Brexit discussion thread II

123shooter

123shooter wrote: »

They arent in the EU and we are talking about Brexit and its effects on the EU and Ireland.

The funding gap left when the UK leaves the EU will not be borne equally amongst the nations within the EU, but borne closer to equally amongst the people within the EU.

Just as the UK budgetary process works. And of course you understand this, but it utterly invalidates your original argument and so you persist with the nonsense...

123shooter

Deleted User wrote: »

The funding gap left when the UK leaves the EU will not be borne equally amongst the nations within the EU, but borne closer to equally amongst the people within the EU.

Just as the UK budgetary process works.

I am sure the other peoples of the EU will be sick of paying yet more money and let countries who have had billions of their hard earned money just waltz away with only pennies to pay.

But its great to be optimistic.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, it's accepted that the net figure is actually 8 billion.
Anyway, any thoughts on my point about the 0.18% of expenditure?

8 billion what?

123shooter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

8 billion what?

Its approx £8.6 billion. I rounded it off to £9 billion and converted it to euros at 10.25 billion between 27 member states.

Calina

123shooter wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

What does it matter to the UK how we sort this out when you've left anyway?

Correct but it matters to the people of Ireland with yet another bill to pay.

There is going to be a special quango set up to collect a household contribution to plug the Brexit gap, is there?

Really?

I paid my water bills btw. I didn't resent it either. I resented the bill I paid called rent though. That stuck in my craw.

I think you are ill positioned to see what is likely to be budgetary policy in the EU post Brexit. But it is highly unlikely to be in the zone of the figures you are suggesting and it will still be minimal compared to the benefit the country has already obtained from membership.

But again, it really is none of the UK's businesd after Brexit how the remaining members arrange themselved. They will have left. Apparently.

Fratton Fred

123shooter wrote: »

Its approx £8.6 billion. I rounded it off to £9 billion and converted it to euros at 10.25 billion between 27 member states.

Yes, that's why I mentioned around €11bn.

I think some people are getting confused between euros and sterling.

Edit: thinking about it though, the net figure is not the correct one to use, as it doesn't take in to account eu institutions and research carried out in the UK (know what I'm talking about Eddy?).

The cost of these count towards eu expenditure in the UK, but these institutions will continue elsewhere, so will need to be paid for.

Enzokk

ambro25 wrote: »

After last weekend's love-in with Trump, I'm thinking that Macron's France is looking to replace the UK as the special relationship counterpart, and erstwhile FDI landing zone, within the EU. Macron strikes me as plenty opportunistic and mercenary that way.

Just remember that President Trump is a People Pleaser, he will say what he thinks his host wants to hear. That's why his statements are so wild, he pulls out of the Paris agreement, but after a visit to France he says it may change. I think Macron is trying to assert his popularity at home by showing he can be the alpha male against the most alpha male of all time with Trump. If in turn he does get the US to make a u-turn on Paris, all the better for all of us.

On the discussion of budgets, will the EU budget not decrease with the UK leaving the union? Will this amount be of any significance? Are we talking tens of millions in a billion euro budget?

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Just remember that President Trump is a People Pleaser, he will say what he thinks his host wants to hear. That's why his statements are so wild, he pulls out of the Paris agreement, but after a visit to France he says it may change. I think Macron is trying to assert his popularity at home by showing he can be the alpha male against the most alpha male of all time with Trump. If in turn he does get the US to make a u-turn on Paris, all the better for all of us.

Trumps hobby horse at the moment seems to be NATO and countries not meeting their budgetary obligations, so the love in may be short lived if France doesn't up it's military spending.

Enzokk wrote: »

On the discussion of budgets, will the EU budget not decrease with the UK leaving the union? Will this amount be of any significance? Are we talking tens of millions in a billion euro budget?

It will decrease, but the UK is one of the largest net contributors, so there will be a net loss to the eu of between €10 and €14 billion per year, of an annual budget of €140 billion.

An Ciarraioch

And for some balance, individual EU nations shooting themselves in the foot - couldn't imagine Ireland blocking dual nationality!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/17/dutch-nationals-brexit-uk-citizenship-lose-netherlands-passports-mark-rutte

DaniilKharms

123shooter wrote: »

Well for 40 years you have been having billions of other tax payers money.

It wasn't a gift you know. And now you want special privilege again!!! and not pay back what they have give you over 40 years but you still want to be an equal member.

Now they need your help you suddenly hand in a sicky.

Something amiss with the thinking there I think dont you?

I'm not sure you understand how the EU works.

This is not like infrastructure spending. No one is getting anything from Brexit. Except some racists and xenophobes.

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Trumps hobby horse at the moment seems to be NATO and countries not meeting their budgetary obligations, so the love in may be short lived if France doesn't up it's military spending.



It will decrease, but the UK is one of the largest net contributors, so there will be a net loss to the eu of between €10 and €14 billion per year, of an annual budget of €140 billion.

France is not not meeting any obligations. Trump misunderstands how NATO is funded and what sort of agreements are in place.

DaniilKharms

123shooter wrote: »

Ok I am not going to even argue who is right or wrong and actually you cant see into the future either.

But back on the point. Are you going to accept and fork out that extra cash?...........I don't think the Irish public will even entertain such.

Could possibly explain why some political people have already gone elsewhere before it all kicks off?

You don't have to be a psychic to be know the UK has ****ed itself with Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

8 billion what?

So my point about the 0.18 expenditure that you keep ignoring. Not much of a body blow really, is it?

ambro25

Enzokk wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

After last weekend's love-in with Trump, I'm thinking that Macron's France is looking to replace the UK as the special relationship counterpart, and erstwhile FDI landing zone, within the EU. Macron strikes me as plenty opportunistic and mercenary that way.

Just remember that President Trump is a People Pleaser, he will say what he thinks his host wants to hear. That's why his statements are so wild, he pulls out of the Paris agreement, but after a visit to France he says it may change. I think Macron is trying to assert his popularity at home by showing he can be the alpha male against the most alpha male of all time with Trump. If in turn he does get the US to make a u-turn on Paris, all the better for all of us.

According to the news at the time, Trump didn't say much of anything, Macron did all the talking.

I don't believe Macron is asserting his popularity at home: he doesn't need to, after burying left-right politics in France, and Marine LePen in passing, 2 months ago. And then cleaning up at the GE with a boatload of newbie deputes a month later or so.

I believe he's trying his hand at realpolitik early, intent on fully seizing the opportunities opened by Brexit. A viewpoint supported by his hard stance about the UK (reportedly the hardest amongst the EU27) and 'nabbing' a home visit from Trump under Teresa's nose.

Trump's an odious joke, for sure...but at the end of the day, he's still POTUS, for now at least. And he has yet to set foot in the 'special friend' UK. Actions, words and all that.

On the NATO issue, France has made all the right noises & budgetary commitments on the period 2019-2022 (for those who may have missed that in the news). I seem to recall the UK relying on French aircraft carriers a good while recently, while theirs were being built - and France has few if any lessons to take from the UK on the NATO/capacity/force projection/intel fronts, tbh. The Germans aren't that far behind, neither are the Poles.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So my point about the 0.18 expenditure that you keep ignoring. Not much of a body blow really, is it?

You pulled a number out if thin air, how can that be commented on?

The eu budget is hugely complex and isn't based on spreading the cost evenly based on population, it is based on a country's wealth and one of the wealthy countries is about leave, meaning there are now a higher proportion of less wealthy countries. Those countries don't contribute much, but receive a lot.

Denmark has already stated they aren't paying any extra and you can bet the visegard group won't either, so the budget hole won't simply be divided evenly per capita, some countries will pay a lot extra, or the budgets get cut.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You pulled a number out if thin air, how can that be commented on?

The eu budget is hugely complex and isn't based on spreading the cost evenly based on population, it is based on a country's wealth and one of the wealthy countries is about leave, meaning there are now a higher proportion of less wealthy countries. Those countries don't contribute much, but receive a lot.

Denmark has already stated they aren't paying any extra and you can bet the visegard group won't either, so the budget hole won't simply be divided evenly per capita, some countries will pay a lot extra, or the budgets get cut.

Nah. Britain flouncing with their 8 billion isn't the body blow you wish it was.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

I seem to recall the UK relying on French aircraft carriers a good while recently, while theirs were being built - and France has few if any lessons to take from the UK on the NATO/capacity/force projection/intel fronts, tbh. The Germans aren't that far behind, neither are the Poles.

Err carrier, singular, not plural.

It's currently in dry dock in Toulon on an 18 month refit.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nah. Britain flouncing with their 8 billion isn't the body blow you wish it was.

Good answer, bravo.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good answer, bravo.

Thanks.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good answer, bravo.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Thanks.

Both of you are well aware that this sort of sniping isn't on. Cut it out.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good answer, bravo.

Thanks. I think it's a fair reflection of the reality that the loss of the 8 billion won't be a factor in the negotiations. It's simply a red herring. Much like Boris, Davies and May's assertion that there would be parallel talks. Bluff and bluster. The EU will tell them the terms under which they can leave and the Tories will have to take it or leave it. That's what's going to happen. The 'negotiations' are a pretence.

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The cost of these count towards eu expenditure in the UK, but these institutions will continue elsewhere, so will need to be paid for.

Are we talking about the cost to keep running those institutions or the cost to move them out of the UK?

Because my understanding is that the first point is already accounted for in the budget and depending on where those institutions go might be affected by a country's willingness or ability to pay for hole left by the UK (paying money into a budget when you know that money is going to come right back to you in part as you play host to a selection of new rentals and hires etc from the EU) it will very much still an issue for that country in other ways.

And the second issue is my understanding to be part of the problem with the whole debate over the UK's departure bill.

Capt'n Midnight

123shooter wrote: »

The UK's net contribution is approx £9 billion, so when the UK goes the EU is going to be missing £9 billion or approx 10.25 billion euro after whatever money the EU can squeeze out of the UK on leaving.

Considering the UK bill is some fraction of One Hundred Billion it should cover a few years contributions.

Have you factored in the costs to the UK ?
travel visa's and stuff ?
look at how much stuff has gone up due to the fall in Sterling, now add the same again for WTO tariffs.


There's this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39785018 , which is happening and a lot more than the €84 figure you handwaved which even if it was true would be more than covered by the Water refunds.

Fratton Fred

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Are we talking about the cost to keep running those institutions or the cost to move them out of the UK?

Because my understanding is that the first point is already accounted for in the budget and depending on where those institutions go might be affected by a country's willingness or ability to pay for hole left by the UK (paying money into a budget when you know that money is going to come right back to you in part as you play host to a selection of new rentals and hires etc from the EU) it will very much still an issue for that country in other ways.

And the second issue is my understanding to be part of the problem with the whole debate over the UK's departure bill.

The existing cost to run those institutions.

The eu want the UK to pay the full cost of moving those institutions, which seems to be a bit of gamesmanship to me.

Enzokk

ambro25 wrote: »

According to the news at the time, Trump didn't say much of anything, Macron did all the talking.

I don't believe Macron is asserting his popularity at home: he doesn't need to, after burying left-right politics in France, and Marine LePen in passing, 2 months ago. And then cleaning up at the GE with a boatload of newbie deputes a month later or so.

I believe he's trying his hand at realpolitik early, intent on fully seizing the opportunities opened by Brexit. A viewpoint supported by his hard stance about the UK (reportedly the hardest amongst the EU27) and 'nabbing' a home visit from Trump under Teresa's nose.

Trump's an odious joke, for sure...but at the end of the day, he's still POTUS, for now at least. And he has yet to set foot in the 'special friend' UK. Actions, words and all that.

In fairness he will be absolutely booed out of the UK and with a skin as thin as his there is no way he is going to the UK anytime soon. That isn't to say he will not still keep the relationship with the UK closer to any other countries, just that he will not visit right now.

I don't think you can take anything Trump does as meaning anything. He has said that the US has had some terrible trade deals in the past and he wants to pull out of some and future ones will be for the benefit of the US. At the same time he wants a trade deal done quickly for the UK. So are we to assume he wants a quick deal to help the UK? Or a quick deal to screw the UK over?

With Trump you just don't take anything he says seriously as he is a known liar and will change his mind if he wants to. Any proclamations will need to be taken with a pinch of salt as well. China was a currency manipulator until he visited them and they weren't. Qatar is a enemy because they support terrorism, although they are the US biggest ally with their biggest air base in the Middle East from where the US launch anti-terror raids against ISIS.

Any case that is neither here nor there with Brexit, other than the purported deal that the UK wants may not be the deal that they need.

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The existing cost to run those institutions.

As I said my understanding the cost of running those institutions would be part of the EU budget already. The buildings and staff the EU currently rent and hire within the UK are not given freely by the british government.

For example (https://www.ft.com/content/4ad548c6-2b58-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7?mhq5j=e1)

So we know the EU was already paying for the lease on these buildings in canary wharf and that cost would exist somewhere in the current EU budget. Them being based in the UK or in another EU country wont change that bill (debatable if they might get cheaper lease terms in another EU country) so there is no increased cost to the running these facilities beyond the cost we've already acknowledged from the Uk's departure from the budget.

The eu want the UK to pay the full cost of moving those institutions, which seems to be a bit of gamesmanship to me.

*shrug* that will be one of the key points of the debate over the divorce bill, I dont think it's unfair to ask the UK to contribute to the cos, in terms of paying for the full move, that may be the position, but considering the other EU countries are bidding to take over hosting these institutions I wont be surprised if each them will throw something into the hat to make them the preferred choice which the EU will use in the actual negotiations. It might in the end work somewhat in the UK's favour when somewhere like Spain offers to cover some of the cost to relocate the EMA if it is relocated to Barcelona. But at the very least I would expect the UK would be required to pay off the leases of the buildings, which is still the biggest piece of the cost (at least with the EMA).

Bushmanpm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Nah. Britain flouncing with their 8 billion isn't the body blow you wish it was.

By the various calculations I've seen its more in the region of aprx 10.8 bn. In Sterling. Bearing in mind, when exactly did the EU publish any form of meaningful, accurate and reliable accounts? 15 years ago? 20 years ago? And let's just pray its not by the same accountants, Goldman Sachs, who said Greece's finances were fine for joining the EU because THAT ended well, didn't it?! If the EU was a business not many would want to trade with them for that one point alone, but I digress.
At today's FX rate of 1 to 1.14 that 10.8bn would result in a net contribution of 12.312 bn Euro, as in 12,312,000,000 Euro. Hardly a "small change down the back of the sofa" sum of money. Mentioned earlier was a total sum from all 28 at 140bn PA IIRC so that 12.3bn from the UK WILL leave a hole.

BlitzKrieg

Bushmanpm wrote: »

By the various calculations I've seen its more in the region of aprx 10.8 bn. In Sterling. Bearing in mind, when exactly did the EU publish any form of meaningful, accurate and reliable accounts?

reliable accurate accounts of the revenue for 2015 - 2012 (2016 account should be ready soon) with page numbers and total percentage of EU budget underneath

2015: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2015/lib/financial_report_2015_en.pdf

page: 31
total: 15.6%

2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2014/lib/financial_report_2014_en.pdf

page: 36

total: 10.6%

2013
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2013/lib/financial_report_2013_en.pdf

page 40

total: 12.2%

2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2012/pdf/financialreport-2012_en.pdf

page 36

total: 12.5%

interesting how the rebate works.

its calculated based of the payment the UK made the previous year and that amount is deducted from the UK's cost at the next budget by spreading the cost across the other EU members to cover (with France getting the lions share) So you can see how much the UK rebate costs the other member states each year.

This year's report should be quite interesting as the UK should receive its biggest rebate as it was a much higher contributor in 2016 then usual.

It also means the last rebate would probably be part of the brexit bill negotiations I imagine as it cant come as part of the next budget as normal.


There are other graphs in there that are interesting, such as the amount spent by the EU directly on each country etc etc.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu want the UK to pay the full cost of moving those institutions, which seems to be a bit of gamesmanship to me.

Why? If a member state bids for an institution then changes its mind about membership itself, surely that member state which bid for the institution in the first place should compensate the union for the costs of moving it somewhere else. These costs are arising solely due to the member state's departure.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Considering the UK bill is some fraction of One Hundred Billion it should cover a few years contributions.

Have you factored in the costs to the UK ?
travel visa's and stuff ?
look at how much stuff has gone up due to the fall in Sterling, now add the same again for WTO tariffs.


There's this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39785018 , which is happening and a lot more than the €84 figure you handwaved which even if it was true would be more than covered by the Water refunds.

Good morning,

It's worth balancing some of the fear mongering on this thread.

There are options for tariff free trade with the European Union without being a member of the single market. One point that hasn't been responded to on this thread is that there are also options for passporting financial services from outside the European Union provided that there is regulatory equivalence. This is outlined in MiFID II.

Even if the UK were on WTO tariffs it wouldn't be the end of the world. It is a very bad outcome but the British economy can weather it.

As for travel visas - I can't imagine it being very cumbersome. It would probably be on a waiver in most countries anyway.

The fall in sterling is an interesting one. A fall was predicted in 2015 even if we didn't leave the European Union because sterling has been overvalued for a long time. IMF even warned about it in July 2015. The value of a currency isn't the only yardstick. Devaluing currency can be beneficial. Some central banks even force devaluation.

There are of course challenges to Brexit but I would love some of the hard remainers to acknowledge that there are lots of opportunities also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria