Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Nogbadthebad]

You may not like it, but it really is true for the majority of the British public, especially when the Common Market finished and it set off on the trail to become the EU!

Shes damaging foreign trade, its a bad thing to say no matter what.

But do me a favour, name one thing in your daily life that the EU made you uncomfortable about.

 

[Cheesy]

I agree that the best part is the fact that we are kicking the can down the road until 2021 at least (although that still doesn't help much if you are running a business and trying to decide whether to stay or invest in Britain). As I have said before, the concept of Brexit was something talked up in the watering holes of Westminster and St James and around kitchen tables in Notting Hill over bottles of wine. Now we are in a very extended morning after and still no-one has a clue how to translate last night's boasts into a feasible concrete plan. For the very good reason that there is no feasible alternative between compromises to protect the economy and a hang the consequences drive for a full, clean break.

Aye, it's ridiculous. We're a quarter of the way into the Brexit process and nothing's really been revealed. Saying you want to be 'creative' and 'imaginative' doesn't achieve anything. It doesn't let people know how Brexit will impact us. Revealing how different sectors will be compensated/how they'll cope with a decrease in immigration, especially if they often rely on immigration, is proper planning. Revealing how Brexit will impact universities who often rely on foreign cooperation for research etc is planning. Revealing the exact number we want to reduce net migration to, instead of giving out vague figures, is planning. Revealing how areas like Wales who rely on farming subsidies will be helped is actual planning. So far we're still seeing platitudes which don't actually mean anything, and which don't actually help anyone who needs to know what's going to happen.

 

[Sweet Square]

Varoufakis(Well the Eagles)was right - You can check out any time you like, But you can never leave.

 

[I Believe]

But do me a favour, name one thing in your daily life that the EU made you uncomfortable about.

When I worked for them in the late 90's to the early 00's and I got some of the 'gravy train' for myself and my company, nice at the time, but very uncomfortable with the whole thing, have to confess the lure of the 'lolly' was too much to resist.

I suppose for me personally they actually were halcyon days, but the writing was on the wall even then, the EEC/EU should have reformed itself internally, in particular to try to sort out the growing incompetence and corruption, 'The Cresson Affair' etc. but unfortunately they covered it (most) of it up and glossed over it by going for enlargement. Of course at the time the Americans were pushing the EEC/EU to bring on-board the Baltic states and the East Europeans who were now experiencing new found freedom after the fall of the Berlin Wall and they wanted them out of Russia's sphere of influence and of course the EEC/EU complied.

It will all come down to the two leaders Theresa and Mrs Merkel to sort out, maybe if young Macron behaves himself, Angela may let him stand behind her to see how its done, as eventually he will take over her role when the new United States of Europe emerges!

 

[Cheesy]

When I worked for them in the late 90's to the early 00's and I got some of the 'gravy train' for myself and my company, nice at the time, but very uncomfortable with the whole thing, have to confess the lure of the 'lolly' was too much to resist.

I suppose for me personally they actually were halcyon days, but the writing was on the wall even then, the EEC/EU should have reformed itself internally, in particular to try to sort out the growing incompetence and corruption, 'The Cresson Affair' etc. but unfortunately they covered it (most) of it up and glossed over it by going for enlargement. Of course at the time the Americans were pushing the EEC/EU to bring on-board the Baltic states and the East Europeans who were now experiencing new found freedom after the fall of the Berlin Wall and they wanted them out of Russia's sphere of influence and of course the EEC/EU complied.

It will all come down to the two leaders Theresa and Mrs Merkel to sort out, maybe if young Macron behaves himself, Angela may let him stand behind her to see how its done, as eventually he will take over her role when the new United States of Europe emerges!

You're saying this as if the EU has collapsed, or is on the verge of collapse. Reforms need to be made but it's perfectly possible for that to happen. It'll just be the case now that Britain has no say over those exact reforms, even though we'll be heavily impacted by them. And you're saying this as if incompetence/corruption isn't a significant part of the UK and various other Western democratic states.

 

[I Believe]

You're saying this as if the EU has collapsed, or is on the verge of collapse. Reforms need to be made but it's perfectly possible for that to happen

I hope your right about the reforms, but personally I doubt it, the time for meaningful reform has passed, if 8 and then 12 members couldn't agree on the reforms previously, then 27 members will never agree to the hard choices that need to be made and certainly not whilst they are all still sucking up the gravy!

even though we'll be heavily impacted by them.

No, that's it precisely, they won't happen and we will not be affected because whatever deal we make will be with the old monolithic EU, the only chance they have is if Macron makes a success of his reforms in France, Angela Merkel might let him loose on the EU. If he is successful there, then he will become the new EU leading politician when Mrs Merkel bows out.

And you're saying this as if incompetence/corruption isn't a significant part of the UK and various other Western democratic states.

Yes of course,, but nothing like the EU, its a system built on incompetence, e.g. just look at the cost of relocating the Commission from Brussel to Strasborg ever so many months, this total waste of money has been going on for years and why, because its in the treaty of Rome, its actually woven into the EU fabric and although some corruption (as we know it Jim!) has been cleared out of parts of the EU, things like due diligence is so poor on EU projects, on partnerships, on the 'money trail' that more and new seeds of corruption will emerge, much of it electronically activated.

Sorry to paint such a poor picture, but unless they do get a grip, via Macron or whoever, the EU is going to hell in a handcart... but thankfully without us!

 

[Cheesy]

Channel's 4 (presumed) take...

 

[Cheesy]

I hope your right about the reforms, but personally I doubt it, the time for meaningful reform has passed, if 8 and then 12 members couldn't agree on the reforms previously, then 27 members will never agree to the hard choices that need to be made and certainly not whilst they are all still sucking up the gravy!

No, that's it precisely, they won't happen and we will not be affected because whatever deal we make will be with the old monolithic EU, the only chance they have is if Macron makes a success of his reforms in France, Angela Merkel might let him loose on the EU. If he is successful there, then he will become the new EU leading politician when Mrs Merkel bows out.

Yes of course,, but nothing like the EU, its a system built on incompetence, e.g. just look at the cost of relocating the Commission from Brussel to Strasborg ever so many months, this total waste of money has been going on for years and why, because its in the treaty of Rome, its actually woven into the EU fabric and although some corruption (as we know it Jim!) has been cleared out of parts of the EU, things like due diligence is so poor on EU projects, on partnerships, on the 'money trail' that more and new seeds of corruption will emerge, much of it electronically activated.

Sorry to paint such a poor picture, but unless they do get a grip, via Macron or whoever, the EU is going to hell in a handcart... but thankfully without us!

It depends on what you constitute as 'meaningful reform'. Naturally some reforms will be harder to achieve than others due to the number of countries involved; others will be easier to achieve and will likely be beneficial. The problem with arguments such as this is that they tend to be too either/or in their approach. The EU is a huge, sprawling organisation with over 20+ member states; necessary reforms are widespread, and to suggest none of these can be achieved is a bit silly. If you think the necessary level of reform can't be achieved, then fair enough, but the idea that nothing can be done is daft.

The 27 member states all having their own say has certain benefits, though. It ensures small states have a proper voice. It ensures major countries can't force through certain legislation which will negatively impact other member states. For example, arguments used during the referendum like the suggestion that Turkey would join the EU were nonsensical, because it ignored the fact we had an actual veto on the issue, and could've chosen to exclude Turkey had it ever got to the point where other nations were willing to accept their application.

I don't deny the EU has problems but this idea that it's on the verge of collapse is fantasy. Again, due to its huge, complex nature, certain aspects of it'll be stronger than others; defined opinions on the EU tend to be a bit fantastical and exaggerated. First people were saying Le Pen would bring about its collapse alongside other populist leaders. Now that's not happening, and something else will be made up to try and argue for a collapse that's not at all on the verge of happening.

 

[I Believe]

It depends on what you constitute as 'meaningful reform'

Example: Stop wasting millions on moving the EU commission/parliament every few months from Brussels to Strasbourg (i.e. stop rinsing and repeating everything that doesn't need it!)).
They will tell you it cannot be done, because when there were 8 member states, to avoid any arguments between France and Belgium about who gets most of the gravy this compromise was agreed and written into the Treaty of Rome. Therefore its untouchable and so are many of the meaningful reforms, its back to the 'free movement' thing, they can't change it because its set in concrete... which eventually will fall in on their heads!
Yes, they can decide to change the colour of the toilet paper and what kind of soap is required in the loo's, things and reforms like that, no problem.. the EU will excel, but they will need a committee of 27 members to do it!

 

[NinjaFletch]

I Believe... any old cobblers

 

[marktan]

It's not bitterness, it's bewilderment. The forecasts are nothing to do with wanting the Uk to suffer, it's just the logical conclusion. People make statements, even obviously intelligent people on here but because they haven't checked their facts and make wild assumptions they make themselves look daft. Brainwashing appears to work.
As for a federalist state, take France where I live, they are as strongly patriotic as the UK and there's no way they would want to be part of a USE. France is in the EU fine but they are a sovereign state and the people realise this, why don't the Brits.
As for immigrants if countries sign up , they're not forced to, they abide by the rules. The UK opted out of taking the fleeing refugees but because they've been lied to the public think they are overrun with them.

You say the UK will be left to dry, but no, the logical conclusion is that the UK as a country will be fine with a deal being reached with the EU. Even without a deal, the economy won't tank, it'll take some damage, but it'll be fine. That's the logical conclusion. Anything else is bitterness and a desire to push the opinion that UK's going to suffer more than it is. I don't mean to be offensive, but I see this a lot with expats, they always come out with xyz reason why Britain is so bad so as to sort of justify to themselves their reason for leaving. You did it in your last post with the 'opinion of the average brit' remark. I also see this with a lot of non-Brits, and I'll admit it's very tedious to read coming from people who don't even live here. Yes there'll be some downsides to the process, but the constant doom-mongering predictions about the UK's future is wrong imo.

And no, the migrant issue is a wider issue facing the EU in the context of ever closer integration. Saying France is fine in the EU doesn't actually make it fine. Most countries like Hungary are in the EU because of the economic benefits. They don't want to be forced to take migrants when they don't want to. The ever closer integration that Juncker is pushing is a recipe for trouble because the opinions across the EU aren't unanimous, and inevitably the smaller countries with different opinions will lose out. There's just not enough cultural uniformity to make it work. I'm curious to see how the Hungary issue works out, because either the EU court actually means something, or Hungary's gov is forced to do something it's refusing to do. Either way, the clash in what the EU wants vs what sovereign nations want politically is highlighted.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You say the UK will be left to dry, but no, the logical conclusion is that the UK as a country will be fine with a deal being reached with the EU. Even without a deal, the economy won't tank, it'll take some damage, but it'll be fine. That's the logical conclusion. Anything else is bitterness and a desire to push the opinion that UK's going to suffer more than it is. I don't mean to be offensive, but I see this a lot with expats, they always come out with xyz reason why Britain is so bad so as to sort of justify to themselves their reason for leaving. You did it in your last post with the 'opinion of the average brit' remark. I also see this with a lot of non-Brits, and I'll admit it's very tedious to read coming from people who don't even live here. Yes there'll be some downsides to the process, but the constant doom-mongering predictions about the UK's future is wrong imo.

And no, the migrant issue is a wider issue facing the EU in the context of ever closer integration. Saying France is fine in the EU doesn't actually make it fine. Most countries like Hungary are in the EU because of the economic benefits. They don't want to be forced to take migrants when they don't want to. The ever closer integration that Juncker is pushing is a recipe for trouble because the opinions across the EU aren't unanimous, and inevitably the smaller countries with different opinions will lose out. There's just not enough cultural uniformity to make it work. I'm curious to see how the Hungary issue works out, because either the EU court actually means something, or Hungary's gov is forced to do something it's refusing to do. Either way, the clash in what the EU wants vs what sovereign nations want politically is highlighted.

In what way will the economy be fine. If the UK left now they'd have torn up the agreement for the single market and the customs union. They would no longer be members of the WTO so every single agreement they have at this moment will be null and void and they have to start from the beginning with every single country out there. That means after years of trying to obtain WTO membership they might be able to start concluding some deals.

Now if the Uk has dozens of teams of negotiators to be able to negotiate and formalise agreements with all the countries they want to deal with. How long does an agreement take to negotiate and finalise? Even May said this afternoon suggested it will take takes many years - so what are you going to do in the meantime - yes that is what she was hinting at this afternoon , she desperately needs the EU to give them time because the UK is in desperate trouble without a deal, so she's talking about a 2 year transitional deal, it will take longer than that to sort their economy out, the EU have said 3 maximum, and during that time the UK will be paying their subs without rebates, still have the ECJ have no MEPs , no vote, no say - welcome to Brexit - brilliant.

Now under the new regime in what 5, 10 years or maybe never the UK will be able to sell to all these countries Brexiters think they don't sell to now. So having pissed off Europe and made imports and exports between the EU and the UK much more complicated - what happens in trade when things get too complicated , they go elsewhere . The UK now want to sell to these places like the USA and the ex-colonies - surprise, you already do, try selling a lot more to each of them to replace the EU downturn - why not do that now, nothing stopping the UK.

The UK will be alright if it stays within the protection of the EU, maybe it will come to it's senses eventually before it is too late.

Had a few suggestions from other Brexiteers about France voting for Le Pen because they thought it was about the EU, some was, but guess what, the majority is about racism and xenophobia - not other EU citizens I may add - yes there are some in France too, fortunately not as prevalent as in the UK.

I am not an Expat (this is an English term because some Englishmen don't like to be classed as foreigners) - I am English-born person who lives in France and until just over a year ago ran two UK companies (retired) - so I'm not out of touch, have family in England so I don't particularly want the UK to collapse.
I also don't have to justify to myself why I live here. It's my choice

It's not doom-mongering, it's so bleeding obvious. Come back to me when I get something wrong, the last couple of years have panned out as expected so far.

I haven't even touched on the logistical problems, confidence of investors and the finance/service industry. I really am bewildered by this stick your head in the sand and hope that everything will be alright attitude - it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[marktan]

It's not doom-mongering, it's so bleeding obvious. Come back to me when I get something wrong, the last couple of years have panned out as expected so far.

What's panned out exactly as expected? Nothing's happened so far.

And no, it's not sticking your head in the sand. You're making one sided assumptions about things that might happen and expecting it happen as fact. Do you really think a EU-UK trade deal is so one sided that it's not in the EU's interest too? May indicated today they'd be happy to pay their contributions to the EU budget till 2020, which is what the EU demanded, do you really think the UK will offer that if the EU turns around and says access to the single market isn't possible? You think everything the UK will agree too (i.e. EU citizen rights) in the first stage of negotiations will still hold if some form of access to the single market doesn't get given? The EU's our biggest trade partner, yes, but we're NET importers of about £80 billion - so who loses out more? You think all the german car makers and all the other exporters to us will be happy? May's speech today was specifically highlighting the need to offer concessions to reach that deal. They know it's a priority.

That's what I talk about doom-mongering, all this talk about xyz that's going to wrong when nothing's happened and a deal being reached is more likely that not. You go on about all these things going wrong when none of that is a foregone conclusion.

And you completely ignored my second paragraph about the structural weakness of the EU, who's sticking their head in the sand?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

What's panned out exactly as expected? Nothing's happened so far.

And no, it's not sticking your head in the sand. You're making one sided assumptions about things that might happen and expecting it happen as fact. Do you really think a EU-UK trade deal is so one sided that it's not in the EU's interest too? May indicated today they'd be happy to pay their contributions to the EU budget till 2020, which is what the EU demanded, do you really think the UK will offer that if the EU turns around and says access to the single market isn't possible? You think everything the UK will agree too (i.e. EU citizen rights) in the first stage of negotiations will still hold if some form of access to the single market doesn't get given? The EU's our biggest trade partner, yes, but we're NET importers of about £80 billion - so who loses out more? You think all the german car makers and all the other exporters to us will be happy? May's speech today was specifically highlighting the need to offer concessions to reach that deal. They know it's a priority.

That's what I talk about doom-mongering, all this talk about xyz that's going to wrong when nothing's happened and a deal being reached is more likely that not. You go on about all these things going wrong when none of that is a foregone conclusion.

And you completely ignored my second paragraph about the structural weakness of the EU, who's sticking their head in the sand?

If you'd bothered to read previously, all these points have been covered numerous times, pointless saying it yet again and again and again - yes the EU need the Uk more than the other way round if that makes you feel happy.
Glad the pound hasn't tanked, glad inflation is not increasing, glad you're even further away from leaving than you were 15 months ago. Even your hard-line Brexiteers have realised it's all a sham.

 

[JPRouve]

@marktan Maybe I missed something but the problem with Hungary is that they automatically put migrants in jail, even the ones who follow the rules and officially seek asylum and that problem is with the ECHR which isn't the EU but the Council of Europe. The ECJ who is part of the EU already said that countries were free to grant asylum as they want but bear in mind that they still have to respect Human rights.

 

[marktan]

@marktan Maybe I missed something but the problem with Hungary is that they automatically put migrants in jail, even the ones who follow the rules and officially seek asylum and that problem is with the ECHR which isn't the EU but the Council of Europe. The ECJ who is part of the EU already said that countries were free to grant asylum as they want but bear in mind that they still have to respect Human rights.

The issue's with the compulsory relocation scheme - Hungary and a couple of other states voted against it and refused to take any of the migrants. There's more overview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638

 

[marktan]

If you'd bothered to read previously, all these points have been covered numerous times, pointless saying it yet again and again and again - yes the EU need the Uk more than the other way round if that makes you feel happy.
Glad the pound hasn't tanked, glad inflation is not increasing, glad you're even further away from leaving than you were 15 months ago. Even your hard-line Brexiteers have realised it's all a sham.

Classy response, when you can't be bothered to actually reply to my points then simply say 'it's all been said before' and patronisingly list some random points. I'd reply to them, but you're not replying to my previous post, so what's the point?

And fyi, I'm not a brexiter. I was for remaining with reforms (which weren't offered), so I abstained. It annoys me that so many fail to see the very valid reasons people had for wanting to leave and instead get fixiated on this 'little englander' stereotype mentality. I've thrice now pointed out some of the issues the political structure of the EU creates, and you've ignored it again. I'm still pro-reconciliation and close ties with the EU and I don't think Brexit is a sham. If anything it's a chance to create a better relationship that retains the good things of the EU (trading, the joint bodies on things like research) and do away with the bad (most of the political bodies).

 

[JPRouve]

The issue's with the compulsory relocation scheme - Hungary and a couple of other states voted against it and refused to take any of the migrants. There's more overview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638

I totally forgot about that one, they partially let people enter Europe(as Greece do) and then complain when they are asked to share the load

Also due to the ECHR all European countries(not just EU members) have to receive asylum seekers and treat their demands, in theory they only have the right to seek it in the first European country they meet, now guess which countries we are talking about and who that schemes benefits to. It's not Germany or France because we could dump all the migrants in Hungary, Greece, Malta or wherever they entered first.

 

[Stanley Road]

I totally forgot about that one, they partially let people enter Europe(as Greece do) and then complain when they are asked to share the load

Also due to the ECHR all European countries(not just EU members) have to receive asylum seekers and treat their demands, in theory they only have the right to seek it in the first European country they meet, now guess which countries we are talking about and who that schemes benefits to. It's not Germany or France because we could dump all the migrants in Hungary, Greece, Malta or wherever they entered first.

Thats the spirit. I think all migrants should be sent back to their entry point, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Ultimate Grib]

I’ve only read the last few pages but I’m convinced, judging by I Believe’s posts, that the majority of Brexiteers live in a world of their own. It reads almost like a “delusions of grandeur” complex.

 

[Stanley Road]

I’ve only read the last few pages but I’m convinced, judging by I Believe’s posts, that the majority of Brexiteers live in a world of their own. It reads almost like a “delusions of grandeur” complex.

Its maybe better than remains 'delusions of adequacy '

 

[711]

Just on a practical matter, with regards to exit payment, have the EU said yet how much they think it should be, with appropriate justification?

I can't seem to find it anywhere, but I don't see how any negotiation can proceed until they do, especially as they keep saying there won't be any negotiation until the fee is sorted.

I'm not making a pro or anti EU comment, just trying to figure out what's going on.

 

[JPRouve]

Thats the spirit. I think all migrants should be sent back to their entry point, what could possibly go wrong?

If I'm not mistaken the migrant routs to Germany is from Poland, Republic Czech, Hungary and all, so we can all imagine what would happen if Germany decided to follow the logic of these countries. Germans would have a good laugh though.

 

[Stanley Road]

Just on a practical matter, with regards to exit payment, have the EU said yet how much they think it should be, with appropriate justification?

I can't seem to find it anywhere, but I don't see how any negotiation can proceed until they do, especially as they keep saying there won't be any negotiation until the fee is sorted.

I'm not making a pro or anti EU comment, just trying to figure out what's going on.

No one needs to 'think of a number', if you have made a commitment to pay then the eu know exactly how much that figure is, unless of course they are incompetent twats.

 

[Kentonio]

And fyi, I'm not a brexiter. I was for remaining with reforms (which weren't offered), so I abstained. It annoys me that so many fail to see the very valid reasons people had for wanting to leave and instead get fixiated on this 'little englander' stereotype mentality. I've thrice now pointed out some of the issues the political structure of the EU creates, and you've ignored it again. I'm still pro-reconciliation and close ties with the EU and I don't think Brexit is a sham. If anything it's a chance to create a better relationship that retains the good things of the EU (trading, the joint bodies on things like research) and do away with the bad (most of the political bodies).

Ah the 'have your cake and eat it' approach, that the EU have told you repeatedly isn't an option, but apparently it is because of German car makers or something. Despite those same German car makers already publicly backing the EU approach.

 

[JPRouve]

No one needs to 'think of a number', if you have made a commitment to pay then the eu know exactly how much that figure is, unless of course they are incompetent twats.

You are right about the number being roughly known, the problem is that some expenses goes beyond the official day of brexit, like the pensions and some assets aren't liquid which means that the EU and the UK will have to make a common valuation of them.

 

[Stanley Road]

You are right about the number being roughly known, the problem is that some expenses goes beyond the official day of brexit, like the pensions and some assets aren't liquid which means that the EU and the UK will have to make a common valuation of them.

No, the eu need to tell us the cost and justify it but like everything they do, they aren't competent enuff.

 

[JPRouve]

No, the eu need to tell us the cost and justify it but like everything they do, they aren't competent enuff.

It's already done, like that conversation. The first thing the EU did was to tell the UK what they were still supposed to pay and in theory that wasn't even necessary since the UK know exactly what they are supposed to pay since it's supposed to be budgeted until 2020. Now like I said in the previous post the problem comes with the non liquid assets, those can't be unilaterally evaluated by the EU, we will have to find a common ground or the UK could still own them while not in the EU, If I'm not mistaken.

 

[711]

It's already done, like that conversation. The first thing the EU did was to tell the UK what they were still supposed to pay and in theory that wasn't even necessary since the UK know exactly what they are supposed to pay since it's supposed to be budgeted until 2020. Now like I said in the previous post the problem comes with the non liquid assets, those can't be unilaterally evaluated by the EU, we will have to find a common ground or the UK could still own them while not in the EU, If I'm not mistaken.

This is the information I'm asking for. Do you have a source or a link? The media is throwing wildly different figures about which is obviously unhelpful to everyone, surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are. 'wasn't even necessary' isn't an answer really.

For the record I think the UK should pay for it's obligations in full, I just want to know what they are.

 

[Stanley Road]

It's already done, like that conversation. The first thing the EU did was to tell the UK what they were still supposed to pay and in theory that wasn't even necessary since the UK know exactly what they are supposed to pay since it's supposed to be budgeted until 2020. Now like I said in the previous post the problem comes with the non liquid assets, those can't be unilaterally evaluated by the EU, we will have to find a common ground or the UK could still own them while not in the EU, If I'm not mistaken.

They need to come up with a guess and justify that guess, not find common ground. That will be found when bill is presented by proxy.

 

[Oscie]

The whole thing seems like waiting for your younger sibling to naturally discover that Santa Clause or WWE wrestling isn't real. We're desperate to burst their bubble but we're told we have to not be mean and wait for them to find out for themselves.

So we're in a situation where unless we pretend that it's possible that we will get all the benefits of memberships without the conditions and that all the major trading nations of the world will want to rapidly conclude trade deals that are as or more favourable to us than current arrangements through the EU - we're being mean. Invisible mother chastising us for wanting to spoil the myth the Brexit kids believe in.

You see glimpses of it through quite senior public figures with the suggestion that Brexit would be going swimmingly only if the press refused to acknowledge that it isn't going swimmingly.

"Mum!!! He said Santa isn't real and if he keeps saying that Santa won't bring me any presents because he only delivers to houses where everyone believes, I read it in a story book!!"

We're in a position where closing our eyes and clicking our ruby slippers and repeating "There's no place like an extensive free trade agreement" is seen by many of the Brexiters as a sensible plan, which'd work if it wasn't for those pesky 'Remoaners'

 

[JPRouve]

This is the information I'm asking for. Do you have a source or a link? The media is throwing wildly different figures about which is obviously unhelpful to everyone, surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are. 'wasn't even necessary' isn't an answer really.

For the record I think the UK should pay for it's obligations in full, I just want to know what they are.

I posted the link in the thread, there are no amounts the EU simply listed all the legal acts that the UK signed that are linked with a payment, you just have to add them up.

Here you have everything about the EU positions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub..._core_flex_publication_date[value][year]=2017

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

This is the information I'm asking for. Do you have a source or a link? The media is throwing wildly different figures about which is obviously unhelpful to everyone, surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are. 'wasn't even necessary' isn't an answer really.

For the record I think the UK should pay for it's obligations in full, I just want to know what they are.

Yeah, a figure would be nice. I don't mind us paying the agreed budget in full but I don't understand why the EU can't put a figure on any sundry items they think the UK also owes. I'm hoping it isn't because there is some extraordinary figure three to five times the annual contribution of its second largest contributor that has been hidden, misappropriated or surreptitiously spent and the UK voting leave has brought it into focus. That wouldn't look good on the EU at all.

This you know the figure but we won't tell you nonsense isn't cutting it anymore and the final settlement will have to exclude any bodies we continue to remain members of and pay our share off so that will depend on the agreement reached which we can't get to until we sort the money out.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah, a figure would be nice. I don't mind us paying the agreed budget in full but I don't understand why the EU can't put a figure on any sundry items they think the UK also owes. I'm hoping it isn't because there is some extraordinary figure three to five times the annual contribution of its second largest contributor that has been hidden, misappropriated or surreptitiously spent and the UK voting leave has brought it into focus. That wouldn't look good on the EU at all.

This you know the figure but we won't tell you nonsense isn't cutting it anymore and the final settlement will have to exclude any bodies we continue to remain members of and pay our share off so that will depend on the agreement reached which we can't get to until we sort the money out.

But we won't have a figure other than the current budget until 2020 plus the pensions. At least not until the UK clearly tell what they want, just an example with ECSEL.JU are the UK in or out? At the moment the only thing the EU can do is point to the current agreements and joint ventures.

 

[The Outsider]

In what way will the economy be fine. If the UK left now they'd have torn up the agreement for the single market and the customs union. They would no longer be members of the WTO so every single agreement they have at this moment will be null and void and they have to start from the beginning with every single country out there. That means after years of trying to obtain WTO membership they might be able to start concluding some deals.

Paul, as EU members we have an umbrella membership for the WTO.
My understanding is we currently trade with China under WTO rules.
As far as I am aware you can still trade with countries even if you are not a WTO member you just don't get the WTO protection. This suggests you should be careful when picking your trading partners yet would not stop us making bilateral trade deals.

 

[711]

I posted the link in the thread, there are no amounts the EU simply listed all the legal I acts that the UK signed that are linked with a payment, you just have to add them up.

Here you have everything about the EU positions: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub..._core_flex_publication_date[value][year]=2017

I appreciate you're trying to help, but 'just add them up' is bollocks really. Like everyone in the country is supposed to read all the acts and budgets, noting down the figures, and then adding them up? Well I for one don't have the expertise or the time to do that, and I doubt many of the other 300 million or whatever citizens have either. Is every individual politician of all nations supposed to be 'just adding them up' as well, instead of the bureaucrats that are paid to do that sort of thing? I suppose it might explain a lot if they were.

As for pensions and other costs accrued during the UK's membership, of course the UK should pay those in full, but what are they? Or do we all have to add those up for ourselves as well?

 

[JPRouve]

I appreciate you're trying to help, but 'just add them up' is bollocks really. Like everyone in the country is supposed to read all the acts and budgets, noting down the figures, and then adding them up? Well I for one don't have the expertise or the time to do that, and I doubt many of the other 300 million or whatever citizens have either. Is every individual politician of all nations supposed to be 'just adding them up' as well, instead of the bureaucrats that are paid to do that sort of thing? I suppose it might explain a lot if they were.

As for pensions and other costs accrued during the UK's membership, of course the UK should pay those in full, but what are they? Or do we all have to add those up for ourselves as well?

Sorry, by "you" I meant the government not you and I. And they(the governments) have the figures, they just decided to not give them.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Paul, as EU members we have an umbrella membership for the WTO.
My understanding is we currently trade with China under WTO rules.
As far as I am aware you can still trade with countries even if you are not a WTO member you just don't get the WTO protection. This suggests you should be careful when picking your trading partners yet would not stop us making bilateral trade deals.

Yes the Uk is currently a WTO member because they are part of the EU and will continue to be so until they leave the EU. Problem is that if and when they leave the EU they will no longer be part of the WTO and have to apply to join which on average takes 5 years which is why they need a transitional deal with the EU to pass them over this time.
Assuming they are accepted in the WTO they still have to start negotiating deals with their intended customers and suppliers which takes many years too.
I think four or 5 countries in the whole world are not members of the WTO. To do deals you have to have a set of rules and jurisdiction in case of dispute and so on, you can't just make them up as you go along and why would any country want to do deals in such a fashion.

This is what is so perplexing, when we talk of a cliff edge, why would a country do this to themselves

 

[I Believe]

surely both the EU and the UK should state openly what the amounts are

No they can't, because there is no reliable independent audits to check previous spend and/or due diligence about where the money is actually going, really its only a guesstimate of what is required and what has been spent.

Overall Commission expenditure is outlined in budgets but detailed spending specifically on projects is not until the year a project starts, although monies are assigned sometimes 12 months in advance they are not documented or signed off on, in theory, until all information is received; however from my past experience, this could be on flimsy evidence, hence the openings for corruption were myriad. I do believe some tightening up was achieved in the mid 00's, but if you go back to the original 'British rebate, the reasons for this were that it turns out Britain was paying too much (to be honest how this was worked out exactly was a mystery then and still is) and to be sure the EU 'paid-up' over a period of time, not defined, Mrs Thatcher was given a rebate on Britain's budget payments, that in theory would eventually reduce over time. Of course Tony Blair when he was PM agreed to a reduction in the British rebate, (a rebate on the rebate if you like) precisely what for, nobody even in the EU, knows for sure.

I suspect that neither sides knows exactly what the true debit/credit situation is in regards to Britain's membership, partly because no one expected a Brexit outcome in a million years and so as long as the 'wheels stayed on the waggon' everything was OK, just keep feeding the horses at one end and shovelling the 's**t* at the other and everything will be all right and an apt mantra.

Whilst there is obvious concern about both economies, Britain's withdrawal from the EU will cause massive tremors in the financing of the EU itself and the main problems will be knowing where the 'sink holes' will appear. Mrs May knows or suspects this and hence her offer to anti-up until 2020 is a genuine offer to steady the ship and allow the EU time to get its own house in order, in return she wants the transition period to allow us to negotiate new trade deals. Theresa is risking the wrath of the Brexiteers (the ultras that is) but she is holding out an olive branch, which if Juncker is kept locked up somewhere then EU will accept.

 

[711]

Sorry, by "you" I meant the government not you and I. And they(the governments) have the figures, they just decided to not give them.

Right, apologies. Yet when article 50 was signed didn't Barnier or someone make a big point of how negotiations should all be in the open, with no secrecy? It seemed to upset the British at the time, who didn't even want parliament to have a say, just the government. Anyway it's turned out to be nonsense of course, so we just have reams of speculation from all sides using whatever figures they want that suits their argument at the time.

edit: Thanks I Believe, no idea if you're right or wrong but I've not a lot of confidence anyone else has either.