The problem with the transition period is the EU budget time frame.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Should sell a few Reliant Robins
Yes, the UK have to be gone for good by end of 2020.
Not necessarily... Though I think any extension would require financial commitments for the next fiscal period... Probably more of an issue for a UK (particularly a pro brexit one) than the EU
So the extension period is in the talks? I thought it was just a small possibility. Frankly, as an external observant I want the result now. Till 2020 going around and around would be too much
But if there is that extension, I would see a feasible option for second referendum
But if there is that extension, I would see a feasible option for second referendum
But the next budget period is 2021-2027 and the contributions are only paid by member states, no rebates, no MEPs and no say as the UK will be leaving as a member next year. The EU have said the maximum transition period can be till end 2020 to allow adjustment time for both.
Even if it were possible, Brexiters don't even want to pay the £39bn they owe, even members of the cabinet have said that, let alone another 7 years without rebates and no say.
Last edited:
The extension is only possible if they agree a deal, ie the Irish border, citizens rights and payment of their dues and that the UK adhere to the rules. But even with the transition the UK leaves next March so any future referendum thereafter would be to rejoin.
But we should know whether a deal will be possible in the next couple of months.
So there is not possibility of an extension to extend the deal negotiations? Only extension if there is a deal (or no deal firm) for both parts to get used at the new status?
If there is a deal it has to be ratified by the 27 remaining members plus normally the UK. This all has to take place by the time the UK leaves the EU next March so both sides are saying they need to settle the deal by October or possibly early November at the latest .
Transition theoretically will allow time for the UK to start negotiating some trade deals and for both sides to build and arrange the infrastructure needed to cope with the situation of the UK no longer being in the CU/SM.
Personally it's just delaying the inevitable and a 21 month extension period is nowhere near long enough for the UK to negotiate anything. 61% of their trade is with the EU or countries who have trade deals with the EU and they're ripping them all up and starting from scratch.
There are no words.
I would also rejoin would be as a new member... I.e. no rebates and using the euro
Which I think would be a pretty tough sell
Yes I would imagine so.
The UK will certainly not be missed by the EU27 for their special rebates.
She got the moves like Jagger
Only their contributions to eastern europe subsidies, perhaps Germany will top up. Doubt it.
Possibly... Though I guess any net contributor overall will be of some loss to a degree
I thought an extension could be done as well for the negotiation, that I would consider useless. but a period of acclimatization for both parts I think would be positive because the decision would be done and you will need to see the implementation of the new situation clearly as you will be out with no deal or agreed deal so you will be able to detect your needs clearly
Definitely it is, is not gonna be a win for the EU, even with the UK and his special status in the EU like no other country
So our Prime Minister is dancing for a deal in South Africa that will inevitably be worse than the deal we have by already being in the EU. I wonder what ministers will do to get a substandard Canadian deal? Buggar a moose live on TV?
Why do you think bacon is so cheap ?
Scallop Wars hotting up I see.
Loose loose situation as far as I see it
Both sides trying to spin it that the other Lost more....
Not the most conducive atmosphere to collaborative talks
What gets me about this talk of the contributions is that although they are net contributors, as are most of the major countries, in the grand scheme of things the amount is trivial.
When you consider that the UK pays net of around £8bn/year and their total expenditure is around £900bn/year, it's peanuts.
Now around 6% of all the contributions go to running the EU, so roughly the UK pays £500million/year for that and the rest goes for projects and aid etc.
Yes there will be a hole in the budget without the UK but it's not a massive hole, most will no doubt be funded by Germany, France etc or if it wasn't some projects may be cut back.
For me it's a big fuss about relatively little.
It's actually fairly easy to fix the hole, the EU neighborhood policy will probably be the first option.
Absolutely.
There's no contest on which economy will be affected more. I don't really see any high ranking EU officials do much spinning (they don't need to, reality is bad enough), but I may just be missing it.
I'm pretty sure that EU leaders publicly stated that it was a lose lose situation which iirc was received as a threat or lack of will.
Last edited:
Its certainly nothing insurmountable
that said (and I dont have more up to date figures) but in 2015 certainly by far the biggest net contributors were Germany and UK
im not sure germany would pick up all the extra - and I suspect that with the uptick in several EU economies it will be manageable to plug the gap - but there will be a gap
something around 10 billion euros over 70 million people in the uk though is under £150 a year and lets be honest thats peanuts (about 40p a day) and the cost of leaving is most probably going to be a lot more than that.
still though its a loose loose scenario - and as I say no matter who looses most its still bad deal for both sides (though politically probably more palitable than being seen to conceed to much - again for both sides)
Its certainly nothing insurmountable
that said (and I dont have more up to date figures) but in 2015 certainly by far the biggest net contributors were Germany and UK
im not sure germany would pick up all the extra - and I suspect that with the uptick in several EU economies it will be manageable to plug the gap - but there will be a gap
something around 10 billion euros over 70 million people in the uk though is under £150 a year and lets be honest thats peanuts (about 40p a day) and the cost of leaving is most probably going to be a lot more than that.
still though its a loose loose scenario - and as I say no matter who looses most its still bad deal for both sides (though politically probably more palitable than being seen to conceed to much - again for both sides)
The budget is supposed to be reduced, it has been talked about for a long time now, iirc it was before 2016 and it has been made official in the 12 months. Now for me we still have a problem and it's your last sentence, the EU isn't going to change its legal framework for a third country, a country that logically will have for main position to exploit the EU market from the outside, I feel that people still don't accept the notion of being outside.
Its certainly nothing insurmountable
that said (and I dont have more up to date figures) but in 2015 certainly by far the biggest net contributors were Germany and UK
im not sure germany would pick up all the extra - and I suspect that with the uptick in several EU economies it will be manageable to plug the gap - but there will be a gap
something around 10 billion euros over 70 million people in the uk though is under £150 a year and lets be honest thats peanuts (about 40p a day) and the cost of leaving is most probably going to be a lot more than that.
still though its a loose loose scenario - and as I say no matter who looses most its still bad deal for both sides (though politically probably more palitable than being seen to conceed to much - again for both sides)
Yes both sides lose but it's the degree of loss that is to be considered. Yes the EU will lose some money and have more difficult access to the UK but they still have all their agreements and deals in place with everyone else. The UK will effectively cut themselves from everyone they have deals with (through and with the EU) and start again. There's no comparison in the degree of loss.
And one thing I'm certain of is that the EU will not be blackmailed regarding the money.
Im not sure a deal is in anybodys interest (politically) despite it clearly being in everybodys interest (economically)
Certainly cant see the EU wavering on the freedoms being indivisible though they probably wont even have to say that as i doubt they will even reach agreement on Ireland so wont even start to negotiate (officially) on trade
Cliff Edge Brexit - Farrage et al blaming the EU - lots of bitching and moaning and corbyn asking about buses
Agreed.
The Irish border was always the biggest problem and I do not see how that can be solved - Brexit and the GFA are incompatible.
Whatever happens the EU will be blamed as it always has, if it's a cliff edge Farage will probably disappear but hopefully the Brexiters will eventually realise what poison he has been to their lives.
Interestingly I do wonder how its going to be solved even in a no deal Brexit... there is of course the "backstop position" but also nothing is agreed till everything is agreed and May has already said no PM could agree to the backstop position.
Dance off with Merkle to see if we get a deal?
love the thread title change but this is 10+ year old feud and nothing to do with Brexit
Oh, and 35 boats against 1. Cowards
March 26th 2019 - Farrage will be on the telly demanding HMS Arc Royal be recommissioned & refitted for scallop fishing (at the EU's expense)
"Your mother was a hamster".
I have no idea what will happen with the Irish border in a no deal situation , because that would also mean there's no backstop which then in theory means there will be a hard border.
It'll be a 0-0 draw.
indeed - and im guessing to implement an effective hard boarder you need to start building the infrastructure etc at some point in the past
Our governments briefing to the press is worse than Woodwards.
They've had what feels like forever to progress the talks at pace and now because they're panicking at the shit storm they've created they're complaining that Barnier isn't available 24/7. No doubt the daily mailers will lap it up and blame the EU.
They've had what feels like forever to progress the talks at pace and now because they're panicking at the shit storm they've created they're complaining that Barnier isn't available 24/7. No doubt the daily mailers will lap it up and blame the EU.
But as the Uk are responsible for erecting the hard border because they are leaving the EU, they also can't be seen or admit to put or having to put any infrastructure in place because they will be seen to be responsible for breaking the GFA and thus they will do nothing.
Yes I saw that, because Barnier had Sunday afternoon off . Also Barnier's job, unlike Raab's is not just about Brexit.
Raab wants more attention paid by the EU to the chequers plan, someone ought to tell him it's rejected.
technically I think both sides are responsible for the implementation? - I believe there is an obligation on both sides to perform customs checks isnt there?
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-and-irish-border/
But yeah as they struggle for a deal till December? it will leave 3 months or so and as you say nobody wants to be seen to do anything as its admiting the talks cant work - and then in 3 months I'm sure it will be difficut / impossible to put anything in place (technology or sufficient infra to allow for checks and queues etc)