Brexit discussion thread II

Zubeneschamali · 04-09-2017 08:01PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, George Osborne and his mates made a huge number of wild projections.
...
The question is what happens next.

All the bad stuff George Osborne and his mates predicted.

Nate--IRL-- · 04-09-2017 08:18PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so up to the end of the existing budget then.

It should be whatever the UK has committed to fund - if that works out at €1 or €50bn, fine. But whatever it works out at it must be fair and agreeable to both sides. It is not a quid pro quo for a future trade relationship.

Nate

Gerry T · 04-09-2017 08:58PM

Fratton Fred wrote:

so up to the end of the existing budget then.

The UK might have signed contracts committing them to funds way past existing budget. Also pension payments, that could payments for 30 more yrs

Sam Russell · 04-09-2017 09:46PM

Gerry T wrote: »

The UK might have signed contracts committing them to funds way past existing budget. Also pension payments, that could payments for 30 more yrs

Plus they will have to pay the cost of Brexit - likely to be €10 million, plus the cost of moving the two EU agencies out of the UK. Their own cost of Bexit is likely to be of the same order.

The Medicines Agency signed a 35 year lease on the Canary Wharf offices.

It was the Fincial Times that came out with a figure of €100 million (or was it GB£s - mind you by the time of Brexit it will not make much difference)

solodeogloria · 04-09-2017 09:50PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Plus they will have to pay the cost of Brexit - likely to be €10 million, plus the cost of moving the two EU agencies out of the UK. Their own cost of Bexit is likely to be of the same order.

The Medicines Agency signed a 35 year lease on the Canary Wharf offices.

It was the Fincial Times that came out with a figure of €100 million (or was it GB£s - mind you by the time of Brexit it will not make much difference)

Good evening!

I think we should let the negotiators conclude this. I don't agree that of necessity the UK should pay for the EU to relocate their agencies as a matter of their choice.

Each line item will be dissected by the British negotiators. I still don't see how we can get much beyond three years contributions net.

There is a limit as to what will be politically acceptable in the UK and it will need to be sold as a payment for a future relationship rather than a bill to be politically acceptable.

It will be nowhere near the ludicrous sum of €100bn. They can go whistle for that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John · 04-09-2017 09:52PM

They been telling there people in the UK, porkies up until now. I suppose another one won't matter.

blanch152 · 04-09-2017 10:06PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I think we should let the negotiators conclude this. I don't agree that of necessity the UK should pay for the EU to relocate their agencies as a matter of their choice.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This is a ridiculous statement. You can't have an EU institution outside the EU, therefore because of Britain's choice, the EU has to relocate its agencies. The UK should therefore pay for this relocation.

steddyeddy · 04-09-2017 10:26PM

Guy Verhofstadt, chief EU negotiator for the EU mysteriously suggested that Theresa May will make an intervention in a EU speech on September the 21st. He also states that there is no progress on Brexit talks and more worryingly the UK are challenging the legal obligations to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/04/may-to-make-important-intervention-on-brexit-verhofstadt-predicts#img-1

Water John · 04-09-2017 10:35PM

Looks like the Tory love in/conference is the premier show on the Govn'ts plate.

Nody · 04-09-2017 10:38PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guy Verhofstadt, chief EU negotiator for the EU mysteriously suggested that Theresa May will make an intervention in a EU speech on September the 21st. He also states that there is no progress on Brexit talks and more worryingly the UK are challenging the legal obligations to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/04/may-to-make-important-intervention-on-brexit-verhofstadt-predicts#img-1

From earlier article today it will most likely announce going from once a month to weekly meetings by the teams to speed up the progress; if she wants actual progress she'll have to give actual practical examples of implementation plans and/or power for the team to negotiate them but I don't see that happening.

At this stage if I was to hope I'd probably be closer to the French attitude of simply stopping the talks and shutting it all down. Yes they owe money but honestly let's stop wasting time arguing over the details which will go nowhere, end the discussion and let UK start dealing with Brexit is Brexit. Six months of the reality of actually being a 3rd party country who can't sign trade deals (due to the WTO split not being completed) should help crystallise what they are after to a whole new degree compared to now (since they can't actually state a position that's not up in the clouds for level of detail) and speed up and pragmatist the discussions to actually make progress on the issues compared to the current standstill. Why waste another year?

robindch · 04-09-2017 10:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's no coming back in to the EU or staying by the back door. It wasn't working. It's time for something better for all involved.

It was working well - so well, in fact, that the public forgot about it and assuming that roughly half of the nation's trade simply happened without any intervention from anybody.

Instead, significant numbers - including yourself in retrospect, it seems - chose to believe the copious dishonesty provided by Gove, Carswell, Johnson, Farage and the rest of them. Mostly, it seems since it was easy to do, required no subtlety or learning, and played to the worst tribal instincts of any population.

robindch · 04-09-2017 10:59PM

Nody wrote: »

Yes they owe money but honestly let's stop wasting time arguing over the details which will go nowhere, end the discussion and let UK start dealing with Brexit is Brexit.

It's certainly tempting to abandon the UK to the disastrous group of politicians currently mismanaging the country and the current and pending liabilities could be zero'd by abandoning negotiations.

However, in order to make up for the shortfall, the EU would then likely need to slap significant tariffs on UK trade, and I can't see that ending up in any place useful.

ancapailldorcha · 04-09-2017 11:06PM

robindch wrote: »

It's certainly tempting to abandon the UK to the disastrous group of politicians currently mismanaging the country and the current and pending liabilities could be zero'd by abandoning negotiations.

However, in order to make up for the shortfall, the EU would then likely need to slap significant tariffs on UK trade, and I can't see that ending up in any place useful.

I don't see either the EU or the UK benefiting from Brexit. In terms of apportioning responsibility though, the EU is the only choices for politicians. Can't blame the voters for obvious reasons, none of them are likely to take responsibility for it themselves which means that the EU will continue to take the sort of flak it's been absorbing for the past few decades. The logical thing to do would be to backtrack but without the mere will to accept that mistakes are made, the Tories are just going to plough ahead in the name of their party.

Fratton Fred · 04-09-2017 11:40PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Plus they will have to pay the cost of Brexit - likely to be €10 million, plus the cost of moving the two EU agencies out of the UK. Their own cost of Bexit is likely to be of the same order.

The Medicines Agency signed a 35 year lease on the Canary Wharf offices.

It was the Fincial Times that came out with a figure of €100 million (or was it GB£s - mind you by the time of Brexit it will not make much difference)

The commitment thing is a given. The UK has already stated it will honour it commitments. The cost of brexit and moving the agencies is something the eu has added on, so that is all open to negotiation.

oppenheimer1 · 05-09-2017 12:19AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The commitment thing is a given. The UK has already stated it will honour it commitments. The cost of brexit and moving the agencies is something the eu has added on, so that is all open to negotiation.

How can we trust the UK to honour it's commitments when it seems intent on undermining the sequence of the talks - a point it freely signed up to.

Zubeneschamali · 05-09-2017 05:58AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then what are the negotiations about? Surely they can all go home now and save us all a fortune

Internal Tory party politics.

Zubeneschamali · 05-09-2017 06:01AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

it will need to be sold as a payment for a future relationship rather than a bill to be politically acceptable.

More lies for the electorate.

solodeogloria · 05-09-2017 07:06AM

Good morning!

robindch wrote: »

It was working well - so well, in fact, that the public forgot about it and assuming that roughly half of the nation's trade simply happened without any intervention from anybody.

Instead, significant numbers - including yourself in retrospect, it seems - chose to believe the copious dishonesty provided by Gove, Carswell, Johnson, Farage and the rest of them. Mostly, it seems since it was easy to do, required no subtlety or learning, and played to the worst tribal instincts of any population.

I don't think anyone said that 44% of trade (what goes to the EU in goods and services) was achieved automatically.

The point is that there is a lot of potential for the 56% to be expanded by having control of trade policy. That's too good an opportunity to miss out on.

If you're going to claim that I'm dishonest you need to explain why.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see either the EU or the UK benefiting from Brexit. In terms of apportioning responsibility though, the EU is the only choices for politicians. Can't blame the voters for obvious reasons, none of them are likely to take responsibility for it themselves which means that the EU will continue to take the sort of flak it's been absorbing for the past few decades. The logical thing to do would be to backtrack but without the mere will to accept that mistakes are made, the Tories are just going to plough ahead in the name of their party.

It isn't logical to backtrack. That's a rejection of democracy.

It's logical to move forward on the best terms possible with the EU and take the benefits of being on the outside with both hands.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

More lies for the electorate.

No, not lies but a negotiating strategy.

It means that however much the EU say it's a bill. It isn't a bill in the eyes of the British public. The UK won't pay it until the details of the transition and future relationship become clear.

It's an obvious strategy. The EU desperately need this money. It's one of Britain's trump cards. They need to get something in return for it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 05-09-2017 07:12AM

If this is the typical attitude of the British public then in all for the French attitude.

Let them go after their too good an opportunity to miss.

The tories really are a horrible party

Calina · 05-09-2017 07:25AM

The EU will cope without the money if it comes to it. It is a far bigger economy than the UK is. But the money represents commitments the UK has already made and if the UK welches on it then quite frankly who would trust them in the future?

The issue is this. The UK desperately needs trade arrangements. The EU justifiably considers that the UK cannot be trusted so until it demonstrates a willingness in grown up detail not to welch on previous commitments, the EU will not discuss trade. After all, the UK are already in trouble for not applying customs regs to third party countries.

The EU's position is justified in the context of 1) Johnson's general behaviour and cake and eat it comments 2) Davis lack of engagement and up front lack of knowledge 3) May's decision to issue Article 50 without actually having a concrete strategy for negotiation and 4) May's decision to have an election after issuing Article 50. The UK has not been acting like a trustworthy counterparty, they have not been negotiating in good faith. Half their own electorate don't trust them.

Samaris · 05-09-2017 08:02AM

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

Peregrinus · 05-09-2017 08:03AM

Calina wrote: »

The EU will cope without the money if it comes to it. It is a far bigger economy than the UK is. But the money represents commitments the UK has already made and if the UK welches on it then quite frankly who would trust them in the future?

I don't think it's a question of the UK welching on it, or of the UK not being trusted. I think the position is:

- The UK has accepted the principle that some transitional payment is proper, and needs to be negotiated.

- Although neither side will say so explicitly, a reasonable and open-handed attitude on the part of the UK to identifying and quantifying the amount due is widely seen something of a quid pro quo for a reasonable and open-handed attitude on the part of the EU to a trade deal.

- The UK desparately needs a solid trade deal with the EU, not just because the EU is, and will certainly remain, far and away its largest trading partner, but also because its strategy of negotiation trade deals with other countries lacks all credibility if it cannot even negotiate a deal with the the Union.

- So a failure by the UK to agree an exit payment wouldn't be seen so much as a matter of mistrust as an indicator of massive ineptitude. The UK needs a trade deal, and if they allow disagreement over the exit payment to get in the way of that, "incompetent" is about the nicest thing that will be said of them internationally. The already wishful notion that the UK will be "nimble" in its negotations with other countries will become simply ludicrous. Basically, if they stuff this up, Brexit will be seen to fall at the first hurdle, which is negotiating an exit that keeps open the UK's options for a good trade deal.

solodeogloria · 05-09-2017 08:09AM

Samaris wrote: »

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

Good morning!

I'm amenable to the UK paying up to £36bn net (without a return of assets) if the EU are willing to provide clarity on trading terms.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If these terms are unsatisfactory the UK could rescind this.

The UK needs to act for the interests of its people here. Handing over large sums of money without any willingness for the EU to give the UK anything in return would be a negotiating error.

If we get a WTO terms Brexit I'd rather use that £36bn on British priorities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 05-09-2017 08:17AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm amenable to the UK paying up to £36bn net (without a return of assets) if the EU are willing to provide clarity on trading terms.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If these terms are unsatisfactory the UK could rescind this.

The UK needs to act for the interests of its people here. Handing over large sums of money without any willingness for the EU to give the UK anything in return would be a negotiating error.

If we get a WTO terms Brexit I'd rather use that £36bn on British priorities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're not thinking this through, solo.

The GBP 36bn, I recall you mentioning, is a multiple of the UK's budget contribution in previous years. But the UK's budget contribution is measured in euros, not GBP, and your expression of it in sterling ignores the decline in sterling triggered by the Brexit vote. Effectively, you're trying to dictate a maximum exit payment on the basis that the Union must wear the foreign exchange losses attributable to the Brexit decision. Simple self-respect would prevent the Union from accepting this, which suggests that your cap has been manufactured with the express purpose of making it unacceptable to the other side; this looks like a negotiating strategy designed to prevent any agreement from being reached.

I realise that may not be your intention, but fuzzy thinking at a time like this can be just as dangerous as outright malice. I think if it is to have any credibility the UK has to start by producing a coherent basis for measuring the UK's net liabilities to the Union and then deducing a figure from that, rather than the other way around.

Enzokk · 05-09-2017 08:22AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The commitment thing is a given. The UK has already stated it will honour it commitments. The cost of brexit and moving the agencies is something the eu has added on, so that is all open to negotiation.

Is this the same people that committed to not having an election anytime soon? Or the same people that stood in front of a bus that had lies written all over it? Would you trust people like that? Why should the EU?

solodeogloria · 05-09-2017 08:27AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're not thinking this through, solo.

The GBP 36bn, I recall you mentioning, is a multiple of the UK's budget contribution in previous years. But the UK's budget contribution is measured in euros, not GBP, and your expression of it in sterling ignores the decline in sterling triggered by the Brexit vote. Effectively, you're trying to dictate a maximum exit payment on the basis that the Union must wear the foreign exchange losses attributable to the Brexit decision. Simple self-respect would prevent the Union from accepting this, which suggests that your cap has been manufactured with the express purpose of making it unacceptable to the other side; this looks like a negotiating strategy designed to prevent any agreement from being reached.

I realise that may not be your intention, but fuzzy thinking at a time like this can be just as dangerous as outright malice. I think if it is to have any credibility the UK has to start by producing a coherent basis for measuring the UK's net liabilities to the Union and then deducing a figure from that, rather than the other way around.

Good morning!

Again I agree with David Davis that this isn't the best approach. Putting a minimum value down isn't a good approach.

I think the best approach is to scrutinize the EU's proposal and work to a final outcome.

The UK shouldn't offer money carte blanche without an assurance on trade. The EU should be playing off trade access with the contribution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina · 05-09-2017 08:27AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Samaris wrote: »

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

Good morning!

I'm amenable to the UK paying up to £36bn net (without a return of assets) if the EU are willing to provide clarity on trading terms.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If these terms are unsatisfactory the UK could rescind this.

The UK needs to act for the interests of its people here. Handing over large sums of money without any willingness for the EU to give the UK anything in return would be a negotiating error.

If we get a WTO terms Brexit I'd rather use that £36bn on British priorities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit in itself is not acting in the interests of its people and neither was the referendum itself because it was so poorly done.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 08:57AM

Samaris wrote: »

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

that is completely untrue.

The budget runs until 2020 and there is nothing to suggest the UK will not honour ts commitments to this budget.

Samaris wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

again, other than a few posters (with obvious ulterior motives) I see no one saying this at all, this is completely un true

ambro25 · 05-09-2017 09:14AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK shouldn't offer money carte blanche without an assurance on trade.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's exit bill, you're basically advocating for the UK to blackmail the EU.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's payments for enhanced access to the Single Market after it has agreed its exit bill, fair enough (...noting however that the EU is hardly in a position to provide 'assurance' on trade levels: the UK trades with individual EU27 countries, not with the EU on its own; all the EU could give assurances about, in a trading context, is procedural trade facilitation).

Which is it?

listermint · 05-09-2017 09:31AM

ambro25 wrote: »

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's exit bill, you're basically advocating for the UK to blackmail the EU.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's payments for enhanced access to the Single Market after it has agreed its exit bill, fair enough (...noting however that the EU is hardly in a position to provide 'assurance' on trade levels: the UK trades with individual EU27 countries, not with the EU on its own; all the EU could give assurances about, in a trading context, is procedural trade facilitation).

Which is it?

It's basically saying we are an untrustworthy worthy lot but trust us.

Amusing, yet no so amusing at the same time.

How can you trust someone when they won't actually pay their bill. Their.... Bill

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments