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

[Robertj21a]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Robertj21a said:

I didn't say that they would agree to it.

In the absence of anything else being put forward [not heard what your suggestion is.....] I just thought it was something marginally amusing that we could have sufficient cheek to try out on the EU. They want more money out of us, so we offer a slightly higher figure and then reduce it as they flounder around being silly.

What is your suggestion ?

My suggestion is you haven't read the thread. Your suggestion is like walking into a Porsche dealer, slapping 10k down & demanding a GT3RS & telling the sales man you'll trouser £100 for every minute he doesn't hand over the keys.

Ah, right. So, as usual, you can't respond to even simple questions. Rather as expected.

You don't have any suggestions whatsoever ????

[Eddie Strohacker]

Robertj21a said:

Ah, right. So, as usual, you can't respond to even simple questions. Rather as expected.

You don't have any suggestions whatsoever ????

Pay the bill move on. It's no more than 1% GDP tops. This achieves two things, it moves us on & pisses off the leave warriors like Powerstroke & the head in the clouds fools punting ridiculous finger in the air figures with sliding scale discounts by the week. Because who the stting Nora would buy that?

[alfaspecial]

B'stard Child said:

alfaspecial said:

My suggestion? Just how much our taxation will have to rise in order to pay for any element of the 'divorce' settlement. Lets us use VAT as an example: the State raises £120bn from VAT, or put simplistically every one % of VAT raises £6bn.

No the state raises £120bn from VAT then takes a small deduction to cover admin costs and gives all the rest to the EU as part of it's contribution ;-)

alfaspecial said:

So in the case EU Official's pensions, a figure of £12bn has been suggested so, if we were to pay this as a one off contribution, then we would have to raise VAT for one year by 2% to 22%.

Err no having left we would not be giving any of the vat contribution to the EU so if we were to give £12bn to cover EU pensions we would have as a result £108bn (less admin costs) to fund lets say the NHS maybe

alfaspecial said:

Perhaps those of us PH'ers arguing for anything other than a 'hard' BREXIT might like to consider- show of hands please:
1). Who thinks the UK should make a £12bn contribution towards EU pensions?

I think that hoping for anything other than just leave is pretty pointless but you never know - the EU structure of funding gold plated pensions from existing contributions is why eventually it's going to be a bloody nightmare cost wise and one of the reasons I voted leave

Anyway in a nutshell I don't think you'll get anyone who is anti brexit or pro soft brexit to stick a hand up

I didn't dream up £120.1bn source https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf Table 1. Sources of government revenue, 2016–17 forecasts. line 3 Value added taxa £120.1
My (simplistic) calculation was £120bn divide by 20 (20% vat rate) equals £6bn (so every 1% of VAT raises £6bn), the £12bn demanded by the EU would require a two percent increase in VAT for 1 year. bks to that!


But, as I think no one from the most rabid Brexiteer to the most rabid Remainiac actually wants to pay anything, we should pay diddly squat!

Edited by alfaspecial on Thursday 23 November 21:19

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Robertj21a said:

Ah, right. So, as usual, you can't respond to even simple questions. Rather as expected.

You don't have any suggestions whatsoever ????

Pay the bill move on. It's no more than 1% GDP tops. This achieves two things, it moves us on & pisses off the leave warriors like Powerstroke & the head in the clouds fools punting ridiculous finger in the air figures with sliding scale discounts by the week. Because who the stting Nora would buy that?

Whilst I agree with much of your post - what is the 'bill' (I personally prefer the term 'charge', as the word bill implies a calculated sum, which this doesn't appear to be)?

Is 1% of gdp the threshold before we negotiate it at all?

Oh, and what if the 'bill' is actually not the reason for the delay in moving on to trade, despite what they say. It would seem likely that they may well be waiting for a German government to be formed...

[B'stard Child]

alfaspecial said:

B'stard Child said:

alfaspecial said:

My suggestion? Just how much our taxation will have to rise in order to pay for any element of the 'divorce' settlement. Lets us use VAT as an example: the State raises £120bn from VAT, or put simplistically every one % of VAT raises £6bn.

No the state raises £120bn from VAT then takes a small deduction to cover admin costs and gives all the rest to the EU as part of it's contribution ;-)

alfaspecial said:

So in the case EU Official's pensions, a figure of £12bn has been suggested so, if we were to pay this as a one off contribution, then we would have to raise VAT for one year by 2% to 22%.

Err no having left we would not be giving any of the vat contribution to the EU so if we were to give £12bn to cover EU pensions we would have as a result £108bn (less admin costs) to fund lets say the NHS maybe

alfaspecial said:

Perhaps those of us PH'ers arguing for anything other than a 'hard' BREXIT might like to consider- show of hands please:
1). Who thinks the UK should make a £12bn contribution towards EU pensions?

I think that hoping for anything other than just leave is pretty pointless but you never know - the EU structure of funding gold plated pensions from existing contributions is why eventually it's going to be a bloody nightmare cost wise and one of the reasons I voted leave

Anyway in a nutshell I don't think you'll get anyone who is anti brexit or pro soft brexit to stick a hand up

I didn't dream up £120.1bn source https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf Table 1. Sources of government revenue, 2016–17 forecasts. line 3 Value added taxa £120.1
My (simplistic) calculation was £120bn divide by 20 (20% vat rate) equals £6bn (so every 1% of VAT raises £6bn), the £12bn demanded by the EU would require a two percent increase in VAT for 1 year. bks to that!


But, as I think no one from the most rabid Brexiteer to the most rabid Remainiac actually wants to pay anything, we should pay diddly squat!

Edited by alfaspecial on Thursday 23 November 21:19

I think we will end up paying nothing because nothing will be agreed and this charade will be over.......

[anonymous-user]

B'stard Child said:

OK - so EU payments are based on Import duties, VAT and up to 1.25% Gross National Income (GNI)

So how does the Government fund the 1.25%

Pretty obvious isn't it. From the general tax take and borrowing.

[B'stard Child]

jsf said:

B'stard Child said:

OK - so EU payments are based on Import duties, VAT and up to 1.25% Gross National Income (GNI)

So how does the Government fund the 1.25%

Pretty obvious isn't it. From the general tax take and borrowing.

Yeah like VAT

Slightly more worried about the abilities of government now if they were borrowing to pay the EU cos that would be really stupid.....

[powerstroke]

jsf said:

Roboraver said:

Again. please stop using deflection. Please provide a solution to the N.I issue.

Once you have then brexit can proceed, come on there must be a solution for all party's ?

If you can't provide one then what about N.I stay in C.U & S.M ? Another U turn by May that would actually be acceptable by leave and remain teams ? As alternative is....

Ireland leaves the EU.

Its going to be interesting to see how Ireland's GDP changes when the UK leaves the EU, because all the large corporate entities that operate in the UK wont be able to book their sales via an EU tax haven like Ireland and Luxembourg, they will have to book that via the UK (or a UK approved tax haven). With the UK being a large consumer based economy that going to be a significant tax loss to Ireland.

Ireland would be wise to ensure they don't also lose their biggest market access at the same time, just losing UK tax receipts is going to hurt enough. In their own interests they should be pushing for a good trade deal that removes any obstacles.

Yes .. and how much could it cost them for goods traveling through the UK
tolls and customs clearing etc if they foolishly side with the EU without thinking it out ?? I agree it might be very good for the ROI if they leave the EU ...

[speedy_thrills]

Brexit proponents seemed pretty clear that they could get a favourable trade agreement without coughing up so I'm happy to leave it to them to sort out delivering on their promises .

At the end of the day us "remoaners" where the losers of the debate. Had we been the succesful we might need to be concerned about delivering on our pledges but as we are not...we don't.

[Roboraver]

Robertj21a said:

Can I just repeat my question (above) that you haven't yet answered. Thank you.

Why is the most important question ? Hhmm let's see. EIRE has said it. EU (26, 7, 8) Has said it, GB has said it.......lets not built around the bush Robertj21a. What's your solution to the N.I ? But a bot has done it's job eh.

[powerstroke]

One thing is for sure countries thinking of joining will spend more time thinking about it .. empire building won't be so easy for the EUSSR...

[lenny007]

superlightr said:

Mario149 said:

A whole 12%, how will they ever survive?! In actual money terms we cut, as one country, way more per year for austerity last time I checked and we're basically still here and functioning. While the loss of £8.5Bn or so will be annoying to the EU, I'm sure they'll find some way to split it or cut back spending a little between the twenty seven of them

but they cant - the EU wont and cant cut the spending and its not all 27 contributing is about 6 that are net contributors of which the UK is the 2nd largest.

Well, you saved me typing it.

The problem isn't the money, necessarily, but the impact on the 27 other countries. Losing 12% in funding will mean

a) increased funding for the "contributors"
b) a potential changeover for some recipients to become contributors
c) less funding for the larger recipients

Our leaving will impact every single one of the other countries.

Try telling a country which has historically been a recipient that it now needs to start contributing and see how much they swallow it.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Sway said:

There is no deflection, and you're so wrapped up in a single aspect of the negotiations you're unable to recognise that...

It is possible for NI to remain in the CU. That would shift any prospective border to the Irish Channel. There is also the possibility of a 'transparent, yet compliant' border using technology and spot checks of goods, with similar on the Irish Channel.

A hell of a lot depends on the future relationship - that in many ways both defines the requirements, and the level of will for flexibility. It is also not a single party decision - it is not up for individuals or a single nation to 'provide a solution', it is for all involved parties to reach a solution. That's an important difference.

Nothing can be decided in isolation, despite how much you wish it could be.

No it is not possible for NI to remain in the CU. That would create a border internally within the UK.

[Sway]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Sway said:

There is no deflection, and you're so wrapped up in a single aspect of the negotiations you're unable to recognise that...

It is possible for NI to remain in the CU. That would shift any prospective border to the Irish Channel. There is also the possibility of a 'transparent, yet compliant' border using technology and spot checks of goods, with similar on the Irish Channel.

A hell of a lot depends on the future relationship - that in many ways both defines the requirements, and the level of will for flexibility. It is also not a single party decision - it is not up for individuals or a single nation to 'provide a solution', it is for all involved parties to reach a solution. That's an important difference.

Nothing can be decided in isolation, despite how much you wish it could be.

No it is not possible for NI to remain in the CU. That would create a border internally within the UK.

Anything is possible...

[Robertj21a]

Roboraver said:

Why is the most important question ? Hhmm let's see. EIRE has said it. EU (26, 7, 8) Has said it, GB has said it.......lets not built around the bush Robertj21a. What's your solution to the N.I ? But a bot has done it's job eh.

Thanks for answering. It still seems very odd to me if all those people honestly think it is the MOST important.

[mx5nut]

dro said:

you LOST, we are leaving the EU, get over it.

I know there are a few grown ups on the Leave side - it's just a shame they get drowned out by the petulant children.

[mx5nut]

speedy_thrills said:

Brexit proponents seemed pretty clear that they could get a favourable trade agreement without coughing up so I'm happy to leave it to them to sort out delivering on their promises .

At the end of the day us "remoaners" where the losers of the debate. Had we been the succesful we might need to be concerned about delivering on our pledges but as we are not...we don't.

It'll be the "Remoaner"s fault when they fail to do so, though, for not believing hard enough.

[Murph7355]

Robertj21a said:

Thanks for answering. It still seems very odd to me if all those people honestly think it is the MOST important.

The concern is obvious - reopening old wounds that arguably are far from fully healed even now.

The power sharing debacle just underscores the continued division, and also means that tensions are far from low even without the prospect of a hard border.

Is this more important than everything else? I guess there's a reasonably real risk that lives could be lost and that Brexit will be blamed for it. So on that basis you could easily argue it is.

If both sides of the negotiating table agree that it's important, concessions are needed both ways.

[Robertj21a]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Pay the bill move on. It's no more than 1% GDP tops. This achieves two things, it moves us on & pisses off the leave warriors like Powerstroke & the head in the clouds fools punting ridiculous finger in the air figures with sliding scale discounts by the week. Because who the stting Nora would buy that?

Actually, I largely agree with you (always a first time for anything......). Whatever figure is suggested I still suggest that it has caveats attached re timescales to be achieved. The EU seems so money orientated that it might just prompt them to get a finger out a bit more Pronto than they would otherwise bother once they think they've got loads of money out of us.

[Eddie Strohacker]

All governments are money oriented. Raising revenue is literally what they do. The realities in this catastrofkup irrespective of whether you support Brexit or not are a government that has bookended it's own incompetencies by pinging off article 50 with regard only to domestic political sentiment & even then only Mail readers & the provisional wing of the 1922 committee & by regard to, for the avoidance of doubt, I mean doing so with no clear objective, no comprehensive rationale or analysis on the issues involved, leading to well over a year of negotiating with itself and at the other end, attempting to enshrine the leave date in law.

They have literally made us all hostages to fortune. I bet Juncker can't believe his luck.