|
Post by winchesterox on Jun 13, 2017 23:09:05 GMT
Would you feel better if I said that I am not confident? Too many subversive elements trying to derail it... That Corbyn bloke for one, and his gullible yoof voters. 😉
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 14, 2017 4:09:24 GMT
Would you feel better if I said that I am not confident? Too many subversive elements trying to derail it... That Corbyn bloke for one, and his gullible yoof voters. 😉 [/quotee] That's good old democracy I'm afraid. I guess it's still not too late to reverse the decision and beg not to leave
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 14, 2017 4:20:45 GMT
Define "good deal". Hard Brexit please. I'd say a good deal would be to pay a fair amount less than what the EU demand in the settlement, some sort of access to the single market while having an element of control of EU immigration would constitute a good deal. Reckon that's likely?
|
|
|
Post by juniper on Jun 14, 2017 15:41:28 GMT
What is "a fair amount less" than the EU is asking for? €60 billion? I think the EU has made a mistake in asking for such a huge amount of money because no UK government is going to pay anything like the amount they want. Why did they feel the need to publicise such a big 'divorce bill' ahead of negotiations - was it to frighten us? At first they seemed to ask for 50 or 60 billion and then they more or less doubled it after a meeting with May that clearly didn't go as they wanted. The whole idea of us having to pay a huge Brexit bill and then wait for years to see if we can have a trade deal is crap. Even Corbyn wouldn't agree to that.
After March 2019 we will have more control over our borders and we shall have access to the single market, in the same way that the USA, North Korea and every other country has access to the single market. Having our fishing grounds back would be nice but the EU can keep Scottish fishing grounds because Scotland wants to stay in the EU.
The EU is worried that the clock is ticking because if no deal is done by March 2019 we leave the EU and pay nothing.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Jun 14, 2017 16:02:50 GMT
What is "a fair amount less" than the EU is asking for? €60 billion? I think the EU has made a mistake in asking for such a huge amount of money because no UK government is going to pay anything like the amount they want. Why did they feel the need to publicise such a big 'divorce bill' ahead of negotiations - was it to frighten us? At first they seemed to ask for 50 or 60 billion and then they more or less doubled it after a meeting with May that clearly didn't go as they wanted. The whole idea of us having to pay a huge Brexit bill and then wait for years to see if we can have a trade deal is crap. Even Corbyn wouldn't agree to that. After March 2019 we will have more control over our borders and we shall have access to the single market, in the same way that the USA, North Korea and every other country has access to the single market. Having our fishing grounds back would be nice but the EU can keep Scottish fishing grounds because Scotland wants to stay in the EU. The EU is worried that the clock is ticking because if no deal is done by March 2019 we leave the EU and pay nothing. Thats a rather good negotiating position. Single market will remain.... what we sell to them is as important as what they sell to us...no trade war on the horizon. Fishing industry could see a renaissance creating jobs in many decimated costal towns. As far as EU workers go I can see a compromise with those here & working staying and those wanting to come here to work having to have a job to come to or a sponsor. I have no issues with controlled migration but would happily only have the people we want & not those who are a massive drain on resources without putting in to the collective pot......and that should apply to all migrants from wherever.
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jun 14, 2017 16:12:53 GMT
What is "a fair amount less" than the EU is asking for? €60 billion? I think the EU has made a mistake in asking for such a huge amount of money because no UK government is going to pay anything like the amount they want. Why did they feel the need to publicise such a big 'divorce bill' ahead of negotiations - was it to frighten us? At first they seemed to ask for 50 or 60 billion and then they more or less doubled it after a meeting with May that clearly didn't go as they wanted. The whole idea of us having to pay a huge Brexit bill and then wait for years to see if we can have a trade deal is crap. Even Corbyn wouldn't agree to that. After March 2019 we will have more control over our borders and we shall have access to the single market, in the same way that the USA, North Korea and every other country has access to the single market. Having our fishing grounds back would be nice but the EU can keep Scottish fishing grounds because Scotland wants to stay in the EU. The EU is worried that the clock is ticking because if no deal is done by March 2019 we leave the EU and pay nothing. Thats a rather good negotiating position. Single market will remain.... what we sell to them is as important as what they sell to us...no trade war on the horizon. Fishing industry could see a renaissance creating jobs in many decimated costal towns. As far as EU workers go I can see a compromise with those here & working staying and those wanting to come here to work having to have a job to come to or a sponsor. I have no issues with controlled migration but would happily only have the people we want & not those who are a massive drain on resources without putting in to the collective pot......and that should apply to all migrants from wherever. You are extremely poorly informed and if you are allowed to have your way you will set this country back at least 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by winchesterox on Jun 14, 2017 16:58:02 GMT
Would you feel better if I said that I am not confident? Too many subversive elements trying to derail it... That Corbyn bloke for one, and his gullible yoof voters. 😉 [/quotee] That's good old democracy I'm afraid. I guess it's still not too late to reverse the decision and beg not to leave Perhaps we can fail to leave if it all proves too much for everyone to cope with. Maybe that is your strategy, to spread utter panic about it all and convince all the Brexit voters to request a change in their decision. How many of the 52% do we need to get this activated do you think? By the way, the French seem to be able to secure a majority government, without too much fuss. I don't know, they beat us at football, at Mexican waving and at voting properly.... What's happening with this quote feature
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 14, 2017 17:00:06 GMT
What is "a fair amount less" than the EU is asking for? €60 billion? I think the EU has made a mistake in asking for such a huge amount of money because no UK government is going to pay anything like the amount they want. Why did they feel the need to publicise such a big 'divorce bill' ahead of negotiations - was it to frighten us? At first they seemed to ask for 50 or 60 billion and then they more or less doubled it after a meeting with May that clearly didn't go as they wanted. The whole idea of us having to pay a huge Brexit bill and then wait for years to see if we can have a trade deal is crap. Even Corbyn wouldn't agree to that. After March 2019 we will have more control over our borders and we shall have access to the single market, in the same way that the USA, North Korea and every other country has access to the single market. Having our fishing grounds back would be nice but the EU can keep Scottish fishing grounds because Scotland wants to stay in the EU. The EU is worried that the clock is ticking because if no deal is done by March 2019 we leave the EU and pay nothing. The FT came up with the numbers, not the EU. I Think the EU want only what they think is a fair settlement. This idea of punishing Britain is a paranoid British construction. That's not to say the EU needs the UK as much as you seem to believe though.. It'll be a very one sided disaster story if no Deal is reached. The EU is getting stronger and more together. I wouldn't underestimate that.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 14, 2017 17:19:09 GMT
Seems almost guaranteed to me that we're going to see some form of extension agreement.
Two years was already an incredibly short timeframe to negotiate a divorce of this complexity, which has a dozen major issues at its center and literally thousands of minor ones at its periphery.
Now we've wasted the first three months, and Britain is still a shambles and not ready to begin negotiations. Hell, we're not even ready to begin negotiations about how to run the negotiations.
Reaching March 2019 with no deal - and here I mean literally no deal....no trade agreements, no transition arrangements, nothing.....would be a financial disaster for the EU, and even worse for Britain. Would be time to get ready for rampant inflation, job losses and super-austerity.
Don't think either side is ready for that, so I'm expecting a whole bunch of patches to be applied and some weird half in-half out hybrid, whilst negotiations continue until at least the end of this current parliament......
|
|
|
Post by bashamwonderland on Jun 14, 2017 18:08:07 GMT
Define "good deal". Hard Brexit please. I'd say a good deal would be to pay a fair amount less than what the EU demand in the settlement, some sort of access to the single market while having an element of control of EU immigration would constitute a good deal. Reckon that's likely? I'd agree, that would be a good deal. I think 'an element of control' would not be good enough though in terms of immigration. I think people want more control than that. It is likely if we get our house in order. I do think that May is preparing to backslide her way out of hard Brexit, though. Which may of course mean adopting some sort of awful hybrid Norwegian system. Removing ourselves completely would be better than becoming a satellite state.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 14, 2017 18:35:11 GMT
Seems almost guaranteed to me that we're going to see some form of extension agreement. Two years was already an incredibly short timeframe to negotiate a divorce of this complexity, which has a dozen major issues at its center and literally thousands of minor ones at its periphery. Now we've wasted the first three months, and Britain is still a shambles and not ready to begin negotiations. Hell, we're not even ready to begin negotiations about how to run the negotiations. Reaching March 2019 with no deal - and here I mean literally no deal....no trade agreements, no transition arrangements, nothing.....would be a financial disaster for the EU, and even worse for Britain. Would be time to get ready for rampant inflation, job losses and super-austerity. Don't think either side is ready for that, so I'm expecting a whole bunch of patches to be applied and some weird half in-half out hybrid, whilst negotiations continue until at least the end of this current parliament...... In theory I totally agree with you Tony, but the feeling I'm getting here (Saddly's gonna love this) is that the Germans are getting a bit bored with the state the UK us in. Cherry picking is their new favourite term. It would take a strong UK leader to stand up to what seems a pretty United EU in 21 months and demand extra time... It's much more likely to favour the Eu and force the UK into accepting less than they want IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by juniper on Jun 14, 2017 18:53:00 GMT
Ag, what is going to happen come March 2019 when we leave the EU and no financial settlement has been agreed? Perhaps you are better informed than me but I would assume the UK leaves the EU and stops paying its membership fee. Of course, discussions could continue at our leisure...
Tony W, I agree with you it would be a disaster for everybody if we leave in March 2019 with no agreements, which is why both sides should find an agreement. At the moment the EU probably does think it has the best hand in this poker game because so many people in the UK are still fighting Brexit. The EU is united because the 27 countries want our money. And as much money as they can get.
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jun 14, 2017 18:57:26 GMT
I'd say a good deal would be to pay a fair amount less than what the EU demand in the settlement, some sort of access to the single market while having an element of control of EU immigration would constitute a good deal. Reckon that's likely? I'd agree, that would be a good deal. I think 'an element of control' would not be good enough though in terms of immigration. I think people want more control than that. It is likely if we get our house in order. I do think that May is preparing to backslide her way out of hard Brexit, though. Which may of course mean adopting some sort of awful hybrid Norwegian system. Removing ourselves completely would be better than becoming a satellite state. No It wouldn't. You use weasel words like "backsliding" though it becomes increasingly clear the lengths the country was lied to and the costs to the country look likely to be immense. It's tru that their are a few who like you hate foreigners more than they love their country. My guess the majority of Britons would prefer jobs , rights at work and a decent income to a Faragist fantasy of "taking back control" which in fact means standing in the corner without any friends at the mercy of billionaries and Donald Trump.
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jun 14, 2017 18:59:46 GMT
Ag, what is going to happen come March 2019 when we leave the EU and no financial settlement has been agreed? Perhaps you are better informed than me but I would assume the UK leaves the EU and stops paying its membership fee. Of course, discussions could continue at our leisure... Tony W, I agree with you it would be a disaster for everybody if we leave in March 2019 with no agreements, which is why both sides should find an agreement. At the moment the EU probably does think it has the best hand in this poker game because so many people in the UK are still fighting Brexit. The EU is united because the 27 countries want our money. And as much money as they can get. best analysis i've seen recently is from Martin Wolf in the Financial times
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 14, 2017 19:38:52 GMT
It's almost like this Guy (sorry) cares more about British citizens than our own government. youtu.be/wUKXwdEuly0
|
|
|
Post by bashamwonderland on Jun 14, 2017 19:46:50 GMT
I'd agree, that would be a good deal. I think 'an element of control' would not be good enough though in terms of immigration. I think people want more control than that. It is likely if we get our house in order. I do think that May is preparing to backslide her way out of hard Brexit, though. Which may of course mean adopting some sort of awful hybrid Norwegian system. Removing ourselves completely would be better than becoming a satellite state. No It wouldn't. You use weasel words like "backsliding" though it becomes increasingly clear the lengths the country was lied to and the costs to the country look likely to be immense. It's tru that their are a few who like you hate foreigners more than they love their country. My guess the majority of Britons would prefer jobs , rights at work and a decent income to a Faragist fantasy of "taking back control" which in fact means standing in the corner without any friends at the mercy of billionaries and Donald Trump. If you just settled down and composed yourself you might be capable of making a lucid point, though still blighted by the usual ignorance of course.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 14, 2017 20:32:32 GMT
I disagree with Bash a lot, but I'm 100% sure he doesn't hate foreigners. Being personal doesn't get us anywhere. How about keeping the discussion free of personal insults?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 14, 2017 21:08:28 GMT
We can technically leave and pay nothing - a House of Lords committee looked into this very issue. And from the Grauniad for Flean and AG: www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords rather than the biased right wing media... However, there are commitments and investments (pensions, science funding, European Investment Bank, etc) that are within our interests to retain or continue to contribute to, I believe, hence the negotiations. WTO terms are more variable than the standard 10% that is reported - it largely depends on what is being traded. The EUs biggest issue is long term funding as more members take out than pay in, hence some of the wild figures they've put out there and why money is their most burning issue. The thought of cutting spending doesn't exist - why else would they move to Strasbourg so regularly from Brussels? They aren't so bothered about trade apparently. Just money in their bank. The likelihood is that we'll pay a little and the EU will give us a little, but for us it will be a lot less paid out than today. It's within the interests of both sides to be get a deal done. Which on the residency side, maddens me that the EU want to negotiate on it and not be adults and have got it sorted last year. So importantly, keeping Juncker far away is key. Leave the adults to do a deal that works than let a bitter technocratic politician get in the way.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 14, 2017 21:33:35 GMT
We can technically leave and pay nothing - a House of Lords committee looked into this very issue. And from the Grauniad for Flean and AG: www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords rather than the biased right wing media... However, there are commitments and investments (pensions, science funding, European Investment Bank, etc) that are within our interests to retain or continue to contribute to, I believe, hence the negotiations. WTO terms are more variable than the standard 10% that is reported - it largely depends on what is being traded. The EUs biggest issue is long term funding as more members take out than pay in, hence some of the wild figures they've put out there and why money is their most burning issue. The thought of cutting spending doesn't exist - why else would they move to Strasbourg so regularly from Brussels? They aren't so bothered about trade apparently. Just money in their bank. The likelihood is that we'll pay a little and the EU will give us a little, but for us it will be a lot less paid out than today. It's within the interests of both sides to be get a deal done. Which on the residency side, maddens me that the EU want to negotiate on it and not be adults and have got it sorted last year. So importantly, keeping Juncker far away is key. Leave the adults to do a deal that works than let a bitter technocratic politician get in the way. I'd keep Johnson, May and pretty much all of the Conservative party away from any negotiations too. The UK has a hell of a lot more to lose than the EU. It actually surprises me that people still think differently.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 14, 2017 21:44:55 GMT
We can technically leave and pay nothing - a House of Lords committee looked into this very issue. And from the Grauniad for Flean and AG: www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords rather than the biased right wing media... However, there are commitments and investments (pensions, science funding, European Investment Bank, etc) that are within our interests to retain or continue to contribute to, I believe, hence the negotiations. WTO terms are more variable than the standard 10% that is reported - it largely depends on what is being traded. The EUs biggest issue is long term funding as more members take out than pay in, hence some of the wild figures they've put out there and why money is their most burning issue. The thought of cutting spending doesn't exist - why else would they move to Strasbourg so regularly from Brussels? They aren't so bothered about trade apparently. Just money in their bank. The likelihood is that we'll pay a little and the EU will give us a little, but for us it will be a lot less paid out than today. It's within the interests of both sides to be get a deal done. Which on the residency side, maddens me that the EU want to negotiate on it and not be adults and have got it sorted last year. So importantly, keeping Juncker far away is key. Leave the adults to do a deal that works than let a bitter technocratic politician get in the way. I'd keep Johnson, May and pretty much all of the Conservative party away from any negotiations too. The UK has a hell of a lot more to lose than the EU. It actually surprises me that people still think differently. Actually, both sides do, for different reasons. If the EU cannot fund itself, it will fall apart, regardless of what deals may or may not be ddone. That part is elementary, Watson.
|
|
|
Post by helsinkiyellow on Jun 15, 2017 5:49:42 GMT
I'd keep Johnson, May and pretty much all of the Conservative party away from any negotiations too. The UK has a hell of a lot more to lose than the EU. It actually surprises me that people still think differently. Actually, both sides do, for different reasons. If the EU cannot fund itself, it will fall apart, regardless of what deals may or may not be ddone. That part is elementary, Watson. Germany expenditure on refugee crisis in 2016 = €20Bn. Impact on German economy: negligible. UK net contribution to EU in 2016 = €10Bn. IMO Germany itself could fund the UK's share of EU contributions quite easily! There is no question of the EU being unable to fund itself FFS. So why shouldn't Germany cough up? Well, lets say you and your pals decide to order a pizza delivery and put in an order. One of the group decides to leave just before the pizza arrives (he says something about getting a better deal from the Chinese), you'd expect him to still pay his share of the order, right? It's only fairplay. Hard to predict what the outcome on trade would be if/when UK leaves EU. I don't think there will be any winners. Closet example I can think of is when EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia following the Crimea crisis. Germany was the biggest looser there (Russian's love their fancy BMWs!) but (1) the EU went through with the action even though it would loose out economically (2) impact on Russia was/is FAR greater than that experienced in return by the EU countries.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 15, 2017 6:37:38 GMT
Actually, both sides do, for different reasons. If the EU cannot fund itself, it will fall apart, regardless of what deals may or may not be ddone. That part is elementary, Watson. Germany expenditure on refugee crisis in 2016 = €20M. Impact on German economy: negligible. UK net contribution to EU in 2016 = €10M. IMO Germany itself could fund the UK's share of EU contributions quite easily! There is no question of the EU being unable to fund itself FFS. So why shouldn't Germany cough up? Well, lets say you and your pals decide to order a pizza delivery and put in an order. One of the group decides to leave just before the pizza arrives (he says something about getting a better deal from the Chinese), you'd expect him to still pay his share of the order, right? It's only fairplay. Hard to predict what the outcome on trade would be if/when UK leaves EU. I don't think there will be any winners. Closet example I can think of is when EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia following the Crimea crisis. Germany was the biggest looser there (Russian's love their fancy BMWs!) but (1) the EU went through with the action even though it would loose out economically (2) impact on Russia was/is FAR greater than that experienced in return by the EU countries. Think you mean billion, but very good points. As I said earlier, the feeling here now is that most people have almost forgotten about the UK leaving. It's just a tedious issue that's hanging around. Pity (and a bit of schadenfreude) is the most common feeling.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 15, 2017 7:26:15 GMT
Actually, both sides do, for different reasons. If the EU cannot fund itself, it will fall apart, regardless of what deals may or may not be ddone. That part is elementary, Watson. Germany expenditure on refugee crisis in 2016 = €20Bn. Impact on German economy: negligible. UK net contribution to EU in 2016 = €10Bn. IMO Germany itself could fund the UK's share of EU contributions quite easily! There is no question of the EU being unable to fund itself FFS. So why shouldn't Germany cough up? Well, lets say you and your pals decide to order a pizza delivery and put in an order. One of the group decides to leave just before the pizza arrives (he says something about getting a better deal from the Chinese), you'd expect him to still pay his share of the order, right? It's only fairplay. Hard to predict what the outcome on trade would be if/when UK leaves EU. I don't think there will be any winners. Closet example I can think of is when EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia following the Crimea crisis. Germany was the biggest looser there (Russian's love their fancy BMWs!) but (1) the EU went through with the action even though it would loose out economically (2) impact on Russia was/is FAR greater than that experienced in return by the EU countries. Assuming massively that the Germany economy continues to be prosperous (if get hit with tariffs, it will be harder to trade) and they want to pay even more into the EU than they do today. But why would they? £30 billion would be an eye watering amount of money to pay. The focus on money by the EU suggests the Germans don't. Why would Germany altruistically take the strain when we leave? It makes no sense to make such an easy assumption. Whatever the assumptions, the constant talk about money by the EU is such as a massive key on what their priorities are for their long term funding - the Germans aren't the one throwing reported figures out there are they? The EU are worried. Simply put, the EU has been beholden to 3 nations to fund itself for years and one is leaving, leaving a funding gap. It's a bloody big, bloated and half eaten pizza when it arrives isn't it? Especially when the leaving party has already paid for a third of the pizzas for a long time, could be owed money and some other party goers have not paid much at all. The UK hasn't ordered a pizza and left before the bill arrived which is what you are getting at. We've met our obligations for years and happily so. If the EU was worried about trade, why are the making the divorce bill a priority? It's been a consistent message for the last year.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 15, 2017 7:39:48 GMT
Germany expenditure on refugee crisis in 2016 = €20Bn. Impact on German economy: negligible. UK net contribution to EU in 2016 = €10Bn. IMO Germany itself could fund the UK's share of EU contributions quite easily! There is no question of the EU being unable to fund itself FFS. So why shouldn't Germany cough up? Well, lets say you and your pals decide to order a pizza delivery and put in an order. One of the group decides to leave just before the pizza arrives (he says something about getting a better deal from the Chinese), you'd expect him to still pay his share of the order, right? It's only fairplay. Hard to predict what the outcome on trade would be if/when UK leaves EU. I don't think there will be any winners. Closet example I can think of is when EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia following the Crimea crisis. Germany was the biggest looser there (Russian's love their fancy BMWs!) but (1) the EU went through with the action even though it would loose out economically (2) impact on Russia was/is FAR greater than that experienced in return by the EU countries. Assuming massively that the Germany economy continues to be prosperous (if get hit with tariffs, it will be harder to trade) and they want to pay even more into the EU than they do today. But why would they? £30 billion would be an eye watering amount of money to pay. The focus on money by the EU suggests the Germans don't. Why would Germany altruistically take the strain when we leave? It makes no sense to make such an easy assumption. Whatever the assumptions, the constant talk about money by the EU is such as a massive key on what their priorities are for their long term funding - the Germans aren't the one throwing reported figures out there are they? The EU are worried. Simply put, the EU has been beholden to 3 nations to fund itself for years and one is leaving, leaving a funding gap. It's a bloody big, bloated and half eaten pizza when it arrives isn't it? Especially when the leaving party has already paid for a third of the pizzas for a long time, could be owed money and some other party goers have not paid much at all. The UK hasn't ordered a pizza and left before the bill arrived which is what you are getting at. We've met our obligations for years and happily so. If the EU was worried about trade, why are the making the divorce bill a priority? It's been a consistent message for the last year. Why was money such a massive part of the Leave campaign then? You're also forgetting the UK didn't even give half of what it should have. Frankfurt is preparing itself and licking it's lips at those lovely financial services readying themselves to move. It's looking like France will reform and become a heavyweight economy. What about the UK out of the single market? Do you really think it has the clout to get good deals elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 15, 2017 7:49:59 GMT
Assuming massively that the Germany economy continues to be prosperous (if get hit with tariffs, it will be harder to trade) and they want to pay even more into the EU than they do today. But why would they? £30 billion would be an eye watering amount of money to pay. The focus on money by the EU suggests the Germans don't. Why would Germany altruistically take the strain when we leave? It makes no sense to make such an easy assumption. Whatever the assumptions, the constant talk about money by the EU is such as a massive key on what their priorities are for their long term funding - the Germans aren't the one throwing reported figures out there are they? The EU are worried. Simply put, the EU has been beholden to 3 nations to fund itself for years and one is leaving, leaving a funding gap. It's a bloody big, bloated and half eaten pizza when it arrives isn't it? Especially when the leaving party has already paid for a third of the pizzas for a long time, could be owed money and some other party goers have not paid much at all. The UK hasn't ordered a pizza and left before the bill arrived which is what you are getting at. We've met our obligations for years and happily so. If the EU was worried about trade, why are the making the divorce bill a priority? It's been a consistent message for the last year. Why was money such a massive part of the Leave campaign then? You're also forgetting the UK didn't even give half of what it should have. Frankfurt is preparing itself and licking it's lips at those lovely financial services readying themselves to move. It's looking like France will reform and become a heavyweight economy. What about the UK out of the single market? Do you really think it has the clout to get good deals elsewhere? Because we have sent a lot of money to the EU and it has paid for projects in Serbia and at the same time we have had to go through austerity, cutting services to the bone. Each EU country will have given what was agreed with the EU funding formula Why has the UK not given half of what is should have and why haven't the EU gone to court about it? You sound bitter about the UK not paying enough. Do you have proof we've not paid 50% of what we should have? Of course we have the clout to get good deals. It will be a hard time for 5 or so years, but we will be able to trade globally!!! Sure, Frankfurt may get some HQs for EU based finance companies, but as of yet there is no lock, stock move of global finance companies.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Jun 15, 2017 8:11:24 GMT
Why was money such a massive part of the Leave campaign then? You're also forgetting the UK didn't even give half of what it should have. Frankfurt is preparing itself and licking it's lips at those lovely financial services readying themselves to move. It's looking like France will reform and become a heavyweight economy. What about the UK out of the single market? Do you really think it has the clout to get good deals elsewhere? Because we have sent a lot of money to the EU and it has paid for projects in Serbia and at the same time we have had to go through austerity, cutting services to the bone. Each EU country will have given what was agreed with the EU funding formula Why has the UK not given half of what is should have and why haven't the EU gone to court about it? You sound bitter about the UK not paying enough. Do you have proof we've not paid 50% of what we should have? Of course we have the clout to get good deals. It will be a hard time for 5 or so years, but we will be able to trade globally!!! Sure, Frankfurt may get some HQs for EU based finance companies, but as of yet there is no lock, stock move of global finance companies. I'm not bitter at all! Just highlighting that the UK has had a rebate for a long time and as such has not paid (66% of net contribution according to wikkioedia) of what it should have. Of course the UK will be able to trade globally, that's never in question, but under what conditions? What sort of deal will the UK get with India for example? It seems India will demand free movement of people. Isn't that what you didn't want?
|
|
|
Post by helsinkiyellow on Jun 15, 2017 9:25:23 GMT
Germany expenditure on refugee crisis in 2016 = €20Bn. Impact on German economy: negligible. UK net contribution to EU in 2016 = €10Bn. IMO Germany itself could fund the UK's share of EU contributions quite easily! There is no question of the EU being unable to fund itself FFS. So why shouldn't Germany cough up? Well, lets say you and your pals decide to order a pizza delivery and put in an order. One of the group decides to leave just before the pizza arrives (he says something about getting a better deal from the Chinese), you'd expect him to still pay his share of the order, right? It's only fairplay. Hard to predict what the outcome on trade would be if/when UK leaves EU. I don't think there will be any winners. Closet example I can think of is when EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia following the Crimea crisis. Germany was the biggest looser there (Russian's love their fancy BMWs!) but (1) the EU went through with the action even though it would loose out economically (2) impact on Russia was/is FAR greater than that experienced in return by the EU countries. Assuming massively that the Germany economy continues to be prosperous (if get hit with tariffs, it will be harder to trade) and they want to pay even more into the EU than they do today. But why would they? £30 billion would be an eye watering amount of money to pay. The focus on money by the EU suggests the Germans don't. Why would Germany altruistically take the strain when we leave? It makes no sense to make such an easy assumption. Whatever the assumptions, the constant talk about money by the EU is such as a massive key on what their priorities are for their long term funding - the Germans aren't the one throwing reported figures out there are they? The EU are worried. Simply put, the EU has been beholden to 3 nations to fund itself for years and one is leaving, leaving a funding gap. It's a bloody big, bloated and half eaten pizza when it arrives isn't it? Especially when the leaving party has already paid for a third of the pizzas for a long time, could be owed money and some other party goers have not paid much at all. The UK hasn't ordered a pizza and left before the bill arrived which is what you are getting at. We've met our obligations for years and happily so. If the EU was worried about trade, why are the making the divorce bill a priority? It's been a consistent message for the last year. The divorce bill is a priority to ensure that the UK coughs up what it agreed to pay! No business would enter into a new contract if previous deals had not been settled satisfactorily. The amount the UK has paid previously and how much this compares to other 'customers' is irrelevant. One can fully understand the EU's position after the rabid rhetoric spewing from the likes of as Farage, BoJo & Gove! Sadly, these charlatans don't have a clue about negotiation tactics and the UK already finds itself on the back-foot.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 15, 2017 21:02:29 GMT
Because we have sent a lot of money to the EU and it has paid for projects in Serbia and at the same time we have had to go through austerity, cutting services to the bone. Each EU country will have given what was agreed with the EU funding formula Why has the UK not given half of what is should have and why haven't the EU gone to court about it? You sound bitter about the UK not paying enough. Do you have proof we've not paid 50% of what we should have? Of course we have the clout to get good deals. It will be a hard time for 5 or so years, but we will be able to trade globally!!! Sure, Frankfurt may get some HQs for EU based finance companies, but as of yet there is no lock, stock move of global finance companies. I'm not bitter at all! Just highlighting that the UK has had a rebate for a long time and as such has not paid (66% of net contribution according to wikkioedia) of what it should have. Of course the UK will be able to trade globally, that's never in question, but under what conditions? What sort of deal will the UK get with India for example? It seems India will demand free movement of people. Isn't that what you didn't want? You've come across as very bitter and negative since Brexit. It's almost sad to see someone have such little optimism for anything than the warm teet of the EU. That is a very nice tangent you went on re the rebate. Everyone in the EU gets one don't they in one form or another? We'd have more if not for Blair giving it away when he was being all hard with the EU. It just proves what an arse about face organisation it is that you give them money for them to give you some back again. The conditions for trade are dependent on the country. For example, a deal with Canada will be very different deal to India that will be a different deal with Australia. It's impossible to say now what those sorts of deals will be. We may opt for a reciprocal trade deal with India or something deeper. Who knows, but we have so many opportunities to buy stuff like wheat at the fraction of the price than we do today. It will be hard, but the world is there for the taking in trade for the first time in a long, long time.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 15, 2017 21:08:48 GMT
Assuming massively that the Germany economy continues to be prosperous (if get hit with tariffs, it will be harder to trade) and they want to pay even more into the EU than they do today. But why would they? £30 billion would be an eye watering amount of money to pay. The focus on money by the EU suggests the Germans don't. Why would Germany altruistically take the strain when we leave? It makes no sense to make such an easy assumption. Whatever the assumptions, the constant talk about money by the EU is such as a massive key on what their priorities are for their long term funding - the Germans aren't the one throwing reported figures out there are they? The EU are worried. Simply put, the EU has been beholden to 3 nations to fund itself for years and one is leaving, leaving a funding gap. It's a bloody big, bloated and half eaten pizza when it arrives isn't it? Especially when the leaving party has already paid for a third of the pizzas for a long time, could be owed money and some other party goers have not paid much at all. The UK hasn't ordered a pizza and left before the bill arrived which is what you are getting at. We've met our obligations for years and happily so. If the EU was worried about trade, why are the making the divorce bill a priority? It's been a consistent message for the last year. The divorce bill is a priority to ensure that the UK coughs up what it agreed to pay! No business would enter into a new contract if previous deals had not been settled satisfactorily. The amount the UK has paid previously and how much this compares to other 'customers' is irrelevant. One can fully understand the EU's position after the rabid rhetoric spewing from the likes of as Farage, BoJo & Gove! Sadly, these charlatans don't have a clue about negotiation tactics and the UK already finds itself on the back-foot. There is no need for a divorce bill. We can pay sweet fa and walk away with no obligations. Don't let people mislead anyone that we are in for a mandatory divorce bill - we have investments in the EIB that we could use to pay off our obligations as an example. The fact a divorce bill is mentioned is enough to say that the EU want more money from the UK to tide themselves over while they try and work out how to fund themselves longer term. And the same applies to Junkcer and Selymayr. Their rhetoric is just embarrassing and far more destabilising than Farage who was absolutely never ever being a part of any negotiation team. - good tangent It's just as well that none of the 3 you mention will be negotiating for us. Jobs a good'un eh? Onwards and upwards away from the hegemony!!
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jun 16, 2017 5:10:37 GMT
meanwhile in the real world the UK is now below Greece (in fact below everyone) -in GDP growth.
|
|