The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[stongle]

We're paying a divorce bill. Whether hardline brexiters don't want to pay is mute. Eur50bn might sound a lot, but it's buttons in the scheme of things and worth it to get out before the ECB and T2S implodes the EU economy). They can whine and bh, but assuming the election goes the right way - May can better control the commons majority with less chance of dissent. Corbyn and the Lib Dems are too flaky and may try to sabotage any deal to gain political advantage.

// is over estimating the ECs hand, these are asymmetric negotiations and macro economic whack a mole, is something the U.K. can do very well - especially when not hamstrung by the ECB. I'd not underestimate implication of US policy in these discussion, if Trump goes to the floor with CT rates there is a global impact. Anglo Vs. European (particularly Franco) business thinking can be far apart, will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Edited by stongle on Saturday 29th April 15:13

[Deptford Draylons]

Have they actually gone back and shown their working for the 60 Billion figure yet ? Seems an awful lot of people readily accept it without knowing why.

[anonymous-user]

stongle said:

Eur50bn might sound a lot, but it's buttons in the scheme of things and worth it to get out before the ECB and T2S implodes the EU economy).

I can remember when 50 Billion was a lot of money. Times change eh?


If we end up paying anywhere near that I hope the rest of the "deal" is gold plated, with extra chocolate, wine and cheap german cars on the side.

[FiF]

Deptford Draylons said:

Have they actually gone back and shown their working for the 60 Billion figure yet ? Seems an awful lot of people readily accept it without knowing why.

No they haven't shown their working. We calculated in the referendum campaign that our liability for outstanding commitments made as part of the Multi Annual Financial Framework, commonly referred to as RAL amounts to 30 billion.

However these only become progressively due over a 7 year timeframe, so I'd suggest staged payments of 4 billion a year for 7 years. To me no big deal. Just slapping a bill for the whole amount onto the table can't be done, even the EU doesn't know how much it will be, as the figure is not known until the end of the current 7 year MAFF period.

The 60 billion is a complete invention of the Financial Times. Where they get the figure is a complete mystery, but it's simply posturing and positioning. However the usual culprits swallow this stuff up as gospel as if it's a hotel bill outstanding that is like an overdue account rendered. Why I have no time for them.

It's clear to me that we have some agreed commitments and that we should honour them. What's the big deal.

[loafer123]

I fear that the calculation was rather simple, namely 2016-2020 (2020 is the end of the committed budget period) times the 2016 gross contribution which was £13.2bn, giving just over £50bn.

The fact that we will be almost all the way through that period, and that we receive some of it back as well will have escaped them.

I am happy to pay our commitments. I am even happy to pay a modest amount for preferential access to the single market.

If, however, they start playing silly buggers like Varifoukis talks about in the Telegraph today, I am equally happy with a Clean Brexit.

[stongle]

desolate said:

I can remember when 50 Billion was a lot of money. Times change eh?


If we end up paying anywhere near that I hope the rest of the "deal" is gold plated, with extra chocolate, wine and cheap german cars on the side.

It's kinda relative (50bn was the balance sheet limit 3 of us had when I was trading last year - real balance sheet not OTC notional). Anyway, with sovereignty in the winnings and a chance to gtfo of some of ECs lunatic financial policies it's not a lot (i reckon the market for settlement is 32-37bn)

[gothatway]

don'tbesilly said:

https://newsexplored.co.uk/brexit-is-already-hurti...

In that picture she looks like Tim Who's mum ! That would explain a lot.

[gothatway]

loafer123 said:

I fear that the calculation was rather simple, namely 2016-2020 (2020 is the end of the committed budget period) times the 2016 gross contribution which was £13.2bn, giving just over £50bn.

The fact that we will be almost all the way through that period, and that we receive some of it back as well will have escaped them.

I am happy to pay our commitments. I am even happy to pay a modest amount for preferential access to the single market.

If, however, they start playing silly buggers like Varifoukis talks about in the Telegraph today, I am equally happy with a Clean Brexit.

Are there no shared assets on the other side of the balance sheet - EU Parliament buidings, etc. - of which presumably the UK owns a share ?

[Welshbeef]

gothatway said:

Are there no shared assets on the other side of the balance sheet - EU Parliament buidings, etc. - of which presumably the UK owns a share ?

Plus all the projects we funded in all the 27 nations? That asset life goes on far longer than our exit date.

Also we have paid into the EU recovery fund for Greece Ireland Portugal etc bail outs - time for our payment into that to be returned.

Price up the fair value of the asset and The remaining life then apply our proportion based upon contribution. That's our

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

avinalarf said:

Both the EU and the U.K. have a very hard job if they are to satisfy the demands of their electorate

The EU top brass don't have an 'electorate' to be concerned about. We have never seen the names Juncker or Tusk or others of their dead weight on any UK ballot paper to elect them for their EU role and neither has anyone else in other member states. They are only concerned about their own pet project, their ego and their platinum plated pension.

Then again neither do Juncker or Tusk have any direct vote in the terms of Brexit. The problem for team leave is they do not understand that Brexit is not of much interest for most EU voters.

The EU council leaders have made clear there position. Almost nine months after the vote and a month after the Art 50 notice the dream leave team are still producing sound bites. They make the UK sound stupid.

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit. So far I feel my view is correct.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

avinalarf said:

Both the EU and the U.K. have a very hard job if they are to satisfy the demands of their electorate

The EU top brass don't have an 'electorate' to be concerned about. We have never seen the names Juncker or Tusk or others of their dead weight on any UK ballot paper to elect them for their EU role and neither has anyone else in other member states. They are only concerned about their own pet project, their ego and their platinum plated pension.

Then again neither do Juncker or Tusk have any direct vote in the terms of Brexit. The problem for team leave is they do not understand that Brexit is not of much interest for most EU voters.

The EU council leaders have made clear there position. Almost nine months after the vote and a month after the Art 50 notice the dream leave team are still producing sound bites. They make the UK sound stupid.

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit. So far I feel my view is correct.

I voted leave because long term its in the best interests of this country.

It's not unexpected that the short term may contain some pain, quite frankly so far it's been less so than most expected.

The way the EU is structured I see no great future for them, they will either have to change significantly or there will be trouble ahead.

My hope is they do indeed reform massively, as that can only be good for the UK also. My bet is they wont and it will be a clusterfk of epic proportions when the st hits the fan.

[loafer123]

jsf said:

I voted leave because long term its in the best interests of this country.

It's not unexpected that the short term may contain some pain, quite frankly so far it's been less so than most expected.

The way the EU is structured I see no great future for them, they will either have to change significantly or there will be trouble ahead.

My hope is they do indeed reform massively, as that can only be good for the UK also. My bet is they wont and it will be a clusterfk of epic proportions when the st hits the fan.

Absolutely right.

[alfie2244]

jsf said:

My hope is they do indeed reform massively, as that can only be good for the UK also. My bet is they wont and it will be a clusterfk of epic proportions when the st hits the fan.

"When" being the operative word.

[don'tbesilly]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

avinalarf said:

Both the EU and the U.K. have a very hard job if they are to satisfy the demands of their electorate

The EU top brass don't have an 'electorate' to be concerned about. We have never seen the names Juncker or Tusk or others of their dead weight on any UK ballot paper to elect them for their EU role and neither has anyone else in other member states. They are only concerned about their own pet project, their ego and their platinum plated pension.

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit. So far I feel my view is correct.

That was your only reason?

Is it the case that you think we are so deeply bedded and intertwined within the EU that's it not possible to escape, so ANY party would not be capable of taking the UK out of the EU?
If that is the case it would be vote to remain as there is no choice, which would be quite a defeatist attitude.

I'm struggling with your reason, it doesn't make much sense.

You seem to be implying that if another party had been in power at the time of the referendum you might have been swayed to vote Leave, or you think all political parties are incapable.

Strange!

[gothatway]

Mrr T said:

The problem for team leave is they do not understand that Brexit is not of much interest for most EU voters.

Don't they ? You obviously do understand that, and so do I .. I doubt we're alone. If by "voters" you actually mean "citizens who have a right to vote", then given poor turnouts in EU elections (currently low 40's percentage-wise and falling - see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-result... ), then I would imagine a huge proportion of those citizens really couldn't care less about most things EU, let alone Brexit. So what ? Why is that a problem for "team leave" ? I'm more interested in the reaction of that German industrialist linked somewhere in NPE today saying that he was concerned.

[Jazzy Jag]

So what happens to all the EU's Assets that the UK has a share in?

When do we get to liquidate out share?

[sidicks]

Jazzy Jag said:

So what happens to all the EU's Assets that the UK has a share in?

When do we get to liquidate out share?

We sell them back to the EU for, say, £60bn.

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

Jazzy Jag said:

So what happens to all the EU's Assets that the UK has a share in?

When do we get to liquidate out share?

We sell them back to the EU for, say, £60bn.

Well that's the end point so really we should be looking at a significant value to start with as a rebate.

[///ajd]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

avinalarf said:

Both the EU and the U.K. have a very hard job if they are to satisfy the demands of their electorate

The EU top brass don't have an 'electorate' to be concerned about. We have never seen the names Juncker or Tusk or others of their dead weight on any UK ballot paper to elect them for their EU role and neither has anyone else in other member states. They are only concerned about their own pet project, their ego and their platinum plated pension.

Then again neither do Juncker or Tusk have any direct vote in the terms of Brexit. The problem for team leave is they do not understand that Brexit is not of much interest for most EU voters.

The EU council leaders have made clear there position. Almost nine months after the vote and a month after the Art 50 notice the dream leave team are still producing sound bites. They make the UK sound stupid.

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit. So far I feel my view is correct.

I'd suggest that applies to any government; I think Hammond summed it up when he mused about "mutually incompatible" promises being offered by vote leave. This contradiction does seem like unfinished business.

[sidicks]

Mrr T said:

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit.

This suggests that you think that, with appropriate management, Britain would better off outside of the UK?

What sort of government could achieve that?

Mrr T said:

So far I feel my view is correct.

Given the negotiations haven't started yet (insisted on by the EU), quite what do you think should have been achieved by now that has not?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 30th April 18:41