FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Daily Telegraph Leak... Brexit Bill Agreed
Daily Telegraph Leak... Brexit Bill Agreed
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
Leaked on Sky News 6pm
Broad agreement reached that the U.K. will pay no less than £45 billion and no more than £55 billion.
Next up will be payment during transition period (expected to be around £8 billion per year). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Leaked on Sky News 6pm
Broad agreement reached that the U.K. will pay no less than £45 billion and no more than £55 billion.
Next up will be payment during transition period (expected to be around £8 billion per year). "
Shushh dont tell centy that  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Leaked on Sky News 6pm
Broad agreement reached that the U.K. will pay no less than £45 billion and no more than £55 billion.
Next up will be payment during transition period (expected to be around £8 billion per year).
Shushh dont tell centy that "
Hes busy reading the Sun to figure out a way to backtrack on everything hes said for the past 7 months.
So £45bn is €50.7bn, exactly what anyone who took the time to look at it reasonably 7 months ago would have seen it to be. Excellent work from May to waste all this time with posturing and brinksmanship to leave the UK scrambling to get things over the line.
Still have to get Northern Ireland and citizens rights over the line in the next few days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Torys have managed to work out a way of hiding the final figures so that all we get is an estimate of the final bill. They'll pay the bills as they fall due including pensions so Britain will still be contributing money decades from now. It will probably mean a larger bill in the long run but politically its a smart strategy because it allows them to avoid saying the number its actually cost them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oh dear it's all going wrong! We should have listened to Yanis Varoufakis he told us what would happen. Suggest reading his book "adults in the room" a good account of how Greece tried and failed. But let's see it may well turn out alright. .....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 An EU official has been quoted as saying that the UK are pressing for a lower estimate to make it easier for them to present to the public and his thoughts: "They have promised to cover it all, we don't care what they say their estimate is, we're happy to help them present it."
1 down, 2 to go. If Mays caved on the bill then citizen rights arent going to be a roadblock for her. I wonder if we're going to see some "extension" on the Northern Ireland issue because it will be very tough for May to weather a capitulation on all 3 issues, particularly with Davis potentially getting a contempt charge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" An EU official has been quoted as saying that the UK are pressing for a lower estimate to make it easier for them to present to the public and his thoughts: "They have promised to cover it all, we don't care what they say their estimate is, we're happy to help them present it."
1 down, 2 to go. If Mays caved on the bill then citizen rights arent going to be a roadblock for her. I wonder if we're going to see some "extension" on the Northern Ireland issue because it will be very tough for May to weather a capitulation on all 3 issues, particularly with Davis potentially getting a contempt charge."
That leak saying they agreed to cover 100billion of liabilities
Hoping to pay half ,
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Leaked on Sky News 6pm
Broad agreement reached that the U.K. will pay no less than £45 billion and no more than £55 billion.
Next up will be payment during transition period (expected to be around £8 billion per year).
Shushh dont tell centy that
Hes busy reading the Sun to figure out a way to backtrack on everything hes said for the past 7 months.
So £45bn is €50.7bn, exactly what anyone who took the time to look at it reasonably 7 months ago would have seen it to be. Excellent work from May to waste all this time with posturing and brinksmanship to leave the UK scrambling to get things over the line.
Still have to get Northern Ireland and citizens rights over the line in the next few days."
Hehe Nah hes arguing with Kinky about independence....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Torys have managed to work out a way of hiding the final figures so that all we get is an estimate of the final bill. They'll pay the bills as they fall due including pensions so Britain will still be contributing money decades from now. It will probably mean a larger bill in the long run but politically its a smart strategy because it allows them to avoid saying the number its actually cost them."
this is why it was always about the framework not the amount. Pay for farages pension yourself or gives us a lump sum and we will pay.
Numbers suggest the Eu were folding in a lot of risk margin. But so would I if I was paying for the pension of someone who has sold their soul to the devil ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"I thought our foreign secretary told them to whistle for the money? That's going to be a huge blow to his credibility if we end up paying any money at all. "
The PM said we would pay money and he does not have a say in it
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I thought our foreign secretary told them to whistle for the money? That's going to be a huge blow to his credibility if we end up paying any money at all. The PM said we would pay money and he does not have a say in it"
But he did have a say....as they had a meeting about discussing the amount |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I thought our foreign secretary told them to whistle for the money? That's going to be a huge blow to his credibility if we end up paying any money at all. The PM said we would pay money and he does not have a say in it"
Never heard of collective cabinet responsibility?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"I thought our foreign secretary told them to whistle for the money? That's going to be a huge blow to his credibility if we end up paying any money at all. The PM said we would pay money and he does not have a say in it
Never heard of collective cabinet responsibility? "
Yes and the moon is made of cheese lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If true this should be cautiously welcomed. The so called “ bill” is a misnomer I think. What we should be comfortable with paying is sums broadly within those already budgeted for, thus providing EU partners with more time to readjust budgets without cliff edges; from our point of view it delays the point at which we benefit from withdrawal financially, but should not require any additional revenue to be raised beyond that already planned for.
The advantage to us, and the one which I presume has always been our objective , is to alter the balance of interest somewhat as we move to the critical and doubtless difficult talks on trade.
What we need is for there to be a clear and powerful incentive, among EU members for them not to fail. If indeed some broad agreement has been reached on finance , then there would be considerable pressure not to endanger that being lost, and budgets thrown into confusion , with no alternative plans in place, if no deal were achieved and we “crashed out”after all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So much for Davis and the biggest row of the summer because we would not be paying anything like the amount the EU said they wanted, and as for the maybot going to Brussels and telling Donald Tusk that he had to tell Michel Barnier to reduce demands and accept the UK's position on the post brexit relationship between the EU and UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So much for Davis and the biggest row of the summer because we would not be paying anything like the amount the EU said they wanted, and as for the maybot going to Brussels and telling Donald Tusk that he had to tell Michel Barnier to reduce demands and accept the UK's position on the post brexit relationship between the EU and UK."
Have any of the Brexiters started to see a trend here? Any kind of pattern at all? Do you remember all of those people saying that it wouldn't take 2 years to negotiate? All we would have to do is a "find and replace" on the Word document used for the Canada deal! Its amazing how many of those have now left the forums. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inkyHnSCouple
over a year ago
The Council of Elrond |
Britain: We owe nothing!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: Not a penny!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: Go whistle!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £20bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £40bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £50bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £57bn.
EU: Done. Cheers. Now what about Ireland? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Britain: We owe nothing!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: Not a penny!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: Go whistle!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £20bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £40bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £50bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £57bn.
EU: Done. Cheers. Now what about Ireland? "
Lol brilliant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A lot of naivety and confused thinking on both sides, in my opinion.
The position as I see it is this: we have pretty well established ( or at least no one on the EU side has answered our contention) that our legal obligations in terms of payments to the EU budget beyond the leaving date are minimal if not zero. This is what we occasionally hear some ministers and others reiterating, and it is worth doing so.
We have accepted however ( and this is where Farage, for example, maybe some back benchers but not I think any of the Cabinet, diverge) that there is a strong moral obligation which arises from the way the EU budget is planned and delivered over several years, to continue to pay a share of costs to which we agreed as full members.
But our line remains, or should remain, nothing for nothing. The corollary of our meeting our moral financial obligations , and there will be a hundred ways of calculating the net amount, is what we see as a moral obligation on the part of the EU to agree arrangements on trade which meet our mutual interests in maintaining trade with minimal disruption, and without hamstringing our ability to pursue our own trade worldwide.
It is understandable why the EU has been reluctant to proceed to the second of these discussions until they have as good a deal on money as possible. As soon as we do the balance shifts. From that point their interest in securing the provisionally agreed budget contribution weighs heavier as time progresses. They do not have, and it will be increasingly difficult to secure an alternative budget strategy in place to meet the consequence of a UK hard Brexit- with our making no contribution at all after 2019. The pressure on both sides to avoid a breakdown becomes more equal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inkyHnSCouple
over a year ago
The Council of Elrond |
I am hearing Boris Johnson is demanding the EU start trade talks because they are now willing to hand over the money for the exit bill same Boris that said the UK dint have to pay a penny whoever voted for him yes feel ashamed lol
Yes people we having nutters in charge of the UK where they seem to be thick as mince and will not listen
3 issues have to be solved the exit bill , EU citizens and the Irish border before any trade talks begin how many times do these fannies have to be told
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
An excellent example of the confused thinking I referred to.
Our contention, repeated by each Cabinet minister, is that we indeed do not “ have to” pay an exit bill. Choosing to meet costs we are not obligated to meet legally, (but, arguably, morally), in exchange for progress on trade talks, and conditional on a successful outcome to those talks, is a perfectly sensible strategy, and one which seems to have the support of both sensible Brexiters and sensible Remainers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A lot of naivety and confused thinking on both sides, in my opinion.
The position as I see it is this: we have pretty well established ( or at least no one on the EU side has answered our contention) that our legal obligations in terms of payments to the EU budget beyond the leaving date are minimal if not zero. This is what we occasionally hear some ministers and others reiterating, and it is worth doing so.
We have accepted however ( and this is where Farage, for example, maybe some back benchers but not I think any of the Cabinet, diverge) that there is a strong moral obligation which arises from the way the EU budget is planned and delivered over several years, to continue to pay a share of costs to which we agreed as full members.
But our line remains, or should remain, nothing for nothing. The corollary of our meeting our moral financial obligations , and there will be a hundred ways of calculating the net amount, is what we see as a moral obligation on the part of the EU to agree arrangements on trade which meet our mutual interests in maintaining trade with minimal disruption, and without hamstringing our ability to pursue our own trade worldwide.
It is understandable why the EU has been reluctant to proceed to the second of these discussions until they have as good a deal on money as possible. As soon as we do the balance shifts. From that point their interest in securing the provisionally agreed budget contribution weighs heavier as time progresses. They do not have, and it will be increasingly difficult to secure an alternative budget strategy in place to meet the consequence of a UK hard Brexit- with our making no contribution at all after 2019. The pressure on both sides to avoid a breakdown becomes more equal.
"
Unfortunately thats wrong. If the EU needed the divorce settlement as much as the UK needed a deal then the pressure would have been equal all along.
The combined annual budgets of the EU governments without the UK is over $5.5 trillion. We'd rather you paid what we want but the €60bn paid out over multiple years isnt a necessity, thats part of the reason we were able to hold out for the full amount.
The UK hasnt and wont secure a better deal because of this settlement and there is no moral imperitive for the EU to give you a good deal because you did this to yourselves and continue to do it to yourselves.
This is the choice facing the UK: a low access deal like Canadas or accepting the EUs rules and getting an EFTA style deal. There is, and will be, no option for high access without free movement of people and acception of EU regulations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
"
They have been indeed and are now a net contributor....see this is the veil any EU hater always peddles misinformation to basically downright lies...the whole project of the EU is to create a level playing field for ALL involved in it....and once the said country gets up to that level...then they start contributing ....a bit like having children and when they get to a working age the contribute to the household |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
They have been indeed and are now a net contributor....see this is the veil any EU hater always peddles misinformation to basically downright lies...the whole project of the EU is to create a level playing field for ALL involved in it....and once the said country gets up to that level...then they start contributing ....a bit like having children and when they get to a working age the contribute to the household "
Up to a point Lord Copper. Until Thatcher hanbagged her way to securing the rebate , the UK was on track to simultaneously being both the poorest member and the highest contributer to the budget. The historic difficulty we have had in the EU is that in many ways our laws, taxation and benefits systems are differently constructed , meaning that we fit uncomfortably in many ways. That enables people who don’t like it to criticise it , often, I would agree ,unfairly. It also makes it much harder for those who believe in it to champion it by pointing to unquestionable benefits. I cannot offhand think of another EU country where this is the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
They have been indeed and are now a net contributor....see this is the veil any EU hater always peddles misinformation to basically downright lies...the whole project of the EU is to create a level playing field for ALL involved in it....and once the said country gets up to that level...then they start contributing ....a bit like having children and when they get to a working age the contribute to the household
Up to a point Lord Copper. Until Thatcher hanbagged her way to securing the rebate , the UK was on track to simultaneously being both the poorest member and the highest contributer to the budget. The historic difficulty we have had in the EU is that in many ways our laws, taxation and benefits systems are differently constructed , meaning that we fit uncomfortably in many ways. That enables people who don’t like it to criticise it , often, I would agree ,unfairly. It also makes it much harder for those who believe in it to champion it by pointing to unquestionable benefits. I cannot offhand think of another EU country where this is the case."
Thatcher died years ago...you need to up your game |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
"
No, we are not paying tens of billions of pounds out of the kindness of our hearts, that is our legal obligation. The cost of our share of shared assets has also already been accounted for.
The most important market to the EU, is the EU, not the UK. The EU wont do anything that puts that in jeopardy. That's why it must be worse to be a non-member, than to be a member. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
"
The reason I pointed out the size of the collective government budgets is to highlight how little 60bn spread over years actually is.
The actual loss of the UKs contributions would be £5.5bn once payments to and on behalf of the UK are taken away. Or to put it another way 0.1% of the EU countries budgets. Thats the extent of the pain of replacing the UKs financial committment. To put it in our terms its someone on 40,000 a year having to find an extra 40 a year.
And the EU is and has been working on its strategy for a no deal result.
A no deal result will cripple your economy. Your financial centre will flee to the EU because they make most of their money there. The exchequer could lose up to 1/4 of its tax income. You will have no trade deals or trade quotas with any country. The pound would crash under the weight of uncertainty, youre tiny amount of economic growth would be eradicated and you'd fall in to recession. The only reason these things havent happened is because the whole world knows there will be a deal.
And your claim to the moral high ground is asinine considering the UK was the poor man of Europe until the EU threw you a life preserver, the EU has been the main driver for peace in Europe in the last 70 years and its the UK that has turned its back on its allies and not the other way round. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
a complete non sequitur. The point is valid-your assumption that EU budget contributions and receipts are smoothly and automatically linked to relative poverty and ability to pay is wrong. That there is some connection is true , but it’s far more complicated than that and the process contains many historic mechanisms inserted to protect specific interests- French farming being the obvious example- which are unconnected with the progressive model you describe.
The difficulty those of us had during the campaign who wanted to put the case for Remaining was that it depended rather too much upon altruistic and theoretical arguments. I repeat- I cannot think of another member where this would be the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"a complete non sequitur. The point is valid-your assumption that EU budget contributions and receipts are smoothly and automatically linked to relative poverty and ability to pay is wrong. That there is some connection is true , but it’s far more complicated than that and the process contains many historic mechanisms inserted to protect specific interests- French farming being the obvious example- which are unconnected with the progressive model you describe.
The difficulty those of us had during the campaign who wanted to put the case for Remaining was that it depended rather too much upon altruistic and theoretical arguments. I repeat- I cannot think of another member where this would be the case."
But they are,,,thats what most EU haters dont get and dont like |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
The reason I pointed out the size of the collective government budgets is to highlight how little 60bn spread over years actually is.
The actual loss of the UKs contributions would be £5.5bn once payments to and on behalf of the UK are taken away. Or to put it another way 0.1% of the EU countries budgets. Thats the extent of the pain of replacing the UKs financial committment. To put it in our terms its someone on 40,000 a year having to find an extra 40 a year.
And the EU is and has been working on its strategy for a no deal result.
A no deal result will cripple your economy. Your financial centre will flee to the EU because they make most of their money there. The exchequer could lose up to 1/4 of its tax income. You will have no trade deals or trade quotas with any country. The pound would crash under the weight of uncertainty, youre tiny amount of economic growth would be eradicated and you'd fall in to recession. The only reason these things havent happened is because the whole world knows there will be a deal.
And your claim to the moral high ground is asinine considering the UK was the poor man of Europe until the EU threw you a life preserver, the EU has been the main driver for peace in Europe in the last 70 years and its the UK that has turned its back on its allies and not the other way round."
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
The reason I pointed out the size of the collective government budgets is to highlight how little 60bn spread over years actually is.
The actual loss of the UKs contributions would be £5.5bn once payments to and on behalf of the UK are taken away. Or to put it another way 0.1% of the EU countries budgets. Thats the extent of the pain of replacing the UKs financial committment. To put it in our terms its someone on 40,000 a year having to find an extra 40 a year.
And the EU is and has been working on its strategy for a no deal result.
A no deal result will cripple your economy. Your financial centre will flee to the EU because they make most of their money there. The exchequer could lose up to 1/4 of its tax income. You will have no trade deals or trade quotas with any country. The pound would crash under the weight of uncertainty, youre tiny amount of economic growth would be eradicated and you'd fall in to recession. The only reason these things havent happened is because the whole world knows there will be a deal.
And your claim to the moral high ground is asinine considering the UK was the poor man of Europe until the EU threw you a life preserver, the EU has been the main driver for peace in Europe in the last 70 years and its the UK that has turned its back on its allies and not the other way round.
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement."
WE threw ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"a complete non sequitur. The point is valid-your assumption that EU budget contributions and receipts are smoothly and automatically linked to relative poverty and ability to pay is wrong. That there is some connection is true , but it’s far more complicated than that and the process contains many historic mechanisms inserted to protect specific interests- French farming being the obvious example- which are unconnected with the progressive model you describe.
The difficulty those of us had during the campaign who wanted to put the case for Remaining was that it depended rather too much upon altruistic and theoretical arguments. I repeat- I cannot think of another member where this would be the case.
But they are,,,thats what most EU haters dont get and dont like"
My point is that it is much easier to describe why the EU is a good thing in general terms - good for Europe as a whole, in terms of its economy and other aspects of life , and particularly good for those countries where standards of living are relatively low- than it is to point to specific benefits here in the UK.
You could argue that we joined when our economy was a basket case, and it was beneficial then. But actually it remained pretty much a basket case for years afterwards, only turning around following the Thatcher revolution, which itself was hardly in line with or encouraged by the EU.
You can point at specific projects , but the easy response is that their cost was met from a budget to which we drew out less than we put in, so that we could have funded them all anyway and had a substantial surplus to do even more.
You can point at trade , at our ability to trade freely in a huge market. But that benefits our partners at least as much as it does ourselves, and in exchange we exclude many others in the world from our markets and they in turn exclude us.
You can indeed point at the cultural values , the ease of travel, the ability to move and work within perhaps the most culturally rich and attractive region of the world. And to many of us that is indeed a huge benefit and one which we would hate to see diminished. But many of our fellow citizens simply didn’t and don’t share that feeling.
In each European country I know , all those things apply too. But there are also less altruistic or generalised benefits-the massive infrastructure projects throuought Southern Europe, the huge
Economic advantage to Germany in having , for them, an artificially low currency, the bailouts to Portugal Ireland and even Greece and so on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
The reason I pointed out the size of the collective government budgets is to highlight how little 60bn spread over years actually is.
The actual loss of the UKs contributions would be £5.5bn once payments to and on behalf of the UK are taken away. Or to put it another way 0.1% of the EU countries budgets. Thats the extent of the pain of replacing the UKs financial committment. To put it in our terms its someone on 40,000 a year having to find an extra 40 a year.
And the EU is and has been working on its strategy for a no deal result.
A no deal result will cripple your economy. Your financial centre will flee to the EU because they make most of their money there. The exchequer could lose up to 1/4 of its tax income. You will have no trade deals or trade quotas with any country. The pound would crash under the weight of uncertainty, youre tiny amount of economic growth would be eradicated and you'd fall in to recession. The only reason these things havent happened is because the whole world knows there will be a deal.
And your claim to the moral high ground is asinine considering the UK was the poor man of Europe until the EU threw you a life preserver, the EU has been the main driver for peace in Europe in the last 70 years and its the UK that has turned its back on its allies and not the other way round.
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement.
WE threw ?"
Yes. On top of that from the EU, to which of course we were also a major contributer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
The reason I pointed out the size of the collective government budgets is to highlight how little 60bn spread over years actually is.
The actual loss of the UKs contributions would be £5.5bn once payments to and on behalf of the UK are taken away. Or to put it another way 0.1% of the EU countries budgets. Thats the extent of the pain of replacing the UKs financial committment. To put it in our terms its someone on 40,000 a year having to find an extra 40 a year.
And the EU is and has been working on its strategy for a no deal result.
A no deal result will cripple your economy. Your financial centre will flee to the EU because they make most of their money there. The exchequer could lose up to 1/4 of its tax income. You will have no trade deals or trade quotas with any country. The pound would crash under the weight of uncertainty, youre tiny amount of economic growth would be eradicated and you'd fall in to recession. The only reason these things havent happened is because the whole world knows there will be a deal.
And your claim to the moral high ground is asinine considering the UK was the poor man of Europe until the EU threw you a life preserver, the EU has been the main driver for peace in Europe in the last 70 years and its the UK that has turned its back on its allies and not the other way round.
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement.
WE threw ?
Yes. On top of that from the EU, to which of course we were also a major contributer. "
WE as the UK personally without any involvement from the EU threw them money to help them out  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
The reason I pointed out the size of the collective government budgets is to highlight how little 60bn spread over years actually is.
The actual loss of the UKs contributions would be £5.5bn once payments to and on behalf of the UK are taken away. Or to put it another way 0.1% of the EU countries budgets. Thats the extent of the pain of replacing the UKs financial committment. To put it in our terms its someone on 40,000 a year having to find an extra 40 a year.
And the EU is and has been working on its strategy for a no deal result.
A no deal result will cripple your economy. Your financial centre will flee to the EU because they make most of their money there. The exchequer could lose up to 1/4 of its tax income. You will have no trade deals or trade quotas with any country. The pound would crash under the weight of uncertainty, youre tiny amount of economic growth would be eradicated and you'd fall in to recession. The only reason these things havent happened is because the whole world knows there will be a deal.
And your claim to the moral high ground is asinine considering the UK was the poor man of Europe until the EU threw you a life preserver, the EU has been the main driver for peace in Europe in the last 70 years and its the UK that has turned its back on its allies and not the other way round.
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement.
WE threw ?
Yes. On top of that from the EU, to which of course we were also a major contributer.
WE as the UK personally without any involvement from the EU threw them money to help them out "
The UK Government lent Ireland £3.2 billion. Other institutions such as the ECB and the EU also lent them money.
Repayment is due in 2021, and we do collect interest.
I believe the Irish Goverment is trying to pay back all loans as early as possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you are mistaken.
Comparing total national budgets with contributions to EU budgets is wholly meaningless.If you think that the countries of the EU find agreeing its budget and the contributions of and investments in its members states easy and straightforward and that losing at a stroke the input of its second highest contributor would be a trivial inconvenience, then I’m afraid you are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were wise they should probably agree now an alternative budget strategy , detailing who would pay more and who would receive less in the event of a hard Brexit with no financial deal. They may, but I doubt it as it would be politically painful to do so. If they don’t however then the change in the balance of pressure is simply inevitable. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the reality.
You may not regard the EU as having any moral obligation whatsoever to a country which has made a net contribution of over £200 billion to the EU ( I note you come from a country which has been a happy net recipient of such funding); or to maintaining a good trading relationship with a country which will be its biggest customer ; not to mention the critical and central role we have played over the last century to the peace and prosperity of the continent. Fortunately however that doesn’t matter a fig: we do, and should there be no trade deal which addresses our mutual interests , then there should be no deal at all- and no money, beyond the minimal legal obligations, which may well actually be in our favour , when everything is taken into account.
The reason I pointed out the size of the collective government budgets is to highlight how little 60bn spread over years actually is.
The actual loss of the UKs contributions would be £5.5bn once payments to and on behalf of the UK are taken away. Or to put it another way 0.1% of the EU countries budgets. Thats the extent of the pain of replacing the UKs financial committment. To put it in our terms its someone on 40,000 a year having to find an extra 40 a year.
And the EU is and has been working on its strategy for a no deal result.
A no deal result will cripple your economy. Your financial centre will flee to the EU because they make most of their money there. The exchequer could lose up to 1/4 of its tax income. You will have no trade deals or trade quotas with any country. The pound would crash under the weight of uncertainty, youre tiny amount of economic growth would be eradicated and you'd fall in to recession. The only reason these things havent happened is because the whole world knows there will be a deal.
And your claim to the moral high ground is asinine considering the UK was the poor man of Europe until the EU threw you a life preserver, the EU has been the main driver for peace in Europe in the last 70 years and its the UK that has turned its back on its allies and not the other way round.
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement.
WE threw ?
Yes. On top of that from the EU, to which of course we were also a major contributer.
WE as the UK personally without any involvement from the EU threw them money to help them out
The UK Government lent Ireland £3.2 billion. Other institutions such as the ECB and the EU also lent them money.
Repayment is due in 2021, and we do collect interest.
I believe the Irish Goverment is trying to pay back all loans as early as possible."
Aha so we loaned them it...NOT gave them it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
And now that cockwaving exchange is over with  .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It may appear that way to those who don’t understand the issue. Not entirely surprising as there are those who do who have an interest in misleading. These include an unholy alliance of extreme Brexiters ( who really want a hard Brexit, and damn the consequences) and hard core Remainers, who hope that by wrecking a sensible deal they may get a chance, somehow, to derail the whole process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds. "
Hmm strange that would had voted for that eh... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement."
Just to make the point; I was never talking about GDP,I was talking about total government spending by the 27 remaining EU countries. That 5.5trillion is the total government spend by the 27 EU countries. Of course GDP has nothing to do with contributions. My point is that these 27 governments will spend 1000 times the UKs contribution in each year. So between them they would have to divert an extra 0.1% of their budget to the EU and that would completely cover the loss of the UKs contribution. And again to put it in relative terms, thats like you having a 40,000 wage and losing 40 over the space of a year, or 76p a week.
I have no hatred for the UK beyond a friendly rivalry as neighbouring nations / cities / sports teams do.
Assuming you get a deal the current best predictions are that the UK will slow to 1.1% growth in 2019, half what the EU average is currently. The UK has already dropped out of the the top 5 biggest economies in just 1 year for the first time since records began. And thats with everyone assuming you take the deal.
If you dont then you lose tens of billions in tax revenue every year, companies will leave sending unemployment surging, there will have to be cuts to the social net at a time when you need it most, the construction and car industry are already in recession, more industries will follow.
You can try and claim Im saying this out of some idea of hatred of the british. But actually point out where Im wrong. Are the financial companies going to sacrifice tens of billions in sales and keep staff on to do jobs that cant be done any more? Is Magic Mays Money Tree going to find ways to make up for the shortfall in tax revenue? Are BoJo, Fox and Davy Davis going to go on a whirlwind tour of the globe and pull off the impossible feat of:
Replacing all 120 international trade deals
Somehow getting better deals than the EU even though the UK is a smaller market
Not only improving those deals but also generating enough extra trade to make up for the losses to the EU trade
And navigating the WTO quotas issue when the US New Zealand Brazil and others have already formally opposed you
And do that in less than a year?
Please let me know where exactly Im wrong. Maybe bankers have little hearts of gold I didnt know about? Maybe the Torys abysmal negotiations with the EU are a long con that I dont understand? Maybe Mays been putting aside a few dozen billion each week for the rainy day fund?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds. "
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing. "
Reported on Sky News at lunchtime...could be as much as 85 billion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing. "
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop.. "
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything "
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The figures agreed the Torys are just doing their absolute best to bring down their estimate in any way they can.
The EU dont give a shite what number the Tories announce because everythings being covered in the settlement. An advantage for the Tories in the post truth era is that the likes of Centaur dont care about the truth or reality so the Tories could announce it as 50p and he'd claim that was the figure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything "
Explained this to you yesterday, it's astonishing that you still don't get it. There are 2 possible outcomes to the negotiations, a deal or a no deal scenario. In the event of no deal then the UK won't pay anything. In the event of a deal we will pay an agreed sum, rather than commenting on media speculation I'd rather wait until the real agreed figure is jointly announced officially by the EU and the UK. Then we will see who is right as I've said all along if a deal is reached the UK will pay less than £50 billion pounds sterling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
Explained this to you yesterday, it's astonishing that you still don't get it. There are 2 possible outcomes to the negotiations, a deal or a no deal scenario. In the event of no deal then the UK won't pay anything. In the event of a deal we will pay an agreed sum, rather than commenting on media speculation I'd rather wait until the real agreed figure is jointly announced officially by the EU and the UK. Then we will see who is right as I've said all along if a deal is reached the UK will pay less than £50 billion pounds sterling. "
You said it...now your trying to weasle your way out of saying you said it...everyone knows you said it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
"
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle". "
Oh my fucking god.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle".
Oh my fucking god.... "
Has it sunk in yet that there are 2 possible outcomes to the negotiations. Do you get it yet???? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle".
Oh my fucking god....
Has it sunk in yet that there are 2 possible outcomes to the negotiations. Do you get it yet????"
its you that dont get it....thats why Mays just offered at least 50 billion lol  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle". "
only a few swivel eyed loons on the far right of the brexit at any costs brigade think a no deal will happen, it would be disaster for us as a country..
it will not happen and to give you a clue look at how far May has moved thus far in the amount she was talking about..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle".
Oh my fucking god....
Has it sunk in yet that there are 2 possible outcomes to the negotiations. Do you get it yet????"
I’m afraid you don’t
I’ve learnt from you now everything is everyone else’s fault never you I think you must have it impaired in your brain that the 50 billion we will pay at least in your mind is 50 pence
Deluded springs to mind big time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle".
only a few swivel eyed loons on the far right of the brexit at any costs brigade think a no deal will happen, it would be disaster for us as a country..
it will not happen and to give you a clue look at how far May has moved thus far in the amount she was talking about..
"
A no deal would be a disaster for the country? Really? The boss of the World Trade Organisation Roberto Azevedo doesn't seem to think so. In fact he said just a few days ago that if Britain left the EU without a deal and traded on WTO terms it would be in his words "perfectly manageable". A report on the impact of Brexit recently by the World Bank also concluded that the impact on trade would be minimal if Britain and the EU reverted to WTO rules. And just earlier today Mark Carney the governor of the Bank of England said after rigorous stress testing of UK banks showed that in the event of no deal UK banks would be able to cope with leaving the EU without a deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Britain: We owe nothing!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: Not a penny!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: Go whistle!
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £20bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £40bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £50bn.
EU: £60bn.
Britain: £57bn.
EU: Done. Cheers. Now what about Ireland? "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement.
Just to make the point; I was never talking about GDP,I was talking about total government spending by the 27 remaining EU countries. That 5.5trillion is the total government spend by the 27 EU countries. Of course GDP has nothing to do with contributions. My point is that these 27 governments will spend 1000 times the UKs contribution in each year. So between them they would have to divert an extra 0.1% of their budget to the EU and that would completely cover the loss of the UKs contribution. And again to put it in relative terms, thats like you having a 40,000 wage and losing 40 over the space of a year, or 76p a week.
I have no hatred for the UK beyond a friendly rivalry as neighbouring nations / cities / sports teams do.
Assuming you get a deal the current best predictions are that the UK will slow to 1.1% growth in 2019, half what the EU average is currently. The UK has already dropped out of the the top 5 biggest economies in just 1 year for the first time since records began. And thats with everyone assuming you take the deal.
If you dont then you lose tens of billions in tax revenue every year, companies will leave sending unemployment surging, there will have to be cuts to the social net at a time when you need it most, the construction and car industry are already in recession, more industries will follow.
You can try and claim Im saying this out of some idea of hatred of the british. But actually point out where Im wrong. Are the financial companies going to sacrifice tens of billions in sales and keep staff on to do jobs that cant be done any more? Is Magic Mays Money Tree going to find ways to make up for the shortfall in tax revenue? Are BoJo, Fox and Davy Davis going to go on a whirlwind tour of the globe and pull off the impossible feat of:
Replacing all 120 international trade deals
Somehow getting better deals than the EU even though the UK is a smaller market
Not only improving those deals but also generating enough extra trade to make up for the losses to the EU trade
And navigating the WTO quotas issue when the US New Zealand Brazil and others have already formally opposed you
And do that in less than a year?
Please let me know where exactly Im wrong. Maybe bankers have little hearts of gold I didnt know about? Maybe the Torys abysmal negotiations with the EU are a long con that I dont understand? Maybe Mays been putting aside a few dozen billion each week for the rainy day fund?
"
Well it’s hard to respond analytically to this heap of generalised and wild assertion laced with emotive claptrap.
However what it comes down to is simpler. My opinion is that there will probably be a deal. And the deal will be made because a) it is the mutual economic interest of both parties that trade should not be unnecessarily disrupted, and b) I think the EU will compromise its position on how it interprets the principles of the single market and the customs union in order to safeguard a financial settlement with the UK which avoids a budget crisis.
Unlike yourself I acknowledge I could be wrong. Things could go awry, but I think the balance of probabilities is that a deal will be done which meets the basic objectives of both parties. Where we also differ is that I regard your lip smacking apocalyptic vision of the impact on the UK if there were no deal as a rather absurd fantasy. We should,in my opinion , experience a mild setback in our economy, perhaps for a few years, but nothing to be particularly fearful of or comparable to that experienced, for example by the PIGS economies over the last few years.
However we will, if the Telegraph report is correct ( a big if) see quite soon whether some of the prognostications of the doomsayers have any validity. We were told that Varadkar will veto any progress unless he receives iron-clad written guarantees on the border. Which Ministers have categorically stated we will not give. The outcome of that apparent impasse will be instructive. If we have an agreement on finance but trade talks are still stymied by the Irish question I will revise my judgement on likely success. If on the other hand the “ veto “ turns out to be illusory it will confirm my current opinion that the money issue is the one which really counts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now that cockwaving exchange is over with .....
It appears that we are going to pay around £50 billion for the privilege of leaving the best, most streamlined and most efficient single market in the world in order to negotiate something less beneficial to us and for which we will still have to pay for.
It is no wonder really that most of the rest of the world think that we have lost our collective minds.
It was just reported on the BBC 6pm news that the agreed figure was around €50 billion Euros, which is equal to around £44 billion pounds sterling. Although the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have both said today that the figure is still not finalised and negotiations are still ongoing.
you've said umpteen times that the BBC is not a credible source..?
you are truly all over the shop..
Ah but him admitting now we will have to pay something...is not like he was in the summer when he was saying we wont pay anything
he can't help but contradict himself, he was saying Bojo was totally right and that the EU could go whistle..
now he's forgotten that and its spin and distraction time..
In the event of a no deal scenario then indeed Bojo would be right, as we won't be paying anything in a no deal exit. In that scenario then the EU can indeed "go whistle".
only a few swivel eyed loons on the far right of the brexit at any costs brigade think a no deal will happen, it would be disaster for us as a country..
it will not happen and to give you a clue look at how far May has moved thus far in the amount she was talking about..
A no deal would be a disaster for the country? Really? The boss of the World Trade Organisation Roberto Azevedo doesn't seem to think so. In fact he said just a few days ago that if Britain left the EU without a deal and traded on WTO terms it would be in his words "perfectly manageable". A report on the impact of Brexit recently by the World Bank also concluded that the impact on trade would be minimal if Britain and the EU reverted to WTO rules. And just earlier today Mark Carney the governor of the Bank of England said after rigorous stress testing of UK banks showed that in the event of no deal UK banks would be able to cope with leaving the EU without a deal. "
You havent got sa clue....of course the leader of the WTO will say that ask yourself why he would...Dohhh.
The banks wernt stress tested for a no deal brexit they were and have been for many years now...its to guard against any collapses like it 2007....Dohhh
More misinformation form you yet again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"It may appear that way to those who don’t understand the issue."
So you are saying that we are NOT going to pay around £50 billion to leave the EU? Or are you saying that we are going to pay but not leave?
You suggested that some people didn’t understand but gave no reason why. I think that the astonishing silence today from the Cgief Brexiters is very telling.
The fact is that we are going to pay circa £50billion for the privilege of leaving the world’s most effective single market so that we can negotiate a worse deal with the same people and pay for that too. The underlying facts are NOT spinnable - even by someone claiming to possess superior intellect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement.
Just to make the point; I was never talking about GDP,I was talking about total government spending by the 27 remaining EU countries. That 5.5trillion is the total government spend by the 27 EU countries. Of course GDP has nothing to do with contributions. My point is that these 27 governments will spend 1000 times the UKs contribution in each year. So between them they would have to divert an extra 0.1% of their budget to the EU and that would completely cover the loss of the UKs contribution. And again to put it in relative terms, thats like you having a 40,000 wage and losing 40 over the space of a year, or 76p a week.
I have no hatred for the UK beyond a friendly rivalry as neighbouring nations / cities / sports teams do.
Assuming you get a deal the current best predictions are that the UK will slow to 1.1% growth in 2019, half what the EU average is currently. The UK has already dropped out of the the top 5 biggest economies in just 1 year for the first time since records began. And thats with everyone assuming you take the deal.
If you dont then you lose tens of billions in tax revenue every year, companies will leave sending unemployment surging, there will have to be cuts to the social net at a time when you need it most, the construction and car industry are already in recession, more industries will follow.
You can try and claim Im saying this out of some idea of hatred of the british. But actually point out where Im wrong. Are the financial companies going to sacrifice tens of billions in sales and keep staff on to do jobs that cant be done any more? Is Magic Mays Money Tree going to find ways to make up for the shortfall in tax revenue? Are BoJo, Fox and Davy Davis going to go on a whirlwind tour of the globe and pull off the impossible feat of:
Replacing all 120 international trade deals
Somehow getting better deals than the EU even though the UK is a smaller market
Not only improving those deals but also generating enough extra trade to make up for the losses to the EU trade
And navigating the WTO quotas issue when the US New Zealand Brazil and others have already formally opposed you
And do that in less than a year?
Please let me know where exactly Im wrong. Maybe bankers have little hearts of gold I didnt know about? Maybe the Torys abysmal negotiations with the EU are a long con that I dont understand? Maybe Mays been putting aside a few dozen billion each week for the rainy day fund?
Well it’s hard to respond analytically to this heap of generalised and wild assertion laced with emotive claptrap.
However what it comes down to is simpler. My opinion is that there will probably be a deal. And the deal will be made because a) it is the mutual economic interest of both parties that trade should not be unnecessarily disrupted, and b) I think the EU will compromise its position on how it interprets the principles of the single market and the customs union in order to safeguard a financial settlement with the UK which avoids a budget crisis.
Unlike yourself I acknowledge I could be wrong. Things could go awry, but I think the balance of probabilities is that a deal will be done which meets the basic objectives of both parties. Where we also differ is that I regard your lip smacking apocalyptic vision of the impact on the UK if there were no deal as a rather absurd fantasy. We should,in my opinion , experience a mild setback in our economy, perhaps for a few years, but nothing to be particularly fearful of or comparable to that experienced, for example by the PIGS economies over the last few years.
However we will, if the Telegraph report is correct ( a big if) see quite soon whether some of the prognostications of the doomsayers have any validity. We were told that Varadkar will veto any progress unless he receives iron-clad written guarantees on the border. Which Ministers have categorically stated we will not give. The outcome of that apparent impasse will be instructive. If we have an agreement on finance but trade talks are still stymied by the Irish question I will revise my judgement on likely success. If on the other hand the “ veto “ turns out to be illusory it will confirm my current opinion that the money issue is the one which really counts."
Stop being so pragmatic and reasonable, that's not the done thing here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Evidently cloud cuckoo land is where you prefer to stay! The significance of our contribution is reflected in the priority placed by EU members on getting our agreement to a financial settlement. It is simply fatuous to confuse contributions to budgets with the GDPs of States. The direst respectable predictions of worst case scenarios for the UK economy in the event of no deal also only refer to small sounding percentages in reduced predicted growth too, but I’m not so silly as to dismiss those as insignificant.
Obviously size matters ( which is why the few billion we threw you to pull you out of the shite you got yourselves into a few years ago was crucial to you , but manageable to us) and a disruption in trade would potentially damage our economy more than the EUs as a whole. But it is still in everyones interest to avoid it at all. Your hyperbole as to the impact on us is moreover rather absurd and sounds more a result of a national hatred than any balanced judgement.
Just to make the point; I was never talking about GDP,I was talking about total government spending by the 27 remaining EU countries. That 5.5trillion is the total government spend by the 27 EU countries. Of course GDP has nothing to do with contributions. My point is that these 27 governments will spend 1000 times the UKs contribution in each year. So between them they would have to divert an extra 0.1% of their budget to the EU and that would completely cover the loss of the UKs contribution. And again to put it in relative terms, thats like you having a 40,000 wage and losing 40 over the space of a year, or 76p a week.
I have no hatred for the UK beyond a friendly rivalry as neighbouring nations / cities / sports teams do.
Assuming you get a deal the current best predictions are that the UK will slow to 1.1% growth in 2019, half what the EU average is currently. The UK has already dropped out of the the top 5 biggest economies in just 1 year for the first time since records began. And thats with everyone assuming you take the deal.
If you dont then you lose tens of billions in tax revenue every year, companies will leave sending unemployment surging, there will have to be cuts to the social net at a time when you need it most, the construction and car industry are already in recession, more industries will follow.
You can try and claim Im saying this out of some idea of hatred of the british. But actually point out where Im wrong. Are the financial companies going to sacrifice tens of billions in sales and keep staff on to do jobs that cant be done any more? Is Magic Mays Money Tree going to find ways to make up for the shortfall in tax revenue? Are BoJo, Fox and Davy Davis going to go on a whirlwind tour of the globe and pull off the impossible feat of:
Replacing all 120 international trade deals
Somehow getting better deals than the EU even though the UK is a smaller market
Not only improving those deals but also generating enough extra trade to make up for the losses to the EU trade
And navigating the WTO quotas issue when the US New Zealand Brazil and others have already formally opposed you
And do that in less than a year?
Please let me know where exactly Im wrong. Maybe bankers have little hearts of gold I didnt know about? Maybe the Torys abysmal negotiations with the EU are a long con that I dont understand? Maybe Mays been putting aside a few dozen billion each week for the rainy day fund?
Well it’s hard to respond analytically to this heap of generalised and wild assertion laced with emotive claptrap.
However what it comes down to is simpler. My opinion is that there will probably be a deal. And the deal will be made because a) it is the mutual economic interest of both parties that trade should not be unnecessarily disrupted, and b) I think the EU will compromise its position on how it interprets the principles of the single market and the customs union in order to safeguard a financial settlement with the UK which avoids a budget crisis.
Unlike yourself I acknowledge I could be wrong. Things could go awry, but I think the balance of probabilities is that a deal will be done which meets the basic objectives of both parties. Where we also differ is that I regard your lip smacking apocalyptic vision of the impact on the UK if there were no deal as a rather absurd fantasy. We should,in my opinion , experience a mild setback in our economy, perhaps for a few years, but nothing to be particularly fearful of or comparable to that experienced, for example by the PIGS economies over the last few years.
However we will, if the Telegraph report is correct ( a big if) see quite soon whether some of the prognostications of the doomsayers have any validity. We were told that Varadkar will veto any progress unless he receives iron-clad written guarantees on the border. Which Ministers have categorically stated we will not give. The outcome of that apparent impasse will be instructive. If we have an agreement on finance but trade talks are still stymied by the Irish question I will revise my judgement on likely success. If on the other hand the “ veto “ turns out to be illusory it will confirm my current opinion that the money issue is the one which really counts."
Stop being so pragmatic and reasonable, that's not the done thing here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It may appear that way to those who don’t understand the issue.
So you are saying that we are NOT going to pay around £50 billion to leave the EU? Or are you saying that we are going to pay but not leave?
You suggested that some people didn’t understand but gave no reason why. I think that the astonishing silence today from the Cgief Brexiters is very telling.
The fact is that we are going to pay circa £50billion for the privilege of leaving the world’s most effective single market so that we can negotiate a worse deal with the same people and pay for that too. The underlying facts are NOT spinnable - even by someone claiming to possess superior intellect."
I think, Too hot, that you have been misled by the sloppy terminology. What is being discussed is not a “ divorce settlement” or a “bill” for leaving, but the pace at which contributions will be phased out. Obviously there are some who would like them to cease completely from the day we leave. The EU argue that as their budgets have been predicated and commitments made over future years, on the basis of both our agreement and the expectation of our large net contribution, that we should honour those payments. We accept that is a not unreasonable expectation but there is a plethora of arguable detail about what is really a commitment and so on. Hence the argument over numbers. There are also some other liabilities we may or may not accept.
We of course also consider it is equally reasonable to expect a sensible agreement on trade. Our basic position as I see it is that we will be reasonable on the phasing out of contributions if the EU is reasonable on trade.
None of the money being spoken of is “ new “ money which has to be raised through taxation ofpr borrowing beyond existing plans-it is the money we already contribute , continuing. What the more extreme Brexiters object to is that they want it repatriated from day one. The more extreme Remainers just seem muddled. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"It may appear that way to those who don’t understand the issue.
So you are saying that we are NOT going to pay around £50 billion to leave the EU? Or are you saying that we are going to pay but not leave?
You suggested that some people didn’t understand but gave no reason why. I think that the astonishing silence today from the Cgief Brexiters is very telling.
The fact is that we are going to pay circa £50billion for the privilege of leaving the world’s most effective single market so that we can negotiate a worse deal with the same people and pay for that too. The underlying facts are NOT spinnable - even by someone claiming to possess superior intellect.
I think, Too hot, that you have been misled by the sloppy terminology. What is being discussed is not a “ divorce settlement” or a “bill” for leaving, but the pace at which contributions will be phased out. Obviously there are some who would like them to cease completely from the day we leave. The EU argue that as their budgets have been predicated and commitments made over future years, on the basis of both our agreement and the expectation of our large net contribution, that we should honour those payments. We accept that is a not unreasonable expectation but there is a plethora of arguable detail about what is really a commitment and so on. Hence the argument over numbers. There are also some other liabilities we may or may not accept.
We of course also consider it is equally reasonable to expect a sensible agreement on trade. Our basic position as I see it is that we will be reasonable on the phasing out of contributions if the EU is reasonable on trade.
None of the money being spoken of is “ new “ money which has to be raised through taxation ofpr borrowing beyond existing plans-it is the money we already contribute , continuing. What the more extreme Brexiters object to is that they want it repatriated from day one. The more extreme Remainers just seem muddled."
Not quite right.
We pay a membership fee to the EU and this goes to a variety of different parts of the EU and it enable the U.K. to be part of the single market and customs union. So the money that we are now committing to pay moving forwards is money that has no benefit in return like it did previously.
Moving forwards we are hoping for a deal with the EU which however it is put together is going to be worse than the one we have now AND we will be paying for this deal. I recall a renowned Professor from Liverpool estimating that a Norway style deal would cost around 7.5 billion a year but obviously without any seat at the table as we have right now,
So getting back to the point - the £50billion is at least in part new money because it cannot be generated from any trade dividend. The additional payments moving forwards that will be associated with a trade deal may have some benefit dividend but a fraction of what our current payments generate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Well it’s hard to respond analytically to this heap of generalised and wild assertion laced with emotive claptrap.
However what it comes down to is simpler. My opinion is that there will probably be a deal. And the deal will be made because a) it is the mutual economic interest of both parties that trade should not be unnecessarily disrupted, and b) I think the EU will compromise its position on how it interprets the principles of the single market and the customs union in order to safeguard a financial settlement with the UK which avoids a budget crisis.
Unlike yourself I acknowledge I could be wrong. Things could go awry, but I think the balance of probabilities is that a deal will be done which meets the basic objectives of both parties. Where we also differ is that I regard your lip smacking apocalyptic vision of the impact on the UK if there were no deal as a rather absurd fantasy. We should,in my opinion , experience a mild setback in our economy, perhaps for a few years, but nothing to be particularly fearful of or comparable to that experienced, for example by the PIGS economies over the last few years.
However we will, if the Telegraph report is correct ( a big if) see quite soon whether some of the prognostications of the doomsayers have any validity. We were told that Varadkar will veto any progress unless he receives iron-clad written guarantees on the border. Which Ministers have categorically stated we will not give. The outcome of that apparent impasse will be instructive. If we have an agreement on finance but trade talks are still stymied by the Irish question I will revise my judgement on likely success. If on the other hand the “ veto “ turns out to be illusory it will confirm my current opinion that the money issue is the one which really counts."
Fine lets break it down into simple logical steps. If there is no deal:
Will banks based in London forgo billions in sales or move european operations to the EU?
Will the banks keep on thousands of British based staff who used to work on european operations once that work is gone?
How will the Tories make up for tens of billions gone from the exchequer each and every year?
Is it likely that many other companies arw going to move european operations to the EU to avoid millions in taxes?
100,000 jobs are tied to euro clearing and thats gone. How can the UK economy possibly absorb these job losses without seeing social payments rise?
Losing out on a deal means tarriffs skyrocket on all EU trade and on deals with 66 other countries the UK has through the EU. How is the average British family going to cope with this rise in cost of living considering 1 in 4 British families have less than £100 in savings right now?
If the above is true (job losses in the financial centre, some industry moving to eu meaning more kob losses, cost of living increasing, government revenues down and so spending less) then it follows that consumer spending will drop as people have less to spend and find it doesnt get as much. How does this not become the standard vicious circle that leads to recession?
If the above is true, then it must follow that getting a deal is imperative for the UK. It should also be obvious that the EU isnt under as much pressure to get a deal. The EU will maintain its 120 trade deals with 66 countries, each EU member will retain 26 other EU members with free trade, the UK has few goods or services that cant be replaced with other EU suppliers and their exposure to declining trade between the EU and UK is much lower as it makes up a smaller fraction of trade (~8% for the EU vs 48% for the UK).
And if all that is true, then the EU holds all the cards in negotiations which has been evident with the the EU holding firm on all its positions since the start and the UK folding on every single point of contention thus far. Which would also point to the EU maintaining this position in trade negotiations and give the UK the choice it has had from the start Canada style low access or Switzerland style with major concessions.
I will agree with you on one point, I dont think the EU will force May to concede on Northern Ireland this week. For her to concede on the divorce bill, citizen rights and Northern Ireland in less than 10 days would be a brutal humiliation that would destroy her credibility and show the Tories to be whipping boys in negotiations in front of the world when they then have to negotiate deals with those other countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can’t agree with that, but at least you put your point of view courteously, which is appreciated.
The notion that in some way we currently pay for membership of the single market is surely erroneous. You might say that it is a contingent benefit enjoyed by all members of the EU who also make contributions towards expenditure across the Union, and enjoy investment from its budget, but there is no necessary or direct connection. Countries can agree to trade freely with each other without paying each other for the privilege!
I would broadly agree with what I think is the implication of your second paragraph that paying for access to a single market where those we would be paying are net beneficiaries of free trade is problematical! Though I can understand the pragmatic case which those like Hannan have made for the transition. But I reiterate my view that what is currently being debated is the phasing of existing contributions. If I am correct, then there is no requirement for additional budget, but a deferment of the point where we cease to contribute.
Your final point only holds good if we suffer a loss of income while having committed to fixed expenditure. Well that can always happen, but there is no logical reason to expect such a loss as a consequence of leaving if a satisfactory trading agreement. Has been concluded. And if there is no such agreement, then we should not be making the payments. But that is a different scenario. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can’t agree with that, but at least you put your point of view courteously, which is appreciated.
The notion that in some way we currently pay for membership of the single market is surely erroneous. You might say that it is a contingent benefit enjoyed by all members of the EU who also make contributions towards expenditure across the Union, and enjoy investment from its budget, but there is no necessary or direct connection. Countries can agree to trade freely with each other without paying each other for the privilege!
I would broadly agree with what I think is the implication of your second paragraph that paying for access to a single market where those we would be paying are net beneficiaries of free trade is problematical! Though I can understand the pragmatic case which those like Hannan have made for the transition. But I reiterate my view that what is currently being debated is the phasing of existing contributions. If I am correct, then there is no requirement for additional budget, but a deferment of the point where we cease to contribute.
Your final point only holds good if we suffer a loss of income while having committed to fixed expenditure. Well that can always happen, but there is no logical reason to expect such a loss as a consequence of leaving if a satisfactory trading agreement. Has been concluded. And if there is no such agreement, then we should not be making the payments. But that is a different scenario."
Apologies: that was to Too hot. I didn’t make it clear |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Okay folks, I need a point of clarification.
Do we talk in gross or net amounts nowadays? I can’t keep up with the kids and their new fangled way of having money flowing both ways.
Ps and don’t get me started on the coolest currency. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We are not going to progress this since I neither recognise nor think remotely likely your imagined impact on either the City, nor the wider economy of a no deal. If your premise is wrong, the rest falls. No one but a fool thinks they know for certain how the economy is going to perform : you in Ireland have as good a reason for knowing that as any, but I see nothing in the warnings of Mark Carney or City figures to warrant your apocalyptic visions. I think you are indulging in wishful thinking.
I see you are now hedging your position on the Border, and inventing an excuse which enables you to maintain your flow of bile! How about , if indeed they do finesse the border question as I have suggested that I think they will if there is the prospect of a financial settlement, another version? That your inexperienced Leader has been rather a chump, and thinking he can play Billy Big Balls while peeking out from behind the legs of Barnier has overplayed his hand? Uncharitable, but that seems to be your preferred way of discussion! (And I’m still by no means certain there will be progression, in which case Barnier may still have uses for him) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay folks, I need a point of clarification.
Do we talk in gross or net amounts nowadays? I can’t keep up with the kids and their new fangled way of having money flowing both ways.
Ps and don’t get me started on the coolest currency. "
Well net obviously is sensible , but nobody knows the provenance of the alleged agreement so there’s not much point in worrying yet! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We are not going to progress this since I neither recognise nor think remotely likely your imagined impact on either the City, nor the wider economy of a no deal. If your premise is wrong, the rest falls. No one but a fool thinks they know for certain how the economy is going to perform : you in Ireland have as good a reason for knowing that as any, but I see nothing in the warnings of Mark Carney or City figures to warrant your apocalyptic visions. I think you are indulging in wishful thinking.
I see you are now hedging your position on the Border, and inventing an excuse which enables you to maintain your flow of bile! How about , if indeed they do finesse the border question as I have suggested that I think they will if there is the prospect of a financial settlement, another version? That your inexperienced Leader has been rather a chump, and thinking he can play Billy Big Balls while peeking out from behind the legs of Barnier has overplayed his hand? Uncharitable, but that seems to be your preferred way of discussion! (And I’m still by no means certain there will be progression, in which case Barnier may still have uses for him)"
You may disagree but youve yet to state why. You seem to be saying things will be fine but that cant be true if no deal results in job losses, lower tax revenue, businesses leaving and cost of living increases.
So do you disagree with the notion that banks are primarily geared towards profit making?
Do you think that cost of living increases wont be the result of import taxes? Who else is going to pay them?
Are there additional funds we dont know about that will allow the UK to maintain spending even if revenues decrease by tens of billions?
Its easy to say you disagree, its a lot harder to back it up. You asked for emotionless, clear logical statements and you received them. So Im puzzled that you decline answering these points.
To be clear, the EU and Ireland are going to get its way on the border issue. There will be no hard border and neither will there be some backdoor for untaxed goods that dont meet regulation to be smuggled over 200+ unmanned roads. The best May can hope for is that shes not forced to announce concessions on this point this month because the timing of 3 major concessions would be an abject failure that even Centaur couldnt spin. It would leave May irreparably damaged and could destablise her government to the point of no return. Restarting negotiations with a new leader is not in the EUs interests. Concede she will but to make her do it now rather than further down the road would be humiliating and would show inarguably that the Tories have weakened the UK more than anyone thought. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay folks, I need a point of clarification.
Do we talk in gross or net amounts nowadays? I can’t keep up with the kids and their new fangled way of having money flowing both ways.
Ps and don’t get me started on the coolest currency.
Well net obviously is sensible , but nobody knows the provenance of the alleged agreement so there’s not much point in worrying yet!"
just checking as the bus always talked gross ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We are not going to progress this since I neither recognise nor think remotely likely your imagined impact on either the City, nor the wider economy of a no deal. If your premise is wrong, the rest falls. No one but a fool thinks they know for certain how the economy is going to perform : you in Ireland have as good a reason for knowing that as any, but I see nothing in the warnings of Mark Carney or City figures to warrant your apocalyptic visions. I think you are indulging in wishful thinking.
I see you are now hedging your position on the Border, and inventing an excuse which enables you to maintain your flow of bile! How about , if indeed they do finesse the border question as I have suggested that I think they will if there is the prospect of a financial settlement, another version? That your inexperienced Leader has been rather a chump, and thinking he can play Billy Big Balls while peeking out from behind the legs of Barnier has overplayed his hand? Uncharitable, but that seems to be your preferred way of discussion! (And I’m still by no means certain there will be progression, in which case Barnier may still have uses for him)
You may disagree but youve yet to state why. You seem to be saying things will be fine but that cant be true if no deal results in job losses, lower tax revenue, businesses leaving and cost of living increases.
So do you disagree with the notion that banks are primarily geared towards profit making?
Do you think that cost of living increases wont be the result of import taxes? Who else is going to pay them?
Are there additional funds we dont know about that will allow the UK to maintain spending even if revenues decrease by tens of billions?
Its easy to say you disagree, its a lot harder to back it up. You asked for emotionless, clear logical statements and you received them. So Im puzzled that you decline answering these points.
To be clear, the EU and Ireland are going to get its way on the border issue. There will be no hard border and neither will there be some backdoor for untaxed goods that dont meet regulation to be smuggled over 200+ unmanned roads. The best May can hope for is that shes not forced to announce concessions on this point this month because the timing of 3 major concessions would be an abject failure that even Centaur couldnt spin. It would leave May irreparably damaged and could destablise her government to the point of no return. Restarting negotiations with a new leader is not in the EUs interests. Concede she will but to make her do it now rather than further down the road would be humiliating and would show inarguably that the Tories have weakened the UK more than anyone thought."
Show me one reputable source which thinks job losses on that scale are likely and I might begin to take you seriously. I’ve seen none and to the contrary have seen examples of institutions committing investment into the city and stating their opinion that it will retain its primacy as a world finance centre. Real people committing real money.
You won’t get your way on the border. We will not remain within the single market and we will not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. ( well provided our government doesn’t fall , in which case all bets are off). I doubt if the EU will refuse a deal as a result , other things being settled, but. If they did, what then? We still won’t be in the single market and neither will Northern Ireland |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We are not going to progress this since I neither recognise nor think remotely likely your imagined impact on either the City, nor the wider economy of a no deal. If your premise is wrong, the rest falls. No one but a fool thinks they know for certain how the economy is going to perform : you in Ireland have as good a reason for knowing that as any, but I see nothing in the warnings of Mark Carney or City figures to warrant your apocalyptic visions. I think you are indulging in wishful thinking.
I see you are now hedging your position on the Border, and inventing an excuse which enables you to maintain your flow of bile! How about , if indeed they do finesse the border question as I have suggested that I think they will if there is the prospect of a financial settlement, another version? That your inexperienced Leader has been rather a chump, and thinking he can play Billy Big Balls while peeking out from behind the legs of Barnier has overplayed his hand? Uncharitable, but that seems to be your preferred way of discussion! (And I’m still by no means certain there will be progression, in which case Barnier may still have uses for him)
You may disagree but youve yet to state why. You seem to be saying things will be fine but that cant be true if no deal results in job losses, lower tax revenue, businesses leaving and cost of living increases.
So do you disagree with the notion that banks are primarily geared towards profit making?
Do you think that cost of living increases wont be the result of import taxes? Who else is going to pay them?
Are there additional funds we dont know about that will allow the UK to maintain spending even if revenues decrease by tens of billions?
Its easy to say you disagree, its a lot harder to back it up. You asked for emotionless, clear logical statements and you received them. So Im puzzled that you decline answering these points.
To be clear, the EU and Ireland are going to get its way on the border issue. There will be no hard border and neither will there be some backdoor for untaxed goods that dont meet regulation to be smuggled over 200+ unmanned roads. The best May can hope for is that shes not forced to announce concessions on this point this month because the timing of 3 major concessions would be an abject failure that even Centaur couldnt spin. It would leave May irreparably damaged and could destablise her government to the point of no return. Restarting negotiations with a new leader is not in the EUs interests. Concede she will but to make her do it now rather than further down the road would be humiliating and would show inarguably that the Tories have weakened the UK more than anyone thought.
Show me one reputable source which thinks job losses on that scale are likely and I might begin to take you seriously. I’ve seen none and to the contrary have seen examples of institutions committing investment into the city and stating their opinion that it will retain its primacy as a world finance centre. Real people committing real money.
You won’t get your way on the border. We will not remain within the single market and we will not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. ( well provided our government doesn’t fall , in which case all bets are off). I doubt if the EU will refuse a deal as a result , other things being settled, but. If they did, what then? We still won’t be in the single market and neither will Northern Ireland"
Remainers on here constantly like to scaremonger about job losses, they were almost orgasmic last week when the European Medicines agency went to Netherlands and the European Banking agency went to France with a loss of 1,000 jobs. They failed to mention though that an additional 300,000 new jobs have been created in the UK economy since the country voted Leave in June 2016. Remainers don't seem to be able to put things into context, and are salivating at the slightest hint of any bad news. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That’s true SK and neither side should overplay facts to support what they want to be the case. That said we had a number of years when we outperformed our neighbours in terms of growth, and particularly in terms of employment . You can’t expect that to be permanent. The eurozone is currently in recovery. Which is a good thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Which was down from the year before.... although I agree it’s not the doom that was predicted but there’s a lot of indicators which are slowing down ..."
Some indicators have increased, Student application numbers at UK universities are up 2% on last year's figure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Which was down from the year before.... although I agree it’s not the doom that was predicted but there’s a lot of indicators which are slowing down ...
Some indicators have increased, Student application numbers at UK universities are up 2% on last year's figure. "
uk acceptances down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Show me one reputable source which thinks job losses on that scale are likely and I might begin to take you seriously. I’ve seen none and to the contrary have seen examples of institutions committing investment into the city and stating their opinion that it will retain its primacy as a world finance centre. Real people committing real money.
You won’t get your way on the border. We will not remain within the single market and we will not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. ( well provided our government doesn’t fall , in which case all bets are off). I doubt if the EU will refuse a deal as a result , other things being settled, but. If they did, what then? We still won’t be in the single market and neither will Northern Ireland"
Heres 2 sources, both British:
Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 jobs (Oct 31 2017)
Xavier Rolet,chief executive of London Stock Exchange says 200,000 jobs (Oct 30 2017)
But there will be a deal, thats the point. The UK *has* to have one and has to have a transition period to get its house in order. The Tories have no choice here, thats why theyve conceded on every single point of contention so far. Every. Single. One.
So because there has to be a deal, the UK will concede on Northern Ireland. The same way they capitulated on day 1 about sequencing and the same way they caved in on thr divorce bill and gave the EU exactly what they wanted at the start and in the same way they will concede on citizen rights. Not to mention that the EU got their way on a supranational court above UK courts already for trade and its already been leaked that they'll get ECJ involvement for EU citizens.
As I said before, all May can change is the timing and the manner of her surrender, but the white flags been waving for a long time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Which was down from the year before.... although I agree it’s not the doom that was predicted but there’s a lot of indicators which are slowing down ...
Some indicators have increased, Student application numbers at UK universities are up 2% on last year's figure. "
437,860 applications from students in England - down 5% from 459,430 last year
48,940 from Scotland - down 1% from 49,470
22,530 from Wales - down 5% from 23,740
20,290 from Northern Ireland - down 4% from 21,110
Applications from EU students fell from 51,850 in 2016 to 49,250 this year.
However, applicants from overseas countries outside of the European Union are up 2%, from 69,300 in 2016 to 70,830 this year.
Students coming from outside the EU is up...2% which is approximately another 1530 from last year...source UCAS
More disingenuous information yet from you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Your like a bunch of sweety wifes yapping and shouting what you think will happen but in truth, none of you know,
its laughable"
d
Don't trip over my handbag  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Show me one reputable source which thinks job losses on that scale are likely and I might begin to take you seriously. I’ve seen none and to the contrary have seen examples of institutions committing investment into the city and stating their opinion that it will retain its primacy as a world finance centre. Real people committing real money.
You won’t get your way on the border. We will not remain within the single market and we will not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. ( well provided our government doesn’t fall , in which case all bets are off). I doubt if the EU will refuse a deal as a result , other things being settled, but. If they did, what then? We still won’t be in the single market and neither will Northern Ireland
Heres 2 sources, both British:
Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 jobs (Oct 31 2017)
Xavier Rolet,chief executive of London Stock Exchange says 200,000 jobs (Oct 30 2017)
But there will be a deal, thats the point. The UK *has* to have one and has to have a transition period to get its house in order. The Tories have no choice here, thats why theyve conceded on every single point of contention so far. Every. Single. One.
So because there has to be a deal, the UK will concede on Northern Ireland. The same way they capitulated on day 1 about sequencing and the same way they caved in on thr divorce bill and gave the EU exactly what they wanted at the start and in the same way they will concede on citizen rights. Not to mention that the EU got their way on a supranational court above UK courts already for trade and its already been leaked that they'll get ECJ involvement for EU citizens.
As I said before, all May can change is the timing and the manner of her surrender, but the white flags been waving for a long time."
And Mark Carney has also said that the absence of a deal with the city would be more damaging , in the short term at least, to the EU than to the UK, a view echoed in the leaked EU paper a few months ago. Which is why we can agree on one thing at least, if for different reasons: there will be a deal of some kind , at least in this area.
I cannot see any possibility of what Varadkar wants being agreed by the UK government. Those who think so are ,I think, simply ignorant of the realities of the politics.
I wouldn’t rule out almost any outcome from here, including the whole process getting stopped or reversed, but those proposals are impossible for the UK to accept, and we won’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
Suggest that we all take a look at history.
Listed Companies and large financial institutions were confident that both world wars would never happen because of the financial cost to both sides.
OK so we are not talking about a war here but the point being that political events are not necessarily beholden to the expectations of those who think that money makes the world go round.
The U.K. Brexit team is fucking this up and I fully expect David Davis to fall as scapegoat. I just also heard a snippet on the news that the DUP have “warned” Theresa May not to even suggest to the EU that N Ireland could stay in the EU even if the will of the people wanted to, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
