The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	22 yards
	How does "Samen met Duitsland, België, Denemarken, Oostenrijk en Luxemburg is verzet aangetekend. Maar genoeg om de plannen tegen te houden, is het nog niet"* accord with "a clear majority is already certain"? You do realise that there is slightly more than 11 countries on the EU, right? *"Opposition was registered together with Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg. But it is not enough to stop the plans."

Yes, 6 out of 28 countries are against, and the rest are in favour as are the EU committee and parliament.

Now, tell me. How is that not a clear majority?

Your post makes no sense to me.

[curley]

	Quote:	SponPlague
	I remember Death Cigarettes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette) The taxman was losing a shedload of VAT from online cigarette sales shipped from Luxembourg, and, eventually, I forget the countries but the ruling was that the document (German) the British text was translated fom was a mis-translation of the original in a third language. So maybe various countries are mistranslating what’s been agreed or intended here?

They probably vote on this basis too.

Greetings from tower of Babel.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Did you bother to read the links you post or are you following in the steps of Lotz1983??? All that happened is that the negotiations between EP and the member states have reached agreement on what will be proposed to the Council. Nothing has been finalised, for the simple reason these people have no power to do so. And it would not be the first time that the Council went a different way. Bottom line is that nothing has been agreed by the EU so far. But I guess facts are of no importance to you.

This has been agreed upon as being the proposal by EU committee, parliament and the 28 members of the council.

Things is that with such clear majority putting the agreement into law is just a formality. This is already a much less disastrous agreement as what the original plan was about some months ago, which pleaded for only having needed one day of work in another country to be able to demand unemployment money from it.

Common sense is not your thing I guess.

[3Wishes]

GT of the second article:

	Quote:
	EU workers are entitled to unemployment benefits after one month of work Employees from other Member States of the European Union must be able to apply for unemployment benefits in that Member State after one month of work in another Member State. Negotiators of the European Parliament and the Member States have reached that compromise today. In Belgium, employees from other Member States must currently have been working for at least three months before they are entitled to benefits. In the European single market, employees can freely take up a job in another Member State. If they subsequently become unemployed, they are entitled to benefits, just like the nationals of that country, provided that they, like their own nationals, have worked a certain number of days in the period before unemployment. European legislation on the coordination of social security systems stipulates that days worked in another Member State can also be counted. At the end of last year, the European Parliament argued in the context of a revision of the legislation that the right to benefits should apply from one day worked. This caused a commotion in Belgium, because in our country since 2016 the rule applies that employees from other member states must have worked here for at least three months before claiming benefits. Today, the negotiators of the European Parliament and the Member States finally ended in one month. That is the period that the Member States themselves had also put forward as a compromise. Labor mobility Marianne Thyssen, European Commissioner for Work and Social Affairs, who himself had proposed a three-month deadline, is satisfied that "clarity" has been provided. "A minimum period was needed to prevent certain forms of fraud," she responds. Thyssen emphasizes, however, that the debate must be placed in a broader perspective. "There are 17 million Europeans working and living in another Member State and they cannot be punished for that. We must guarantee that they do not fall into a hole or fall between two seats, but also that they are not paid twice. " Thyssen insists that labor mobility within the European single market is also needed. Despite the fall in European unemployment rates, some Member States are still struggling with high unemployment, in particular among young people, while countries such as Belgium are struggling with labor market shortages. But fraud and social dumping have put heavy pressure on public support for the free movement of workers in recent years. agreement However, the Belgian European Commissioner is convinced that "fair and clear rules" will apply again in the future. “We have revised the posting rules and made sure that the principle of equal pay for equal work is anchored in the same place. We have an agreement on a European Labor Authority that must ensure that the rules are effectively enforced. With this agreement on the revision of the coordination of social security systems, we are adding the last piece of the puzzle for fair labor mobility in Europe, "concludes Thyssen. Incidentally, social security coordination is not just about the labor market. For example, the new regulation clarifies what the benefits for long-term care are and where people living in another Member State can apply for such benefits. Both the Member States and the European Parliament still have to formally ratify the compromise. No support Belgium will not support the revision of the European regulation on the coordination of social security systems. That is what Minister for Work and Social Affairs Kris Peeters said today in a reaction to the compromise that states that employees from other Member States should be able to apply for unemployment benefit after one month of work. “The principle that you must have contributed before you can include social rights in unemployment is fundamental to our social security. In Belgium, we have a three-month deadline and I have always defended it, "responds Peeters, who points out that at a European meeting last week he and his German and Dutch counterparts opposed the introduction of a one-month month. Belgium will therefore not support the regulation when it is finally submitted for approval, the CD&V vice prime minister concludes. N-VA calls on Peeters to look for a blocking minority together with other member states. “The agreement reached today is harmful to our social security. Granting European foreigners unemployment benefits after just one month of work in Belgium, which they can take with them for six months across Europe, will lead to prosperity tourism ”, states MP Zuhal Demir.

[SponPlague]

This link on voting majorities etc. might help clarify? (Or not )

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/c...fied-majority/

[22 yards]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	Google Translate of first article (copyright to the website and all that jazz)

"Great tit fears European mess."

[22 yards]

	Quote:
	Yes, 6 out of 28 countries are against, and the rest are in favour as are the EU committee and parliament. Now, tell me. How is that not a clear majority? Your post makes no sense to me.

You're right; for some bizarre reason, I thought you had stated that NL and co. were on the winning side of this argument.

[marton]

	Quote:
	Short translation of what is important from the articles is in my first post about this. enjoy

But in your first post you wrote "EU just passed a new ruling" which is a lie not correct, could you please repeat/translate what is both important and accurate.

	Quote:	marton
	But in your first post you wrote "EU just passed a new ruling" which is a lie not correct, could you please repeat/translate what is both important and accurate.

I already responded to you or somebody else stating the exact same thing.

[marton]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	GT of the second article:

Thanks for your two translations

I know I am getting old and dumb but where did these state the majority of the EU countries support this?

I did find NL, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg are in opposition but nowhere is it stated that the other states are in support.

EdwinNL posted; This has been agreed upon as being the proposal by EU committee, parliament and the 28 members of the council.
UK does not have a vote so it is not possible for 28 members of the council to have agreed!.
He posted NL, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg are in opposition so we are down to 21 members of council, so where is the evidence these 21 members of the council support this proposal?

[SponPlague]

What the EU have passed and what they think they’ve passed, as per my previous deadly post, could be very different

[marton]

	Quote:
	I already responded to you or somebody else stating the exact same thing.

You admitted you were wrong? Good for you!

	Quote:	marton
	You admitted you were wrong? Good for you!

How are your world record height 80m high Elm trees doing?

(as in, we all make mistakes)

	Quote:	marton
	Thanks for your two translations I know I am getting old and dumb but where did these state the majority of the EU countries support this? I did find NL, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg are in opposition but nowhere is it stated that the other states are in support. EdwinNL posted; This has been agreed upon as being the proposal by EU committee, parliament and the 28 members of the council. UK does not have a vote so it is not possible for 28 members of the council to have agreed!. He posted NL, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg are in opposition so we are down to 21 members of council, so where is the evidence these 21 members of the council support this proposal?

I'll buy you a nice beer in town if this does not pass.

How about that

(Ps, don't bring eggs along, I was not joking in that topic )

Also this is where I will not further discuss this anymore, lets get back to Brexit:

[marton]

	Quote:
	How are your world record height 80m high Elm trees doing? (as in, we all make mistakes)

80 feet, not 80m.

You have a great gift to read a post and then comment on some trivial part of it.

I found some 100 year old photos which shows what look to be the same trees so they must be pretty old.

	Quote:	marton
	80 feet, not 80m.

As said, we all make mistakes.

[marton]

	Quote:
	I'll buy you a nice beer in town if this does not pass. How about that

Great idea, always ready for a beer!
Problem is I need to put a date in my diary

[jacek]

Brexit: Merkel vows to fight for orderly process http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47629229

Now even Deutschland will get more involved ...

	Quote:	marton
	Great idea, always ready for a beer! Problem is I need to put a date in my diary

This will go up for voting one day or the other, we for now just have to remember this and bring it up again by then. If they take some months we should be certain of good weather and can have it next to a nice sunny lake.

	Quote:	jacek
	Brexit: Merkel vows to fight for orderly process http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47629229 Now even Deutschland will get more involved ...

Yep, a delay seems the logical thing, however they have to bring something to the table or else a delay makes no sense.

It is like saying to the bank, "Hey I'd like to pay back my loan on another date", And how do you think to pay by then? "Oh dunno, still have to see about that"