Will May Pay or Hope it Fades Away? £55b exit bill...
Discussion
Digga said:
Mario149 said:
3) Blindly assuming that we'll basically be fine if we crash out without a deal because "well, we're British aren't we?" when almost everyone who works in business/economics (apart from that one uni professor that gets trotted out here all the time) says it would be a disaster. Oh, but they're experts aren't they.
I think one needs to be very careful on taking all comment and advice at face value, expert or otherwise. For one thing, there are a tremendous number of vested interests at play - people who see the EU as, in various ways, their ultimate paymaster - and there are, on all sides of the debate, statements made (both optimistic and pessimistic) which are merely being floated as a means to an end.Citing "everyone who works in business/economics" is as sweeping as it is inaccurate. You know this cannot be correct, so why cheapen your argument to this level?
Mario149 said:
I was being a tad dramatic, but the point still stands. It's not even a close run thing. It's not like 60% of the talking heads/subject matter experts say it'll be bad and 40% say it'll be fine allowing one to infer that either option could be okay depending on where your vested interest may lie. In reality it's only a small fringe of people who have the knowledge and expertise to make a decent judgment who believe no deal is a viable solution.
On what basis are you making that judgement though?How are you defining people who have the expertise and knowledge? And how many of them have you spoken to? What has their track record in predictions been? ie how are you assessing the expertise that you've defined?
Is your view still coming from the 600-odd economists? Newspapers only? Businesses with a vested interest? Those without? How much of it is personal bias? Etc
Murph7355 said:
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.
Also with the exception of Switzerland, I do not see much concern in the EU about EU immigration. Irregular immigration yes. But that's nothing to do with the EU.
Neither FOML or FOM are completely correct. FOMTEATR would be better!
Murph7355 said:
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
While I do not disagree with the need for the euro zone to have closer union. This would have to involve fiscal transfer north to south. No German politician can ever agree to that.
Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 3rd September 14:21
HD Adam said:
It's all getting tied up in too much rhetoric.
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.
Isn't this where we came in, many decades ago - 'just trade, not linked to free movement'.......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.
We've not progressed much in the intervening decades, we're just trying to get back to where we already were !
CaptainSlow said:
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.
Anyone?
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:
Murph7355 said:
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.
Also with the exception of Switzerland, I do not see much concern in the EU about EU immigration. Irregular immigration yes. But that's nothing to do with the EU.
Neither FOML or FOM are completely correct. FOMTEATR would be better!
The plan for the eastern block was to grow their countries by being able to benefit from the wealth of the EU current nations, what's happened instead is their people legged it, leaving them with declining active working age populations. The unintended consequences of what they thought was a good idea. FMOL has screwed them. https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21714999-eus...
jsf said:
Mrr T said:
Murph7355 said:
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.
Also with the exception of Switzerland, I do not see much concern in the EU about EU immigration. Irregular immigration yes. But that's nothing to do with the EU.
Neither FOML or FOM are completely correct. FOMTEATR would be better!
The plan for the eastern block was to grow their countries by being able to benefit from the wealth of the EU current nations, what's happened instead is their people legged it, leaving them with declining active working age populations. The unintended consequences of what they thought was a good idea. FMOL has screwed them. https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21714999-eus...
sidicks said:
You certainly don't get it (like so many things you choose to comment on!).
What is in the contract - which of our commitments have we refused to pay?
The MFF, someone in the UK (Tory) Government and Treasury would have agreed to the budget with our EU partners and what our contribution commitment would be. My understanding is that its the commitment to the MFF up until 2020 which is one issue that needs resolving. What is in the contract - which of our commitments have we refused to pay?
So once a country makes a commitment its only reasonable the other countries would like the UK to honour what it signed up to.
Unless of course the UK cannot be trusted to keep its pledges. If the UK can negotiate its way out of something its committed to then fine but you can't just walk away.
Toaster said:
The MFF, someone in the UK (Tory) Government and Treasury would have agreed to the budget with our EU partners and what our contribution commitment would be. My understanding is that its the commitment to the MFF up until 2020 which is one issue that needs resolving.
We know how far from reality your 'understanding' was on tax issues...Toaster said:
So once a country makes a commitment its only reasonable the other countries would like the UK to honour what it signed up to.
Unless of course the UK cannot be trusted to keep its pledges. If the UK can negotiate its way out of something its committed to then fine but you can't just walk away.
Once again, no-one is suggesting walking away from genuine commitments. HTH.Unless of course the UK cannot be trusted to keep its pledges. If the UK can negotiate its way out of something its committed to then fine but you can't just walk away.
Toaster said:
sidicks said:
You certainly don't get it (like so many things you choose to comment on!).
What is in the contract - which of our commitments have we refused to pay?
The MFF, someone in the UK (Tory) Government and Treasury would have agreed to the budget with our EU partners and what our contribution commitment would be. My understanding is that its the commitment to the MFF up until 2020 which is one issue that needs resolving. What is in the contract - which of our commitments have we refused to pay?
So once a country makes a commitment its only reasonable the other countries would like the UK to honour what it signed up to.
Unless of course the UK cannot be trusted to keep its pledges. If the UK can negotiate its way out of something its committed to then fine but you can't just walk away.
Not a smart approach when you are dealing with a country who appreciate the law is such a major part of the reason we have been a success and the reason why businesses world wide base themselves here, specifically to use the protections of our stable and enforced law processes.
This approach to the law has cost us a lot under the EU system, because many of our counterparts don't apply the rules so rigorously. We have been told by some remainers on here that is our weakness, but its actually our strength long term. Short term it helps to not follow your own rules sometimes (quite common in the EU when needs must), but it will kill you long term.
Toaster said:
sidicks said:
You certainly don't get it (like so many things you choose to comment on!).
What is in the contract - which of our commitments have we refused to pay?
The MFF, someone in the UK (Tory) Government and Treasury would have agreed to the budget with our EU partners and what our contribution commitment would be. My understanding is that its the commitment to the MFF up until 2020 which is one issue that needs resolving. What is in the contract - which of our commitments have we refused to pay?
So once a country makes a commitment its only reasonable the other countries would like the UK to honour what it signed up to.
Unless of course the UK cannot be trusted to keep its pledges. If the UK can negotiate its way out of something its committed to then fine but you can't just walk away.
sidicks said:
Once again, no-one is suggesting walking away from genuine commitments. HTH.
I have no Idea what HTH is Really thats not what Theresa May has said or Donald Davis
Theresa May tells Jeremy Paxman that no deal is better than a bad deal with the EU in the Sky News/Channel 4 Debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqeeWQiDRcU
However: LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is prepared to walk away from divorce talks with the European Union without a deal, Brexit minister David Davis said on Sunday, but stressed that he thought an agreement was the most likely outcome.
sidicks said:
Why am i not surprised?!
You shouldn't be because HTH could be http://www.hth.co.uk or http://www.hth-kitchen.com or any number of hundreds of abbreviations of HTH so do tell which version of HTH are you thinking is so obvious.Toaster said:
You shouldn't be because HTH could be http://www.hth.co.uk or http://www.hth-kitchen.com or any number of hundreds of abbreviations of HTH so do tell which version of HTH are you thinking is so obvious.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=HTH
HTH
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 3rd September 21:28
Toaster said:
sidicks said:
Why am i not surprised?!
You shouldn't be because HTH could be http://www.hth.co.uk or http://www.hth-kitchen.com or any number of hundreds of abbreviations of HTH so do tell which version of HTH are you thinking is so obvious.Mrr T said:
It's happened before to a slightly lesser extent. Look at Eire and Portugal after accession.
And that's a good thing?Mrr T said:
The process for a treaty is set out in EU treaties and would take 5/7 years if they started now. However, the discussion on a new treaty is not even on the agenda. So even if they wanted a new treaty it's 7/10 years away. Also a number of countries, such as Holland, are clear they cannot guarantee a referendum result so do not present a new treaty any time soon.
While I do not disagree with the need for the euro zone to have closer union. This would have to involve fiscal transfer north to south. No German politician can ever agree to that.
So they're losing their 2nd biggest net contributor, and by your own post the 3rd biggest isn't confident enough about the EU that it would want a referendum.While I do not disagree with the need for the euro zone to have closer union. This would have to involve fiscal transfer north to south. No German politician can ever agree to that.
And as icing on the cake, the one thing likely to save the Euro as a viable system (rather than disbanding partially/totally) is not palatable to the biggest net contributor and driver of the whole charade.
Remind me again, why did you vote Remain?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff