How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)

[Helicopter123]

TEKNOPUG said:

Helicopter123 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Helicopter123 said:

Our net contribution is currently £9bn.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-...

Our 'divorce settlement' is £39bn.

Let's spend the saving on the NHS

Actually nearer £13bn a year, the £39bn is a one off. Also the £13bn was going to increase in any event and the rebate quite possibly abolished even if we hadn't tried to leave. If we fail to leave what's to stop them putting it up to £20bn, or £50bn?

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

So what your saying is that £39b is a smaller amount than £9b times infinity?

Yes?

You are Dianne Abbott AICMFP

No, I'm saying paying £9bn net a year for something known, is better than paying £39bn for nothing.

BTW, £39bn < £9bn time infinity.

Maybe you are the 'Dianne Abbot' here?

[youngsyr]

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

I'd go further than that - if there was a solution for an electronic only border between two sovereign countries then it would already exist.

youngsyr said:

There is over $600 bn of trade each year between USA and Canada. If they haven't found a better solution in the century or so that they've been close allies then I rate the chances of the UK/RoI/EU finding one within the next two years at precisely zero.

This is the exact same logical fallacy that you brought to bear the other day with your 'Greece and Italy haven't collapsed already so they won't collapse in the future' treatise.

Do you think perhaps you're not very imaginative when it comes to envisaging change?

How is it a logical fallacy?

My belief is simply that if the US hasn't found a solution to an electronic border, despite a massive incentive to do so, then the chances of our government, the Irish government or the EU sorting one out in short order are non-existant.

Who would you back to get any issue that has a commercial impact solved - 100 years of the US government or 2 years of the EU government?

I'd back whoever is actually under pressure to do it. No pressure = no action.

The USA is a weird combination of bleeding edge, and complete dinosaur. Especially at the govt. level. The EU is a wobbly blob of obfuscation and muddled responsibility, multiplied by 28 competing interests.

The failure of the US government and EU to do something is almost a recommendation, so hopeless are they at bringing about change.

Pressure, if brought to bear, will cut the crap and get something done.

So, not a logical fallacy then?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that big business runs America, especially under Republican governments. If big business wants something done in the US, there will be huge pressure to make it happen.

$600 bn is big business.

[steve_k]

Helicopter123 said:

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

So we hand over £13bn and get £4bn back this is then spent in the UK on projects the EU decide should get our money.

The remaining £9bn we pay the EU in allows us the right to buy more from the EU members than we sell them.

Lets look at the deal Poland gets
Poland pays in £3bn and gets back £11bn from the EU spent on projects in Poland, £9bn of this is from the UK tax payer via our contributions.

The £8bn the EU pays Poland allows them the right to buy more from the other members than they sell them.

Some say we get a good deal from the EU but its quite clear Poland gets a far better deal than we do despite the UK buying far more from the other members than we sell to them.

[Sway]

youngsyr said:

So, not a logical fallacy then?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that big business runs America, especially under Republican governments. If big business wants something done in the US, there will be huge pressure to make it happen.

$600 bn is big business.

The vast majority of Big Business will be importing via air/sea freight, and operating pre- cleared consignments and trusted trader processes.

What volume of US/Canada trade moves across the land border?

Edited by Sway on Tuesday 12th February 18:30

[gooner1]

Helicopter123 said:

No, I'm saying paying £9bn net a year for something known, is better than paying £39bn for nothing.

BTW, £39bn < £9bn time infinity.

Maybe you are the 'Dianne Abbot' here?

Presumably, if you consider the paying of £39 BN to be for nante, then presumably
you consider it should not be paid at all, yes?

[Down and out]

Helicopter123 said:

The BoE remain concerned by 'no deal' Brexit.

It's impossible to gauge just how deep the 'no deal' brexit recession would be. Some are saying as bad or worse than 2008.

Edited by Helicopter123 on Tuesday 12th February 17:24

So last recession was 2008, am I right?

[mx5nut]

toppstuff said:

king arthur said:

Crackie said:

mx5nut said:

I struggle to keep up

Good post.

Standard pattern for our angry Brexiters - respond to bad Brexit news by attacking the poster until discussion moves on and they can talk about getting their unicorns again.

[s2art]

steve_k said:

Helicopter123 said:

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

So we hand over £13bn and get £4bn back this is then spent in the UK on projects the EU decide should get our money.

The remaining £9bn we pay the EU in allows us the right to buy more from the EU members than we sell them.

Lets look at the deal Poland gets
Poland pays in £3bn and gets back £11bn from the EU spent on projects in Poland, £9bn of this is from the UK tax payer via our contributions.

The £8bn the EU pays Poland allows them the right to buy more from the other members than they sell them.

Some say we get a good deal from the EU but its quite clear Poland gets a far better deal than we do despite the UK buying far more from the other members than we sell to them.

The numbers look wrong to me. The UK also pays the EU 80% of the tariffs from non-EU imports to the UK. IIRC thats an additional 3-4 billion. So I think .the correct numbers would be approx 12-13 billion per annum, not 9 billion. Happy to be corrected.

[SeeFive]

Murph7355 said:

Helicopter123 said:

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

Is that you doing 39-9?

If so... You need to go and check how the 39bn was built up and when it became/becomes due.

We shovel enough money into the NHS. It's had more than 10bn per annum extra thrown at it. We could chuck 100bn at it and it wouldn't be enough. Proper reform is needed before we throw good money after bad. (Not sure that would fit in a bus).

First hand experience. Abso fking lutley. A total waste of funding under the current structure.

[HarryW]

s2art said:

steve_k said:

Helicopter123 said:

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

So we hand over £13bn and get £4bn back this is then spent in the UK on projects the EU decide should get our money.

The remaining £9bn we pay the EU in allows us the right to buy more from the EU members than we sell them.

Lets look at the deal Poland gets
Poland pays in £3bn and gets back £11bn from the EU spent on projects in Poland, £9bn of this is from the UK tax payer via our contributions.

The £8bn the EU pays Poland allows them the right to buy more from the other members than they sell them.

Some say we get a good deal from the EU but its quite clear Poland gets a far better deal than we do despite the UK buying far more from the other members than we sell to them.

The numbers look wrong to me. The UK also pays the EU 80% of the tariffs from non-EU imports to the UK. IIRC thats an additional 3-4 billion. So I think .the correct numbers would be approx 12-13 billion per annum, not 9 billion. Happy to be corrected.

This EU tool allows you see contribution, rebate and custom duties raised and gives a net contribution figure...
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/budget...

[Tuna]

mx5nut said:

Standard pattern for our angry Brexiters - respond to bad Brexit news by attacking the poster until discussion moves on and they can talk about getting their unicorns again.

I can't imagine Brexiteers staying angry too long when you're so funny

[mx5nut]

When you're a Brexiter, it's always somebody else's fault when you look silly

[anonymous-user]

Tuna said:

mx5nut said:

Standard pattern for our angry Brexiters - respond to bad Brexit news by attacking the poster until discussion moves on and they can talk about getting their unicorns again.

I can't imagine Brexiteers staying angry too long when you're so funny

Yes, hilarious. 20 months on PH and yet to post anything on any thread about motoring.

[alfie2244]

mx5nut said:

Standard pattern for our angry Brexiters - respond to bad Brexit news by attacking the poster until discussion moves on and they can talk about getting their unicorns again.

[S1KRR]

SpeckledJim said:

- Damage to UK democracy and international credibility: Enormous

- Care about damage to UK democracy among some of those who've never been on the wrong side of it before and don't like it: Sadly, dishearteningly, demoralisingly little

Even as a Leaver

First one, the blame would be put onto some Politicans. Who would struggle to prove otherwise. And I don't just mean Farrage and Boris. But May, Cameron, Hammond as well. And probably a host of civil servants (Robbins for 1!) would get hosed down publicly.

Brussels. Germany, France would think "thank fk for that"
Italy and Hungary would be pissed, but again, at our politiicans, not the people.
Russia and America and even China would be thinking "bugger, missed the shot" But they'd get over it quickly enough. Capitalism tops all.


If there was a change of leadership or even party around that time, it would be passed off as "the last administration" in every press release for 5 years!

Second one. As I said elsewhere. Who do I vote for if not Conservatives? Probably LibDems since no one with a brain would vote Corbyn in. Would they? I suppose a new party could make significant gains. But I don't think the Brits for all our huffing and puffing would be on the streets rioting.

I'm war weary. I dont think Brexit will happen anymore. Or if it does it will be a clusterfk organised by the worst PM this country has had in my life time! I want that even less than Remaining!

And without sounding like dhead Remoaners. I didn't believe in Unicorns. I believed that the UKG would ACTUALLY try and do this properly. So jokes on me I guess

[Troubleatmill]

There is still plenty of time for negotiating.

No deal - no £39 Billion.

[Ian Geary]

Troubleatmill said:

And if I were in business - I wouldn’t have tendered for it.

Hmm, so how do business types ensure the quality and price of what they are buying is good value?

Do you just trust Gerald at the golf course, because he's a "good sort"?

Use of public money requires far higher standards than that.


Just to check: I'm assuming you mean by not tendering, you'd just have chosen a company you wanted to use, without following any competitive process.

If you mean you wouldn't have tendered for it as in it's a stupid thing to try and set up from scratch, then I totally agree, and the above can be disregard!


Ian

[barryrs]

Seems Olly Robbins should be more careful when openly discussing Brexit at the bar.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-12/exclusive-uk-c...

[Troubleatmill]

Ian Geary said:

Troubleatmill said:

And if I were in business - I wouldn’t have tendered for it.

Hmm, so how do business types ensure the quality and price of what they are buying is good value?

Do you just trust Gerald at the golf course, because he's a "good sort"?

Use of public money requires far higher standards than that.


Just to check: I'm assuming you mean by not tendering, you'd just have chosen a company you wanted to use, without following any competitive process.

If you mean you wouldn't have tendered for it as in it's a stupid thing to try and set up from scratch, then I totally agree, and the above can be disregard!


Ian

The latter Ian.
I can't see how it could be profitable medium/ long term,

[SpeckledJim]

youngsyr said:

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

I'd go further than that - if there was a solution for an electronic only border between two sovereign countries then it would already exist.

youngsyr said:

There is over $600 bn of trade each year between USA and Canada. If they haven't found a better solution in the century or so that they've been close allies then I rate the chances of the UK/RoI/EU finding one within the next two years at precisely zero.

This is the exact same logical fallacy that you brought to bear the other day with your 'Greece and Italy haven't collapsed already so they won't collapse in the future' treatise.

Do you think perhaps you're not very imaginative when it comes to envisaging change?

How is it a logical fallacy?

My belief is simply that if the US hasn't found a solution to an electronic border, despite a massive incentive to do so, then the chances of our government, the Irish government or the EU sorting one out in short order are non-existant.

Who would you back to get any issue that has a commercial impact solved - 100 years of the US government or 2 years of the EU government?

I'd back whoever is actually under pressure to do it. No pressure = no action.

The USA is a weird combination of bleeding edge, and complete dinosaur. Especially at the govt. level. The EU is a wobbly blob of obfuscation and muddled responsibility, multiplied by 28 competing interests.

The failure of the US government and EU to do something is almost a recommendation, so hopeless are they at bringing about change.

Pressure, if brought to bear, will cut the crap and get something done.

So, not a logical fallacy then?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that big business runs America, especially under Republican governments. If big business wants something done in the US, there will be huge pressure to make it happen.

$600 bn is big business.

Yes it is.

Three different examples of you saying ‘it hasn’t happened so it won’t happen.’

Driving by the rear view mirror. Perfectly possible on a straight road. Struggles with corners.