[Politics] Brexit

[Eeyore]

To be fair, the two year 'limit' is of the EU's making - the cynic in me suggests it was enacted to deter countries from leaving or that the EU were arrogant enough to think nobody would ever want to leave.

You could be right although given the volume of administration, policy, and legislation required in this case it was never going to be enough.

Look, I'm no EU fan but my concern is of what serves our interests. I felt we should have stayed and fought within but respect the vote. I'm totally opposed to those who think we can still remain. I think, in fairness, most 'remainers' are of the same view.

But the exit has to ensure that the UK isn't disadvantaged. For me that means hanging around for longer than is palatable for some and it's going to cost. Even as a layman I could see what May couldn't- or was in denial over. No deal isn't better than a bad one- they are both unthinkable.

The BCCI wants an extra three years so it's clear that most of our international business is worried. I do feel that it will settle though and completion would be almost done by 2022. I also think that the markets will settle on this as well and lose some volatility over time. Personally, that makes me confident in the future.

I'm not against BREXIT- it's happening. But, for the sake of almost every area of our lives, I feel as though it's best to accept that it's a way off.

I think May has, almost, called this right (we await details). The EU, I believe, want us to fail. They want the whole thing to fail. There are too many political careers at stake. I'm a bit more confident that it might not now. We'll see.

 

[pastafarian]

Yes. Similar to our negotiating hand that we have but keep refusing to reveal. If you believe the Tory line that the EU have simply demanded 100bn with no breakdown at all, you're even more deluded than we thought.

The EU only released its opening stance on the methodology for the calculation of the bill back in may. Since then both sides have been negotiating for common ground on a legal basis and a common methodology for its calculation. Yet according to your conspiracy theory all this is just smoke and mirrors negotiations because the reality is we already have the detailed bill and its just being hidden from the public.
Righto.



100bn was from a FT calculation, it wasn’t a EU demand.

 

[Blue3]

I have an idea how about we split the Uk give half to the Brexit supporters and the other half for the Remainers and then as India and Pakistan did have partition hopefully with no violence say two months to chose then a week to move, shut the boarders between the two remainers can get on with life while the others can go off and negotiate with who ever they like,

would imagine this situation to only last a few years with most Brexit supporters are beyond child bearing age so in 20 years most will have passed on and the country can reunite.

A second idea I had was have a referendum but this time exclude everyone who is over the age of retirement as why should they have a vote to just spite those left to live with the decision instead of just leaving the future of the U.K. to those that will actually be here to inherit the mess they created before tottering off.

On question time this week the number of silver haired individuals talking in favour of Brexit compared to younger people against it was quite telling

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes. Similar to our negotiating hand that we have but keep refusing to reveal. If you believe the Tory line that the EU have simply demanded 100bn with no breakdown at all, you're even more deluded than we thought.

could you link to the EU's bill and breakdown please?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You seem to know a lot. What should it be?

It should be a carefully calculated figure of what we've committed to up to the end of the current EU budget but with credits for assets we own a share in. Feel free to point me towards where this balance sheet has been published ? There's only one reason the EU hasn't published it publically ( and that's assuming they have even given it to the UK government ) and that's because they want to blackmail us into a higher figure than we owe.

 

[ManOfSussex]

But we weren't supposed to pay The EU anything and were giving £350m a week to The NHS instead once we got our country back from the clutches of those pesky johnny foreigners. Have we been lied to by self interested, narcissistic, arrogant public school numpties yet again?

 

[beorhthelm]

It should be a carefully calculated figure of what we've committed to up to the end of the current EU budget but with credits for assets we own a share in. Feel free to point me towards where this balance sheet has been published ? There's only one reason the EU hasn't published it publically ( and that's assuming they have even given it to the UK government ) and that's because they want to blackmail us into a higher figure than we owe.

a pragmatic view would be they dont publish the amount because they dont want it to be inspected. an more cynical view would be they dont want the discussion to move forward, burn more time.

i think its because they dont actually know themselves.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But we weren't supposed to pay The EU anything and were giving £350m a week to The NHS instead once we got our country back from the clutches of those pesky johnny foreigners. Have we been lied to by self interested, narcissistic, arrogant public school numpties yet again?

Absolutely no where from anyone during the referendum campaign or from the government after has categorically said we would pay nothing. It's always been we will pay our commitments.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Absolutely no where from anyone during the referendum campaign or from the government after has categorically said we would pay nothing. It's always been we will pay our commitments.

Okay, thanks for clearing that one up.

I'm still a bit worried though - With this expensive transitional deal that nobody voted for, it might well now delay us signing up to all the free trade deals that the rest of the world are queuing up to sign with us and coupled with the fact that £350m a week is coming to The NHS, as Boris Johnson reaffirmed last week, Dr. Liam Fox might be tempted to go back to general practice leaving The Department for International Trade in the hands of an incompetent buffoon replacement who doesn't know what they're doing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It should be a carefully calculated figure of what we've committed to up to the end of the current EU budget but with credits for assets we own a share in. Feel free to point me towards where this balance sheet has been published ? There's only one reason the EU hasn't published it publically ( and that's assuming they have even given it to the UK government ) and that's because they want to blackmail us into a higher figure than we owe.

I think you've got this all wrong. I've read the pronouncements from various cabinet ministers and "they need us more than we need them." and "we can have our cake and eat it" due to having them over a barrel with our huge Prosecco and BMW purchase. It will "the easiest deal known to man kind" so the EU can "whistle for their money". Remember, May can be "bloody difficult" if she needs to be. And the UK can walk out of these talks any minute they choose.

So how on earth the EU are in any position to black mail anyone is beyond me.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I see, so the EU has issued a detailed Bill, a balance sheet of assets verses obligations after input from hundreds of bureaucrats and numerous departments and decided not to make it known to anyone they had composed it or given it to us. The Gov has decided to keep this all to themselves as well and no one has leaked its existence from here or Europe.
But you know this bill exists.
Must be fun in your head sometimes.

We know this detailed bill exists because David Davies said so, and his lawyers are going over it line by line.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

a pragmatic view would be they dont publish the amount because they dont want it to be inspected. an more cynical view would be they dont want the discussion to move forward, burn more time.

i think its because they dont actually know themselves.

Maybe it's "constructive ambiguity"?

 

[Hampster Gull]

We know this detailed bill exists because David Davies said so, and his lawyer are going over it line by line.

And we were told we have the best lawyers so it's only a matter of time before they come out with their killer line which means we pay nothing. Or perhaps not, which is why this country is rolling over again in this negotiation.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

"EU migrants would still be able to live and work in the UK but they would have to register with the authorities, under May's proposals."

I've said before I find it really bizarre this has never been in place before.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think you've got this all wrong. I've read the pronouncements from various cabinet ministers and "they need us more than we need them." and "we can have our cake and eat it" due to having them over a barrel with our huge Prosecco and BMW purchase. It will "the easiest deal known to man kind" so the EU can "whistle for their money". Remember, May can be "bloody difficult" if she needs to be. And the UK can walk out of these talks any minute they choose.

So how on earth the EU are in any position to black mail anyone is beyond me.

Feel free to show me the balance sheet. Barnier keeps ranting on about the 'divorce bill' being one of the three key items to be resolved before we can start trade talks but fails to provide even a figure let alone a detailed breakdown. Personally, if I were the UK government, I'd give him a deadline to provide the figure and breakdown and if he doesn't then stuff them - we walk away and they get nothing.

This isn't difficult, it's pure accountancy, not politics ( unlike the other two sticking points ). Both sides should state a figure with their workings out and then negotiate from there. But let's be honest, the EU doesn't like the fact that one of it's key funders is walking away and the EU are now behaving like a six year old having a tantrum. They need a good old fashioned clip round the ear.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Feel free to show me the balance sheet. Barnier keeps ranting on about the 'divorce bill' being one of the three key items to be resolved before we can start trade talks but fails to provide even a figure let alone a detailed breakdown. Personally, if I were the UK government, I'd give him a deadline to provide the figure and breakdown and if he doesn't then stuff them - we walk away and they get nothing.

This isn't difficult, it's pure accountancy, not politics ( unlike the other two sticking points ). Both sides should state a figure with their workings out and then negotiate from there. But let's be honest, the EU doesn't like the fact that one of it's key funders is walking away and the EU are now behaving like a six year old having a tantrum. They need a good old fashioned clip round the ear.

Give him a deadline and clip round the ear then. What's stopping you?

 

[Baldseagull]

Feel free to show me the balance sheet. Barnier keeps ranting on about the 'divorce bill' being one of the three key items to be resolved before we can start trade talks but fails to provide even a figure let alone a detailed breakdown. Personally, if I were the UK government, I'd give him a deadline to provide the figure and breakdown and if he doesn't then stuff them - we walk away and they get nothing.

This isn't difficult, it's pure accountancy, not politics ( unlike the other two sticking points ). Both sides should state a figure with their workings out and then negotiate from there. But let's be honest, the EU doesn't like the fact that one of it's key funders is walking away and the EU are now behaving like a six year old having a tantrum. They need a good old fashioned clip round the ear.

It is accountancy, but rather complicated accountancy. Is it right that we own 1/28th of EU property, or do we own more than that, as we have paid far more in contributions than most other states? If we own more than 1/28th of EU assets, do we also bear more than 1/28th of EU liabilities?
Once that is decided we also need to look at the years of membership for us and for others, the numbers of employees drawing pensions from those years, from when there were less members, and the future pensions of current employees, especially those working in agencies we wish to continue participation in. It is not a simple thing.

 

[pastafarian]

We know this detailed bill exists because David Davies said so, and his lawyers are going over it line by line.

There is not a detailed bill with a breakdown of all costs that is being hidden from the public as is being claimed. The EU have not submitted an official figure, neither have we. Neither side is going to want to do this until both sides agree not only a methodology but also a legal interpretation of the methodology.
There is an outline “bill” (used loosely) from the EU that is a methodology where if you crunched some numbers you could arrive at a rough indication, but since areas like our proportion of EU assets is not settled as also our liabilities, any figures are still subject to negotiation and wide interpretation. The bill also has no detailed figures as there are different scenarios, assumptions and legal interpretations of minimal or maximum obligations against minimal or maximum receipts.
Davis army of lawyers who he says are going over this “bill” line by line, are not going over detailed figures but more the mechanism of how figures can be arrived at and their legality.
Barnier doesn’t fart without a press release and a position paper. If the EU had issued a detailed bill, with a breakdown balance of all costed figures, we would all know.

 

[Ernest]

Absolutely no where from anyone during the referendum campaign or from the government after has categorically said we would pay nothing. It's always been we will pay our commitments.

So Boris saying they could go whistle meant what

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So Boris saying they could go whistle meant what

It was a response to the 100Bn Euro figure - something completely made up by the EU. So yes, for that figure, they can go an whistle. Of course taking a quote out of context somewhat makes your argument pointless.