Will May Pay or Hope it Fades Away? £55b exit bill...

[anonymous-user]

First principle of the negotiations should be a drugs and breathalyser test for all people involved throughout the process, both at the start and at the end of the workday period.

Same goes for anyone in a position of influence that is working for UK/EU during the process.

[BlackLabel]

https://amp.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555...

[hornetrider]

fk it, why not call it a trillion?

[brenflys777]

The EU's new accountant works for Diane Abbott..... Juncker et al seem determined to prove that the EU is always happy to place ideology and the project above pragmatism. Thank goodness we're getting out.

[CaptainSlow]

Just more chance of no deal which is great.

[amgmcqueen]

It's like trying to deal with petulant school children. Hopefully the Tories will win a huge majority and then May and her team can get down to serious business.

[Jockman]

What's the source? FT is behind a paywall.

[CaptainSlow]

Jockman said:

What's the source? FT is behind a paywall.

You mean they may be quoting some extreme European non-entity to try and get their subscriber number up?

[Jockman]

CaptainSlow said:

Jockman said:

What's the source? FT is behind a paywall.

You mean they may be quoting some extreme European non-entity to try and get their subscriber number up?

I couldn't possibly comment.

[hyphen]

Jockman said:

What's the source? FT is behind a paywall.

FT? pah, the Mail is all you need! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467612/Eu... (You can read FT articles free if you search and click through to it via google news, as google bans paywalls via News and FT want in for clicks)

[Deptford Draylons]

It's almost like they are making it up. Even the fanatical end of the Remainer market must think it's billy bullst talk. Then again with the that end trying to suggest it's a legal requirement to pay whatever the EU demands, perhaps not.

[V8 Fettler]

Shambles. All these issues should have been resolved before the referendum.

[Guybrush]

V8 Fettler said:

Shambles. All these issues should have been resolved before the referendum.

So wait for a referendum once all points have been agreed? I wonder how long that would take. Surely that would play into the hands of those who would love us to stay in the EUSSR.

[JagLover]

paulrockliffe said:

If you believe the EU rhetoric then we won't be paying a penny, we'll be leaving without any agreement at all. There's no way we'll agree to the Gibraltar nonsense, that a reunified Ireland is in the EU, that the City of London is excluded from any trade agreements and then to give them a barrow load of cash too.

It'll be interesting to see whether the EU have backed themselves into a corner they can't move out of, or whether they're able to back down and come to a sensible arrangement.

Leaving aside issue like Gibraltar on a sheer numbers basis any proposed deal does not make financial sense.

We are supposed to pay 100bn Euros upfront to have the POSSIBILITY of a trade deal, that is often suggested will only cover trade in goods. We have around a £80bn deficit in trade in goods with the EU each year (the overall deficit then being brought down somewhat by our surplus in services).

Walking away without a deal is not some desperate course that will lead to economic Armageddon. At present it is looking like the only sensible course of action.

[JagLover]

Deptford Draylons said:

It's almost like they are making it up. Even the fanatical end of the Remainer market must think it's billy bullst talk. Then again with the that end trying to suggest it's a legal requirement to pay whatever the EU demands, perhaps not.

The more extreme end of the Remainer spectrum will be celebrating as they think we should be "punished" for our sin of voting against the EU.

[jonnyb]

This money isn't for single market access or anything like that, its purely our share of liabilities that we have signed up to while a member of the EU.

No one here has any idea how much it will be, but we probably do have a legal requirement to pay it. It will be part of the EU treaties that we have signed up to.

I imagine any cash for single market access will be on an "on going" basis.

[FN2TypeR]

jonnyb said:

This money isn't for single market access or anything like that, its purely our share of liabilities that we have signed up to while a member of the EU.

No one here has any idea how much it will be, but we probably do have a legal requirement to pay it. It will be part of the EU treaties that we have signed up to.

I imagine any cash for single market access will be on an "on going" basis.

It doesn't give you much faith in the EU accountants if the first figure was wrong then does it!?

I'd like to see a breakdown of this figure, to see what our membership of this club is actually costing this country.

[JagLover]

jonnyb said:

This money isn't for single market access or anything like that, its purely our share of liabilities that we have signed up to while a member of the EU.

No one here has any idea how much it will be, but we probably do have a legal requirement to pay it. It will be part of the EU treaties that we have signed up to.

I imagine any cash for single market access will be on an "on going" basis.

The House of lords committee that looked at the issue found far smaller liabilities we are actually LEGALLY obliged to pay.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/04/britain...

Full report

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617...

[alock]

jonnyb said:

This money isn't for single market access or anything like that, its purely our share of liabilities that we have signed up to while a member of the EU.

We know how the EU supporters hate gross figures and expect every quoted figure to be the net amount. Where's the calculation for this figure? Surely this isn't just a gross liabilities figure? Being net contributors every year means we own a fair share of every EU funded asset for the last 40 years.

[Smollet]

Perhaps we should only agree to pay once all the accounts have been audited independently?