Webbo Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: For example, on EU pensions. They've accrued whilst we're a member so we will need to pay towards them for decades to come. But should we pay pension accrued to the day we leave or to the end of the budget that we agreed? If we try and argue we shouldn't pay for some reason what about British MEPs? What if pension regulations change before pensions are payable - how will we deal with a change in EU regulations once we've left even though it affects ongoing payments? There are probably another 500 questions to be discussed just on that one issue. There will be a wealth of law, moral judgements and plain conundrums to deal with. It will not be simple. They've set out their position. We need to set out ours. What about the EU's assets built up while we were members? The property, the investments? By your argument it's only fair they agree what they owe us?
Guest Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 4 minutes ago, davieG said: Well if they know how it should be calculated they should be able to put a figure to that. 18 minutes ago, toddybad said: They probably did know the figure they think but putting the figures into the public domain causes all sorts of bickering about how much when actually, fundamentally, the value is irrelevant as it has to be agreed in principal based on the legal (and moral) justifications.
Fox Ulike Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 35 minutes ago, Webbo said: If they're not that bothered they can waive the money they reckon we owe. Seeing as the EU don't want to to tell us what we owe perhaps you could ? And while we're at it can you say how much of our share of the EU's assets amount to? They want us to honour our current financial commitments. They want us to pay what we agreed to pay. You don't know how much that is. The Government and the EU don't know how much that is. But for some reason I should?? 22 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'm self employed, when I finish decorating someone's lounge they say to me "what do I owe you". I don't reply "how much do you think?". If they've got a figure in mind then why won't they tell us? Pretending that that's normal and we're being awkward is totally disingenuous. Well you should come and decorate my house. When you've finished the job I'll say to you: "I'm moving out in a month, so presumably I no longer have to pay you everything that I said I'd pay you." 1
Guest Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 Just now, Webbo said: What about the EU's assets built up while we were members? The property, the investments? By your argument it's only fair they agree what they owe us? Absolutely, that will all need to be taken into account. But we kinda need to tell them what we believe we owe and are owed or we aren't going to be getting anywhere.
Webbo Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: They want us to honour our current financial commitments. They want us to pay what we agreed to pay. You don't know how much that is. The Government and the EU don't know how much that is. But for some reason I should?? Well you should come and decorate my house. When you've finished the job I'll say to you: "I'm moving out in a month, so presumably I no longer have to pay you everything that I said I'd pay you." Seeing as your a remainer you can pay me for what I've done and pay me the same again every year after.
Fox Ulike Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: Seeing as your a remainer you can pay me for what I've done and pay me the same again every year after. Seeing as your a leaver I'll pay you in 'red, white and blue' money. I'm sure you'll be satisfied with that.
Webbo Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 Just now, Fox Ulike said: Seeing as your a leaver I'll pay you in 'red, white and blue' money. I'm sure you'll be satisfied with that. Normal green is just fine.
Guest Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: Seeing as your a remainer you can pay me for what I've done and pay me the same again every year after. I don't think you understand what the EU is about do you Webbo? How about he pays you every year and in return you do up his house every year, become close friends, let each other crash over if you've been to the pub near his house, develop new painting technologies together, lend each other bit and pieces that you need, work together to figure out how to make both your homes more secure, and both make a lot more money than you did before? But oh no, you don't get to decide on the colour of your new security fencing without his agreement so sod all that. Edited 13 October 2017 by Guest
Fox Ulike Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Normal green is just fine. OK OK. You win. I'll pay you 52% of it - which is an overwhelming majority and which nobody could possibly argue with.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 (edited) A fair reflection on where negotiations really are from Pieter Cleppe, the head of Open Europe in Brussels. As level and as fair a piece as you are going to get, with neither the brash optimism of the Express nor the incessant doom-mongering of the Guardian. I'm glad someone has managed to pick up on the change of Barnier's tone, shame our media seem to fail to actually analyse these things. Quote After this week’s round of Brexit negotiations, a lot of the attention went to EU negotiator Michel Barnier’s claim that there still was “deadlock” over the so-called divorce bill, and that talks about the UK’s trade status after March 2019 couldn’t start until that deadlock had been broken. EU Council President Donald Tusk has already suggested that would only happen in December at the earliest. Barnier initially had this timing in mind when he planned to require full agreement on the UK’s divorce before there could be any talk of the future relationship. In the final version of Barnier’s so-called “guidelines” from his masters in the 27 EU member states, however, only “sufficient progress”, a political concept, was required. It seems the roles have been reversed and now it’s actually Barnier trying to convince member states to grant a concession to the UK while some of them resist. France, Germany and Romania are mentioned by The Times as the trouble makers. We don’t know whether Barnier is only pretending to play the good cop here. Although apparently Theresa May had been “taking dictation” from the EU for her Florence speech, so it could make sense that he promised May something in return. That would then not be a concession to start “trade talks” but merely “exploratory trade talks”. It’s also less than clear what France, Germany and Romania are trying to achieve. The EU is afteran agreement on how the financial settlement will be calculated, not after a precise figure. Germany reportedly wants the UK’s promises on financial settlement “in writing”. Moreover, it wants to have a new discussion on the mandate Barnier would get to negotiate the so-called “transition period” which Theresa May requested in her Florence speech and whereby the UK would keep access to the EU’s single market after March 2019. France on the other hand would be “slowing down the timetable behind the scenes” while at the same time “take more conciliatory lines in private because of the importance of Calais’ trading links to the country’s economy”. In any case, it looks like it’s not just the UK government that has been dragging its feet in the negotiations. Perhaps Germany and France think that delaying a deal on money will somehow force Britain to pay more. That would be a risky bet. Linking money discussion with trade would on the other hand allow the EU side to “sell” trade access. People are getting nervous about this in Brussels. The EU’s powerful farming lobby is already warning about the Brexit hole endangering current EU agricultural policies, including huge subsidy payments to agricultural landowners. Britain would probably do a service to the EU27 taxpayer by not funding the EU budget so lavishly, given that any Brexit hole may focus minds in mainland Europe about the troublesome state of that spending. At next week’s EU Summit, EU27 leaders are due to decide whether to move to trade talks. This week, a senior EU diplomat told Reuters that EU leaders don’t want to weaken Theresa May. Indeed, if she were to be replaced by a hardline Brexiteer Prime Minister, things would get more complicated for the EU27. More fundamentally, there is no reason to despair. There was always going to be walkouts and drama during these negotiations and, after all, despite his rather gloomy tone, Barnier also said that after the Florence speech, there was “new momentum” in the talks. The Financial Timesnotes that despite the “standstill”, the EU side is actually “considering beginning work between the EU27 to “scope” transition terms — or start preparing their positions on the issue — before approving talks in December or later”. Slowly, the doubtful partner in these negotiations is turning out to be the EU. Sure, the UK government is haggling about the money, but EU27 leaders always knew that was going to happen, which is why they decided to only request “material progress” instead of a full agreement in order to move to trade talks. When it comes to citizens, the EU is refusing to grant UK citizens free movement within the EU – despite asking the status quo for EU citizens in the UK, something that Britain is happy to grant, apart from some very specific rights related to family reunification. The EU is also still sticking to its odd demand for the UK to accept ECJ rule despite the fact it doesn’t have a judge in the ECJ, although some compromise on that is getting nearer, according to David Davis. Interestingly, senior diplomats apparently don’t see the Irish question, which is the third element related to the “divorce stage”, as an obstacle to making “sufficient progress”. When it comes to the transitional period, the UK probably has provided more clarity than the EU by now on what it wants. First of all, there’s the UK government proposal to join a temporary common customs union with the EU right after it has exited the EU and therefore also its customs union in March 2019. It hasn’t got the attention it deserves, but this solution would sort out the Northern Irish border question at least for the transition, as the UK’s tariffs would match Ireland’s. This would result in Britain to become similar to Turkey during the transition. Britain would effectively outsource much of its trade policy to Brussels. What’s not to like about this for the eurocrats? The only thing the UK is demanding is that it is free to negotiate trade deals, which would then come into force the moment the UK leaves that common customs union. That would then also be when it has adapted its customs systems and has agreed technical solutions to achieve minimal disruption at the Northern Irish border. The EU hasn’t properly reacted to that, and oddly, Ireland even demanded such a solution in September, after Britain had already suggested it – although Ireland said this should be a permanent and not a temporary arrangement. Secondly, the UK has even made a lot of progress on the question whether it is willing to accept the EU offer to keep full EU market access after Brexit it would need to take over all EU regulation and accept supervision by the European Court of Justice and the European Commission. This week, Theresa May declared that the UK may “start off with the ECJ governing the rules that we are part of” during the transition and that during this “strictly time-limited period” the UK will have left the EU and its institutions while “we are proposing that for this period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms.” Sure, there is Brexiteer resistance to this and there are lots of other details the UK government needs to spell out, but I’d argue that by now Britan has given a pretty clear picture of what it wants the transition to look like and I can’t really see many arguments for the EU side to disagree. Half a million jobs would be lost due to a “hard” Brexit resulting in WTO-tariffs in the UK but 1.2 million would be lost in the EU27. Proportionally, the EU suffers a smaller hit but this is of course by no means politically acceptable in any way. Is it so much to ask for the EU27 to also make up their mind and not unnecessarily drag out these divorce negotiations, thereby delaying the crucial negotiations on transition and trade? Edited 13 October 2017 by KingGTF
Fox Ulike Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: I don't think you understand what the EU is about do you Webbo? How about he pays you every year and in return you do up his house every year, become close friends, let each other crash over if you've been to the pub near his house, develop new painting technologies together, lend each other bit and pieces that you need, work together to figure out how to make both your homes more secure, and both make a lot more money than you did before? But oh no, you don't get to decide on the colour of your new security fencing without his agreement so sod all that. Steady.
Webbo Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 Just now, toddybad said: I don't think you understand what the EU is about do you Webbo? How about he pays you every year and in return you do up his house every year, become close friends, let each other crash over if you've been to the pub near his house, develop new painting technologies together, lend each other bit and pieces that you need, work together to figure out how to make both your homes more secure, and both make a lot more money than you did before? I understand that we've tried to make it work for 40 years but it didn't really suit us and we've decided to divorce. Now the spurned spouse is trying to punish us. It doesn't matter who leaves who in a divorce, both sides are entitled to a fair settlement.
Guest Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: I understand that we've tried to make it work for 40 years but it didn't really suit us and we've decided to divorce. Now the spurned spouse is trying to punish us. It doesn't matter who leaves who in a divorce, both sides are entitled to a fair settlement. How the **** are they trying to punish us? That's daily mail crap. They've set out a proposal and asked us to give our own proposal in return. And we've refused so far. No punishment in sight.
leicsmac Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: I understand that we've tried to make it work for 40 years but it didn't really suit us and we've decided to divorce. Now the spurned spouse is trying to punish us. It doesn't matter who leaves who in a divorce, both sides are entitled to a fair settlement. And to further the earlier analogy, both parties in the divorce are trying to convince the kids that they're the ones being wronged. 1
Fox Ulike Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 8 minutes ago, KingGTF said: A fair reflection on where negotiations really are from Pieter Cleppe, the head of Open Europe in Brussels. As level and as fair a piece as you are going to get, with neither the brash optimism of the Express nor the incessant doom-mongering of the Guardian. I'm glad someone has managed to pick up on the change of Barnier's tone, shame our media seem to fail to actually analyse these things. Yeah have to say that has made me feel more confident about things. Things do seem to be progressing a lot more than you would think from the mainstream media.
Webbo Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 1 minute ago, toddybad said: How the **** are they trying to punish us? That's daily mail crap. They've set out a proposal and asked us to give our own proposal in return. And we've refused so far. No punishment in sight. Even this chap (in a Guardian article I notice you didn't post) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/08/denmark-dismisses-eu-wrangling-brexit-divorce-bill-game say the EU are playing games. Personally I'd call their bluff.
Guest Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 15 minutes ago, Webbo said: Even this chap (in a Guardian article I notice you didn't post) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/08/denmark-dismisses-eu-wrangling-brexit-divorce-bill-game say the EU are playing games. Personally I'd call their bluff. Unfortunately the calling of bluffs has much more serious consequences for us than for them.
Webbo Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Unfortunately the calling of bluffs has much more serious consequences for us than for them. So you accept that they are playing games? Exports to the EU are only 13% of our economy. If we have to revert to WTO rules that may drop a little, the devaluing of the £ already compensates for any tariffs, but getting rid of the external tariff will be a boost to the economy as we can buy food and other goods at world prices . Most of the EU27 countries have a trade surplus with us. I think Ireland is not one of them but we're their second largest export market, it's going to hit them pretty bad.
Strokes Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 23 minutes ago, leicsmac said: You know, the more I hear about the discussion involving this the more it seems like this is very much like a divorce case. Two bitter, grasping middle-aged folks buoyed up by an insignificant sense of self-importance arguing over who gets to keep the crockery while the kids just mess about on their smartphones and want to move the fvck on. Does that make us the children? Would someone please think of the children!
Strokes Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 51 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Seeing as your a leaver I'll pay you in 'red, white and blue' money. I'm sure you'll be satisfied with that. Fivers and fifties?
Fox Ulike Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: So you accept that they are playing games? Exports to the EU are only 13% of our economy. If we have to revert to WTO rules that may drop a little, the devaluing of the £ already compensates for any tariffs, but getting rid of the external tariff will be a boost to the economy as we can buy food and other goods at world prices . Most of the EU27 countries have a trade surplus with us. I think Ireland is not one of them but we're their second largest export market, it's going to hit them pretty bad. It's 43.7%. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06091/SN06091.pdf
Guest Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: So you accept that they are playing games? Exports to the EU are only 13% of our economy. If we have to revert to WTO rules that may drop a little, the devaluing of the £ already compensates for any tariffs, but getting rid of the external tariff will be a boost to the economy as we can buy food and other goods at world prices . Most of the EU27 countries have a trade surplus with us. I think Ireland is not one of them but we're their second largest export market, it's going to hit them pretty bad. No not really. I think if we'd just got on, set out our proton and discussed the areas of disagreement over the Brexit bill we'd already be having trade talks. We seem intent on making the process as difficult as possible. Whilst the EU could have agreed to discuss divorce and trade together they did tell us months and months ago they wouldn't so surely you just get on with it. David Davis is an idiot. You talk about the 13% (or 43% in.reality) dropping a little as if it is nothing. 1% is worth £16billion, or one third of the total entire deficit that you are supposedly so concerned about. Edited 13 October 2017 by Guest
Strokes Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: It's 43.7%. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06091/SN06091.pdf Thats 43% of exports not the economy.
Webbo Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: It's 43.7%. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06091/SN06091.pdf 43.7% of exports, not the economy.
Strokes Posted 13 October 2017 Posted 13 October 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: No not really. I think if we'd just got on, set out our proton and discussed the areas of disagreement over the Brexit bill we'd already be having trade talks. We seem intent on making the process as difficult as possible. Whilst the EU could have agreed to discuss divorce and trade together they did tell us months and months ago they wouldn't so surely you just get on with it. David Davis is an idiot. You talk about the 13% (or 43% in.reality) dropping a little as if it is nothing. 1% is worth £16billion, or one third of the total entire deficit that you are supposedly so concerned about. We can always borrow more and hit the rich with a mansion tax to cover that though, right?
Recommended Posts