The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[NRS]

Burwood said:

confused_buyer said:

Funk said:

Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA

I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?

I don't like Farage very much (not at all to be honest) but from a one man band he has changed the course of history. He has done that without being part of the UK party system or by any conventional means. In other words, not just the hard way, but the very, very hard way.

On that basis, just this once, I think it is fair to allow him his "moment".

I specifically came here to post that I think it's a bad idea to antagonise a delicate situation.

I agree, but it seems both ways from what a Dutch friend said this is in the papers over there. Not sure who "started" it.

"The two-hour debate before the vote ran turbulent and emotionally. UKIP leader Nigel Farage was greeted with catcalls and boos.

"I never thought that someone from this house Nazi propaganda in the campaign would use," said the Liberal leader, the Belgian Guy Verhofstadt. "The most shocking is not the choice of the UK population, but the climate of fear and negativity that was created." He also told Farage that the EU now got rid of "the biggest waste in Europe: your salary."

[FiF]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Norway's per capita contribution is about half ours, Iceland's lower still as they don't contribute to as many research programmes as Norway choose to do.

It's about the same from what I've found

Flexcit v6 p122 said:

According to the Norwegian government's own figures, its total EU mandated payments (gross) are approximately £435 million (€600 million) per annum. 358 With a population of five million, that is approximately £86 (€120) per head (gross). Net payments are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. At a UK level, with a population of 64 million, our gross contribution (without rebate) is £300 per head. Our equivalent gross payment is £223 per head, and our net per capita payment is £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments.

It's more complicated than that, as for example there would be carryover into onward liabilities into the Multiannual Financial Framework, outstanding liabilities to RAL, mostly purchases and staff pensions, but it depends what the reference framework is, all made up of required payments and voluntary contributions.

Typically, to be consistent with what have said before, I don't think there will be massive savings, maybe 2 billion pa, worth having, but not earth shattering. Problem with that linked report is that there seem to be quite a few nested " we don't know so we'll imagine x" assumptions.

[Leins]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

An excellent piece in the Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-h...

Our own government in Ireland has done far more damage to the country than the EU ever has, and it was thanks to the EU that we have managed to somewhat get out of the mess we were in after the banking crises of 2008. Fintan has a short memory IMO

[FiF]

Tycho said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

An excellent piece in the Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-h...

I agree with most of that, there are voices in the EU which agree with this but not the top people. I think if this is what Cameron came back with when he went for reform then there wouldn't have been a referendum but the EU top brass were too stubborn to change or even acknowledge the need.

Yep thanks for linking that article QT. Last paragraph good summary.

[confused_buyer]

Burwood said:

I specifically came here to post that I think it's a bad idea to antagonise a delicate situation.

If you look through some of the stuff he's said in the past it was one of his more polite efforts! I very much doubt they were expecting much different.

[turbobloke]

Zod said:

We can compare sources on the level of contribution as much as we like. The fact is that it is a material amount and will be an important subject of negotiation.

It does depend on sources and I've read both of those quoted i.e. about the same or not much more than half - but who is this contribution more important to, thwarted Remainers who want to revisit the campaign, or Leavers who are moving on?

There were posts from various vocal Remainers prior to the vote that it was all about immigration. That makes the payment so-what, because it will be less than now and that will be a good thing given the other factors in people deciding to go with Leave.

[turbobloke]

Funk said:

Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA

I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?

MEPs aren't at the power base of the EU, they get to examine and vote on scraps handed down from the Commission. After Farage's speech, which for my part was on the intemperate side but predictably ribald, MEPs backed a motion for an “immediate” triggering of Article 50 but as David Cameron and Boris Johnson have called for a pause they can do farkall about it. Impotence writ large. Later when a deal is being agreed they will do as they are told by their EU puppetmasters, no doubt after another dose of petulance for effect.

[lostkiwi]

turbobloke said:

Funk said:

Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA

I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?

MEPs aren't at the power base of the EU, they get to examine and vote on scraps handed down from the Commission. After Farage's speech, which for my part was on the intemperate side but predictably ribald, MEPs backed a motion for an “immediate” triggering of Article 50 but as David Cameron and Boris Johnson have called for a pause they can do farkall about it. Impotence writ large.

MEPs have to ratify any trade agreements so his rant was ill judged.

The EU cannot force Article 50 before we are ready. Not unless they amend Article 50 but then we have a veto...

If they try to enact Article 50 now they risk a court battle on the basis of breach of the treaty.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/wh...
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-ba...

The relevant provisions of Article 50 read as follows:

Article 50 said:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. 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.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

So under section 1 we require an act of Parliament as part of our constitutional requirements. No act of Parliament and any statement is invalid.
If we can't satisfy section 1 then section 2 cannot proceed.

[turbobloke]

lostkiwi said:

turbobloke said:

Funk said:

Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA

I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?

MEPs aren't at the power base of the EU, they get to examine and vote on scraps handed down from the Commission. After Farage's speech, which for my part was on the intemperate side but predictably ribald, MEPs backed a motion for an “immediate” triggering of Article 50 but as David Cameron and Boris Johnson have called for a pause they can do farkall about it. Impotence writ large.

MEPs have to ratify any trade agreements so his rant was ill judged...

I appreciate the additional detail that followed, but on that point they will do what they're told. We won't see the instruction go out, I agree. If the EU top brass were going to play hardball - which would be mutually harmful not singularly helpful to the EU - they wouldn't be so visibly desperate to get CMD to invoke A50. They know a drawn-out affair plays into the hands of Nexit and Denexit, and as a club that treats its members with contempt by cajoling and scheming to try to get them to stay in (a good reason to get out) there has been a step change in the nature of the EU following Brexit and a new paradigm is in play.

[Burwood]

confused_buyer said:

Burwood said:

I specifically came here to post that I think it's a bad idea to antagonise a delicate situation.

If you look through some of the stuff he's said in the past it was one of his more polite efforts! I very much doubt they were expecting much different.

Sure, Ive seen much worse, I just don't see the point in it all now. Maybe something would get done more easily if the man didn't waste his time sticking two fingers up, all the time

[don4l]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Norway's per capita contribution is about half ours, Iceland's lower still as they don't contribute to as many research programmes as Norway choose to do.

It's about the same from what I've found

If the Remain campaign had a list of facts, they should have publicised it before the referendum. It is too late to start telling the truth now.

[Oakey]

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Norway's per capita contribution is about half ours, Iceland's lower still as they don't contribute to as many research programmes as Norway choose to do.

It's about the same from what I've found

Flexcit v6 p122 said:

According to the Norwegian government's own figures, its total EU mandated payments (gross) are approximately £435 million (€600 million) per annum. 358 With a population of five million, that is approximately £86 (€120) per head (gross). Net payments are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. At a UK level, with a population of 64 million, our gross contribution (without rebate) is £300 per head. Our equivalent gross payment is £223 per head, and our net per capita payment is £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments.

It's more complicated than that, as for example there would be carryover into onward liabilities into the Multiannual Financial Framework, outstanding liabilities to RAL, mostly purchases and staff pensions, but it depends what the reference framework is, all made up of required payments and voluntary contributions.

Typically, to be consistent with what have said before, I don't think there will be massive savings, maybe 2 billion pa, worth having, but not earth shattering. Problem with that linked report is that there seem to be quite a few nested " we don't know so we'll imagine x" assumptions.

What am I misunderstanding here, why is ours £300 per head?

[Burwood]

A simplistic argument but how is the EU going to plug 12B quid per annum not to mention lost trade if they thumb their nose at the UK?

[trickywoo]

Burwood said:

A simplistic argument but how is the EU going to plug 12B quid per annum not to mention lost trade if they thumb their nose at the UK?

They will likely collectively borrow more, which will make the economic situation, particularly in southern EU countries, much worse.

[lostkiwi]

trickywoo said:

Burwood said:

A simplistic argument but how is the EU going to plug 12B quid per annum not to mention lost trade if they thumb their nose at the UK?

They will likely collectively borrow more, which will make the economic situation, particularly in southern EU countries, much worse.

The EU have a balance of payments surplus. They have it in the bank so to speak.

ECB said:

In April 2016 the current account of the euro area recorded a surplus of €36.2 billion.

Source:https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/stats/bop/2016/html/bp160617.en.html

[tarnished]

turbobloke said:

Funk said:

Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA

I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?

MEPs aren't at the power base of the EU, they get to examine and vote on scraps handed down from the Commission. After Farage's speech, which for my part was on the intemperate side but predictably ribald, MEPs backed a motion for an “immediate” triggering of Article 50 but as David Cameron and Boris Johnson have called for a pause they can do farkall about it. Impotence writ large. Later when a deal is being agreed they will do as they are told by their EU puppetmasters, no doubt after another dose of petulance for effect.

Yeah, his very presence there is because the position is of little consequence.

I think his EU rants are cracking value for money, the troll is exceptionally strong in Farage.

[turbobloke]

lostkiwi said:

trickywoo said:

Burwood said:

A simplistic argument but how is the EU going to plug 12B quid per annum not to mention lost trade if they thumb their nose at the UK?

They will likely collectively borrow more, which will make the economic situation, particularly in southern EU countries, much worse.

The EU have a balance of payments surplus. They have it in the bank so to speak.

ECB said:

In April 2016 the current account of the euro area recorded a surplus of €36.2 billion.

Source:https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/stats/bop/2016/html/bp160617.en.html

With total debt 9.4 trillion eur.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/governme...

It must be like having a few quid on deposit alongside massive credit card blowout debt. They could always ask for a limit increase on the card as another option.

The UK is hardly debt-free (!) but we're on the receiving end this time, whatever the difference turns out to be.

[turbobloke]

'Italy eyes €40bn bank rescue as first Brexit domino falls'

The EU will look after its own obviously.

[lostkiwi]

turbobloke said:

lostkiwi said:

trickywoo said:

Burwood said:

A simplistic argument but how is the EU going to plug 12B quid per annum not to mention lost trade if they thumb their nose at the UK?

They will likely collectively borrow more, which will make the economic situation, particularly in southern EU countries, much worse.

The EU have a balance of payments surplus. They have it in the bank so to speak.

ECB said:

In April 2016 the current account of the euro area recorded a surplus of €36.2 billion.

Source:https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/stats/bop/2016/html/bp160617.en.html

With total debt 9.4 trillion eur.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/governme...

It must be like having a few quid on deposit alongside massive credit card blowout debt. They could always ask for a limit increase on the card as another option.

The UK is hardly debt-free (!) but we're on the receiving end this time, whatever the difference turns out to be.

As may be but they still can afford to make up the loss.
From the same source as yours:
Balance of Trade (EU) - +27482 EUR Million
Balance of Trade (UK) - -3294 GBP Million
Given the EU figure will include the UK the EU figure is healthier than it looks. Also given the relative exchange rate differences the UK figure is worse than it looks.

Debt to GDP is broadly similar at 90% for the EU and 89% for the UK.

[FiF]

Oakey said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Norway's per capita contribution is about half ours, Iceland's lower still as they don't contribute to as many research programmes as Norway choose to do.

It's about the same from what I've found

Flexcit v6 p122 said:

According to the Norwegian government's own figures, its total EU mandated payments (gross) are approximately £435 million (€600 million) per annum. 358 With a population of five million, that is approximately £86 (€120) per head (gross). Net payments are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. At a UK level, with a population of 64 million, our gross contribution (without rebate) is £300 per head. Our equivalent gross payment is £223 per head, and our net per capita payment is £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments.

It's more complicated than that, as for example there would be carryover into onward liabilities into the Multiannual Financial Framework, outstanding liabilities to RAL, mostly purchases and staff pensions, but it depends what the reference framework is, all made up of required payments and voluntary contributions.

Typically, to be consistent with what have said before, I don't think there will be massive savings, maybe 2 billion pa, worth having, but not earth shattering. Problem with that linked report is that there seem to be quite a few nested " we don't know so we'll imagine x" assumptions.

What am I misunderstanding here, why is ours £300 per head?

Gross contribution before rebate say 19billion, divide by 64million population gives about 300 per person.

Of course after rebate and EU payments it's less as per text.

Or have I misunderstood the question?