Will May Pay or Hope it Fades Away? £55b exit bill...
Discussion
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.
Because its financially advantageous for you to do so.
With the EU, if it's financially advantageous for us to be in "their" single market, should we pay the fee (whatever it is) or cut our noses off to spite our faces?
HD Adam said:
Ok but in the same vein, why should you pay Costco to buy from them?
Because its financially advantageous for you to do so.
With the EU, if it's financially advantageous for us to be in "their" single market, should we pay the fee (whatever it is) or cut our noses off to spite our faces?
So you pay Costco to access their wares, some of which are available cheaper elsewhere, but the terms of your Costco card state you have to pay a fine to buy from their competitors, removing the cheaper supplier as a viable option, Costco then pay your competitor a subsidy funded via your subscription fee, your competitor then uses the lower cost of the products bought at Costco to undercut your business, you lose your customers because you can no longer compete, you go bankrupt. Because its financially advantageous for you to do so.
With the EU, if it's financially advantageous for us to be in "their" single market, should we pay the fee (whatever it is) or cut our noses off to spite our faces?
Should you really have paid that subscription fee? Was paying that fee advantageous for your now unemployed former employees? Would you have been better off supporting the lower cost suppliers that don't ask for a fee or set terms on you that kill their competitors, they compete in a free market so have to be the best at what they do, driving up both their and your profits, which forces Costco to improve their offer. You now have more choice, lower prices and no one with an unfair advantage to bankrupt you.
jsf said:
HD Adam said:
Ok but in the same vein, why should you pay Costco to buy from them?
Because its financially advantageous for you to do so.
With the EU, if it's financially advantageous for us to be in "their" single market, should we pay the fee (whatever it is) or cut our noses off to spite our faces
So you pay Costco to access their wares, some of which are available cheaper elsewhere, but the terms of your Costco card state you have to pay a fine to buy from their competitors, removing the cheaper supplier as a viable option, Costco then pay your competitor a subsidy funded via your subscription fee, your competitor then uses the lower cost of the products bought at Costco to undercut your business, you lose your customers because you can no longer compete, you go bankrupt. Because its financially advantageous for you to do so.
With the EU, if it's financially advantageous for us to be in "their" single market, should we pay the fee (whatever it is) or cut our noses off to spite our faces
(rest snipped)
And being a Costco member there's one other detail. I buy from there when they have either better prices or quality than elsewhere and accumulate points over the year. At the end of the year they send me a subscription renewal plus vouchers to spend in store, based on the last year's purchases, and normally those vouchers exceed the membership fee.
So... if we want to continue with the Costco analogy, when are the EU going to give the UK so much in subsidies that it pays for our membership ?
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.
If the EU want more, they need to create some real value for our future relationship.
Newspapers have more details of elements of the EU exit bill demand:
£1.6 Million for breeding Bears in the Pyrenees
£2.5million to restore grasslands in Estonia
£900,000 to provide training in Nicaragua on environmentally friendly fishing methods.
Long-term loans to Ukraine
Overseas aid projects in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific countries.
£1 million to build 36 environmentally-friendly mountain huts in Romania, Slovenia, Italy and Spain
Water saving project in Uzbekistan
Why doesn't the EU act like a grown up and stop playing these games.
£1.6 Million for breeding Bears in the Pyrenees
£2.5million to restore grasslands in Estonia
£900,000 to provide training in Nicaragua on environmentally friendly fishing methods.
Long-term loans to Ukraine
Overseas aid projects in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific countries.
£1 million to build 36 environmentally-friendly mountain huts in Romania, Slovenia, Italy and Spain
Water saving project in Uzbekistan
Why doesn't the EU act like a grown up and stop playing these games.
hyphen said:
Newspapers have more details of elements of the EU exit bill demand:
£1.6 Million for breeding Bears in the Pyrenees
£2.5million to restore grasslands in Estonia
£900,000 to provide training in Nicaragua on environmentally friendly fishing methods.
Long-term loans to Ukraine
Overseas aid projects in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific countries.
£1 million to build 36 environmentally-friendly mountain huts in Romania, Slovenia, Italy and Spain
Water saving project in Uzbekistan
Why doesn't the EU act like a grown up and stop playing these games.
Why ???? because it's a out of control political entity and as yet no one has said Boo to them!!£1.6 Million for breeding Bears in the Pyrenees
£2.5million to restore grasslands in Estonia
£900,000 to provide training in Nicaragua on environmentally friendly fishing methods.
Long-term loans to Ukraine
Overseas aid projects in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific countries.
£1 million to build 36 environmentally-friendly mountain huts in Romania, Slovenia, Italy and Spain
Water saving project in Uzbekistan
Why doesn't the EU act like a grown up and stop playing these games.
they are just like a big version of the worst local council so wasteful spending , petty , gravy train riding daft projects etc
Se also rotten boroughs....
loafer123 said:
The EU budget which we have signed up to runs until 2020.
Where a lot of the confusion comes from is that for some this means "We're happy to spend this unconditionally.", for others it means, "We're happy to spend this contingent on us being members of the EU." I once set a 5 year budget that made assumptions about income over that period, from members as it happens. The budget was agreed by the members at the AGM. In that time members came and went, we didn't chase anyone over their commitment to the 5 year budget, because in the absence of some rule or other the normal position is that the risk to the budget of people leaving sits with the club and if the club want to spend money on x, y and z then the onus is on the club not to p
s off it's members so much that they leave.I've not seen any legislation that passes that risk to the Members of the EU; is there something? I suspect that the law is silent on this, given how A50 seems to have been an afterthought rather than a properly thought out law.
Murph7355 said:
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?
So far I think my decision has been justified.
Mrr T said:
If team leave had produced a creditable plan for brexit I would likely have voted the other way. I also looked at team leave, Grove, BJ, Foxy, IDS, and through do I want them in charge of the brexit negotiations.
So far I think my decision has been justified.
So despite a crap status quo (which has never been any such thing) you let a few personalities sway your vote? So far I think my decision has been justified.
Was there a single person in this country who voted Remain because they felt the EU was a fantastic institution and had earned its spurs?
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
If team leave had produced a creditable plan for brexit I would likely have voted the other way. I also looked at team leave, Grove, BJ, Foxy, IDS, and through do I want them in charge of the brexit negotiations.
So far I think my decision has been justified.
So despite a crap status quo (which has never been any such thing) you let a few personalities sway your vote? So far I think my decision has been justified.
Was there a single person in this country who voted Remain because they felt the EU was a fantastic institution and had earned its spurs?
Mrr T said:
If team leave had produced a creditable plan for brexit I would likely have voted the other way. I also looked at team leave, Grove, BJ, Foxy, IDS, and through do I want them in charge of the brexit negotiations.
So far I think my decision has been justified.
I think people forget that it was impossible for Leave to come up with a thorough plan for Brexit, not least because it was a cross party organisation. So far I think my decision has been justified.
Neither of the main political parties that could be capable of forming a Government campaigned for leave, and so no preparation or planning was made for the result that emerged.
FN2TypeR said:
I know several people who voted that way - one, a Liberal Democrat who has stood (and failed) for office in Wales says that people don't understand the organization and if they did, they'd come to love it and everything that it has done and achieved
I, for one, am looking forward to M Barnier explaining why this is!andymadmak said:
I think people forget that it was impossible for Leave to come up with a thorough plan for Brexit, not least because it was a cross party organisation.
Neither of the main political parties that could be capable of forming a Government campaigned for leave, and so no preparation or planning was made for the result that emerged.
Bingo.Neither of the main political parties that could be capable of forming a Government campaigned for leave, and so no preparation or planning was made for the result that emerged.
People have moaned about the result and its aftermath being the fault of old people and stupid people not knowing what they were voting for etc, but it was an abject failure of the political ruling classes that caused this. No coherent benefits to the strategy, total arrogance about what the result would be with an unwavering view that the electorate would continue to suck up whatever was chucked at them.
I suspect the UK political parties may have learnt something from this (we'll see). The EU leadership quite clearly have not.
FN2TypeR said:
I know several people who voted that way - one, a Liberal Democrat who has stood (and failed) for office in Wales says that people don't understand the organization and if they did, they'd come to love it and everything that it has done and achieved
As far as damning with faint praise goes, that's a black belt 10th dan move.andymadmak said:
Mrr T said:
If team leave had produced a creditable plan for brexit I would likely have voted the other way. I also looked at team leave, Grove, BJ, Foxy, IDS, and through do I want them in charge of the brexit negotiations.
So far I think my decision has been justified.
I think people forget that it was impossible for Leave to come up with a thorough plan for Brexit, not least because it was a cross party organisation. So far I think my decision has been justified.
Neither of the main political parties that could be capable of forming a Government campaigned for leave, and so no preparation or planning was made for the result that emerged.
It was clear they chose not to have a plan, a strategy they learnt from the Scottish referendum, where the plan was easily attacked.
It a cynical decision which was typical of the worst campaign, on both sides, I have ever seen in the UK till them. Mind you TM in 2017 might match it.
Mrr T said:
Why because it was a cross party organisation could it not come up with a plan? Does that mean they did not speak to each other?
It was clear they chose not to have a plan, a strategy they learnt from the Scottish referendum, where the plan was easily attacked.
It a cynical decision which was typical of the worst campaign, on both sides, I have ever seen in the UK till them. Mind you TM in 2017 might match it.
The campaign was somewhat fragmented IMO (which makes it even more incredible that Remain threw it away!), but I don't think that was the reason.It was clear they chose not to have a plan, a strategy they learnt from the Scottish referendum, where the plan was easily attacked.
It a cynical decision which was typical of the worst campaign, on both sides, I have ever seen in the UK till them. Mind you TM in 2017 might match it.
The only people who could enact Brexit were the standing government. The Leave campaign were not the standing government so why spend effort on a "plan" that would likely be dismissed anyway?
Personally I don't see much awry with the approach taken to date, bearing in mind negotiations would always have been needed as a primary step. I appreciate your view is very different, but Davis to me is handling things how I would want a large scale negotiation to be handled.
The biggest spanner to date, IMO, was Cameron throwing in the towel. That opened the door to a non-leadership campaign and May making herself look incompetent. For the good of his party and the country I think Cameron should have stayed in post, at least until we had exited.
The Scottish referendum was quite different. If WJK had won that, the SNP would have been the party to enact it as they were in power.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff