Will May Pay or Hope it Fades Away? £55b exit bill...

[PurpleMoonlight]

powerstroke said:

WTO is fine for most countries , if the EU wants their biggest export market going that way because they think more of the project than european jobs crack on junker I say
we will do just fine.....

Potential EU tariffs being imposed on UK exports is what leavers voted for is it not? So you can't really criticise the EU if they follow the same path. Does it mean leavers think more of leaving than they do UK jobs?

If, as many people hope, the UK will adopt very low tariffs then EU exports to the UK will likely not be affected. Wonder if the same can be said for UK exports to the EU?

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 3rd December 08:52

[Mario149]

Tuna said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Quite.

50% of the UK's imports and exports are with EU27.
15% of EU27's imports and exports are with the UK.

Somehow, the minor detail that we are therefore more than three times as dependent on them as vice-versa seems to be too hard a concept for some to grasp.

Yes, because that's how it works. All of our exports are distributed completely uniformly across the EU, and the 'amount of dependency' is a number that you calculate from the percentages.

What nonsense. Both sides would be screwed if trading were to stop, and badly damaged if it weren't allowed to continue in roughly similar volumes to the present situation. Germany and France - the centre of the EU, take by far the highest proportion of our goods, and we manage something like a third of all European debt through London. It's very much in the interest of both sides to not do something stupid. So no - Europe doesn't hold the upper hand here (especially given the perilous state of the German, French and Italian political systems, and the Euro). But nor does the UK.

This is two guys with guns agreeing to drop their weapons and calmly walk away. It doesn't really matter if one gun is bigger.

And yet still all the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Our position started off as parallel divorce trade talks (row of the summer), no divorce bill, no transition. And surely if we were in the truly strong position we'd have been asking for money from them? Yet since then we've agreed sequential talks, agreed transition period, agreed to pay £20Bn, then £40Bn, now £45Bn (or whatever the exact amount is currently) and are scrabbling to produce an assurance on the NI border that Eire approves of in time for an EU deadline next week. We're folding more expertly than a Japanese origami master. And somehow, exactly how I'm yet to fathom fully, this is apparently coming as a bloody surprise to some people. And I'm struggling to come up with one major concession the EU has been forced to make. Forgive me for saying it sounds like we're taking a right whipping.

So either :

1) we're in a very strong position and our neg team are utterly ineffective (the latter certainly not beyond the realms of possibility)

....or....

2) we're in a weaker negotiating position than is commonly accepted Leave proponents but our negotiating team is competent

....or if we're really unlucky....

3) we're in a weaker position AND our neg team are ineffective.

Sadly I think (3) latter is the case, ironically not because our team are idiots, but because they're working to a brief that was always undeliverable.

As I said, the penny has to and will drop at some point. We're seeing warning sign after warning sign, and yet some how we still (deliberately I suspect for the politicians, and unwittingly I suspect for the general Leave public adeptly aided by the Mail, Express etc) have our heads in the sand. Whether the penny lands before we fk things up good and proper IMO is another question.

[TooMany2cvs]

Tuna said:

///ajd said:

The UK have said many many things. Stuff on buses and stuff about going to whistle.

Oh FFS. The UK has not said anything. Some people have gone out of their way to misinterpret things that specific individuals and groups have said.

The "group" that misrepresented via the bus were the official Leave campaign, whose senior figures now form a large swathe of the government, and are setting the political agenda almost entirely.


As for "whistling"...
https://goo.gl/DdpAe3

Hansard said:

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Since we joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money in real terms, a total of £209 billion. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the EU that if it wants a penny piece more, it can go whistle?

Boris Johnson
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words will have broken like a thunderclap over Brussels and they will pay attention to what he has said. He makes a very valid point; the sums that I have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression.

Just as a reminder, if you think this doesn't count as "the UK" - that's the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs answering questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Parliament.

But, no, I'm sure that's all just pure misrepresentation, isn't it...? A bit of light photoshoppery, followed up by some trolling and fake news on the part of Hansard...

[Tuna]

TooMany2cvs said:

As for "whistling"...
https://goo.gl/DdpAe3

Hansard said:

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Since we joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money in real terms, a total of £209 billion. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the EU that if it wants a penny piece more, it can go whistle?

Boris Johnson
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words will have broken like a thunderclap over Brussels and they will pay attention to what he has said. He makes a very valid point; the sums that I have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression.

Just as a reminder, if you think this doesn't count as "the UK" - that's the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs answering questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Parliament.

But, no, I'm sure that's all just pure misrepresentation, isn't it...? A bit of light photoshoppery, followed up by some trolling and fake news on the part of Hansard...

It's funny how two groups can read the same thing and infer different meanings.

"the sums [...] seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression."

I'm not understanding that to mean "we won't pay", just that "we won't pay an extortionate amount". You can see that he also said this:

Boris said:

Of course we will meet our obligations. We are law-abiding, bill-paying people. We certainly have to meet our obligations

He's making the distinction between the suggestions of an 'extortionate' bill (at the time of the Hansard quote, it was suggested we might pay as much as £120 billion) and our fair obligations (the more reasonable £40 billion that seems to be accepted today).

So you're arguing that someone who may have played a part in saving £80 billion is somehow damaging the country? Good for you, keep believing the stuff you're being fed.

And yes, I'm also drawing a distinction between groups discussing these matters internally and the UK's position on such matters - which is down to what Davies and co. present to Barnier during their meetings. "The UK" has not told "the EU" to go whistle, has it?

[Tuna]

TooMany2cvs said:

Tuna said:

///ajd said:

The UK have said many many things. Stuff on buses and stuff about going to whistle.

Oh FFS. The UK has not said anything. Some people have gone out of their way to misinterpret things that specific individuals and groups have said.

The "group" that misrepresented via the bus were the official Leave campaign, whose senior figures now form a large swathe of the government, and are setting the political agenda almost entirely.

So, during the Leave campaign were those people representing the government? No.

Did they make a commitment to pay £350 million a week entirely to the NHS? No - though, yes the wording was open to misinterpretation.

Was anything said during either the Remain or Leave campaigns a legally binding promise, as would be a manifesto commitment? No.

The only people who 'believe' the bus slogan was a commitment to pay the entire EU budget to the NHS instead seem to be frothing Remainers who are still fighting the Referendum nearly 18 months after it finished. Their 'belief' is an entirely political construct.

The nearest we had to "The UK" taking a position during the Referendum was the Treasury report championed by the Chancellor saying we'd have an immediate and profound recession, and an emergency budget if we chose leave. Like much that was said during the referendum, that was taken to be an opinion and an argument for one side, rather than a legally binding promise by the State. Wasn't it?

[PurpleMoonlight]

Tuna said:

So, during the Leave campaign were those people representing the government? No.

Did they make a commitment to pay £350 million a week entirely to the NHS? No - though, yes the wording was open to misinterpretation.

Was anything said during either the Remain or Leave campaigns a legally binding promise, as would be a manifesto commitment? No.

The only people who 'believe' the bus slogan was a commitment to pay the entire EU budget to the NHS instead seem to be frothing Remainers who are still fighting the Referendum nearly 18 months after it finished. Their 'belief' is an entirely political construct.

The nearest we had to "The UK" taking a position during the Referendum was the Treasury report championed by the Chancellor saying we'd have an immediate and profound recession, and an emergency budget if we chose leave. Like much that was said during the referendum, that was taken to be an opinion and an argument for one side, rather than a legally binding promise by the State. Wasn't it?

Was the referendum result legally binding on the Government? No.

[TooMany2cvs]

Tuna said:

TooMany2cvs said:

As for "whistling"...
https://goo.gl/DdpAe3

Hansard said:

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Since we joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money in real terms, a total of £209 billion. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the EU that if it wants a penny piece more, it can go whistle?

Boris Johnson
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words will have broken like a thunderclap over Brussels and they will pay attention to what he has said. He makes a very valid point; the sums that I have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression.

Just as a reminder, if you think this doesn't count as "the UK" - that's the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs answering questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Parliament.

But, no, I'm sure that's all just pure misrepresentation, isn't it...? A bit of light photoshoppery, followed up by some trolling and fake news on the part of Hansard...

It's funny how two groups can read the same thing and infer different meanings.

"the sums [...] seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression."

I'm not understanding that to mean "we won't pay", just that "we won't pay an extortionate amount".

Perhaps you simply didn't read the question he was replying to, despite me quoting it?

Philip Hollobone said:

Since we joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money in real terms, a total of £209 billion. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the EU that if it wants a penny piece more, it can go whistle?

He didn't exactly say "Well, hold on a minute... We have a solid commitment to pay for all the projects we're already signed up to, pensions, and various other things. That is all fair and right for us to pay, and is all the EU are asking us to pay.", did he?

Tuna said:

You can see that he also said this:

Boris said:

Of course we will meet our obligations. We are law-abiding, bill-paying people. We certainly have to meet our obligations

Yup. Contracting himself between those two quotes, isn't he?

Tuna said:

He's making the distinction between the suggestions of an 'extortionate' bill (at the time of the Hansard quote, it was suggested we might pay as much as £120 billion) and our fair obligations (the more reasonable £40 billion that seems to be accepted today).

There have been umpteen speculative figures (ranging between €0 and €120bn-ish) thrown about by journos and commentators with various agendas, but the grown-ups started around €40bn, and it's looking like it's all ending around €50bn.

<points back to fullfact link I posted a while ago>
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Sunday 3rd December 13:10

[jjlynn27]

Tuna said:

...

Did they make a commitment to pay £350 million a week entirely to the NHS? No - though, yes the wording was open to misinterpretation.

...

I can't recognize the faces of those two, are they in govt now, something to do with leaving where they can fulfil the promise or not?

Barrel fish shooting.

[///ajd]

Tuna said:

I'm pretty sure I already went over this..

Stupid would be if Remainers fear-mongering over 'hard' brexit forced our negotiators to agree to a 'half-in, half-out' deal where the EU retains control over our tariff regime and justice system, whilst we loose influence over setting of tariffs and laws.

Some Remainers are so determined to avoid leaving that they would happily hog-tie us to a deal that reduces our ability to trade freely.

Hmm. Blaming remainers for a poor deal. It will not be remainers fault if the UK has to compromise with what the EU will offer - the EU is calling the shots here, as widely warned about by the remainers before the vote - but leavers thought they knew better. The outcome of the deal is entirely your responsibility to own.

Any hog tying will be down to what the UK demands. If we demand a type of rebranded CU (U of C did they call it) to ensure nearly frictionless trade, that will come with strings from the EU whether you like it or not. It would be stupid to be petulant about these things. Ditto tariffs.

Stop blaming remainers if the team you voted for get a bad deal.



PS Boris was responding to a guy saying "we've paid the EU billions in the past, if they want a penny more they should go whistle". And he basically agreed with him, restating "go whistle". It conjures up the kind of "my way or highway / two fingers" approach which is exactly what didn't happen. Full capitulation.

PPS The bus was aimed not at remainers who saw it as lies immediately before the vote - as did the HoC Select Committee chaps. It was aimed at the same leavers who went "Whoop whoop" (as they frothed on here, as some still do about walking away) when Boris said "go whistle".

[amgmcqueen]

Still mentioning the red bus in every post....

Beyond pathetic!

[///ajd]

amgmcqueen said:

Still mentioning the red bus in every post....

Beyond pathetic!

Just did a quick google for your name & WTO. It didn't disappoint

From May 2017......

amgmcqueen said:

Shouldn't the EU be paying us to buy back our shares in this failed project?

This figure has been plucked out of Junckers arse and I will be bitterly disappointed if May pays them a single penny. I would also like to see the audited accounts of the EU to see where all our hard earned money has been pissed away over the years.

Seriously this whole corrupt lot need throwing into the sea while the real business leaders of all nations come together to strike real trade deals that will affect the lives of millions. What we don't need is the likes of Juncker/Tusk/Merkel giving it the billy big bks over their bruised ego's.

Are you bitterly disappointed about the bus too?

Is that why mentioning it triggers you?

[sidicks]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Potential EU tariffs being imposed on UK exports is what leavers voted for is it not? So you can't really criticise the EU if they follow the same path. Does it mean leavers think more of leaving than they do UK jobs?

If, as many people hope, the UK will adopt very low tariffs then EU exports to the UK will likely not be affected. Wonder if the same can be said for UK exports to the EU?

They did? I don't remember that. Can you confirm where this claim comes from?

[PurpleMoonlight]

sidicks said:

They did? I don't remember that. Can you confirm where this claim comes from?

Yes, sorry, You were promised only cake.

[sidicks]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Yes, sorry, You were promised only cake.

I don't remember that either. I'm not sure making stuff up is helpful to your cause.

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

I don't remember that either. I'm not sure making stuff up is helpful to your cause.

There was some sort of promise about a trade deal with the EU/UK that implied we would pretty much "leave trade as it is"

VoteLeave said:

We will negotiate a new UK-EU deal based on free trade and friendly cooperation. We will carry on trading with Europe but we will also be able to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. This will help our economy grow and create more jobs.

No negative impact on customs friction highlighted or any downsides - just more jobs selling (we now know its pigs ears) into new markets with new trade deals.

This was very light on detail on the EU SM and CU implications - though many are keen to claim we're "definitely leaving" those.

What do you expect this EU-UK deal to look like if we're leaving the SM/CU?

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

There was some sort of promise about a trade deal with the EU/UK that implied we would pretty much "leave trade as it is"

A promise? Or a sensible expectation that the EU chiefs wouldn't deliberately sabotage the economies of the underlying EU countries purely to try and protect the EU institution...

[TooMany2cvs]

amgmcqueen said:

Still mentioning the red bus in every post....

It was a very, very big lie - no wonder so many leavers are a bit sensitive about being reminded about it.

amgmcqueen said:

Beyond pathetic!

It was, wasn't it?

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

I can't recognize the faces of those two, are they in govt now, something to do with leaving where they can fulfil the promise or not?

Barrel fish shooting.

Got me on that one - I hadn't seen that poster

So you think that the referendum campaigns were a binding commitment to how we are to leave the EU, or the nature of us staying?

[TooMany2cvs]

Tuna said:

So you think that the referendum campaigns were a binding commitment to how we are to leave the EU, or the nature of us staying?

I wouldn't be alone in being absolutely delighted if everybody DID remember that the referendum was explicitly simply advisory - and that since it was very close ("unfinished business", St Nigel of the Farridge?) and is proving a lot less easy than was promised faithfully with what are widely recognised to be (shall we say) exaggerations and part-truths, it's probably worth revisiting the whole concept...

Oh, wait. The "will of the people" was to deliver what the Leave campaign promised, right...?

[PurpleMoonlight]

sidicks said:

A promise? Or a sensible expectation that the EU chiefs wouldn't deliberately sabotage the economies of the underlying EU countries purely to try and protect the EU institution...

"We will" sounds like a promise to me.