mcgruff wrote:We're a social animal which lives in groups. Groups which continually lose members through mortality. Failing to unconditionally support the renewal of the group would be like contemplating the extinction of your own species and shrugging it off with a: "Meh. I could help but what's in it for me?

I think I'm going to form the Apocalyptic Death Wish Party. Schools? Climate change? Hospitals? Sod that. If you just want to buy more stuff from the mall vote ADWP.

Fallible wrote:Yes, it's a silly argument that you shouldn't have kids if you're going to expect other people to pay for them. It would be far more idiotic to think that only the parents do pay for their kids, because in a society like the one in Britain, which is after all the subject of this thread, people pay for others, be they children, OAPs, the unemployed or the working people who make up the majority like me. I work; I don't know how much I've paid in taxes and NI, but I doubt it's enough to cover all the hospital drugs, equipment (life saving or otherwise) I've used, and scans, x-rays, eye tests, hearing tests and vaccinations I've had during my 30+ year stay in this country, and I'm not done yet. And that's just the medical stuff, which is just one of the publicly funded aspects of this society. I attended state schools to the age of 18. I use roads and railways. One day, other people are going to pay for me to live in old age.

ronmcd wrote:
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/758248221240074240

mrjonno wrote:We are indeed social animals who live in groups, and what do social animals do who live in groups do?, kill people who live in different groups. That's the main point in being social, allows you to fight for resources and destroy other groups

Theresa May will appeal over the head of the European Commission to the leaders of the 27 EU nations in an attempt to secure a good exit deal for the UK.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/br ... spartanntp

On the EU side, Article 50 envisages that four institutions will be involved in conducting the withdrawal negotiations:
•The European Council, heads of the 28 member states, defines the EU’s overall direction and priorities.
•The Council of the European Union, made up of ministers from member states, negotiates and adopts legislation and concludes international agreements.
•The European Commission, effectively the EU’s civil service, supports the Council in undertaking negotiations.
•The European Parliament, comprising elected MEPs from each member state, scrutinises, amends and adopts legislation and international agreements.

The 27 other member states will also play a crucial role in informal negotiations on the future relationship, and will almost certainly have to individually ratify any final agreement.
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.u ... om-the-eu/

Scot Dutchy wrote:To get 27 countries and four institutions to agree will be a nightmare.

Thommo wrote:To be fair, it probably doesn't need it though. The article stipulates that:-
"agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."

So it's likely to be at most 20 members and 2 bodies (council and parliament).

Thommo wrote:I do tend to find that the facts make a difference, yes, if I'm honest.

.

Thommo wrote:Really? So it is in no way easier to get 20 countries from a total of 27 to agree than to get 27 out of 27 to agree?

Are you sure about that? Is there any particular reason that you think this was a good point to make?

Thommo wrote:What the fuck are you talking about?

It will take a qualified majority vote to get a Brexit agreement through under article 50. This is what official government policy is working towards and is clearly the only way in which an orderly departure from the EU can take place.

What you're writing now is so vastly more disconnected from reality than what any senior Brexiter is saying (or frankly, has ever said) that it rather undermines any points you think you're making.

Of course it is easier to get 20 countries to agree than to get unanimity. Of course that makes a difference. Is there any point in dragging this conversation down to the level of blithering idiocy where such trivialities need to be explained?

DarthHelmet86 wrote:A smaller number might not make it any easier though, if those 20 are the 20 who would play hardball then it will be just as hard as getting the 27. But it is likely to be easier since you have 7 less people to convince, that's just logic and reality there.

Thommo wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:A smaller number might not make it any easier though, if those 20 are the 20 who would play hardball then it will be just as hard as getting the 27. But it is likely to be easier since you have 7 less people to convince, that's just logic and reality there.

You can read the relevant thingy about QMV here.

It's any 20, so long as they make up 65% of the population. In real terms this means that (for example) Spain could get voted down, which given their (probably meaningless) threats about Gibraltar could well be significant, whether or not it ends up deciding the issue.

I do agree with you that we can only talk about likely outcomes and so on, but as I said, whether Scot and Jonno will have it or not, I definitely think checking out what the facts are as far as what the treaties say is highly relevant, and I fully expect most of us to agree.