[Politics] The General Election Thread

[whitelion]

So, out of interest, what is it that you have learnt between 2016 and now that changed your mind?

Where do I start?

Initially it was the negotiations.

 

[beorhthelm]

Will Boris & Dominic get arrested before the election, now the Met police have passed the criminal file of VoteLeave to the CPS?

doubt Johnson was ever involved in admin of the campaign. Cummings on the other hand might be concerned.

 

[BadFish]

They certainly do. They support terrorists and have an Idol in Lenin, probably Mao and support that terrible scurge, socialism. That harbinger of death, persecution and poverty. Corbyn voted continuously against the European Union. Now what is he saying? Liars, miscreants and definitley residivist communists.

One of the main problems with politics embodied in one post.

Unsubstantiated claptrap used to formulate an opinion and vote. One for Murdoch et al.

Very sad.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

If the conservatives win a majority we are all ****ed. Well, apart from the rich ***** that vote for them.

...... and the poor ***** that vote for them?

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

I think its optimistic to think the bill would have passed. The amendments would have been such that it would have needed to go back to the EU to re negotiate the new position.

Is this not the political process working effectively?

Flipping the board and starting again hoping for a more agreeable set up seems of to me.

But this is coming from the bloke who lied to the queen to try and subvert the political process.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

 

[WATFORD zero]

Where do I start?

Initially it was the negotiations.

What was it that you expected to happen in the negotiations that didn't?

 

[whitelion]

What did you expect to happen in the negotiations that didn't?

The expectation bar wasn't set very high but we never even reached the bar.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The expectation bar wasn't set very high but we never even reached the bar.

Sorry, but that's not actually an answer, so to repeat, what was it that you expected to happen that didn't?

 

[whitelion]

Sorry, but that's not really an answer, so to repeat, what was it that you expected to happen that didn't?

The valuation of capital assets of the EU to which the UK has contributed was discounted. The assets being solely owned by the EU and not the member states. I would have thought that the UK's share of the current value of the assets would have offset the final payments to the EU.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The valuation of capital assets of the EU to which the UK has contributed was discounted. The assets being solely owned by the EU and not the member states. I would have thought that the UK's share of the current value of the assets would have offset the final payments to the EU.

But the UK were always going to have to pay what we had already committed to for our current obligations and benefits up to 2020.

Despite the leave campaign claiming they wouldn't pay this, it was always known that this was Britain's commitment.

I'm struggling to understand why that would be a basis as to why you would change your mind from Remain to Leave?

 

[whitelion]

But the UK were always going to have to pay what we had already committed to for our current obligations and benefits. I'm struggling to understand why that would be a basis as to why you would change your mind from Remain to Leave?

EU assets

70.The EU has a range of assets. They total €153.7 billion, and include property, equipment, loans and investments, and cash and other fungible assets. The biggest elements of the EU’s assets are loans (37%) pre-financing and other advances to Member States held in anticipation of issuing payments under the MFF (32%), and cash and equivalents (14%).80*Any agreement on apportioning assets would need to take account of their varied composition.

71.An article co-authored for Bruegel by Dr Darvas, attempts to account for the divisibility of the EU’s assets. The article states that €41 billion of balance sheet assets constitute ‘accumulated wealth’, which could potentially be apportioned, including cash (€21.7 billion), property (€8.7 billion), available-for-sale financial assets (€9.6 billion), and other assets (€1 billion).81*Dividing financial assets is largely an accounting exercise, which may make it potentially easier for the UK to include asset offsets in any negotiations over payments. The CER report, however, envisages only the property, and an expanded category of assets available for sale (€13.6 billion), being divisible.82

72.In the case of financial assets, contingent liabilities—primarily in the form of loans, which amount to €57 billion83—are particularly problematic, in that they are counted on the EU’s balance sheet as assets, but are also potential liabilities. As the Bruegel article notes, such loans do not constitute ‘net wealth’, because they are matched by EU borrowing.84*Nonetheless, the CER report comments that the UK may be asked to provide some kind of capital backstop in relation to its budget share, in anticipation of eventual (but not guaranteed) returns. It considers that this scenario “is perhaps the most implausible, but may nonetheless be the Commission’s starting point in talks”.85*The Bruegel article argues that if EU borrowing is considered a liability that should be apportioned, then the corresponding loans should be considered an asset.

73.The Bruegel article notes that pre-financing (€45 billion) is likewise not a divisible asset, but argues that it should be considered in any negotiations over offsetting.86*In the case of pre-financed projects, commitments are already matched by payments and are therefore not included in the RAL. Pre-financing is considered an asset, as a proportion of it will be returned if unused. The UK has, by definition, already provided the required resources for its share of pre-financed commitments. Therefore, if it were divided on an equivalent basis “EU pre-financing would offset a small part of the UK’s share of future commitments.”87

74.Only 6% of the EU’s assets are held as property. These property assets are recorded at historic cost value, minus accumulated depreciation (with the exception of land and artworks, which are deemed to have an indefinite useful life).88*As a result, the current market value of the EU’s property holdings is probably significantly larger than their book value.

75.There was some disagreement among our witnesses about what proportion of property was owned or rented: Mr Ashworth stated that “the assets in terms of buildings in Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg are worth €9 billion. The policy is to own those buildings”.89*By contrast, Dr María-Luisa Sánchez-Barrueco, Senior Lecturer in EU Law at the Deusto Law School, University of Deusto in Bilbao, Spain, said that most buildings were rented or leased, and the recent trend was towards purchasing institutional buildings through emphyteusis (a lease with an option to purchase).90Jonathan Arnott MEP, a member of the European Parliament’s Budget and Budgetary Control Committees, noted that while EU assets had been “described in the tabloid press under headlines such as ‘Give us wine, art and property’”,91*in reality these formed a relatively small proportion of the total.

76.Our witnesses were split on the question of whether, or how, such assets might be divided. For accounting purposes, assets and liabilities are considered together. In this vein, Ms Grässle’s calculations net the UK’s potential share of EU assets against its share of EU liabilities in suggesting a possible contribution. These calculations fully incorporate the EU’s balance sheet assets (€153.7 billion), regardless of their composition.

77.On a political level, some witnesses felt that assets should be considered as part of any settlement. Dr Darvas stated:

“Since the UK paid in for more than 40 years and the UK was a net payer to the European Union budget, I expect that some of these assets will be [apportioned]. The big question is what the guiding principle should be”.92

He argued that the UK differed from net recipient states, such as Greece, which would not “have the same claim”, and concluded that a potential UK share of assets could be higher than 12%.

78.On the other side of the argument, Dr Sánchez-Barrueco commented that “no additional contribution was requested from the UK to cover a share of the assets already owned by the European Union”.93*In other words, at no point did the UK (or any other acceding Member State) explicitly ‘buy into’ the assets of the EU. The corollary of this point, she stated, was that “no acceding member so far has benefited from a reduction in its budget contribution”, to take account of accrued liabilities such as pension costs.94

79.Jonathan Arnott MEP ultimately concluded that invoking a UK claim on the EU’s assets might be futile, if not counterproductive. He observed that the EU’s liabilities totalled €226 billion, significantly more than the sum of its assets. Therefore, any initial attempt to claim assets could undermine the UK’s attempt to minimise or obviate liabilities. Nonetheless, he believed that it could be a valid strategy, if the EU were to ask the UK take on a share of EU liabilities: “The first thing that we would mention in a response is the assets, I would hope.”95

80.The UK may or may*not have a claim against EU assets. However, the EU’s assets are less than its liabilities, and therefore are*likely only to come into play in the event thatthe UK is willing to accept responsibility for contributing tothe budget post-Brexit. The EU’s assets total*€154*billion: the theoretical maximum the UK could claim would be€23.1 billion, using 15% as the relevant ‘share’. This shareis likely to be hotly contested by the EU.

 

[whitelion]

But the UK were always going to have to pay what we had already committed to for our current obligations and benefits.

Despite what the leave campaign claimed this was always known.

I'm struggling to understand why that would be a basis as to why you would change your mind from Remain to Leave?

Well you'll just have to carry on struggling.

I was a very marginal remainer. I wasn't even going to take up my vote. I did and on balance voted remain. Having seen how the negotiations progressed (or not as the case maybe) I have sided with the Brexit argument.

Tbh I really don't care one way or the other.

 

[WATFORD zero]

EU assets

70.The EU has a range of assets. They total €153.7 billion, and include property, equipment, loans and investments, and cash and other fungible assets. The biggest elements of the EU’s assets are loans (37%) pre-financing and other advances to Member States held in anticipation of issuing payments under the MFF (32%), and cash and equivalents (14%).80*Any agreement on apportioning assets would need to take account of their varied composition.

71.An article co-authored for Bruegel by Dr Darvas, attempts to account for the divisibility of the EU’s assets. The article states that €41 billion of balance sheet assets constitute ‘accumulated wealth’, which could potentially be apportioned, including cash (€21.7 billion), property (€8.7 billion), available-for-sale financial assets (€9.6 billion), and other assets (€1 billion).81*Dividing financial assets is largely an accounting exercise, which may make it potentially easier for the UK to include asset offsets in any negotiations over payments. The CER report, however, envisages only the property, and an expanded category of assets available for sale (€13.6 billion), being divisible.82

72.In the case of financial assets, contingent liabilities—primarily in the form of loans, which amount to €57 billion83—are particularly problematic, in that they are counted on the EU’s balance sheet as assets, but are also potential liabilities. As the Bruegel article notes, such loans do not constitute ‘net wealth’, because they are matched by EU borrowing.84*Nonetheless, the CER report comments that the UK may be asked to provide some kind of capital backstop in relation to its budget share, in anticipation of eventual (but not guaranteed) returns. It considers that this scenario “is perhaps the most implausible, but may nonetheless be the Commission’s starting point in talks”.85*The Bruegel article argues that if EU borrowing is considered a liability that should be apportioned, then the corresponding loans should be considered an asset.

73.The Bruegel article notes that pre-financing (€45 billion) is likewise not a divisible asset, but argues that it should be considered in any negotiations over offsetting.86*In the case of pre-financed projects, commitments are already matched by payments and are therefore not included in the RAL. Pre-financing is considered an asset, as a proportion of it will be returned if unused. The UK has, by definition, already provided the required resources for its share of pre-financed commitments. Therefore, if it were divided on an equivalent basis “EU pre-financing would offset a small part of the UK’s share of future commitments.”87

74.Only 6% of the EU’s assets are held as property. These property assets are recorded at historic cost value, minus accumulated depreciation (with the exception of land and artworks, which are deemed to have an indefinite useful life).88*As a result, the current market value of the EU’s property holdings is probably significantly larger than their book value.

75.There was some disagreement among our witnesses about what proportion of property was owned or rented: Mr Ashworth stated that “the assets in terms of buildings in Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg are worth €9 billion. The policy is to own those buildings”.89*By contrast, Dr María-Luisa Sánchez-Barrueco, Senior Lecturer in EU Law at the Deusto Law School, University of Deusto in Bilbao, Spain, said that most buildings were rented or leased, and the recent trend was towards purchasing institutional buildings through emphyteusis (a lease with an option to purchase).90Jonathan Arnott MEP, a member of the European Parliament’s Budget and Budgetary Control Committees, noted that while EU assets had been “described in the tabloid press under headlines such as ‘Give us wine, art and property’”,91*in reality these formed a relatively small proportion of the total.

76.Our witnesses were split on the question of whether, or how, such assets might be divided. For accounting purposes, assets and liabilities are considered together. In this vein, Ms Grässle’s calculations net the UK’s potential share of EU assets against its share of EU liabilities in suggesting a possible contribution. These calculations fully incorporate the EU’s balance sheet assets (€153.7 billion), regardless of their composition.

77.On a political level, some witnesses felt that assets should be considered as part of any settlement. Dr Darvas stated:

“Since the UK paid in for more than 40 years and the UK was a net payer to the European Union budget, I expect that some of these assets will be [apportioned]. The big question is what the guiding principle should be”.92

He argued that the UK differed from net recipient states, such as Greece, which would not “have the same claim”, and concluded that a potential UK share of assets could be higher than 12%.

78.On the other side of the argument, Dr Sánchez-Barrueco commented that “no additional contribution was requested from the UK to cover a share of the assets already owned by the European Union”.93*In other words, at no point did the UK (or any other acceding Member State) explicitly ‘buy into’ the assets of the EU. The corollary of this point, she stated, was that “no acceding member so far has benefited from a reduction in its budget contribution”, to take account of accrued liabilities such as pension costs.94

79.Jonathan Arnott MEP ultimately concluded that invoking a UK claim on the EU’s assets might be futile, if not counterproductive. He observed that the EU’s liabilities totalled €226 billion, significantly more than the sum of its assets. Therefore, any initial attempt to claim assets could undermine the UK’s attempt to minimise or obviate liabilities. Nonetheless, he believed that it could be a valid strategy, if the EU were to ask the UK take on a share of EU liabilities: “The first thing that we would mention in a response is the assets, I would hope.”95

80.The UK may or may*not have a claim against EU assets. However, the EU’s assets are less than its liabilities, and therefore are*likely only to come into play in the event thatthe UK is willing to accept responsibility for contributing tothe budget post-Brexit. The EU’s assets total*€154*billion: the theoretical maximum the UK could claim would be€23.1 billion, using 15% as the relevant ‘share’. This shareis likely to be hotly contested by the EU.

So because you don't agree with the figure that has been agreed to be paid to cover our commitments and trade benefits to the end of 2020, you now think we should leave the EU, even though you did think we should remain and not even go into negotiations on any leaving figure

I'm sorry but I can't really am struggling to understand the logic.

 

[Two Professors]

What utter utter nonsense, Momentum are focussing on marginal seats and will be campaigning all day tomorrow in Worthing and Hastings.

Missing the football?What enormous sacrifices these dedicated fans make.

 

[Two Professors]

So because you don't agree with the figure that has been agreed to be paid to cover our commitments and trade benefits to the end of 2020, you now think we should leave the EU, even though you did think we should remain and not even go into negotiations on any leaving figure

I'm sorry but I can't really am struggling to understand the logic.

No change there then!

 

[BadFish]

No change there then!

This comment is almost as ironic as your username.

 

[whitelion]

So because you don't agree with the figure that has been agreed to be paid to cover our commitments and trade benefits to the end of 2020, you now think we should leave the EU, even though you did think we should remain and not even go into negotiations on any leaving figure

I'm sorry but I can't really am struggling to understand the logic.

Well I'm afraid I can't help you anymore with your ability to understand my logic.

Perhaps you need some professional help.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Well I'm afraid I can't help you anymore with your ability to understand my logic.

Perhaps you need some professional help.

Ironically, my whole professional career was based around understanding logic

On to the egg chasing warm up to the main event this afternoon

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Bet Boris is gutted he won't get to prance around with the rugby World Cup winners and bask in their feelgood - ness

 

[GT49er]

Bet Boris is gutted he won't get to prance around with the rugby World Cup winners and bask in their feelgood - ness

One chore less for him to bother about.