They can but since the UK took those engagements, renegating them will have consequences regarding future deals and engagements.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
They can but since the UK took those engagements, renegating them will have consequences regarding future deals and engagements.
Quoting the telegraph is like quoting breitbart at this point (How things have changed in the last two years
). None the less, even the propaganda says:and
Doesn't sound quite as certain as you make it out to be. It's all theoretical anyways, not even the current UK government would be mental enough to leave the EU in a fashion that made it an absolute outcast. There will need to be some sort of relationship after brexit, after all.
Of course the UK doesn’t have any strict legal obligations simply because there is no strict legal code for the current situation. There are no mutually agreed criteria which would determine what the UK has to pay. Agreeing on such criteria is part of the process.
So yes, the UK could just drop out and refuse to pay anything. It is not hard to understand why this would be seen as an extremely hostile act: The UK was committed to pay a certain amount and just stepping back from all of that would undermine its credibility as international partner.
The UK roughly paid about €10bn each year to the EU (net). Asking for a number like 50bn would almost equal 5 years of full membership. Nobody should expect that the UK is going to accept this. Instead of focusing on a number, both sides should focus on each area and try to split this into a detailed discussion about different parts of the budget. In my opinion the UK should honor its commitments to any ongoing projects, but shouldn’t be forced to pay for stuff that just exist on paper.
So yes, the UK could just drop out and refuse to pay anything. It is not hard to understand why this would be seen as an extremely hostile act: The UK was committed to pay a certain amount and just stepping back from all of that would undermine its credibility as international partner.
The UK roughly paid about €10bn each year to the EU (net). Asking for a number like 50bn would almost equal 5 years of full membership. Nobody should expect that the UK is going to accept this. Instead of focusing on a number, both sides should focus on each area and try to split this into a detailed discussion about different parts of the budget. In my opinion the UK should honor its commitments to any ongoing projects, but shouldn’t be forced to pay for stuff that just exist on paper.
Come on guys...
A very, very simple question.
What had the UK already agreed to pay for / to contribute to beyond the current EU Budget which ends in 2020 and beyond its membership which will end in 2019.
The UK has already said that it will pay both of these obligations - about € 30 billion.
So until somone on here can tell us what else they agreed to pay for beyond 2020 and the amounts agreed, arguing on here whether the UK should pay an additional €100 billion or nothing at all is rather pointless.
A very, very simple question.
What had the UK already agreed to pay for / to contribute to beyond the current EU Budget which ends in 2020 and beyond its membership which will end in 2019.
The UK has already said that it will pay both of these obligations - about € 30 billion.
So until somone on here can tell us what else they agreed to pay for beyond 2020 and the amounts agreed, arguing on here whether the UK should pay an additional €100 billion or nothing at all is rather pointless.
I agree that we should. Calculating the exact figure is obviously tricky and I would err on the generous side.
It seems to me some people want both sides of the argument though.
On the one hand, we have agreed to the spending and shouldn't walk away. On the other hand, there are vast amounts of costs which are not in the spending agreements which somehow we have to pay our share of. When the figures being quoted start to get to 100 billion Euros and that's for a 12% share I can't believe anyone can take it seriously.
We are more than halfway through the budget round and will be almost completely through that round by the time the UK leaves or possibly even into the next round if the UK enters transitional years.
I also wonder how we can get to a final figure without knowing what the final deal is as some of the ongoing costs are likely to be covered by ongoing charges for access to the single market or membership of Europol etc etc.
Does anyone know when the EU will publish a figure it says the UK owes?
It is relatively well explained here. http://bruegel.org/2017/03/the-uks-brexit-bill-what-are-the-possible-liabilities/.
Keep in mind that the UK or any other country in the EU haven't finished to pay for past years.
From Rouve's link.
" that at end-2018 the EU will have outstanding commitments and liabilities totalling €724bn. Most of these relate to spending after the UK’s likely departure date, but are tied to commitments made during the UK’s EU membership."
From Pedro's post.
"The UK roughly paid about €10bn each year to the EU (net). Asking for a number like 50bn would almost equal 5 years of full membership. Nobody should expect that the UK is going to accept this"
All will become clear at some point no doubt.
" that at end-2018 the EU will have outstanding commitments and liabilities totalling €724bn. Most of these relate to spending after the UK’s likely departure date, but are tied to commitments made during the UK’s EU membership."
From Pedro's post.
"The UK roughly paid about €10bn each year to the EU (net). Asking for a number like 50bn would almost equal 5 years of full membership. Nobody should expect that the UK is going to accept this"
All will become clear at some point no doubt.
At the last count, 19 countries don't pay anything at all...Well, not net payments.
But if the UK had been one of the countries which is a net recipient of the EU's handouts, would the EU have continued to pay the UK post-BREXIT for any of the outststanding commitments of €724bn beyond 2020 if they were for projects / expenditure in the UK ?
I was going to mention this earlier in the thread when people were talking about the EU's Robin Hood status. If you look at the EU's budget payments it is correct but if you look at policy impact then the net effect of the EU at the moment is to transfer money to the richest parts of the EU from the poorest parts.
The Euro and the single market combine to transfer 16-20 billion Euro's in trade surpluses to Germany each month.
Well, it's supposed to be a two way street, so if the EU owes something to the UK it should pay it.
Edit: For example, there are projects and missions in the UK that have been partially financed by the UK, the EU shouldn't stop those projects because the UK left. IIRC some of them goes beyond 2020.
I think the point is that the UK has ongoing obligation they have to pay for and the EU has ongoing obligations for spending in the UK that don't just come to a stop. Cameron also made a commitment to the EU and that should be honored.
Don’t be daft.
The EU is clearly blackmailing the United Kingdom and Theresa May should bomb Brussels, Berlin and Paris to show those nasty Europeans who’s boss.
Why does Nigel Farage keep moaning about the EU? The UK is leaving the EU. He should be happy if negotiations go tits up and the UK is free from any deal with this decadent union
getting his excuses in early for when it all goes tits up
He wants to see more than the UK leaving, he said in an interview he wants its downfall as well. If things get really nasty, maybe this or a future UK government will have the same aim.
it seems that Juncker had stuck a nerve by saying that the English language is on the decline (he could be sensitive about it but he's right especially since the US is slowly becoming a Spanish speaking country) and by saying that he's sceptical of a potential deal between the UK and the EU. As Tywin Lannister would have said "any man who say I am a king is no true king". The UK's importance will be determined by its ability to assert its power as a financial, political and military superpower not through stupid protests and posturing
Oh let stop being PC. The UK wants the EU to fall as it makes it easier to play their divide and conquer tactics. Same as Russia, the US and probably any country competing with this financial superpower. The EU is no saint either. It benefitted greatly of Russia's demise a few years back (a bit too much for my taste).
Its a shame that the Brits never understood the importance of a united and peaceful Europe. You'll think that two world wars would have been enough. In some ways I prefer Trump and Putin to the evil witch of Westminster and her flying monkeys. Sure they are more dangerous but at least they are honest about it
The funny thing is that if the EU starts playing the divide and conquer game with the UK then probably England and Wales would become very isolated in a very short period of time. Imagine the uproar of TM and Farage if the EU decided to take Sturgeon seriously.
Last edited:
It's the old battle for a lot of the right, unions are bad because they protect the weak from the rich. They want nothing more than a bunch of countries competing to host international capital, the losers being the general public who have public services slashed and rights quashed
He's probably worried about his pension.
The English language comment was ridiculous and a Farage-style deliberate provocation. At least I hope it was as the alternative explanation is that the President of the Commission, having spent his entire working life in Luxembourg and Brussels political circles, does not know English is the business lingua franca of Europe.
The UK should install him as chief negotiator in the upcoming negotiations.
Does anyone and.i mean anyone, listen to Junk or.take.him seriously?
He is a bellend of the highest order, i would even say Boris is worth listening to more thank Junk and thats saying something.
You're hatred of the UK is indeed strong Paul the Wolf Juncker.
He's an overpaid useless dick.
I want the EU to die a horrible death.
At least you're very open about it.
Conveniently leave out the goods worth 16-20 billion that travel the other way every month. I wonder why? You most really hate free markets. You'll have a wonderful time in the new UK, open for business with everybody, just as long as nobody sells you anything!
It's an apt description of the current UK government though...
As @Abizzz said at least you're honest and I respect that. At least there's no BS of a bald relationship (ie cherry picking) with a 'strong' Europe
At this point most sensitive people (remainers or not) should consider stopping Brexit
What have they done so evil to warrant such hatred?
Junker?
Farage really is an ignorant crank but as he has followers, he's also dangerous.
And an expensive one....
His salary plus bonus ( bonus for what, we should ask ) plus pension contributions plus housing allowance plus expenses for his own, personal staff are almost €500,000 per annum.
But apparently that's all quite normal on the Brussels gravy train.
As well as having 10,000 employees sat around in Brussels ( doing what, we should ask ) almost 2,500 of them earn the equivalent of €175,000 or more each year beause EU employees have specially low income tax rates, or in other words, more than the Prime Ministers of any of the EU member states.
Think about that the next time you look at your own pay cheque.
Last edited:
Of the idiots trying to ru(i)n the country, disappointed in the sheep who believe or want to believe all the nonsense.
Well sitting around discussing the shape fruit isnt easy. Nor is doing nothing about refugees in southern europe. Its not all fun and tax free money.
The refugees in southern europe aren't in the scope of the EU because EU members have always refused to give that power to the EU.
Codswallop
You are free to expend on that.
I dont have to, its there for all to see and read.
To see what? That the EU doesn't have an home office administration, that it's the exclusive power of the member states?
Why, then, are the EU threatening Poland and Hungary with sanctions if they don't take their 'quota' of refugees ?