Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
The 39bn is partly what the UK owe and partly for the transition period payment.
The worst thing she could do would be to threaten this.

It's not a massive sum of money in the grand scheme of things even if it seems a lot to the average person. This is about trust and principle and to get a new relationship.

The agreement she has is basically what any PM would have come back with - everyone knew from the beginning that the EU would never budge on the 4 freedoms and will support Ireland all the way on the border.
There's no way anything she says will change this.

The problem has been that she and all the other politicians have lied before and since the referendum and have misled the electorate.
The ERG aren't worried about the 39bn - they want a clean break, Labour want the government to fall and will reject whatever was brought back. The 39bn is a red herring.

It's not a huge sum in the grand scheme of countries and their economies, but it isn't insignificant either. It's more than our entire yearly military budget for example.
 
It's not a huge sum in the grand scheme of countries and their economies, but it isn't insignificant either. It's more than our entire yearly military budget for example.

Yes but it's payable over years , not in one go. If the UK left without a deal it would reduce to about 24bn or so. And the UK would lose a hell of lot more than 39bn in future trade and goodwill notwithstanding the world watching on.
 
The 39bn is partly what the UK owe and partly for the transition period payment.
The worst thing she could do would be to threaten this.

It's not a massive sum of money in the grand scheme of things even if it seems a lot to the average person. This is about trust and principle and to get a new relationship.

The agreement she has is basically what any PM would have come back with - everyone knew from the beginning that the EU would never budge on the 4 freedoms and will support Ireland all the way on the border.
There's no way anything she says will change this.

The problem has been that she and all the other politicians have lied before and since the referendum and have misled the electorate.
The ERG aren't worried about the 39bn - they want a clean break, Labour want the government to fall and will reject whatever was brought back. The 39bn is a red herring.

Don't agree at all.
Firstly you say that 39bn is not a massive sum of money. Really. Ask the schools or NHS or Police or the electorate whether they agree. I think I know the answer.

Secondly. Why not threaten it. Remember. I did not say we should not pay it. I simple said that faced with an unacceptable withdrawal bill we should decide on the terms of the payment.
 
Don't agree at all.
Firstly you say that 39bn is not a massive sum of money. Really. Ask the schools or NHS or Police or the electorate whether they agree. I think I know the answer.

Secondly. Why not threaten it. Remember. I did not say we should not pay it. I simple said that faced with an unacceptable withdrawal bill we should decide on the terms of the payment.

As I said the withdrawal agreement is not going to change so threatening is a bit of a waste of energy, it would just mean that the future relationship would be soured.

As I said it's over years that it is paid not in one go - The Uk are losing far more than £39bn by leaving the EU, the NHS Police and schools are short of money because of the Tory policies not because the UK are in the EU. When the Uk have left the government will have lost its scapegoat.
 
It's not all about money.

One customer we had was putting a lot of business our way. However, they turned out to be the most unholy pain in the arse. Literally on the phone every five minutes, generally about nothing or stuff that turned out to be their fault.

They then sent in a different package work for us to quote on which, in money terms at least would be more lucrative than the previous one.

We concluded that the aggro wasn't worth it. So we stuck in ridiculous prices and said if they want us to do it then that's what they would have to pay.

They found somebody else.

We were prepared to take the hit for the reduction in hassle.

The ERG headbangers that think walking away will have the EU running after us are deluded.

David Davis claiming on QT last night that WTO is jolly fine and dandy (notice he didn't mention that it flies in the face of the GFA), is either thick or has money staked on the outcome he is trying to force this country into.

This is as good as it gets and unless we are is prepared to put it back to the people, and accept whatever is decided (after having spent tens of millions cleaning up the UK streets and rebuilding damaged premises), then we should take what is on the table.
 
As I said the withdrawal agreement is not going to change so threatening is a bit of a waste of energy, it would just mean that the future relationship would be soured.

As I said it's over years that it is paid not in one go - The Uk are losing far more than £39bn by leaving the EU, the NHS Police and schools are short of money because of the Tory policies not because the UK are in the EU. When the Uk have left the government will have lost its scapegoat.

Will it though? It's not hard to imagine them switching their scapegoat from "the EU" to "the terrible deal the EU gave us".
 
Don't agree at all.
Firstly you say that 39bn is not a massive sum of money. Really. Ask the schools or NHS or Police or the electorate whether they agree. I think I know the answer.

Secondly. Why not threaten it. Remember. I did not say we should not pay it. I simple said that faced with an unacceptable withdrawal bill we should decide on the terms of the payment.
well we will be spending 87bn on education next year
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_education_spending_20.html

Of the 39bn some of this extends out to 2064 though about half falls in 2019 and 2020
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill
so lets say about 10bn in 2019
so around 11% of the education budget
or around 1% of total government spend
or if you like half a percent of our UK debt

So when you look at the bigger picture I think its fair to say its actually not a massive sum of money is it.
 
There's a significant element of the EU that are in the 'we're not that bothered' camp. The UK are the opt-out kings of the block and have been a thorn in the side of their plans for decades.

This isn't really true. The UK is utterly incompetent over Brexit but there's an element of self-flagellation in some remainers that is just as deluded.

Firstly, plenty of countries have opt-outs in the EU for all manor of things, this is not unique at all to Britain.

Secondly, it ignores the reason these opt out and special measures exists in the first place. Britain's rebate for example wasn't some Britain throwing a childish tantrum. Rather Britain already disproportionately contributed to the budget, and secondly the CAP, a huge use of funds, and a completely incompetent policy, was not much use to Britain with its small agricultural section, but countries like France who benefit massively blocked reform despite the issues being there for all to see.

Britain's rebate is in response to this.
 
Don't agree at all.
Firstly you say that 39bn is not a massive sum of money. Really. Ask the schools or NHS or Police or the electorate whether they agree. I think I know the answer.

Secondly. Why not threaten it. Remember. I did not say we should not pay it. I simple said that faced with an unacceptable withdrawal bill we should decide on the terms of the payment.

The pound's collapse against all major currencies since the Brexit vote has cost the country and its people way WAY more than the £39bn. I don't need to ask schools, police or the NHS anything about that either. I find it quite humorous when Brexiteers (don't mean you specifically) bring up the issue of EU payments in one sentence making a big deal of it. While in the next sentence they non-nonchalantly mention they'd be OK with the country taking a financial hit from loss of trade in the short/medium term, if it results in UK regaining full sovereignty. I mean do you care about money, or do you not?

A threat that you're not willing to follow through with, is an empty threat. And when following through could likely lead to a breakdown of bilateral trade relations and loss of trade for both, but primarily the UK, it's akin to cutting of your nose to spite your face.
 
Aren't those 39bn payments that the UK already commited to before Brexit happened? I don't know what legal steps the EU would have to go after that money, but at best the UK would be screaming to the whole world (especially the parts that they then desperately have to negotiate trade deals with) that they have no problem breaking their word or even contracts. Not to mention what could happen if one of the biggest trading blocs, that makes up all your neighbours gets vindictive.
 
Last edited:
Aren't those 39bn payments that the UK already commited to pay before Brexit happened? I don't know what legal steps the EU would have to go after that money, but at best the UK would be screaming to the whole world (especially the parts that they then desperately have to negotiate trade deals with) that they have no problem breaking their word or even contracts.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

The December joint UK-EU report showed that both sides had agreed a methodology for working out what the UK would pay – and that those payments would be made in advance as they fell due rather than settled in one go.

How much will we pay?
The deal in December did not contain an exact figure, though at the time, UK officials estimated a potential bill of £35–39 billion (bn).

The UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) set out detailed estimates of what the UK would pay in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, published alongside the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. That set out a total bill of €41.4bn (£37.1bn), extending out to 2064 as pension liabilities fall due.

But it also makes clear that around half consist of payments the UK will make during the transition phase. The OBR estimates net payments under the financial settlement of €18.5bn (£16.4bn) in 2019 and 2020, during the transition, followed by net payments of €7.6bn in 2021, €5.8bn (2022) €3.1bn (2023) and €1.7bn (2024) before falling away to €0.2bn in 2028. The liabilities, net of assets, that then remain to be paid amount to a total of €2.7bn over the period 2021–45.

Is there a Brexit dividend?
The OBR makes it clear that the UK payments under the divorce settlement are significantly lower than the UK’s continued net contribution would have been if we had remained a member. But it also notes that these numbers do not tell the whole story, because:

  • Ministers have committed to replace funding where there are currently receipts from EU programmes: the UK currently receives £3bn from the Common Agricultural Policy but also money from structural funds and science research programmes. Those commitments are time-limited but are unlikely to cease completely once the UK has left the EU.
  • The UK has said it may participate in EU agencies and programmes after Brexit. Those would come at a price yet to be negotiated. The OBR notes that in 2016 the cost of UK participation in Erasmus (student exchange), Creative Europe and Horizon 2020 was £2bn.
The UK will incur other costs as a consequence of Brexit:

  • The UK will incur continuing costs of running the new post-Brexit regimes for customs and EU migration. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced an allocation of £1.5bn for Brexit preparations in 2018–19, the bulk of which was to prepare the border.
  • If the UK decided not to participate in EU agencies, it would bear the costs of setting up new agencies – though most of the running costs would be recouped from business.
As the OBR notes, the final factor is that any deterioration of economic performance as a consequence of Brexit will have a significant impact on the public finances. The Government’s own sectoral analyses, published by the Commons Exiting the EU Committee, suggests that an agreement to an European Economic Area-style relationship would lead by 2033–34 to an annual deterioration in borrowing of £20bn rising to an £80bn borrowing increase if the UK was trading with the EU on World Trade Organization terms.

Could we walk away without paying?
The financial deal is an integral part of the withdrawal settlement that also includes the agreement on transition, so reneging on the financial deal would mean leaving the EU with no transition arrangements in place. Future UK compliance will be overseen by the governance arrangements agreed as part of the withdrawal treaty.

If negotiations broke down later this year, and the UK refused to pay, the EU might seek redress through the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict.
 
Don't agree at all.
Firstly you say that 39bn is not a massive sum of money. Really. Ask the schools or NHS or Police or the electorate whether they agree. I think I know the answer.

Secondly. Why not threaten it. Remember. I did not say we should not pay it. I simple said that faced with an unacceptable withdrawal bill we should decide on the terms of the payment.

Yeah let's not pay our debts before we go out to the world for trade agreements including to the one we've refused to pay. What could go wrong.

Defaulting on our debts won't send the best message to the world markets at all. I'd be interested to see if it had any impact on gilts for instance
 
The pound's collapse against all major currencies since the Brexit vote has cost the country and its people way WAY more than the £39bn. I don't need to ask schools, police or the NHS anything about that either. I find it quite humorous when Brexiteers (don't mean you specifically) bring up the issue of EU payments in one sentence making a big deal of it. While in the next sentence they non-nonchalantly mention they'd be OK with the country taking a financial hit from loss of trade in the short/medium term, if it results in UK regaining full sovereignty. I mean do you care about money, or do you not?

A threat that you're not willing to follow through with, is an empty threat. And when following through could likely lead to a breakdown of bilateral trade relations and loss of trade for both, but primarily the UK, it's akin to cutting of your nose to spite your face.

Not so mad Mike as you make a good argument. By the way I voted to remain pretty much for the reasons you make.

I have no affinity for the EU. My primary reason for voting to remain was an economic one. I simply could not envisage a way that we would be better off by leaving. Certainly not in the short term anyway.

Moreover, the UK economy was still struggling to come out of recession following the global financial crisis and IMHO the referendum could not have come at a worse time.

I lay the blame for that firmly with David Cameron who took this country into the referendum for the wrong reasons.
 
Yeah let's not pay our debts before we go out to the world for trade agreements including to the one we've refused to pay. What could go wrong.

Defaulting on our debts won't send the best message to the world markets at all. I'd be interested to see if it had any impact on gilts for instance

Who said we should default on our debts.
I was making the case for using the settlement as part of the negotiation and if pushed we should extend the payment timescales. That was all.

Do you think that Italy or Spain for example would be so cooperative?
 
Who said we should default on our debts.
I was making the case for using the settlement as part of the negotiation and if pushed we should extend the payment timescales. That was all.

Do you think that Italy or Spain for example would be so cooperative?

I'm pretty sure Spain is a net recipient from the EU so I guess the negotiations would be totally different?
 
was it Ian Hislop who said this?
C-aVcwOW0AEPdxg.jpg
 
was it Ian Hislop who said this?
C-aVcwOW0AEPdxg.jpg

In fairness he's a very decent writer (I enjoyed reading The Churchill Factor, even if it is obvious he's a fanboy) and in some ways think he is probably an intelligent man, but in terms of helping govern a country?

No ... just no.
 
Who said we should default on our debts.
I was making the case for using the settlement as part of the negotiation and if pushed we should extend the payment timescales. That was all.

Do you think that Italy or Spain for example would be so cooperative?
A bit like starving the Irish..........
 
London is the world's busiest air-hub and if all the Brit's are having to fill out visa's (and vice versa?) go to to EU countries, god knows the absolute chaos it's going to cause at the start.

Anyway, enjoy being in the customs line lads, I'll be off through the EU citizens gates, see you in about 2 hours.