The Dutch government said it would finance a €250m to €300m building for the EMA, which would then pay the market rate for the space. The Dutch government also offered an €18m sweetener and a full relocation package for the agency’s 900 staff.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Amsterdam wins race to host the European Medicines Agency http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/amsterdam-wins-race-to-host-the-european-medicines-agency/

That NL News sites pretty cool

In a democracy everyone's say is equal. That's how it works unless you are undemocratic and don't like the result of course,

And there was me thinking this was a representative democracy.

If you say so 😀 but let’s not forget that both the gNtas and the Brexshiteers were both willing to jeopardise their relationships with their most important partners in favour of a vain search for control and new relationships with a wider (imaginery?) world!

(Fun to chat anyway, can't remember but you were getting q agitated with someone on another thread recently ??)

True EB and we have had both a referendum and the opportunity for our representatives to vote. The latter IIRC was more defitnitve than the former. Both major parties in our representative government have pledged to honour the result of the referendum and at least one of them is led by a person of conviction after all.

dudeofdoom - Member

That NL News sites pretty cool

Thats my big sisters website that is - keep on clicking 🙂

teamhurtmore - Member
If you say so

(Fun to chat anyway, can't remember but you were getting q agitated with someone on another thread recently ??)

Paris 8) 🙂 😀 😛

Yes I was giggling reading it. 😉

Could have been animal or Zim - can’t remember. Too close to latter so largely kept out of that one! (But smiled at mefty copping it after posting some relevant facts!!)

In a democracy everyone's say is equal.

Now THM, please don’t take this the wrong way, and I won’t use this type of language often, but that’s really quite cute that sort of statement. I mean total fluffy kittens cute.
Sadly I’ve lost that sort of innocence and I’m entirely more sceptical (I try not to be cynical) these days.
I’d have put you in the same jaded bin as me - but clearly not.

You're talking in riddles again, thm. 😆

PS looks like you've succesfully avoid my point. 😉

they were too thick to understand, to thick to be allowed to have a say, too thick to realise they were being lied to etc. All rather - what's the word - patronising and sneering don't you think.

Not too thick - but not well enough informed. And you yourself admitted this a few days ago.

So what's your point? We should follow the wishes of people who don't understand the topic? How does that make sense?

In a democracy everyone's say is equal. That's how it works

Not here it doesn't.

Just can’t remember the thread that’s all

😀 to you too (sorry kelvin)

That’s how democracy works mol. As I said we didn’t disqualify tWoS readers before so we can hardly do the same to the Wail and express readers can we?

Blimey half our politicians don’t understand the issues either

MOlgrips -not just well enough informed but actively lied to - and 80% of the press is vehemently anti EU because the owners hate the EU.

That’s how democracy works mol.

Right, but is this a good thing or a bad one?

[img] [/img]

The leaked letter to the PM, which somehow made it to the pages of the rabidly pro-Brexit Daily Heil and in no way implicates Sarah Vine and her cabinet minister husband, Michael Gove is very clear about the need to impose party discipline on the Chancellor.

Incidentally, does anyone else think that's why the press have been encouraged to take his [i]"There are no unemployed people"[/i] quote completely out of context?

I have no particular love for the man, but it was very clear what he meant in context (i.e. that there wasn't a mass flood of unemployed shorthand typists)

Of course Graham.

It all has to be seen in the light of the rabidly anti EU press. Owned by non UK taxpayers who hate the EU for 2 main resons 1) for trying to shine a light into their murky world and 2) for having the audacity to protect workers rights.

these "newspapers" have waged a 20 year propaganda campaign against the EU, the BBC and ITV news have to report the anti EU stories as they take their " impartiality" from a midpoint of the papers

The "Big lie" technique

Unless you are Aristotle (bad) or a remoaner (bad) it’s neither good nor bad. It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less mol

There were no/few calls pre the referendum for a minimum level of understanding were there although I was one of the few who argued that it was a bad idea from the start

I resented having to vote in a needless referendum and felt it should never have been called.

Nothing I’ve seen since has changed my view much.

Unless you are Aristotle (bad) or a remoaner (bad) it’s neither good nor bad. It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less mol

What a bizarre thing to say.

Given that in the same post you re-state your opinion that it is bad (of which I was aware) I would like to know what you mean.

Things that 'are' can be bad things. We need to discuss what's happened and determine if and why it's bad, and either learn from it or do what we can to make it better. I'm sure you agree with this too. So I wonder where you're going with that thought.

Of course you need to plan for it, it's your job, but the discussion can continue at the same time as planning for the future.

If you are suggesting that it is futile to continue discussing it, well I disagree. There is still a lot to play for, and that will happen through discussions and arguments like this one.

but let’s not forget that both the gNtas and the Brexshiteers were both willing to jeopardise their relationships with their most important partners in favour of a vain search for control and new relationships with a wider (imaginery?) world!

I missed that addition. You forget the Scottish aspiration is to be in the EU, there's some debate there, I believe it's a forgone conclusion, you refuse to accept the obvious that we'd be accepted eventually at worst.

Difference is, since Scotland would be in the EU, either automatically, or in pretty short order, then England couldn't lock Scotland out of the English market.

Evidence? see Irelands veto on the brexit negotiations.

not well enough informed.

No one is. No one yet knows what arrangements will replace our membership of the EU.

If you are suggesting that it is futile to continue discussing it, well I disagree

The narrative that most of the country currently accepts is that everything is settled.. Thiose of us that think that mistakes can and should be pointed out, need to keep doing so. At some point, all that'll be left is the feeling that so much is invested in Brexit that is must happen, no matter what form it takes, no matter how many people think the form is worse than what was rejected in the referendum. When that happens, it'll be even more necessary for people to not be afraid of speaking up, and either pushing for a closer relationship with, or membership off, the EU.

There is still a lot to play for, and that will happen through discussions and arguments like this one.

Everything to play for. May's redlines are not the country's redlines, she will not be PM forever, and she has no mandate for the way she is attempting to form a new relationship with the EU. A delayed exit, negotiated by a different government, is still very likely.

Not leaving at all is very unlikely, and keeping that option open on our side a near impossible task. Shutting up about it only makes it even less possible though.

seosamh77

I think they could have done if iS was in the EU and rUK out - but it would have been economic suicide for rUK as well as without the oil the economics look much much worse for rUK and iS would have been partially insulated by being in the EU

@Edukator; surprised that it came down to drawing lots between Paris & Dublin.
More surprised that Frankfurt were eliminated early on.
Had it been Dublin I think there would have been more than a little gloating by Varadkhar.

No I did note. I felt that this specific referendum was s bad idea since we did not know what a future EU would look like, so pointless to vote on something that by design could not survive in its current form.

You asked a different question about democracy. As I said some like Aristotle felt it was a bad idea for the reasons you allude to. I don’t share that view

I prefer freedom to vote, to speak, to move, to ride without a helmet etc. No harm in discussing it (obviously) but I do draw the line at lying in an attempt to subvert the result

In my game we might ask a customer to pay for a new substation to supply their factory - but it would be on our balance sheet (at zero value if they paid) not on theirs.

For what it's worth, I can confirm that this indeed the case. If I want an electrical connection for a new building I have to pay to get a design/quote upfront and then provide a piece of land for said substation and provide unfettered access to the substation that just cost me, oh, £70k. And it's not even mine...

And if it's a really big load I might also get hit for infrastructure reinforcement too!

I prefer freedom to vote, to speak, to move, to ride without a helmet etc

Only once though 😉

Ah ok.

Democracy in principle is a good idea, but democracy is not a system of government. It is not a constitution. And it is not the answer to everything, in the same way that water is good when you are thirsty but drowning is not.

A system of government needs to be based on democracy. How you do this is what differentiates good government from bad. That's why most countries go for representative democracy.

Democracy also requires a well informed electorate. Our system is only a quasi democracy anyway given the appointed house and FPTP

Mol. When our representative government voted what was the result and how did it compare to the referendum result?

I would much prefer to see democracy replaced with sortition. Democracy is fine except for the fact it involves people who [i]want[/i] to be in charge, which should preclude you from being in charge of anything, selected by people who don't have the time to do their research.

What's your point?

They voted that way, knowing it was a bad idea, because they felt they had to implement the result of the referendum. Whilst we had representatives, the normal process was subverted by having a referendum.

I still don't know what you are getting at.

So, making people who don't want to make decisions take all the big ones? Sounds very scary BruceWee.

EMA moving to Holland is good result for the Dutch

Sad day for British scientific & medical research

But hey 'will of the people'

I see. Letting the plebs have a say is subversive. At least I get your point 😉

Got my first anti Irish comment in a while today(30 years!), thank you Brexit!

Kimbers - but its all going so well.......no damage is being done

So, making people who don't want to make decisions take all the big ones? Sounds very scary BruceWee.

No more scary than our current legal system, surely?

The wonderful thing about the UK system is that it is so ridiculous to start with that no idea can be dismissed out of hand. Couldn't the House of Lords be replaced with a few hundred randomly selected individuals?

If you were to present new laws in the same way that jury trials have a prosecution and defence you could have for and against presented to the voters directly. You take away their access to the internet and have them listen to arguments and rebuttals and make an informed decision without having to worry about vested interests and re-election.

Would it be that much worse than the House of Lords?

For all it’s faults the HOL does a largely brilliantly job. Their briefing papers are awesome.

Some of the posts cause me to imagine deaf people shouting at each other.

Would it be that much worse than the House of Lords?

Sophistry, an issue picked up millennia ago.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-sophstate/

The idea is fine, but you need to be aware of the power of the orator.

The British government was powerless to stop the relocation of these two prized regulatory bodies, secured by previous Conservative prime ministers. [b]The Department for Exiting the European Union had claimed the future of the agencies would be subject to the Brexit negotiations, a claim that caused disbelief in Brussels.[/b]

Delusions and lies of the leavers laid bare. It really is incredible the damage being done to the UK.

Delusions and lies of the leavers laid bare. It really is incredible the damage being done to the UK.

Whatever happens next the damage has been done.

some o f it is already done - there is so much more to come.

some o f it is already done - there is so much more to come.

I think more than some, investment decisions made, even cancelling brexit won't undo a lot of the damage. Future plans will reflect this as well.

Metalheart - shouldn’t have to pay for a quote. That is changing due to certain developers abusing the situation but for now.
On the plus side although we own the sub, we maintain it repair it and eventually replace it.

Not an expert but I thought that ancient greek democracy was closer to the referendum-style than the representation-style that we actually use for most of our governance.

EMA moving to Holland is good result for the Dutch

Sad day for British scientific & medical research

But hey 'will of the people'

Remember, Gove said we’ve had enough of experts....

Not an expert but I thought that ancient greek democracy was closer to the referendum-style than the representation-style that we actually use for most of our governance.

I am no expert, but its what my MA is in so i have some idea of what was going on.

depends on the city state, the traditional model is Athens, points that have to be considered at the end of a term the holder was judged on performance and ultimately expelled. Yes it was the citizens who decided what went on, but citizen was a specific group and far from the majority of the population. Slavery was the norm.

There are lessons to learn from Athens though, a subverted democracy that was destroyed by its own arrogance.

@igm: I was just backing up your earlier statement. And adding that after all that it still ain't mine 😀

Strange, but I never really thought about it until now (it's just how it is).

Just don't get me started on water connections though, I don't think I could remain calm if you do that.... 👿

So it all rolls on. The costs keep increasing, UK income just lost a thousand well paid jobs and the future is even more murky.
May is still having to beg her party to agree even sensible payments to the eu in order to move along (hell who predicted that) her next biggest threat comes from the brexit loons no the mutineers.
Still nobody will admit what has to go to pay for it - magic money tree anyone?
The longer the politicians play politics and avoid the massive issues the longer this goes on, almost as if a people's select committee is needed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-icj-judges-none-first-time-history-international-court-justice-withdraw-candidate-a8066336.html

Not directly brexit, but, so much for a global Britain leading the way.

mrmo - beat me to it.
Another sign of diminishing significance of UK.

Tonight's cabinet meeting appears to have been a non-event; we'll divvy up more money but won't tell you, EU, how much and in return we demand that talks open on trade and an implementation phase.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42060183?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter

Can't see barnier et al being impressed.

and it appears that Tories and Labour have voted for hard brexit.

Oh what joy.

Nice nonsense Mefty.

Were we paying too little or too much for EU membership?

What period are you assuming our "liabilities" extend over?

Not making a qualitative judgement, just pointing out if the true cost of membership should reflect the liabilities incurred during it, which the EU argue, it follows in any year the cost is the cash cost plus the increase in our share of the "unfunded" liabilities during that year.

it follows in any year the cost is the cash cost plus the increase in our share of the "unfunded" liabilities during that year.

Be surprised. It’s a service I offer.

Not really in the slightest, just wanted to bring out the point it is not standard practice, which you confirmed so thank you. Often exceptions to the general rule but not sure that makes them useful analogies.

But you really ought to deal with better financiers.

Not making a qualitative judgement, just pointing out if the true cost of membership should reflect the liabilities incurred during it, which the EU argue, it follows in any year the cost is the cash cost plus the increase in our share of the "unfunded" liabilities during that year.

What period are you assuming our "liabilities" extend over?

If we have committed to projects, and in some cases insisted on them in the first place, way beyond the point we intend to Leave, over how many years of membership would those commitments have been paid for if we had stayed?

Mefty - you suggested you’d be surprised. If you’re no longer surprised, that’s fine too. Learning quickly is a good sign.

I tend to work with good ones - a perk of our ownership. It’s other people who bring me the bad ones - but the good ones aren’t as funny.
I agree it’s not particularly standard - now is the EU set up because folk on here keep suggesting it isn’t (in fact you may have been one?).

The story is relevant on two levels.
One, we really don’t negotiate - there’s a deal, you don’t need to take it - just like someone (probably rightly) accuses the EU of doing. Interestingly we do it in the interests of the generality of users, not a specific user - ponder that one.
And two, you need to not confuse paying with any ownership rights - in some cases that will be just like certain EU ‘assets’.

Were we paying too little or too much for EU membership?

Not the person to make the qualitative judgement as I voted remain, but if you are a Brexiteer it is a perfectly sound argument.

What period are you assuming our "liabilities" extend over?

The EU argue that is irrelevant so I am following their lead. They should be accrued when they are incurred if, as the EU argue, they are unconditional.

After just watching the news on ITV it occurred to me that perhaps the EU never got the memo that "they need us more than we need them?"

After admitting the inevitable and having to offer more money and give the ECJ a role post exit it seems that we need them much more than they need us after all.

Such a shock....

The segment on an A&E department was just saddening to watch. The government is directly and consciously responsible for the killing of its own citizens all in the name of the new God, Austerity.

Sometimes you express things in a way to coax a response - old banker's trick.

AAA ownership does entail certain privileges, but it was a poor analogy to begin with and you are really overworking it now.

Do you mean me mefty? 🙂

I realise there are probably parallel conversions going on.

No, there are and I was being lazy.

mrmo - Member

Got my first anti Irish comment in a while today(30 years!), thank you Brexit!

I work in an English pub, we love the Irish, you pay our wages! 😀

😉

and today the civil servants let slip that they haven't been working on either the NI border ofr what to do at Dover. So May and cos majoc fairy dust border for NI is completely imaginary. Obviously no solution available.

Plus the EBA & EMA are off - to the tune of £600m bill to us & a nice boost of £180m to the Dutch for the EMA.

Nice work Brexiteers!

nice bit about the undeliverability of a Eurotom replacement in todays Guardian. Simply no time to implement.

More good work.... quite a humiliation well done Brexiteers...

'The government likes to talk of what it calls "global Britain", a vision of a buccaneering UK, independent of the EU, promoting its interests and values and trade around the world.

The problem is that many believe that vision has not yet been backed up with any policy substance.

Instead, rightly or wrongly, many countries see the UK turning in on itself to sort out the complexity of Brexit.

They see it as a retreat from the international stage - whatever the Brexiteers argue to the contrary - and these countries are filling the vacuum accordingly. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42061028

whats the news - the UK is ending membership of the EU and EU agencies are relocatin....and the question is?

Good to see the rigour of the process to select the stand out location - drawing up lots!!

Still giggling at Barnier's bluff on equivalence yesterday - hope there were no bankers in the audience unless it was an after dinner speech and he was the comedy turn.

Hint

Ask why the Guardian is writing in the way it does!!!

Nice sneering THM - does it help pay the bills?

Rather obvious what it indicates but you'd rather just curl your lip & look down your nose at the truth.

"What's the news?"

Quite!

THM, doesn't matter how the Guardian is writing the story, the facts don't change. Expanding existing agencies, recruiting new staff, training etc takes time, time that doesn't exist.

Wishful thinking doesn't solve this, just like NI, the Tories and Labour are going to screw the UK.

teamhurtmore - Member
whats the news - the UK is ending membership of the EU and EU agencies are relocatin....and the question is?

THM, the question is how much time and money it takes to replace what we are losing with the EMA and EBA moving out.

Captain he knows the question and the magnitude of the answer just the answer is a little embarrassing to admit to.
In fact in summary thm's brexit blame the eu defence is a bit like signing up to a prenuptial from a family full of lawyers and not bothering to check when the wife is home before shagging the au pair.

Has anyone quantified what the Brexit farce has cost to date - from the 23rd June last year to date, cost to the economy, addition tier of government etc.

I think it's the equivalent of not wanting to open your bank statements if you're massively overdrawn. Nobody has a clue, and nobody wants to find out.

At least not until the bailiffs turn up.

Has anyone quantified what the Brexit farce has cost to date - from the 23rd June last year to date, cost to the economy, addition tier of government etc.

Not seen anything overall, only the £400 per annum poorer number floating around. Not sure how you could calculate it. Lost parliamentary time, cost of civil servants, inflation, lost investment, etc.