Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Robert McGrath

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It won't. It's denominated in euro.

The UK loans to Ireland were dominated in Sterling so those are getting cheaper for us.

The ones that they wouldn’t allow us to repay early? When GBP was stronger against the €? The irony ...

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The odd thing is that the same is true for brexiters, they believe a hard Brexit will be devastating for Ireland but relatively benign for the UK.

Truth is the consequences will mean deep recessions in both countries, especially with global growth slowing and the business cycle ending.

A recession we have a route out of by virtue of being in the EU. The UK could labour for decades if it survives as a union at all.

MrMusician18

Robert McGrath wrote: »

The ones that they wouldn’t allow us to repay early? When GBP was stronger against the €? The irony ...

Indeed.

Another interesting fact about those loans was that if Ireland exits the EU during the term, it is considered to be in default even making the payments

J Mysterio

So, in the last hour, the leader of FF, FG and SF have all stated that nothing has changed. WA not being renegotiated, Backstop not being removed. Over to you, Boris.

eagle eye

From what I've been reading we are in a much better position financially with a hard Brexit than with a soft one.
Apparently we'll get lots of help and funding from the EU in the case of a hard Brexit but we have to suffer the consequences of their withdrawal if a deal is struck between the UK and EU.
Is this true?

VinLieger

J Mysterio wrote: »

So, in the last hour, the leader of FF, FG and SF have all stated that nothing has changed. WA not being renegotiated, Backstop not being removed. Over to you, Boris.

Delighted common sense has overcome oppurtunism for once, wonder what they will try next

ancapailldorcha

eagle eye wrote: »

From what I've been reading we are in a much better position financially with a hard Brexit than with a soft one.
Apparently we'll get lots of help and funding from the EU in the case of a hard Brexit but we have to suffer the consequences of their withdrawal if a deal is struck between the UK and EU.
Is this true?

That makes no sense to me. Soft or no Brexit means that the UK stays within the Single Market and Customs Union meaning no hard border and trade remains as it was without the Brexit Party trolling the European Parliament.

Igotadose

eagle eye wrote: »

From what I've been reading we are in a much better position financially with a hard Brexit than with a soft one.
Apparently we'll get lots of help and funding from the EU in the case of a hard Brexit but we have to suffer the consequences of their withdrawal if a deal is struck between the UK and EU.
Is this true?

No, you misunderstand what's on offing should there be a hard Brexit.

But, I think you knew that, and are trolling. Have a nice day.

54and56

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If Sterling keeps going the way it has in recent days , the bill is getting cheaper for them if nothing else..

Nope, quite the opposite. They owe what they owe in Euro's, they have just been expressing it to their local UK audience in Sterling.

£39b buys a lot less € today than it did a few weeks ago so it's going to cost them more £ to pay the € bill that's waiting for them.

54and56

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Only if the amount is fixed in € rather than GBP - that was actually why I asked the question. Google doesn’t give a straightforward answer

I expect commitments to the EU are denominated in Euro's but I guess it's possible the UK contributions would have been agreed in Sterling and as a consequence their ultimate WA divorce bill could be in Sterling. If it is it doesn't get any cheaper for them, they still owe the same amount of Sterling but on receipt that amount of Sterling won't go as far as it would have prior to the recent slide in Sterling value.

nc6000

FrancieBrady wrote:

It was £39 billion but has been revised down after negotiations to £33 Billion or €36 billion.

It's interesting that any of the no deal or hard Brexit advocates are all still referring to the £39 billion. None of them seem to refer to the revised lower figure.

FrancieBrady

nc6000 wrote: »

It's interesting that any of the no deal or hard Brexit advocates are all still referring to the £39 billion. None of them seem to refer to the revised lower figure.

Like the cost of a UI, it is important to keep these figures as high as possible. Scare value.

brickster69

eagle eye wrote: »

From what I've been reading we are in a much better position financially with a hard Brexit than with a soft one.
Apparently we'll get lots of help and funding from the EU in the case of a hard Brexit but we have to suffer the consequences of their withdrawal if a deal is struck between the UK and EU.
Is this true?

Not really true. Most countries would be quite badly hit in the event of a hard Brexit. You would imagine that these countries would require support also.

Here is Belgium's impact report.

https://www.fdfa.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Brexit%20impact%20study%202019.pdf

FrancieBrady

brickster69 wrote: »

Not really true. Most countries would be quite badly hit in the event of a hard Brexit. You would imagine that these countries would require support also.

Here is Belgium's impact report.

https://www.fdfa.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Brexit%20impact%20study%202019.pdf

Boggles the mind that the UK thinks it can exit with No Deal and then think they will get a favourable deal off those they just caused a lot of hardship and grief to.

Sam Russell

54&56 wrote: »

Nope, quite the opposite. They owe what they owe in Euro's, they have just been expressing it to their local UK audience in Sterling.

£39b buys a lot less € today than it did a few weeks ago so it's going to cost them more £ to pay the € bill that's waiting for them.

I do not think that is right.

All that is decided in the WA is the methodology of calculating the amount due for the net liabilities owed by the UK. In 2018, the UK contribution was 11.88% of the EU budget, and one would assume that is the level that would be the basis of the calculation.

The amount due can only be in Euros as that is the only currency that the EU recognises. Before the Euro, the EEC, EC and EU dealt in ECUs, which translate to be equivalent to the current Euro - they just had not invented the name then.

If the GBP falls in value (or rises), it does not affect the number of Euros due.

The UK owes less now because they will have been in the EU for seven extra months of the budget cycle which ends in Dec 2020, not for any other reason.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Boggles the mind that the UK thinks it can exit with No Deal and then think they will get a favourable deal off those they just caused a lot of hardship and grief to.

The Withdrawal Agreement already gives the UK privileged access to the single market and customs union that other third countries don't get. Once they leave, if they leave then they're on the same playing field as Canada, Japan and everyone else who had to negotiate with the EU for a trade deal and they'll be on WTO terms while they wait.

Seth Brundle

eagle eye wrote: »

Apparently we'll get lots of help and funding from the EU in the case of a hard Brexit but we have to suffer the consequences of their withdrawal if a deal is struck between the UK and EU.
Is this true?

It is true but the only deal that will be struck between the UK and the EU is the WA.
The EU ***WILL NOT*** shaft Ireland. If they did then the EU is over.

Dymo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is farcical about Sterling tumbling is that the main concern across the media is that holidays will be a little more expensive. Deckchairs, Titanic.

That makes sense, until Joe Public is affected with Brexit they will believe everything said by Boris & co and have no reason to doubt them.

Originally Posted by FrancieBrady
It was £39 billion but has been revised down after negotiations to £33 Billion or €36 billion.

Maybe I read it wrong somewhere, but isn't the lower figure (£33 Billion) because the UK haven't left yet and have been making payments all the time which has been reducing the burden they owed?

Laois_Man

Tell me how wrote: »

That's why I've a lot of time for Micheal Martin.

He could have stirred the pot a lot more over the last 18 months but has recognized the best interests of the country in terms of Brexit necessitated avoiding a GE.

That will change but it's been in stark contrast to the shadow PM's behavior in the UK.

Timmy had some sort of a brain freeze moment this morning.

Absolute bull****!

Martin has been delaying pulling the rug and causing an election until the polls tell him he has a chance of winning!

BobbyBobberson

Dymo wrote: »

That makes sense, until Joe Public is affected with Brexit they will believe everything said by Boris & co and have no reason to doubt them.



Maybe I read it wrong somewhere, but isn't the lower figure (£33 Billion) because the UK haven't left yet and have been making payments all the time which has been reducing the burden they owed?

From the economics editor of the FT

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1154053316533350403

trellheim

I'm in USA cant access Paddy Power - blocked

What are they quoting for no-deal odds at the moment ?

FrancieBrady

Dymo wrote: »

Maybe I read it wrong somewhere, but isn't the lower figure (£33 Billion) because the UK haven't left yet and have been making payments all the time which has been reducing the burden they owed?

Yes, normal contributions up until end of 2020 I think were included in the figure.

BobbyBobberson

trellheim wrote: »

I'm in USA cant access Paddy Power - blocked

What are they quoting for no-deal odds at the moment ?

Will check in a min but I can tell you off the top of my head that fuel is 5/1 to be rationed first. Saw it on twitter the other day.

Edit: 6/4 for a no deal in 2019.

BobbyBobberson

Everyone knows the border issue here but some great examples in this thread

https://twitter.com/marksugruek/status/1155957402312663041

Professor Moriarty

trellheim wrote: »

I'm in USA cant access Paddy Power - blocked

What are they quoting for no-deal odds at the moment ?

Matchbook are offering 10/9 - lowest odds available.

brickster69

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is true but the only deal that will be struck between the UK and the EU is the WA.
The EU ***WILL NOT*** shaft Ireland. If they did then the EU is over.

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The WA is toast, accept that or do nothing about it. Personally i think it is best for both sides to declare that no agreement can be found and start to get things in place to prevent as much damage as possible for everyone.

It's pretty sensible when you think about it !

PeadarCo

brickster69 wrote:

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The problem is that is irrelevant to the EU. Grand you can have a no deal brexit. But a no deal brexit just increases the EUs bargaining power compared to the UK. The UK can accept that agreement or face the prospect of bargaining from a worse position(look at the movement in sterling with just an increased risk of a no deal never mind an actual no deal situation) and potentially end up having to accept an agreement that is worse for UK than the current withdrawal agreement.

Seth Brundle

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The WA is toast, accept that or do nothing about it. Personally i think it is best for both sides to declare that no agreement can be found and start to get things in place to prevent as much damage as possible for everyone.

It's pretty sensible when you think about it !

I disagree.
Whilst Westminster rejected the agreement on a number of occasions, not once have they decided what they do want.
The EU have a workable solution on the table. This was formulated in conjunction with the UK government (including current cabinet members).
Don't forget that many members including the PM himself voted in favour of the WA.

As the UK don't really know what they want it would be unfair for the EU to toss the WA away. The UK doesn't really want a no-deal scenario (despite all the bluster) as it would be incredibly damaging to them. The current bravado is simply down to the Tories looking to woo back voters that moved over to the Brexit party.


As for it being sensible, there is absolutely nothing sensible about a no-deal Brexit. Nothing!

VinLieger

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand the WA was rejected 3 times by Parliament don't you ?

The WA is toast, accept that or do nothing about it. Personally i think it is best for both sides to declare that no agreement can be found and start to get things in place to prevent as much damage as possible for everyone.

It's pretty sensible when you think about it !

Fair enough lets just imagine the conversation when the UK asks the EU for a trade deal.

UK: Can we have a trade deal please?

EU: Sure thing, first thing on the agenda for discussion will be the 33 billion you owe and the 2nd thing is the Irish border

Uk:..........

BobbyBobberson

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough lets just imagine the conversation when the UK asks the EU for a trade deal.

UK: Can we have a trade deal please?

EU: Sure thing, first thing on the agenda for discussion will be the 33 billion you owe and the 2nd thing is the Irish border

Uk:..........

Exactly. The WA may never be touched again but the three main issues at its heart need to be dealt with.