Will May Pay or Hope it Fades Away? £55b exit bill...
Discussion
sidicks said:
Burwood said:
Continue to pay 6-8b per annum indefinitely. I have no problem with that.
On what possible grounds?I would imagine part of it covers the "purchase" of EU funded premises or equipment in the UK where it is not practical for them to box it all up.and ship it across the channel.
There also might have been pension commitments for UK staff / pensioners funded from revenue instead of an established fund. (I know, I know - imagine an employer offering their staff benefits for a period after they've stopped working. What were they thinking? There's plenty of charities who will provide free hot meals for pensions)
Part of the cost could be the buyout cost for the EU to continue to meeting any prension commitments with no future contributions likely from the UK.
As.I said, we don't know, but undoubtedly there's some substance to the issues to keep the discussions going.
Though I can see the desire to think of 55bn as a random number picked by the EU just to piss the UK off / make their willies look big for their own voters.
We spoiled their little party, and have put it in more jeapody than its probably ever been in. The UK "has" to be seen as being worse off in the eyes of Europe, just as TM "has" to be seen ending free movement. They are political realities.
I suspect much of the negotiation is really about making sure both of those are "seen" to be achieved by both sides.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
Well that's where the EU need to set out their rationale for whatever figure they present.
I would imagine part of it covers the "purchase" of EU funded premises or equipment in the UK where it is not practical for them to box it all up.and ship it across the channel.
There also might have been pension commitments for UK staff / pensioners funded from revenue instead of an established fund. (I know, I know - imagine an employer offering their staff benefits for a period after they've stopped working. What were they thinking? There's plenty of charities who will provide free hot meals for pensions)
Part of the cost could be the buyout cost for the EU to continue to meeting any prension commitments with no future contributions likely from the UK.
As.I said, we don't know, but undoubtedly there's some substance to the issues to keep the discussions going.
Though I can see the desire to think of 55bn as a random number picked by the EU just to piss the UK off / make their willies look big for their own voters.
We spoiled their little party, and have put it in more jeapody than its probably ever been in. The UK "has" to be seen as being worse off in the eyes of Europe, just as TM "has" to be seen ending free movement. They are political realities.
I suspect much of the negotiation is really about making sure both of those are "seen" to be achieved by both sides.
Ian
Cannot agree with your analysis. Re pensions, did not the UK pick up all the existing pension liabilities for those employed by the EEC before we joined? Why should we be liable after we leave? Equally what about all the EU funded premises and equipment outside the UK which we contributed to? Should we claim those that cannot be boxed up and shipped back to the UK?I would imagine part of it covers the "purchase" of EU funded premises or equipment in the UK where it is not practical for them to box it all up.and ship it across the channel.
There also might have been pension commitments for UK staff / pensioners funded from revenue instead of an established fund. (I know, I know - imagine an employer offering their staff benefits for a period after they've stopped working. What were they thinking? There's plenty of charities who will provide free hot meals for pensions)
Part of the cost could be the buyout cost for the EU to continue to meeting any prension commitments with no future contributions likely from the UK.
As.I said, we don't know, but undoubtedly there's some substance to the issues to keep the discussions going.
Though I can see the desire to think of 55bn as a random number picked by the EU just to piss the UK off / make their willies look big for their own voters.
We spoiled their little party, and have put it in more jeapody than its probably ever been in. The UK "has" to be seen as being worse off in the eyes of Europe, just as TM "has" to be seen ending free movement. They are political realities.
I suspect much of the negotiation is really about making sure both of those are "seen" to be achieved by both sides.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
As.I said, we don't know, but undoubtedly there's some substance to the issues to keep the discussions going.
Plenty of material out there, e.g. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit-e... . Let's try to see this in an objective way:
The EU is an organisation with assets and liabilities. The UK is part of this organisation. There's a complex legal framework that describes the rights and obligations of members. So far I really hope everybody should be able to agree
. Big question: with the UK leaving the organisation, how does one determine what is owed by each party?
Legal obligations are there for both parities. But providing precise legal footing for a 'leave' scenario was not seen as important when the organisation rules were crafted. This now leaves a lot room for interpretation.
How to resolve this?
One option is to agree on a method to calculate each parties obligations. That's what's been happening for weeks now, e.g. here's the EU's position from June: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-politic... .
As common when negotiating, both parties aim high in the beginning and after some time, a deal is reached. Currently the EU says "look at this long list, you committed to all of this and for x years". The UK's position is "we don't think half of that is actually legally binding". Looks like this could take some time...
Another option could be settling on the uncontentious elements and agreeing to let the rest be handled by arbitration at an international court.
Some see this is as a better option, including my humble self. The numbers look enormous, but in the grand scheme of things not really relevant for either party.
What I think is likely, seeing the pace things are going, is some transitional status for the UK.
jsf said:
Tryke3 said:
You make it sound really simple, point is that when the budget is set is for 7 years, this is not done in one payment and everything we agreed to spend on has to be paid
I agree not to pay the bill but i guess mass unemployment and rioting is not something we should look forward too.
We need the eu a lot more than they need us, this is what i think and everyone who thinks we are still a commamders of the world should have a quiet word with themselves
What are they doing setting 7 year budget terms when the treaties they work under allows the parties to leave the agreement with 2 years notice?I agree not to pay the bill but i guess mass unemployment and rioting is not something we should look forward too.
We need the eu a lot more than they need us, this is what i think and everyone who thinks we are still a commamders of the world should have a quiet word with themselves
That's the level of stupid these people work to.
V8 Fettler said:
Has anyone seen the business plan yet?
No , its far behind keeping the wheels on the EU project they have form for it Junker and co don't give a f
k they don't worry about trivia like European , UK jobs trade or people...just keeping the wheels EUSSR gravy train ... Why are we wasting our time with these w
kers we should be working on rest of world trade ...
Burwood said:
Robertj21a said:
Burwood said:
Continue to pay 6-8b per annum indefinitely. I have no problem with that.
Sarcastic ?eta
UK pays EU £6B of £240B of exports = 2.5%
EU pays the UK 2.5% of £310B exports to UK = £7.75B
Seems sensible.
Edited by CaptainSlow on Sunday 3rd September 09:28
Kolbenkopp said:
Plenty of material out there, e.g. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit-e... .
Let's try to see this in an objective way:
The EU is an organisation with assets and liabilities. The UK is part of this organisation. There's a complex legal framework that describes the rights and obligations of members. So far I really hope everybody should be able to agree.
Big question: with the UK leaving the organisation, how does one determine what is owed by each party?
Legal obligations are there for both parities. But providing precise legal footing for a 'leave' scenario was not seen as important when the organisation rules were crafted. This now leaves a lot room for interpretation.
How to resolve this?
One option is to agree on a method to calculate each parties obligations. That's what's been happening for weeks now, e.g. here's the EU's position from June: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-politic... .
As common when negotiating, both parties aim high in the beginning and after some time, a deal is reached. Currently the EU says "look at this long list, you committed to all of this and for x years". The UK's position is "we don't think half of that is actually legally binding". Looks like this could take some time...
Another option could be settling on the uncontentious elements and agreeing to let the rest be handled by arbitration at an international court.
Some see this is as a better option, including my humble self. The numbers look enormous, but in the grand scheme of things not really relevant for either party.
What I think is likely, seeing the pace things are going, is some transitional status for the UK.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph (a soft Brexiteer FWIW) suggested referring the whole bill to the International Court in The Hague.Let's try to see this in an objective way:
The EU is an organisation with assets and liabilities. The UK is part of this organisation. There's a complex legal framework that describes the rights and obligations of members. So far I really hope everybody should be able to agree
. Big question: with the UK leaving the organisation, how does one determine what is owed by each party?
Legal obligations are there for both parities. But providing precise legal footing for a 'leave' scenario was not seen as important when the organisation rules were crafted. This now leaves a lot room for interpretation.
How to resolve this?
One option is to agree on a method to calculate each parties obligations. That's what's been happening for weeks now, e.g. here's the EU's position from June: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-politic... .
As common when negotiating, both parties aim high in the beginning and after some time, a deal is reached. Currently the EU says "look at this long list, you committed to all of this and for x years". The UK's position is "we don't think half of that is actually legally binding". Looks like this could take some time...
Another option could be settling on the uncontentious elements and agreeing to let the rest be handled by arbitration at an international court.
Some see this is as a better option, including my humble self. The numbers look enormous, but in the grand scheme of things not really relevant for either party.
What I think is likely, seeing the pace things are going, is some transitional status for the UK.
I don't think the EU will want to do this, as their legal position is so weak, but calling for it would put alot of pressure on the EU to start compromising.
It's all posturing from the EU; they haven't a clue what to do [!] and as there is no one EU mandarin in charge [or more likely willing to put their head above the parapet ] there is no direction or leadership. just grey drones [think John Major] virtual signalling in an attempt to promote themselves to the EU citizens.
Time to put the knife in good and deep with a twist.
Time to put the knife in good and deep with a twist.
loafer123 said:
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph (a soft Brexiteer FWIW) suggested referring the whole bill to the International Court in The Hague.
I don't think the EU will want to do this, as their legal position is so weak, but calling for it would put alot of pressure on the EU to start compromising.
It would also be pointless.I don't think the EU will want to do this, as their legal position is so weak, but calling for it would put alot of pressure on the EU to start compromising.
There is no definition in A50 of what the 'withdrawal agreement' may or may not contain. If the EU wan't to go for a huge payment they can, likewise we can go for no payment.
If no agreement is made we leave in 2019 (assuming no extention) and all treaties cease to apply.
The UK needs to decide if they can obtain worthwhile benefits in the withdrawal agreement to justify a payment to the EU.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It would also be pointless.
The UK needs to decide if they can obtain worthwhile benefits in the withdrawal agreement to justify a payment to the EU.
It would save so much time if honesty prevailed and we asked the question "how much will it cost us to have free trade with the EU" then we could actually get on with negotiating.The UK needs to decide if they can obtain worthwhile benefits in the withdrawal agreement to justify a payment to the EU.
FN2TypeR said:
Burwood said:
Robertj21a said:
Burwood said:
Continue to pay 6-8b per annum indefinitely. I have no problem with that.
Sarcastic ?FN2TypeR said:
Burwood said:
Robertj21a said:
Burwood said:
Continue to pay 6-8b per annum indefinitely. I have no problem with that.
Sarcastic ?Forget about calling it a divorce bill or whatever.
Think about it like buying a membership at Costco or similar.
If we have 240B of exports to the EU and lets say 20% of that is "profit" by having a free trade agreement, then then it's worth paying something like 10B a year to be in it.
That's just trade though. It shouldn't be liinked to anything like free movement.
HD Adam said:
FN2TypeR said:
Burwood said:
Robertj21a said:
Burwood said:
Continue to pay 6-8b per annum indefinitely. I have no problem with that.
Sarcastic ?Forget about calling it a divorce bill or whatever.
Think about it like buying a membership at Costco or similar.
If we have 240B of exports to the EU and lets say 20% of that is "profit" by having a free trade agreement, then then it's worth paying something like 10B a year to be in it.
That's just trade though. It shouldn't be liinked to anything like free movement.
FN2TypeR said:
slow_poke said:
Sway said:
slow_poke said:
Hayek said:
s2art said:
slow_poke said:
What planet is this going to happen on?
RoI is very content with their European overlords, given their memories of their previous overlords.
It may theoretically solve a sticky point for the UK having the RoI back in their Union, but let's keep the debate in the real world. It'll be a cold, cold day in hell when the Irish come knocking the UK's door asking to get back in.
Just need RoI to leave the EU, not join the UK. As RoI are set to become a contributor to the EU its not as daft as it sounds.RoI is very content with their European overlords, given their memories of their previous overlords.
It may theoretically solve a sticky point for the UK having the RoI back in their Union, but let's keep the debate in the real world. It'll be a cold, cold day in hell when the Irish come knocking the UK's door asking to get back in.
RoI's economy is geared towards attracting inward investment aimed at accessing the EU/Single Market/Custom Union. If RoI can't ofer those, Google/FB/EBay/PayPal et al just f
k off somewhere else.Tax isn't a worry. RoI retain a veto.
RoI knows how to work the system, not like the UK.
ked if they ever surrender that veto. Why would they give it up?slow_poke said:
FN2TypeR said:
slow_poke said:
Sway said:
slow_poke said:
Hayek said:
s2art said:
slow_poke said:
What planet is this going to happen on?
RoI is very content with their European overlords, given their memories of their previous overlords.
It may theoretically solve a sticky point for the UK having the RoI back in their Union, but let's keep the debate in the real world. It'll be a cold, cold day in hell when the Irish come knocking the UK's door asking to get back in.
Just need RoI to leave the EU, not join the UK. As RoI are set to become a contributor to the EU its not as daft as it sounds.RoI is very content with their European overlords, given their memories of their previous overlords.
It may theoretically solve a sticky point for the UK having the RoI back in their Union, but let's keep the debate in the real world. It'll be a cold, cold day in hell when the Irish come knocking the UK's door asking to get back in.
RoI's economy is geared towards attracting inward investment aimed at accessing the EU/Single Market/Custom Union. If RoI can't ofer those, Google/FB/EBay/PayPal et al just f
k off somewhere else.Tax isn't a worry. RoI retain a veto.
RoI knows how to work the system, not like the UK.
ked if they ever surrender that veto. Why would they give it up?HD Adam said:
FN2TypeR said:
Burwood said:
Robertj21a said:
Burwood said:
Continue to pay 6-8b per annum indefinitely. I have no problem with that.
Sarcastic ?Forget about calling it a divorce bill or whatever.
Think about it like buying a membership at Costco or similar.
If we have 240B of exports to the EU and lets say 20% of that is "profit" by having a free trade agreement, then then it's worth paying something like 10B a year to be in it.
That's just trade though. It shouldn't be liinked to anything like free movement.
Mrr T said:
Why are you conserned about FOML? Current UK government policy means it will be 5/10 years before we have any operational immigration controls for EU nationals.
If we remained in the EU we would NEVER have any control. Even 5/10yrs (your estimate) is moving in the right direction. Being concerned about uncontrolled immigration doesn't mean you can't wait for its implementation, just that it's going to happen.And in case you hadn't noticed, quite a few EU member states are also very concerned about uncontrolled immigration too. Little EUer racists that they are
Incidentally, FoM.
Mrr T said:
The change would require a treaty which would trigger referendum in a number of countries. Not going to happen for 20 years at least.
Where do you get the 20yr marker from?I can see a treaty update before then that could impact a number of areas. Closer fiscal union is high up that list - it's one of only three ways to solve the issues with the Euro IMO. I think a growing number of the EU elite know this and I would bet my left nut that there is a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes to work out how that can be done (and I don't just mean the technical mechanics, but also getting it past electorates).
I'll wager there's also a strong desire to do something with Art50 once we've gone
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff