the end of the EU. We cannot allow it to happen." It was not clear which event he was referring to.

Dick Dasterdly Mar 22nd 2017 10:53 am

Re: Post EU Referendum
 
Anger after head of eurozone finance ministers says southern Europe blew cash on 'drinks and women'


:rofl:

I suppose they might as well enjoy themselves while it lasts.

:cool:

Red Eric Mar 22nd 2017 12:29 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 
That is precisely the sort of thing that makes him totally unsuitable for the role he has occupied. Bang on cue, actually - it was only yesterday that I said his vacating it would be a good thing. For some reason I was told to be careful what I wished for.

I'm not surprised in the least that you find it amusing but it drew a very articulate response from the Portuguese PM this morning, which I hope will get at least as much coverage.

Red Eric Mar 22nd 2017 12:41 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas (Post 12210212)
He was also reported as saying in Brussels "Making a success of Brexit will spell the end of the EU. We cannot allow it to happen." It was not clear which event he was referring to.

Was he? Are you sure this isn't a bit of lurid headlining at work here?

Here's a quote from the Independent :

He said: “We need to remain strong. If not, we will threaten the very principles of the European Union. That could lead to other countries or regions wanting to leave the EU to gain so-called benefits but without any inconvenience or rules.”

President Hollande added: “There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price. Otherwise we will be in a negotiation that cannot end well.”
I don't see the words "heavy price" in there anywhere but here's the headline :

Brexit: Francois Hollande demands UK pay heavy price for deciding to leave EU

InVinoVeritas Mar 22nd 2017 1:15 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Red Eric (Post 12210300)
Was he? Are you sure this isn't a bit of lurid headlining at work here?

Here's a quote from the Independent :

I don't see the words "heavy price" in there anywhere but here's the headline :

I do take your point, although this is not always the fault of the journalist. It has been common practice to release the text of a speech to journalists before its delivery actually takes place, always with the caveat that the speech may be changed at the last minute. In the race to be first with news, it gives the politicians a chance to make headlines without actually having to utter the actual words.

I think what we can agree on is that Hollande is very much behind this exit fee proposal.

EMR Mar 22nd 2017 1:36 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Fredbargate (Post 12210209)
Would you care to expand on that?

In particular which are relevant to my question including the relevant clauses.

I do not know and neither do all but a few experts in the various treaties since 1974 that the UK has signed up to.
However I do know that a lot has happened since then and unlike some are not stuck in a different century or even centuries.

InVinoVeritas Mar 22nd 2017 1:55 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by EMR (Post 12210349)
I do not know and neither do all but a few experts in the various treaties since 1974 that the UK has signed up to.
However I do know that a lot has happened since then and unlike some are not stuck in a different century or even centuries.

According to the experts advising May, there are no treaties which specify this payment or the basis of its calculation. But then let's not forget they also advised her that she did not require parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50.

Garbatellamike Mar 22nd 2017 2:38 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Red Eric (Post 12210292)
That is precisely the sort of thing that makes him totally unsuitable for the role he has occupied. Bang on cue, actually - it was only yesterday that I said his vacating it would be a good thing. For some reason I was told to be careful what I wished for.

I'm not surprised in the least that you find it amusing but it drew a very articulate response from the Portuguese PM this morning, which I hope will get at least as much coverage.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Comrade Eric you are a very bright man I'm sure you can work out the reasons......

Garbatellamike Mar 22nd 2017 2:42 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas (Post 12210363)
But then let's not forget they also advised her that she did not require parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50.

And 3 supreme court judges agreed with her whilst 8 disagreed :nod:

To put it another way - the 3 realist judges voted one way and the 8 liberal judges voted the other way suggesting that this was a matter of opinion (coloured perhaps by political bias) rather than a matter of law.

Whereas in the case of the SNP veto over Article 50 the same 11 judges were unanimous and quoted the law concerned in their decision.

Just saying ;)

Fredbargate Mar 22nd 2017 4:02 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by EMR (Post 12210349)
I do not know and neither do all but a few experts in the various treaties since 1974 that the UK has signed up to.
However I do know that a lot has happened since then and unlike some are not stuck in a different century or even centuries.


Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas (Post 12210363)
According to the experts advising May, there are no treaties which specify this payment or the basis of its calculation. But then let's not forget they also advised her that she did not require parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50.

So again it is all speculation :rofl:

More important things are occupying Westminster at the moment.

lgm1963 Mar 22nd 2017 5:03 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Red Eric (Post 12210292)
That is precisely the sort of thing that makes him totally unsuitable for the role he has occupied. Bang on cue, actually - it was only yesterday that I said his vacating it would be a good thing. For some reason I was told to be careful what I wished for.

I'm not surprised in the least that you find it amusing but it drew a very articulate response from the Portuguese PM this morning, which I hope will get at least as much coverage.

Dear Eric

Do you use a forum called Exiled Again?

InVinoVeritas Mar 22nd 2017 5:26 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by lgm1963 (Post 12210504)
Dear Eric

Do you use a forum called Exiled Again?

I think I see where you're coming from ;)

lgm1963 Mar 22nd 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas (Post 12210516)
I think I see where you're coming from ;)

You reckon?

Red Eric Mar 22nd 2017 6:11 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by lgm1963 (Post 12210504)
Dear Eric

Do you use a forum called Exiled Again?

If that was a straight question, the answer is no and I've never heard of it - should I have?

If it was cryptic or an attempt at humour, you've lost me and you'll have to explain.

Red Eric Mar 22nd 2017 6:22 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Garbatellamike (Post 12210405)
And 3 supreme court judges agreed with her whilst 8 disagreed :nod:

To put it another way - the 3 realist judges voted one way and the 8 liberal judges voted the other way suggesting that this was a matter of opinion (coloured perhaps by political bias) rather than a matter of law.

Whereas in the case of the SNP veto over Article 50 the same 11 judges were unanimous and quoted the law concerned in their decision.

Just saying ;)

Not just saying at all - you're intentionally phrasing both matters in a manner you're fully aware is incorrect ;)


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:01 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.