REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Sniffer]

We're about to go into a negotiation - surely what he should be doing is whatever it takes to get the best deal for his employers. He isn't an idiot and he isn't crowing, that is just you applying your own prejudices to someone you don't agree with.

We are living in 24 hour news culture - these people are being pressed for comment all the time. There is no benefit for him or the EU to say nothing, he is stating a reality that could probably be uncovered by some inspection of the treaties, agreements and commitments that are all a matter of public record. The EU has not asked us to leave, that is our decision.

The amount was well documented before the referendum.

I'll expect our illustrious leader to make a comment similar to her illustrious predecessor who when confronted with an additional bill from the EU stated to the worlds media that he wasn't going to pay it.

 

[leedswolf]

The amount was well documented before the referendum.

I'll expect our illustrious leader to make a comment similar to her illustrious predecessor who when confronted with an additional bill from the EU stated to the worlds media that he wasn't going to pay it.

Scaremongering.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Well, no. Its more like buying a sofa from DFS on a five year credit deal and then cancelling the payments because after two years you take it down the tip.

Because its faulty and not working as it was supposed to however its just outside of its warranty so you Negotiate with dfs to Get the remaining payments reduced or cancelled Just an alterrnate view.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

If it was faulty then you would get it cancelled. Unless it was faulty through fair wear and tear. Plus DFS would sort of have to agree it was faulty. If they say it isn't you owe them.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

If it was faulty then you would get it cancelled. Unless it was faulty through fair wear and tear. Plus DFS would sort of have to agree it was faulty. If they say it isn't you owe them.

The metaphor is that Britain feels the EU is faulty. It has opted out of schenghen and the euro. It has voted to leave as the EU is not doing as advertised in the view of the customer. Therefore its negotiating terms to leave. I would not expect in the sofa example dfs to be announcing that they would be enforcing all fees before we even started talking

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

It's more like we've had it for years and then suddenly decided we don't like the colour and we'll blame the shop for that.

Why should the EU be offering us a rebate on what we actually owe? If we're offering nothing in return?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

It's more like we've had it for years and then suddenly decided we don't like the colour and we'll blame the shop for that.

Why should the EU be offering us a rebate on what we actually owe? If we're offering nothing in return?

Dan. We have a 25 year history of veto's and opt outs starting from Maastricht. We are members of a golf club that plays with a snooker cue. True it can work on the greens but the driving is shit.

 

[So Long Architect]

I don't think we can really complain about the rhetoric of the EU's leaders when our own foreign minister refers to Brexit as "liberation", which is just a tad loaded in a European context, isn't it?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Simple fact is that the DFS analogy is somewhat flawed.

You go cap in hand the way you are suggesting and they will say no. Go saying, oi cunts, deal with it, or I am off to furniture warehouse incorporated, and they will invite you to try your best. And by the way, you still owe for your European sofa.

 

[nimrod]

Simple fact is that the DFS analogy is somewhat flawed.

You go cap in hand the way you are suggesting and they will say no. Go saying, oi $#@!s, deal with it, or I am off to furniture warehouse incorporated, and they will invite you to try your best. And by the way, you still owe for your European sofa.

quite. i mean different rules of the game and you'd need to understand what you've signed up to do/committed to to properly assess.

we did briefly talk about this a few weeks back and i think TSB suggested our annual commitment (12%) was £13bn per year, so on that basis £60bn sounds a lotto. i put this down for discussion - feel free to tell me it's a load of crap if that's what anyone thinks.

fair enough, and it doesn’t seem like any principles are written in stone. 7 years though seems bizarre especially if it is on top of normal payments over the next 2 years. for a breakdown I was thinking along the lines of splitting our current 12% contributions into capital and revenue/operating budgets and dealing with it that way (though I appreciate contributions may not even be broken down like this). this may be a bit simplistic, and in the absence of any detail so purely for discussion we could pay for:

1. Any existing deficit at the point of exit – ie our share of any overspend to date + provable provision for existing liabilities (eg deficit in a DB pension scheme). presumably audited. existing ‘liabilities’ have been referred to, though I’ve not seen any detail.

2. Revenue/operational budget over the 2 years from the trigger. I assume we pay as normal as still a member but the eu therefore has 2 years to reduce this budget by 12% in order to cope with us leaving. that’s in their control, and so beyond that not sure why we would have to contribute any additional beyond the 2 years for exiting. we may have to pay something for any new negotiated relationship.

3. Any one off costs to reduce budget in 2 - eg redundancy costs. I’m sure eu may try to argue this all our cost as it is caused by us leaving.

4. Ongoing capital projects. gets a bit tricky as I imagine we have technically ‘approved’ projects as a member and so the argument may be that we have committed spend on these projects until they complete. whether that’s a valid argument may depend on how the funding and approvals process for capital projects works. it seems reasonable to say once you exercise the trigger that any new capital projects cannot rely on any uk funding, even in respect of the subsequent 2 years, as any benefits from them won’t accrue to the uk. any deal on existing projects could depend on when they were started, but not sure why we should be paying for years ahead on projects we get no advantage out of.

anyway, just a thought. I’m sure a negotiation could break the above, especially capital, into numerous other buckets.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

It's the pension payments.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Any project that the EU has agreed while the UK is/was a member is funded from the budget provided to it by member states. As the UK is a member state until exit they are contributors to the budget. Whether the project is in the UK or Spain is irrelevant, we have made an ongoing commitment to that and should be expected to honour that commitment on exit as we (as part of the collective EU) agreed to it. Or, we pay an exit fee to cover these liabilities that we have committed to by being a member of the union.

Decisions that have been made, again that we are party to, will have ongoing costs. We should be expected to cover our contribution to that cost for a period of time - that time to be negotiated but I think it is reasonable for the EU to have an expectation that they are not required to make up any shortfall due to a decision they had no part in.

The EU has a moral as well as financial responsibility to protect the interests of their members. I am sure if it was Germany leaving, our government would expect the EU to broker a deal that did not mean our contributions increased to cover their withdrawal.

I really don't see the reason for the angst.

 

[lemonjelly]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/22/brexit-talks-could-get-gory-bitter-and-twisted-sir-ivan-rogers

 

[leedswolf]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...st-realised-reducing-immigration-problem-them

 

[leedswolf]

A Conservative peer has revealed how she was branded a “slut”, a “whore”, a “harlot” and “scum” for warning Brexit would be bad for Britain.

Baroness Wheatcroft told the House of Lords of the “irrational hostility” she received while campaigning for a ‘Remain’ vote.

 

[Johnny75]

A Conservative peer has revealed how she was branded a “slut”, a “whore”, a “harlot” and “scum” for warning Brexit would be bad for Britain.

Baroness Wheatcroft told the House of Lords of the “irrational hostility” she received while campaigning for a ‘Remain’ vote.

I can't imagine Boris would behave like that......

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Back in the real world, the predicted Armageddon of voting to leave has not materialised.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Neither has Article 50 yet. As and when that process happens, if the economy is great, then everyone is a winner. Celebrating now is a touch premature.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Celebrate?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Yes - I think if the economy stays as it is now that probably would be a hell of a result. It might happen. In my view, I think it is extremely unlikely, but I will be delighted if it all pulls through. To imagine that because it hasn't gone badly yet means that it won't is ignoring the realities of the main drivers of the likely downturn having not been set in stone yet.