Brexit discussion thread II

Harika

blanch152 wrote: »

Unlike the UK, there is one thing the EU are united on - the UK can't get a good deal so that others might leave.

The UK keeps forgetting this.

The EU can thank UK for Brexit, they are united, something that hasn't been achieved in decades. Also thanks to UKIP and Trump, the far right surge has been stopped. And with the disaster of Brexit clearly visible, any leave intentions of national parties have been put on hold or removed from agendas e.g. Freedom party in austria.

Sam Russell

Harika wrote: »

The EU can thank UK for Brexit, they are united, something that hasn't been achieved in decades. Also thanks to UKIP and Trump, the far right surge has been stopped. And with the disaster of Brexit clearly visible, any leave intentions of national parties have been put on hold or removed from agendas e.g. Freedom party in austria.

Meanwhile, in Poland they have problems with the rule of law and political interference. Lets see how that plays out.

Meanwhile, in Hungary, they are looking for the EU to pay for the fence.

Meanwhile. in Italy, their banks are tottering.

Meanwhile, in Greece, ........

United about Brexit, but the day to day business of petty squabbling continues.

Harika

Sam Russell wrote: »

Meanwhile, in Poland they have problems with the rule of law and political interference. Lets see how that plays out.

Meanwhile, in Hungary, they are looking for the EU to pay for the fence.

Meanwhile. in Italy, their banks are tottering.

Meanwhile, in Greece, ........

United about Brexit, but the day to day business of petty squabbling continues.

Poland, here the EU is putting pressure on to stop them for going overboard, seems to work
Hungary, yeah Orban wants the EU to pay who will likely say no. There was someone else who wanted someone else to pay for some kind of fence, is not working out so well I hear
Italy, yeah banking issues are ongoing, still under control
Greece, seems to stabilize

Portugal, part of the PIIGS, now stable
Ireland, same
Spain, same

Immigrant crisis, ongoing but stable

Loads to do, it is going upward and the EU is in far better condition than five years ago.

Sam Russell

Harika wrote: »

Poland, here the EU is putting pressure on to stop them for going overboard, seems to work
Hungary, yeah Orban wants the EU to pay who will likely say no. There was someone else who wanted someone else to pay for some kind of fence, is not working out so well I hear
Italy, yeah banking issues are ongoing, still under control
Greece, seems to stabilize

Portugal, part of the PIIGS, now stable
Ireland, same
Spain, same

Immigrant crisis, ongoing but stable

Loads to do, it is going upward and the EU is in far better condition than five years ago.

And presumably will be in better shape in two years time when they have less to worry about, when the elephant has left the room.

LBJ said it is better to have the camel inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. Well, the EU has had the camel inside pissing everywhere, and hopefully we will have the camel outside, pissing off.

Fratton Fred

blanch152 wrote: »

Unlike the UK, there is one thing the EU are united on - the UK can't get a good deal so that others might leave.

The UK keeps forgetting this.

but what price are they willing to pay for that unity, a high cost of exports? A hard border on this island?

to me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to negotiate in the manner that the negotiations are being conducted. Surely the negotiations should start by agreeing an end point and then work out the best, most effective way to get there. That's how i would conduct them anyway.

The eu approach seems to be more about showing the UK who has the uper hand, rather than treating this as a problem that needs to be resolved as pragmatically as possible.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

And presumably will be in better shape in two years time when they have less to worry about, when the elephant has left the room.

LBJ said it is better to have the camel inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. Well, the EU has had the camel inside pissing everywhere, and hopefully we will have the camel outside, pissing off.

And then what? the eu can get on with the things that the UK has played a part in blocking? like a harmonised tax regime (except of course that Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg will veto that) or maybe further federalisation (except of course, the Visegrad countries will veto that) or is it the trade deal with India (presuking of course a few farmers in Belgium are ok with it).

Comments like yours have been made continuously on this thread, but no one can actually say what it is that the UK prevents the eu from doing.

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

Unlike the UK, there is one thing the EU are united on - the UK can't get a good deal so that others might leave.

The UK keeps forgetting this.

That is putting it in a negative way. The EU involves compromises for everyone, which are justified by the benefits. Allowing someone pick and choose the benefits without the compromises undermines all the good work done over the years and if this happens then ultimately there will not be any benefits.

Chips Lovell

I think the notion that there is a "good" deal which would be available were it not for the fear that other members would leave is misleading. The best deal available is EU membership. If there were any better deal possible, then the member states would have negotiated that for themselves.

Fratton Fred

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think the notion that there is a "good" deal which would be available were it not for the fear that other members would leave is misleading. The best deal available is EU membership. If there were any better deal possible, then the member states would have negotiated that for themselves.

and that is why I believe the current format of the negotiations is wrong.

How can a solution to the Irish border be fully worked out, without knowing what the future relationship will be? We know it won't be full membership, that there will be a trade deal like Japan or Canada and that will never be as good as what the UK currently enjoys, but trying to treat these issues in isolation will never work.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and that is why I believe the current format of the negotiations is wrong.

How can a solution to the Irish border be fully worked out, without knowing what the future relationship will be? We know it won't be full membership, that there will be a trade deal like Japan or Canada and that will never be as good as what the UK currently enjoys, but trying to treat these issues in isolation will never work.

The solution won't be implemented until the entire deal is done. If the UK agrees to a "divorce bill" of, say £50 billion they won't actually pay that until 2019 when everything else has been sorted and they agree to the deal at the end.

Chips Lovell

We already know the details. The UK says its leaving the single market and the customs union. Whether there is a trade deal at some point in the future is beside the point. The border issue becomes live in March 2019. A trade deal could be ready by then but might take a decade to negotiate.

Gerry T

Fratton Fred wrote:

to me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to negotiate in the manner that the negotiations are being conducted. Surely the negotiations should start by agreeing an end point and then work out the best, most effective way to get there. That's how i would conduct them anyway.

That's exactly how the EU is doing it. They want to clearly agree what current and future costs are belonging to the EU, and those belonging to the UK. There's no mention of a exit fee from the EU, just a means to agree the path forward. If in 10 yrs this costs the UK 3bn then that's fine, also if it costs 200bn. The key is to agree who SHOULD pay for what.
Can anyone point to something the EU has ring fenced as a UK liability that the UK has disagreed with?
Now, once that's done, finished, completed, if the UK wants to trade with the EU negotiations can commence.

Chips Lovell

Davis's attempt to move the agenda around and start talking about trade is, I suspect, also driven by internal politics.

They're terrified of the exit bill. Once it becomes public, no matter what the figure, whether its €1 billion, €10 billion or €100 billion, they know they'll get it in the neck from diehard Brexiteers and Daily Mail types. I think they're hoping they can dress it up, spinning it as an exchange for future market access rather than a settling of existing liabilities.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The solution won't be implemented until the entire deal is done. If the UK agrees to a "divorce bill" of, say £50 billion they won't actually pay that until 2019 when everything else has been sorted and they agree to the deal at the end.

how can any government agree to a figure unless they know what they are getting in return?

where did the €50Bn come from? the UK is committed to the eu budget up to 2020, so around a year after it leaves, or around say €10bn. The rest is subject to negotiation and therefore requires some give and take.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

We already know the details. The UK says its leaving the single market and the customs union. Whether there is a trade deal at some point in the future is beside the point. The border issue becomes live in March 2019. A trade deal could be ready by then but might take a decade to negotiate.

so why negotiate then? that means WTO terms for all trade, all non British citizens leave the UK unless they have a working visa in place and a hard border in Ireland.

I doubt any one wants that.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how can any government agree to a figure unless they know what they are getting in return?

where did the €50Bn come from? the UK is committed to the eu budget up to 2020, so around a year after it leaves, or around say €10bn. The rest is subject to negotiation and therefore requires some give and take.

I just picked a random figure to use as an example.

The UK agreed to this sequence of events so hopefully Davis & Co have a plan.

blanch152

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so why negotiate then? that means WTO terms for all trade, all non British citizens leave the UK unless they have a working visa in place and a hard border in Ireland.

I doubt any one wants that.

Yes, that is what it means if the UK refuses the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. You are correct that nobody wants it, but it is what the UK position can only lead to.

oppenheimer1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and that is why I believe the current format of the negotiations is wrong.

How can a solution to the Irish border be fully worked out, without knowing what the future relationship will be? We know it won't be full membership, that there will be a trade deal like Japan or Canada and that will never be as good as what the UK currently enjoys, but trying to treat these issues in isolation will never work.

It doesn't matter that you (or anyone in the British government) think the current format is wrong now. It's too late for that.

The UK should have kicked off "the row of the summer" if they thought the sequencing was unacceptable. But they didn't and agreed to it in its current format.

Nody

Fratton Fred wrote: »

to me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to negotiate in the manner that the negotiations are being conducted. Surely the negotiations should start by agreeing an end point and then work out the best, most effective way to get there. That's how i would conduct them anyway.

The eu approach seems to be more about showing the UK who has the uper hand, rather than treating this as a problem that needs to be resolved as pragmatically as possible.

What end point Fred? EU asked UK to state what they want to achieve since they are the once leaving the union and they come up with something which every nation in the world recognise as impossible and might as well put down faeries and gnomes should man the border. To date there is no end point to negotiate towards because UK can't define one and since UK are the once drawing red lines all over the place and changing goals EU can't be expected to define the border for them.

Same thing with the divorce bill; EU proposed a method of calculation and UK spends 3h picking out line items they disagree with without proposing anything in counter point on the topic.

It's nice to claim you want to negotiate towards a future end state but if your partner you're negotiating with refuses to state an end state and only spend the time claiming how unfair you are for not giving them your wallet it's not really going to work. Negotiations require two adults at the table and so far UK has failed to deliver a person who can act as an adult with an actual mandate to do something beyond spout platitudes and claim the other side are bullies.

Nate--IRL--

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how can any government agree to a figure unless they know what they are getting in return?.

You've misunderstood, they get nothing in return - it is intended to cover for current obligations & commitments only.

Nate

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I just picked a random figure to use as an example.

The UK agreed to this sequence of events so hopefully Davis & Co have a plan.

I expect they do, but Barnier et al just keep telling them its a fantasy. Why, they seem reluctant to say, but that is the only responses they seem to get.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, that is what it means if the UK refuses the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. You are correct that nobody wants it, but it is what the UK position can only lead to.

Then what are the negotiations about? Surely they can all go home now and save us all a fortune

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It doesn't matter that you (or anyone in the British government) think the current format is wrong now. It's too late for that.

The UK should have kicked off "the row of the summer" if they thought the sequencing was unacceptable. But they didn't and agreed to it in its current format.

I agree, the eu had already set its stall out long before the meetings though, so it was an argument that was never ever going to get anywhere.

Nody wrote: »

What end point Fred? EU asked UK to state what they want to achieve since they are the once leaving the union and they come up with something which every nation in the world recognise as impossible and might as well put down faeries and gnomes should man the border. To date there is no end point to negotiate towards because UK can't define one and since UK are the once drawing red lines all over the place and changing goals EU can't be expected to define the border for them.

The end point being where the eu and the UK recognize that the two of them are talking to their biggest trade partners and start acting accordingly, rather than two sets of politicians who have on interest in anything other than their own egos.

The UK is leaving the eu, of throwing of tantrums will change that, they just need to accept that and get on with it.

Nody wrote: »

Same thing with the divorce bill; EU proposed a method of calculation and UK spends 3h picking out line items they disagree with without proposing anything in counter point on the topic.

so if someone handed you a bill that will amount to tens of billions, you would just take it with a cheery grin and agree?

No, you'd go through it line for line and pick out anythin you disagree with.

Nody wrote: »

It's nice to claim you want to negotiate towards a future end state but if your partner you're negotiating with refuses to state an end state and only spend the time claiming how unfair you are for not giving them your wallet it's not really going to work. Negotiations require two adults at the table and so far UK has failed to deliver a person who can act as an adult with an actual mandate to do something beyond spout platitudes and claim the other side are bullies.

Two adults at the table? Adults that hold a meeting and then run to the press claiming the other side don't understand, or have no clue but never actually offer anything constructive? If only the eu team had to abide by the same rules as posters on this forum, it would be a lot more helpful.

Adults indeed :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

You've misunderstood, they get nothing in return - it is intended to cover for current obligations & commitments only.

Nate

so up to the end of the existing budget then.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

And presumably will be in better shape in two years time when they have less to worry about, when the elephant has left the room.

LBJ said it is better to have the camel inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. Well, the EU has had the camel inside pissing everywhere, and hopefully we will have the camel outside, pissing off.

Good evening!

Great. So we both think that Brexit is a good outcome?

The EU will be able to do whatever it desires and the UK will take back the control that it's after.

I personally don't understand why there's anywhere near such emotion about this. It wasn't working. Sometimes it's just best to acknowledge this and decide how best to move forward.

That applies as much for political relationships as for human ones.

That's basically the point of understanding we need to reach for a good outcome for all involved. There's no coming back in to the EU or staying by the back door. It wasn't working. It's time for something better for all involved.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so up to the end of the existing budget then.

No, because there are ongoing commitments in relation to pension payments etc.

You have asked what the point of the negotiations are? At one level, that is a good question as if Brexit means Brexit, then there are a number of options for the UK to consider - Norway, Turkey, Switzerland, Greenland, Canada, or Malaysia. Essentially the EU would be happy to slot the UK into whichever of those relationships it chooses.

So what else? Well funny you should ask, I can think of three things to tidy up before the UK makes its choice of future arrangements - what happens Ireland, what about the money the UK owes, and what happens UK citizens in the EU and vice versa. After that, the UK can be the new Norway or the new Malaysia.

The papers produced by the UK bear no relation to that reality. Essentially we need to sort out the awkward endings of the relationship and pick one of the standard future working arrangements.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Great. So we both think that Brexit is a good outcome?

The EU will be able to do whatever it desires and the UK will take back the control that it's after.

I personally don't understand why there's anywhere near such emotion about this. It wasn't working. Sometimes it's just best to acknowledge this and decide how best to move forward.

That applies as much for political relationships as for human ones.

That's basically the point of understanding we need to reach for a good outcome for all involved. There's no coming back in to the EU or staying by the back door. It wasn't working. It's time for something better for all involved.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit is good for the EU. It will show all the other members the cost to being outside the EU and will reinforce the links between the remaining members, strengthening the union. It is bad for Ireland because of our close relationship with the UK, but knowing us, we will lever something off the EU for that, but it is very very bad for the UK.

Nody

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The end point being where the eu and the UK recognize that the two of them are talking to their biggest trade partners and start acting accordingly, rather than two sets of politicians who have on interest in anything other than their own egos.

Yet UK are the once who needs to define it because they are leaving, they are the once setting up the red lines and they are the once constantly changing what the government actually want to achieve yet you ignore that.

The UK is leaving the eu, of throwing of tantrums will change that, they just need to accept that and get on with it.

To bad UK can't actually accept that they are leaving the EU and expect to have full access to the single market, to have all UK rules recognised as being equivalent to EU, to have zero border controls, get to say how EU rules should be written yet should have no responsibilities. That does not sound like someone is leaving EU but rather as a child throwing a tantrum and expecting EU to cowtow to them because it's unfair if they don't get all the benefits.

so if someone handed you a bill that will amount to tens of billions, you would just take it with a cheery grin and agree?

No you act as an adult and present your own calculation with your own final number to show why they are wrong. You don't go through their calculation to tell them why they are wrong on that and that line item. You know actually bringing an answer to the table rather than expecting your counterpart to make up everything for you to complain about; it's known as taking responsibility but that's something the UK government have been shirking away from.

Two adults at the table? Adults that hold a meeting and then run to the press claiming the other side don't understand, or have no clue but never actually offer anything constructive? If only the eu team had to abide by the same rules as posters on this forum, it would be a lot more helpful.

Well seeing how UK's government has spent the whole time lying to their populace about what's happening, will happen and how it's going at least someone needs to tell the populace the truth.

Or have you forgotten the 350 million NHS bus? How UK would remain in the single market and customs union? All the claims made by UK Tory politicians as true.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

Brexit is good for the EU. It will show all the other members the cost to being outside the EU and will reinforce the links between the remaining members, strengthening the union. It is bad for Ireland because of our close relationship with the UK, but knowing us, we will lever something off the EU for that, but it is very very bad for the UK.

Good evening!

Why would the EU choose to kick Ireland, one of it's member states down the gutter? If that's the case it wouldn't be the best advertisement for the bloc would it? In fact if that happened it would be a failure for the EU.

And that's precisely the point. The Brexit campaign showed there is no positive case for Britain remaining in the EU. The British people could never get incredibly emotional about EU participation. There was no obvious reason for signing Maastricht in the first place.

I agree with Fred we knew these negotiations would get into a strop eventually but it's only the beginning. I'm still not particularly worried at all. I'll be staying.

Brexit is still the right outcome. It wasn't working for anyone for the UK to stay in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

blanch152 wrote: »

No, because there are ongoing commitments in relation to pension payments etc.

so 10 Billion in annual fees and 30 billion in pension payments? Do you seriously believe that the eu's total pension liability is around €360billion? I really really really hope not, because pension liabilities tend to go up rather than down.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have asked what the point of the negotiations are? At one level, that is a good question as if Brexit means Brexit, then there are a number of options for the UK to consider - Norway, Turkey, Switzerland, Greenland, Canada, or Malaysia. Essentially the EU would be happy to slot the UK into whichever of those relationships it chooses.

so essentially what I was saying then. The end point needs to be defined up front.

blanch152 wrote: »

So what else? Well funny you should ask, I can think of three things to tidy up before the UK makes its choice of future arrangements - what happens Ireland, what about the money the UK owes, and what happens UK citizens in the EU and vice versa. After that, the UK can be the new Norway or the new Malaysia.

The papers produced by the UK bear no relation to that reality. Essentially we need to sort out the awkward endings of the relationship and pick one of the standard future working arrangements.

what money the UK owes to whom? What about the money the eu owes to the UK? (the UK owns 16% of the european investment bank, which will be a very awkward one to unpick)

You're giving the same response as the eu. The UK has made its position known, the only response is "Computer says no". it doesn't make for constructive talks. Especially when one side then comes out with statements to the press like "They are living in a fantasy world".

blanch152

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so 10 Billion in annual fees and 30 billion in pension payments? Do you seriously believe that the eu's total pension liability is around €360billion? I really really really hope not, because pension liabilities tend to go up rather than down.

so essentially what I was saying then. The end point needs to be defined up front.



what money the UK owes to whom? What about the money the eu owes to the UK? (the UK owns 16% of the european investment bank, which will be a very awkward one to unpick)

You're giving the same response as the eu. The UK has made its position known, the only response is "Computer says no". it doesn't make for constructive talks. Especially when one side then comes out with statements to the press like "They are living in a fantasy world".

The UK is giving its response like a child at an ice cream stand screaming for raspberry flavour when the shop only offers chocolate, vanilla and strawberry.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Why would the EU choose to kick Ireland, one of it's member states down the gutter? If that's the case it wouldn't be the best advertisement for the bloc would it? In fact if that happened it would be a failure for the EU.

And that's precisely the point. The Brexit campaign showed there is no positive case for Britain remaining in the EU. The British people could never get incredibly emotional about EU participation. There was no obvious reason for signing Maastricht in the first place.

I agree with Fred we knew these negotiations would get into a strop eventually but it's only the beginning. I'm still not particularly worried at all. I'll be staying.

Brexit is still the right outcome. It wasn't working for anyone for the UK to stay in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think you misunderstood my post, here it is again.

blanch152 wrote: »

No, because there are ongoing commitments in relation to pension payments etc.

You have asked what the point of the negotiations are? At one level, that is a good question as if Brexit means Brexit, then there are a number of options for the UK to consider - Norway, Turkey, Switzerland, Greenland, Canada, or Malaysia. Essentially the EU would be happy to slot the UK into whichever of those relationships it chooses.

So what else? Well funny you should ask, I can think of three things to tidy up before the UK makes its choice of future arrangements - what happens Ireland, what about the money the UK owes, and what happens UK citizens in the EU and vice versa. After that, the UK can be the new Norway or the new Malaysia.

The papers produced by the UK bear no relation to that reality. Essentially we need to sort out the awkward endings of the relationship and pick one of the standard future working arrangements.

The EU isn't choosing to kick Ireland, the UK is, by acting on the referendum.

I don't know what campaign you were watching but the only positive for leaving the EU was keeping the foreigners out and the 350 million for the NHS.

solodeogloria

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so 10 Billion in annual fees and 30 billion in pension payments? Do you seriously believe that the eu's total pension liability is around €360billion? I really really really hope not, because pension liabilities tend to go up rather than down.

so essentially what I was saying then. The end point needs to be defined up front.

what money the UK owes to whom? What about the money the eu owes to the UK? (the UK owns 16% of the european investment bank, which will be a very awkward one to unpick)

You're giving the same response as the eu. The UK has made its position known, the only response is "Computer says no". it doesn't make for constructive talks. Especially when one side then comes out with statements to the press like "They are living in a fantasy world".

Good evening!

I showed a few pages ago that if every one of the EU's employees had an extremely generous pension of £1mn each and the UK gave £10bn for pensions in cash even without an annuity you would cover about a quarter of the employees in the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament. A quarter is also much more than the UK's share.

There's no point getting massively emotional about this. The UK is definitely not staying. So let's get the best terms possible sorted and move on.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Brexit campaign showed there is no positive case for Britain remaining in the EU.

That's a shockingly dishonest claim.

The Brexit campaign showed that it's extremely difficult to succinctly make the case for remaining in the EU to a population that has been force-fed a diet of bare-faced lies about the EU for four decades and which has such a short attention span that it is easily captivated by an easily-disprovable lie as long as it's printed in big enough letters on the side of a bus.

That is not the same things as there being no positive case for membership.

flutered

what will the uk use to purchase components for industary, to purchase food and oil, all uk universitys will loose their eu grants, uk farmers will loose a moxey of grants and aid, a weak pound, a pound which could get weaker and weaker, dont forget after all the torys sold the family silver some years ago

Calina

The best terms possible is membership of the EU. When the UK population as a whole realise that the best terms available from outside are noticeably worse than membership then we might make progress. For now, however, the UK needs to knuckle down and act professionally. There must be people in UK Permrep who are cringing day in day out.

oppenheimer1

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a shockingly dishonest claim.

The Brexit campaign showed that it's extremely difficult to succinctly make the case for remaining in the EU to a population that has been force-fed a diet of bare-faced lies about the EU for four decades and which has such a short attention span that it is easily captivated by an easily-disprovable lie as long as it's printed in big enough letters on the side of a bus.

That is not the same things as there being no positive case for membership.

There are some quite absurd and groundless claims being brought to this thread tbh. And while it's good that what is considered is the orthodox position taken by most Irish people is being questioned and challenged, it is impossible to debate against someone holding a shifting position that is at best grounded in wishful thinking, and at worst wilful ignorance of facts presented to them.

One further thing: a €1m pension isn't that generous. To get an annuity the size of the average industrial wage would cost about €2m which is completely depressing.

ancapailldorcha

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK is giving its response like a child at an ice cream stand screaming for raspberry flavour when the shop only offers chocolate, vanilla and strawberry.

This sort of post isn't constructive. Please don't post in this manner here again.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how can any government agree to a figure unless they know what they are getting in return?

where did the €50Bn come from? the UK is committed to the eu budget up to 2020, so around a year after it leaves, or around say €10bn. The rest is subject to negotiation and therefore requires some give and take.



so why negotiate then? that means WTO terms for all trade, all non British citizens leave the UK unless they have a working visa in place and a hard border in Ireland.

I doubt any one wants that.

It's about what they owe Fred. If they don't pay their dues then it doesn't send a good message to other people they may want to do a trade deal with.

solodeogloria

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a shockingly dishonest claim.

The Brexit campaign showed that it's extremely difficult to succinctly make the case for remaining in the EU to a population that has been force-fed a diet of bare-faced lies about the EU for four decades and which has such a short attention span that it is easily captivated by an easily-disprovable lie as long as it's printed in big enough letters on the side of a bus.

That is not the same things as there being no positive case for membership.

Good evening!

Again, George Osborne and his mates made a huge number of wild projections. It simply isn't true to claim that the Leave campaign was hugely more deceptive than the remain campaign.

The remain campaign was cast exclusively in a negative light. I can't remember a very clear positive reason articulated for the UK staying in.

In any case that discussion has now been settled because the British public voted to leave. The question is what happens next.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Brexit campaign showed there is no positive case for Britain remaining in the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't remember a very clear positive reason articulated for the UK staying in.

There's a world of difference between these two statements.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

And that's precisely the point. The Brexit campaign showed there is no positive case for Britain remaining in the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sorry Solo I'm a bit confused now. You said you voted remain. Now you say the actual campaign convinced you there's no positive case for remaining in the EU.

So the campaign convinced you that the EU isn't positive for the UK, so naturally you then voted remain, then you said wanted as much access to trade as possible while campaigning for a hard Brexit.

steddyeddy

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a world of difference between these two statements.

The poster subsequently voted to remain in the EU.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, George Osborne and his mates made a huge number of wild projections.
...
The question is what happens next.

All the bad stuff George Osborne and his mates predicted.

Nate--IRL--

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so up to the end of the existing budget then.

It should be whatever the UK has committed to fund - if that works out at €1 or €50bn, fine. But whatever it works out at it must be fair and agreeable to both sides. It is not a quid pro quo for a future trade relationship.

Nate

Gerry T

Fratton Fred wrote:

so up to the end of the existing budget then.

The UK might have signed contracts committing them to funds way past existing budget. Also pension payments, that could payments for 30 more yrs

Sam Russell

Gerry T wrote: »

The UK might have signed contracts committing them to funds way past existing budget. Also pension payments, that could payments for 30 more yrs

Plus they will have to pay the cost of Brexit - likely to be €10 million, plus the cost of moving the two EU agencies out of the UK. Their own cost of Bexit is likely to be of the same order.

The Medicines Agency signed a 35 year lease on the Canary Wharf offices.

It was the Fincial Times that came out with a figure of €100 million (or was it GB£s - mind you by the time of Brexit it will not make much difference)

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

Plus they will have to pay the cost of Brexit - likely to be €10 million, plus the cost of moving the two EU agencies out of the UK. Their own cost of Bexit is likely to be of the same order.

The Medicines Agency signed a 35 year lease on the Canary Wharf offices.

It was the Fincial Times that came out with a figure of €100 million (or was it GB£s - mind you by the time of Brexit it will not make much difference)

Good evening!

I think we should let the negotiators conclude this. I don't agree that of necessity the UK should pay for the EU to relocate their agencies as a matter of their choice.

Each line item will be dissected by the British negotiators. I still don't see how we can get much beyond three years contributions net.

There is a limit as to what will be politically acceptable in the UK and it will need to be sold as a payment for a future relationship rather than a bill to be politically acceptable.

It will be nowhere near the ludicrous sum of €100bn. They can go whistle for that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

They been telling there people in the UK, porkies up until now. I suppose another one won't matter.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I think we should let the negotiators conclude this. I don't agree that of necessity the UK should pay for the EU to relocate their agencies as a matter of their choice.


Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This is a ridiculous statement. You can't have an EU institution outside the EU, therefore because of Britain's choice, the EU has to relocate its agencies. The UK should therefore pay for this relocation.

steddyeddy

Guy Verhofstadt, chief EU negotiator for the EU mysteriously suggested that Theresa May will make an intervention in a EU speech on September the 21st. He also states that there is no progress on Brexit talks and more worryingly the UK are challenging the legal obligations to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/04/may-to-make-important-intervention-on-brexit-verhofstadt-predicts#img-1

Water John

Looks like the Tory love in/conference is the premier show on the Govn'ts plate.

Nody

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guy Verhofstadt, chief EU negotiator for the EU mysteriously suggested that Theresa May will make an intervention in a EU speech on September the 21st. He also states that there is no progress on Brexit talks and more worryingly the UK are challenging the legal obligations to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/04/may-to-make-important-intervention-on-brexit-verhofstadt-predicts#img-1

From earlier article today it will most likely announce going from once a month to weekly meetings by the teams to speed up the progress; if she wants actual progress she'll have to give actual practical examples of implementation plans and/or power for the team to negotiate them but I don't see that happening.

At this stage if I was to hope I'd probably be closer to the French attitude of simply stopping the talks and shutting it all down. Yes they owe money but honestly let's stop wasting time arguing over the details which will go nowhere, end the discussion and let UK start dealing with Brexit is Brexit. Six months of the reality of actually being a 3rd party country who can't sign trade deals (due to the WTO split not being completed) should help crystallise what they are after to a whole new degree compared to now (since they can't actually state a position that's not up in the clouds for level of detail) and speed up and pragmatist the discussions to actually make progress on the issues compared to the current standstill. Why waste another year?