/ The actual cost of Brexit

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
The Ice Doctor - on 15 Jul 2017

The elite, rake it in.

Farage walks away with his pension.

The UK is conned.

Buses and meaningless slogans.

Exit bill in 2019 will be 32 plus 20 billion plus 10 billion Euros. Research some facts folks. That's 52 Billion Euro's. What for?

(Whats worse is there will probably be 'No Deal', either)

The NHS, privatised, Trident will be useless. Government spending money on wasteful stuff to please shareholders, while people on zero hours and the kids of today have less and less opportunity to line directors pockets like Mike Ashley who can spend £20,000 on a night out. I'm disgusted with our politicians. Absolutely disgusted. They work for us? I dont think so.

The kids of the future, what 'rights' will they have?
Post edited at 12:25
ERB - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The elite have always raked it in brexit will not change that. Everything you are talking about was happening before leaving the shackles of the EU, I agree the level of wealth of the elite is obscene and wealth distribution needs to happen but under a capitalist system it's not likely.
arch - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

You need to get out more chap.
BnB - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

> Exit bill in 2019 will be 32 plus 20 billion plus 10 billion Euros. Research some facts folks. That's 52 Billion Euro's. What for?

> (Whats worse is there will probably be 'No Deal', either)

Had you considered that without a deal there'll be no incentive to accept a big exit bill?

Your enthusiasm for having your shit sandwich and eat it knows few bounds.

RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Had you considered that without a deal there'll be no incentive to accept a big exit bill?

But no deal will no doubt cost a lot more.
MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Had you considered that without a deal there'll be no incentive to accept a big exit bill?

Other than destroying a centuries old reputation of the UK paying it's bills none at all.
andyfallsoff - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

We'd be an international laughing stock if we were seen as defaulting on obligations (which is how much of the world would see us if we just refused to pay anything).

Argentina mark 2, but without the scenery, the beef and the wine...
BnB - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> We'd be an international laughing stock if we were seen as defaulting on obligations (which is how much of the world would see us if we just refused to pay anything).

All three of you are missing the point. The exit bill has no precedent so it's not remotely clear what our obligations are other than there needs to be some reckoning. But a bigger exit bill paves the way for a trade deal with the obverse being that no deal means we revisit the divorce bill.

How else do you imagine it working?

MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> All three of you are missing the point. The exit bill has no precedent so it's not remotely clear what our obligations are

There are plenty of precedents. Obviously there is some uncertainty over the precise figure, but imagining we can walk away from treaty and other obligations with no long term effect on our global reputation for trustworthiness is just more brexit delusional bullshit.
BnB - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:

> There are plenty of precedents. Obviously there is some uncertainty over the precise figure, but imagining we can walk away from treaty and other obligations with no long term effect on our global reputation for trustworthiness is just more brexit delusional bullshit.

And where did I say that we would walk away without paying? It's a question of degrees. Politics comes in many shades of grey, not black and white.

As so often with UKC's horror of Brexit the urge to stamp on any pragmatic common sense overwhelms any sober contemplation.
MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> And where did I say that we would walk away without paying?

You said there would be no incentive

"Had you considered that without a deal there'll be no incentive to accept a big exit bill?"

I've pointed out the rather large incentive. You really need to temper your enthusiasm for marching off in a huff with a bit of reality.
BnB - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:
> You said there would be no incentive

> "Had you considered that without a deal there'll be no incentive to accept a big exit bill?"

> I've pointed out the rather large incentive. You really need to temper your enthusiasm for marching off in a huff with a bit of reality.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm a Remainer. If you actually contemplated my wording for a moment you might see past your assumptions.
Post edited at 15:09
MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Sorry to disappoint you but I'm a Remainer.
Bollocks, you a constant cheerleader for brexit, however you voted.

MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> . Hint: replace the word "big" with something else.
It doesn't matter the important but is our trustworthiness.

Stichtplate on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:

Since entering the EU we've paid in over £100 billion more than we've taken out.

Consider this... you go to the pub with your friends, you stand your round all night (even though you're on bitter and they're all on expensive lager), you decide to go home early.
At which point your friends get all shirty and demand you stump up for the next couple of rounds.

I'd be looking for new friends.
BnB - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:

> Bollocks, you a constant cheerleader for brexit, however you voted.

No. I'm a cheerleader for pragmatism and realpolitik, neither of which are well represented here. If the balance were 97/3 in favour of Brexit on UKC, instead of the other way round, I'd be arguing from the other corner.
MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

That's an utterly ridiculous analogy. We have benefited far far more from the greater trade the EU has produced than any cost to us directly. In any case, that's not the issue, paying what we owe is.
MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> No. I'm a cheerleader for pragmatism and realpolitik,

Suggesting breaching legal and other commitments.is neither of those.

Stichtplate on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:
> That's an utterly ridiculous analogy. We have benefited far far more from the greater trade the EU has produced than any cost to us directly. In any case, that's not the issue, paying what we owe is.

Oh I see . So the EU hasn't also benefited from greater trade with the UK. Remind me , which way does the UK/EU trade deficit fall?

Edit: as far as this bill we supposedly owe. It has no legal basis. We signed no treaty in this regard. We have made no obligations.
Post edited at 15:23
MG - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Oh I see . So the EU hasn't also benefited from greater trade with the UK. Remind me , which way does the UK/EU trade deficit fall?

Everyone has benefitted as the EU economy is much larger than it would otherwise have beenm. This is one reason for the EU (and other trade blocks) to exist. If you don't get this, you need to do some reading.

> Edit: as far as this bill we supposedly owe. It has no legal basis. We signed no treaty in this regard. We have made no obligations
We have.

Stichtplate on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:

> Everyone has benefitted as the EU economy is much larger than it would otherwise have beenm. This is one reason for the EU (and other trade blocks) to exist. If you don't get this, you need to do some reading.

You ignore my point on the balance of trade deficit.

> We have.

No we haven't. We have a moral obligation to pay our way regarding obvious commitments such as pensions, but EU demands that we pay an exit bill have no legal grounds whatsoever.
BnB - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:

> Suggesting breaching legal and other commitments.is neither of those.

Which I still haven't done. You're too quick to assumptions.
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:
> No. I'm a cheerleader for pragmatism and realpolitik, neither of which are well represented here.

Part of the problem is that you seem to think that pragmatism and realpolitik will win the day, you just take it for granted. Possibly because you've not known anything else ?

But there is in fact, no guarantee that it will win the day, in fact, everything suggests it probably won't, the UK is stuck on a ideological path to a hard brexit, and calamity will follow.
It's pretty obvious to me that the political situation makes it impossible for the UK gov to make the concessions they need to get a pragmatic brexit.
Post edited at 16:14
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> No we haven't. We have a moral obligation to pay our way regarding obvious commitments such as pensions, but EU demands that we pay an exit bill have no legal grounds whatsoever.

Actually the legal grounds are there, it's simply that there is no forum where they can be enforced once we leave. So in theory yes, we can very well leave them and stick them with the tab.
But that does not need to matter, if the UK didn't pay for what it already committed, it will be seen as having defaulted on its obligation. If that was to happen there is no chance on earth that EU countries would then cooperate to protect our vital interests in the foreseeable future.
Post edited at 16:24
Stichtplate on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Part of the problem is that you seem to think that pragmatism and realpolitik will win the day, you just take it for granted. Possibly because you've not known anything else ?

> But there is in fact, no guarantee that it will win the day, in fact, everything suggests it probably won't, the UK is stuck on a ideological path to a hard brexit, and calamity will follow.

> It's pretty obvious to me that the political situation makes it impossible for the UK gov to make the concessions they need to get a pragmatic brexit.

Surprisingly enough, I'm in full agreement with you. What sticks in my throat is that so many on here seem to be in a rush to acquiesce fully with EU demands before we even enter negotiations. Seems a ridiculous position to take bearing in mind the economic shitstorm we are in a collision course with .

Edit: re the legal grounds you posit in your subsequent post; not what I've read. Would be interested if you could point me at a source.
Post edited at 16:33
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Surprisingly enough, I'm in full agreement with you. What sticks in my throat is that so many on here seem to be in a rush to acquiesce fully with EU demands before we even enter negotiations. Seems a ridiculous position to take bearing in mind the economic shitstorm we are in a collision course with .

Well I think you frame this negotiation as a bargaining situation, the same way that you would negotiate, say, a business deal.
But this is not really the situation we're in, the weakness of the UK's hand is such that there isn't much bargaining possible on the fundamentals, any bargaining will be on cosmetic aspects, but what we can get really depends on what we can concede, not really on how hard we bargain.

To a large extent, if you look at the EU demands, they seem rather reasonable.

The first one was to just freeze the rights of EU citizens as they are, with no retroactive removal of rights. You would think it would be rather uncontroversial, given that this was pretty much the position of the leave campaign, and it seems to be the only practical reciprocal option.
And yet we've seen that the UK gov can't even agree to anything even remotely comparable. They are miles away from it.
In fact, after having reviewed all the details of the UK position, it seems to me that this is, by design, not a plan for a reciprocal deal, but it is in fact a plan for a no deal situation.

The second thing is just to pay what we've already committed to pay, and any outstanding liabilities (and it works the other way as well)
There again, seems reasonable,l to just settle the accounts, but I don't see how a Tory governement could get this to work, even if it's vastly cheaper than a no deal, there are too many absolutists Tory MP who will veto this at the first opportunity.


> Edit: re the legal grounds you posit in your subsequent post; not what I've read. Would be interested if you could point me at a source.

Well just read the report from the House of Lords. It's rather well made and pretty exhaustive. Their conclusion is basically, yes, we have all these financial commitments, in practice, they are not enforceable in any court of law. So the brexiteers are right to say that we don't have to pay any exit bill.
But of course, beyond the legal practicalities, if we walk away from our financial commitments, this is an irreparable breach of trust which will inevitably trigger a heinous reaction.
Stichtplate on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well just read the report from the House of Lords. It's rather well made and pretty exhaustive. Their conclusion is basically, yes, we have all these financial commitments, in practice, they are not enforceable in any court of law. So the brexiteers are right to say that we don't have to pay any exit bill.

Pretty much as I understood it. However, the real issue is how you frame these 'commitments' .

For most of them it's a case of 'well , you were a member state when this expenditure was voted through, so even though you get absolutely no benefit from it and its an open ended program, we're going to hold you financially liable'.

This is obviously unfair and unenforceable.

Stichtplate on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But of course, beyond the legal practicalities, if we walk away from our financial commitments, this is an irreparable breach of trust which will inevitably trigger a heinous reaction.

This is ground we've been over before . Much of the EU have been ignoring their NATO obligations and overseas aid commitments for decades. Not to mention the inevitable and massive Greek debt write off that the EU has just postponed addressing for another 12 months.
Disregarding unenforceable financial obligations has been standard in Europe for a very long time.
Global reaction to the UK following suit in an entirely understandable situation , will amount to a big shrug of the shoulders.
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

> This is ground we've been over before . Much of the EU have been ignoring their NATO obligations and overseas aid commitments for decades.
Not to mention the inevitable and massive Greek debt write off that the EU has just postponed addressing for another 12 months.

> Disregarding unenforceable financial obligations has been standard in Europe for a very long time.

You're exaggerating it, but yes, there is a bit of truth in this.
And as you may have noticed this has created some problems for the EU.
However for a massive economy like the EU this is manageable.
But for a lone country, especially one that will have to renegotiate more than 750 international treaties on exit day, and seeks to conclude new trade deals, starting on day one with a badly damaged reputation will not serve us one bit.

> Global reaction to the UK following suit in an entirely understandable situation , will amount to a big shrug of the shoulders.

You seem to be at odds with what the rest of the world thinks. For the most part, they don't understand brexit, they think we've gone nuts. Our reputation of stability and reliability is already very badly damaged. Let's not make it worse.
Most importantly, the EU will care if we stick them with the tab. And no matter how much you dislike it, we have to get along with our biggest trading partner and nearest allies if we want to protect our vital interests.
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Pretty much as I understood it. However, the real issue is how you frame these 'commitments' .

> For most of them it's a case of 'well , you were a member state when this expenditure was voted through, so even though you get absolutely no benefit from it and its an open ended program, we're going to hold you financially liable'.

You've not understood well then. The commission made it very clear, the UK must honour the commitments it has already made, and in exchange, of course, EU commitments to the UK will also be honoured. That means that we would continue to get cash back on EU programs for many years after brexit, the pensions of British workers in the EU institution would keep being paid, etc etc... That's why the gross "bill" is estimated to be in the region of a 100bn, but the net "bill" is about half of that.

summo on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
I believe there is only one country in Europe that has never defaulted on debt?

That is actual debt, not a contrived figure that the eu wishes to Bill the UK for so that it can balance its books for a couple of years, whilst it works out how it will tell the net contributor nations they must now pay much more as the UK has left.

Obviously as a net contributor the UK will be due some money on exit. At least one 27th of all eu asset value it has contributed too, buildings, infrastructure, funds in ECB, art, wine etc... lets hope the eu doesn't default and damage it's reputation.
Post edited at 19:51
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to summo:
> I believe there is only one country in Europe that has never defaulted on debt?

> That is actual debt, not a contrived figure that the eu wishes to Bill the UK for so that it can balance its books for a couple of years, whilst it works out how it will tell the net contributor nations they must now pay much more as the UK has left.

Yes, and what has happened when the UK defaulted on its debt ? You think it was without consequences ? The last time it happened economic policy was effectively surrendered to the IMF, and inflation skyrocketed. It took a long time and a lot of pain to recover from it.

> Obviously as a net contributor the UK will be due some money on exit. At least one 27th of all eu asset value it has contributed too, buildings, infrastructure, funds in ECB, art, wine etc... lets hope the eu does default and damage it's reputation.

The fact that the UK was a net contributor does not mean that we are due some money on exit. In fact the very opposite is true. If we are due some money, it will be those monies already agreed prior exit.

As for the EU assets (buildings etc), they simply belong to another legal entity.
It's like saying that when you leave your golf club, you would somehow be entitled to a share of the golf course because you've been paying in for years. That's not the way it works.
Post edited at 20:01
summo on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It's like saying that when you leave your golf club, you would somehow be entitled to a share of the golf course because you've been paying in for years. That's not the way it works.

You also wouldn't have to pay some punishment fee for leaving if it wasn't written into a legal contract when you joined.
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to summo:
> You also wouldn't have to pay some punishment fee for leaving if it wasn't written into a legal contract when you joined.

No, and nobody is suggesting any punishment of the sort. This is just paranoia.

What is being said is that upon leaving the golf club, you must pay the outstanding balance. Of course, we have to make sure that nothing "extra" is being added to the outstanding balance, and that the calculation is indeed scientifically correct.

But on the principle, what is being demanded is pretty clear and reasonable: we just settle the accounts, that is, if we want to leave on good terms in order to have a good future relationship.
However, when I read the comments from the likes of you on these forums, it's rather disheartening to see that there is a long way to go before people finally understand that.
Post edited at 20:32
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> How else do you imagine it working?

We get scared, come to our senses and chuck it in.

summo on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, and nobody is suggesting any punishment of the sort. This is just paranoia.

Over the past year various European mps and eu staff have talked about using this payment as a deterrent to others who may wish to exit. If that's not a punishment what Is?

> However, when I read the comments from the likes of you on these forums, it's rather disheartening to see that there is a long way to go before people finally understand that.

I think the UK should contribute to the eu right up to exit day. It should pick up responsibilty for pensions and other payments due to all UK MEPs and staff. Then that's it. A fresh start.

It may like Norway have some eea deal where it pays directly into the eu development fund or anything else to maintain Erasmus like Switzerland now does. But it has to be a fresh start. Not some continued dribble of money to Brussels.

Article 50 is two years. It's 1 year since the Brexit vote and the lead into the referendum was over a year. That's a 4+ year warning to the eu that it needs to plan financially for a net contributor exiting. If it can't balance the budget on its projects beyond 2019, then it only shows it's level competency for what it really is.
Stichtplate on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> We get scared, come to our senses and chuck it in.

Sorry , just got back from the pub. Are we talking about Scottish independence now?
RomTheBear on 15 Jul 2017
In reply to summo:
> Over the past year various European mps and eu staff have talked about using this payment as a deterrent to others who may wish to exit. If that's not a punishment what Is?

Lots of peopel say lots of random crap,on all sides. However the EU negotiating position is clear : this is about settling accounts, no less, no more.

> I think the UK should contribute to the eu right up to exit day. It should pick up responsibilty for pensions and other payments due to all UK MEPs and staff. Then that's it. A fresh start.

Well you will find that repsosibility for pension and such already constitutes a big chunk of what is being put forward. The rests are financial commitments that were already agreed.

> It may like Norway have some eea deal where it pays directly into the eu development fund or anything else to maintain Erasmus like Switzerland now does. But it has to be a fresh start. Not some continued dribble of money to Brussels.

You'll find that Norway pays about 2/3 of what we pay per head, a lot more than other EU countries do. And they don't even really get a say to anything.
What you are suggesting does sound like a "continued dribble of money to Brussels".. but with being a rule taker.

> Article 50 is two years. It's 1 year since the Brexit vote and the lead into the referendum was over a year. That's a 4+ year warning to the eu that it needs to plan financially for a net contributor exiting. If it can't balance the budget on its projects beyond 2019, then it only shows it's level competency for what it really is.

This has nothing to do with the ability of the EU to budget, the matter of the fact is that we signed up, black on white, to commitment that run up to 2020, one year after exit date. It just makes sense to just pay what we committed to in order to avoid any disruption to all sorts of projects, in the EU, but also in the UK, especially if we need a transitional period.
To take again the analogy of the golf club, you signed a contract running from 2014 to 2020 agreeing to pay for the membership, and you ran quite a bit of a tab as well at the bar. In 2019 you leave the club before your membership runs out. If you're honest, you have to pay the tab, and what's left to pay for the membership. If you do that, maybe you can still be playing golf until 2020.
Or you can choose to walk away paying nothing, but then, good luck finding another club...

Frankly I find it a bit alarming that people think it's OK to just screw allies and friends this way. Even more stupdi to do so when the consequences for us are far worse than for them. It says a lot about how far we've fallen and how caught up in ideology this has all become.
Post edited at 22:51
summo on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:


> To take again the analogy of the golf club, you signed a contract running from 2014 to 2020 agreeing to pay for the membership, and you ran quite a bit of a tab as well at the bar.

The only thing is, we don't have bar Bill, we've been putting money behind the bar for everyone else for years and they've become accustomed to it. They think it's their money now and can't budget without it.


> Frankly I find it a bit alarming that people think it's OK to just screw allies and friends this way.

I would agree, plenty eu nations want the UK to suffer at all costs for rejecting their business club and struggling Euro experiment. If only they had a more worldly view, rather than Europe centred.
RomTheBear on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to summo:
> The only thing is, we don't have bar Bill, we've been putting money behind the bar for everyone else for years and they've become accustomed to it. They think it's their money now and can't budget without it.

True, we paid a bit more than some others. This doesn't mean we don't have liabilities.

> I would agree, plenty eu nations want the UK to suffer at all costs for rejecting their business club and struggling Euro experiment.

You're a simpleton if you think the EU leaders are giving each other's high fives over how much pain they are going to inflict to the UK. To a large extent they've already put this behind. Nobody wants the UK to "suffer", they are just protecting their self interest now, as we will do. If the UK suffers it will be self-inflicted.

> If only they had a more worldly view, rather than Europe centred.

Yeah, sure, they've just agreed an aggrement with Canada, another one in principle with Japan, same with Mexico, negotiations with India are ongoing... what have we done so far to "take a more worldly view" ?
Post edited at 09:11
timjones - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to MG:

> Suggesting breaching legal and other commitments.is neither of those.

No-one suggested breaching any commitments!

They merely pointed out that there is much negotiation to be done and that the divorce bill and trade negotiations are intrinsically linked.
BnB - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to timjones:

> No-one suggested breaching any commitments!

> They merely pointed out that there is much negotiation to be done and that the divorce bill and trade negotiations are intrinsically linked.

Exactly. By demanding that we discuss the exit before the deal, the EU is seeking maximum leverage on the former while tacitly acknowledging how closely linked the two are!!
andyfallsoff - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to timjones:

> No-one suggested breaching any commitments!

> They merely pointed out that there is much negotiation to be done and that the divorce bill and trade negotiations are intrinsically linked.

The EU's primary position is that they aren't, though - except to the extent that they won't entertain a trade deal discussion unless we resolve the bill. That was the "row of the summer" that we conceded on - just as we will concede on all other points given time, because we have b*gger all negotiating strength compared to the EU.
RomTheBear on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:
> Exactly. By demanding that we discuss the exit before the deal, the EU is seeking maximum leverage on the former while tacitly acknowledging how closely linked the two are!!

Well of course it's linked, but it's very much a one way dependency. Nobody in the EU will entertain entering into another partnership with the UK unless it shows it can be trusted to treat their citizens well and resolve outstanding financial obligations.

It seems that part of the government is starting to quietly acknowledge this, it will be quite interesting now to see whether the Tory party can swallow the shit sandwich it fixed itself...
Post edited at 09:30
SDM on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to summo:

> The only thing is, we don't have bar Bill, we've been putting money behind the bar for everyone else for years and they've become accustomed to it. They think it's their money now and can't budget without it.

We felt we were growing stale playing the same 18 holes week after week. As an ambitious golfer, we feel we need to play on a greater variety of courses to keep improving our game and we don't want to be tied by our (or the other clubs') restrictive dress code.

After we end our membership at the golf club, we want to come to an arrangement that allows us to continue to play golf at the club and go to the club bar with our friends on a pay as you play deal. The club has a few pay as you play players but we don't want the same deal they are on, we want our own deal as we are a formally loyal member and frankly a better golfer than any of the other pay as you play players.

There are lots of other golf clubs, some of which have more courses than our local course and are arguably better but they are much further away, our friends don't play there and there are long waiting lists to be accepted to play there on pay as you play deals. Some of the clubs have said they would allow us to play there while others have given no signs that they have any interest in allowing us to play there. The other clubs have their own members but I'm sure they won't mind waiting in line while we sort out our pay as you play deal and exceptions to the dress codes that they all have to comply with.

Sure, we might be allowed to leave the club without paying the tab that they think we owe them but will they then allow us to play on a pay as you play deal? And will any of the other clubs let us in if we leave without paying? Once our membership ceases, will we be left on our own with nowhere to play at all?
Shani - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> The EU's primary position is that they aren't, though - except to the extent that they won't entertain a trade deal discussion unless we resolve the bill. That was the "row of the summer" that we conceded on - just as we will concede on all other points given time, because we have b*gger all negotiating strength compared to the EU.

Yep, and the concessions are coming thick and fast, so our position is weakening increasingly, in a moral, administrative, and, economic way.

David Davis (Brexit Bulldog), previously insisted we'd keep hold of the European Medicines Agency and, the European Banking Authority. The DexEU has now accepted these agencies will leave the EU when the Article 50 divorce proceedings end. This constitutes a loss of 1100 jobs (and associated economic activity), prestige, and influence.

Our EU partners can't believe the luck of Brexit - they now have opportunity to pluck such gems from our economy. It's a real economic tonic to Ireland, France and Germany in particular.

Oh, and with the EMA leaving Canary Wharf, there is still the £25m bill the UK has to pay in annual rent (there was no termination clause when the 30 year rental contract was signed in 2011).

Brexiteers really have no clue as to the cost of Brexit because NONE OF US DO. There was never any independent impact assessment prior to the vote and it is only incrementally that the folly of Brexit will emerge. Evidence trumps all.

EDIT: The work/function of the medicines agency will have to be expensively DUPLICATED by the UK (we'd need to train/recruit staff in competition to the existing EU agency), or accept the EU's standards without any influence on policy - which would not really be 'taking back control'!
Post edited at 13:36
BnB - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:
> Yep, and the concessions are coming thick and fast, so our position is weakening increasingly, in a moral, administrative, and, economic way.

> David Davis (Brexit Bulldog), previously insisted we'd keep hold of the European Medicines Agency and, the European Banking Authority. The DexEU has now accepted these agencies will leave the EU when the Article 50 divorce proceedings end. This constitutes a loss of 1100 jobs (and associated economic activity), prestige, and influence.

> Our EU partners can't believe the luck of Brexit - they now have opportunity to pluck such gems from our economy. It's a real economic tonic to Ireland, France and Germany in particular.

> Oh, and with the EMA leaving Canary Wharf, there is still the £25m bill the UK has to pay in annual rent (there was no termination clause when the 30 year rental contract was signed in 2011).

Of course there will be costs (and opportunities) but this last point is a misapprehension if not wilfully misleading. Commercial leases typically allow for a sublet provided the headline rent is maintained. The space will be re-rented quickly if in fact the govt doesn't just transplant a different space-poor department into the building.

Of course, as strikes me as equally likely, if the tenant under contract is the EMA (not the UK) and that institution leaves the site, then the EMA continues to pick up the bill, not us.

Either way, it's extremely unlikely any additional cost will fall on taxpayers.
Post edited at 13:54
Shani - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:
> Of course there will be costs (and opportunities) but this last point is a misapprehension if not wilfully misleading. Commercial leases typically allow for a sublet provided the headline rent is maintained. The space will be re-rented quickly if in fact the govt doesn't just transplant a different space-poor department into the building.

I doubt this is a typical commercial contract.

> Of course, as strikes me as equally likely, if the tenant under contract is the EMA (not the UK) and that institution leaves the site, then the EMA continues to pick up the bill, not us.

That's neither my understanding, nor likely given the nature of government contracts (from PFI to IT).

> Either way, it's extremely unlikely any additional cost will fall on taxpayers.

You simply cannot say this with any degree of confidence.
Post edited at 16:28
andyfallsoff - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

Re. The rent on a CW office building - there is getting to be quite an oversupply of office property in London as most major financial tenants don't want to get new office space or are moving jobs due to brexit, so that would make it less likely that they'll be able to recoup the full amount (I work in the commercial real estate sector, it's difficult out there at the moment).

I'd be extremely surprised if they could get the full rent from an subletting. More likely they recoup some, and the govt (i.e. we) take the hit for the shortfall.

Whether or not it is technically the EMA or the UK that foots the bill seems a moot point as I'm sure this is the sort of thing that would be included in the exit bill - it's a cost that has arisen purely because we've decided to leave, so why wouldn't it?
Shani - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Useful insight. Thanks Andy.
ads.ukclimbing.com
BnB - on 16 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

So, to be perfectly clear, you're saying that Shani's assertion that the UKL will be left with a £25m pa bill for the next 24 years in respect of the EMA lease is complete nonsense.

Instead I think you're opining that either we sublet the buiding and recoup all the rent, as is allowed under the lease, or maybe a bit less, but still the majority. And if the EMA is the legal tenant, then they can do the same. To look at your further point, why would we underwrite their full lease under any exit agreement when not only can they sublet, but also the new host gains the economic advantage of new jobs and central funding?

As ever, it's damn lies and statistics. Figures that are no less mendacious than a number on the side of a bus.
andyfallsoff - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:
I don't think it is complete nonsense, no - I think the final position will probably lie somewhere between your bold assertion it won't cost us a penny, and Shani's initial comment indicating that the entire £25m is wasted.

In terms of whether we should underwrite their lease (assuming the EMA is the tenant, which is likely), presumably they'll either (a) take a valuation as to how much they can sublet for, and allow a payment for the shortfall to be included in the summary, or (b) simply insist on being paid for the shortfall on an indemnity basis (I think the mood in the market points to the latter, because they would be nervous about finding a tenant and there will be a cost for the vacant period).

I don't get your point about the new host gaining the economic advantage - or rather, I just don't think they'll take that into account to offset the cost of moving, because (a) it's hard to value that benefit; (b) it would accrue only to one member state; and (c) requiring the new host member state would set a precedent for countries being effectively required to pay for EU institutions, which would open up a whole new can of worms as between the remaining member states.

As ever, you raise interesting points but your assumptions are all incredibly optimistic! I wish I shared your optimistic approach.
Post edited at 09:02
BnB - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

If I come across as optimistic, I'm just reacting to the unwarranted and relentless gloom. It just won't be as bad as everyone seems determined to believe. At heart I'm a realist, albeit a chirpy one
Shani - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> ..., and Shani's initial comment indicating that the entire £25m is wasted.

I didn't make this claim. I do think there will be punitive costs though!
summo on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani: .

> David Davis (Brexit Bulldog)

I'm sure you can imagine my relief when he made it back to Brussels from the depths of hell, was a little worrying at one point.

andyfallsoff - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

Sorry - didn't mean to misquote you, in that case!
andyfallsoff - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

I think that is a good attitude to have, and much as you wouldn't have thought from my responses on these threads, one I try to share in everyday life!

I just struggle to find the benefits in all of this, unfortunately.
Shani - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Sorry - didn't mean to misquote you, in that case!

np.
Shani - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to summo:

Yup!

icnoble on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Regarding leaving the eu pension scheme, its a peculiar scheme that requires continued payment having left it. By all means freeze the pensions. how many company pension schemes do you know of which require continued payment having left it, the same goes for government schemes such as the NHS pension scheme.
Stichtplate on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to icnoble:
> Regarding leaving the eu pension scheme, its a peculiar scheme that requires continued payment having left it. By all means freeze the pensions. how many company pension schemes do you know of which require continued payment having left it, the same goes for government schemes such as the NHS pension scheme.

It's not like a company scheme though. There is no pension pot. It is completely funded from future contributions. I've read that uk future liability stands at 8 billion, calculated on uk's population as 15% of the EU's rather than the 4% of UK nationals who work directly for the EU and so are due EU pensions.

Edit: should have said- 4% of EU officials who are UK nationals.
Post edited at 10:47
icnoble on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

You are correct in what you say, but as I pointed out when you leave a public sector pension in the UK you do not have to continue to pay into it in order to get your pension, although it will be reduced. Like the eu scheme there is no pot, so I don't see why we should continue to pay for it having left the scheme.
RomTheBear on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to icnoble:
> You are correct in what you say, but as I pointed out when you leave a public sector pension in the UK you do not have to continue to pay into it in order to get your pension, although it will be reduced. Like the eu scheme there is no pot, so I don't see why we should continue to pay for it having left the scheme.

Maybe, just maybe, because leaving the EU on the hook for these pensions is likely to seen as a breach of trust that would then make it impossible for us to protect our vital and strategic interests in the EU ?

I think this isn't really about the overall numbers and how much needs to be paid, this can always be worked out scientifically as long as we can all agree on the methodology.
This is more about making sure that we are seen a stable partner that can be trusted. That's really step number 1, without gaining trust, nothing is possible.

It seems to me that we would be simply better off trying to agree with the EU on a fair and practical methodology to work out all of those various obligations, instead of the self-defeating approach of trying to wriggle ourselves out of them at any costs.
Post edited at 12:54
stevieb - on 17 Jul 2017
In reply to icnoble:

I think you are interpreting his the wrong way round. The UK is not the recipient of the pension (the employee in your comparison) it is the contributor (the employer).
If you had spent your life working for (and accruing pension rights from) five different companies, would you think it was fair if one of them said, actually we're not in this business any more, we're not going to honour your pension?

Do you think we have an obligation for our share of all EU pension contributions for EU employees between 1973-2019? I would say yes.
Employees and obligations taken on after 2019? I would say no.
Employees 1960-1973? Essentially no, but this should hopefully be clear from our joining terms
Increased on-going and accrued obligations for existing employees? I'm not sure
fred99 - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to:

Anyone else noticed that "The Ice Doctor" started this and has not posted since.

Could he have been trolling ?
GrahamD - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to fred99:

I think Ice Doctor already put all the cliches they know into the OP
Bob Hughes - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to stevieb:

> I think you are interpreting his the wrong way round. The UK is not the recipient of the pension (the employee in your comparison) it is the contributor (the employer).

I don't think this is correct. As I understand it the claim from the EU is that the cost of the pensions which need to be paid to UK eurocrats will be 9.6bn. This is the money it is asking the UK government for.

thomasadixon - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

That's a big difference from £50, or £100, billion. What counts as a UK eurocrat?

- Stevieb:

> The UK is not the recipient of the pension (the employee in your comparison) it is the contributor (the employer).

The UK is neither recipient nor contributor. It's a member of the EU. Members of companies are not liable to employees for their pensions...
Doug on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> What counts as a UK eurocrat?

Probably somebody employed by the European Commission or other EU body who had expected to get a pension, based on contributions, from the EU, much as UK civil servants expect a civil service pension - but I suspect you knew that.
thomasadixon - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to Doug:
If it's just a UK citizen employed by the EU, where somebody would have had that job regardless of EU membership, that's rather different from being (say) an MEP, who only exists because of the UK's EU membership. I'm wondering what the stat means. Bob?
Post edited at 13:05
stevieb - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> The UK is neither recipient nor contributor. It's a member of the EU. Members of companies are not liable to employees for their pensions...

I was just continuing the employee analogy used earlier. Like the UK state pensions, there is no pension pot waiting to pay these people, so it will be funded by future spending.

I'm sure the EU is trying to screw us for some dubious expenses elsewhere, but regarding the pensions, in simple terms;
Do you think an employee should receive their contractually agreed benefits?
And do you think the UK has an obligation to pay costs (including future commitments) incurred during it's membership of the EU?

thomasadixon - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to stevieb:

> I was just continuing the employee analogy used earlier. Like the UK state pensions, there is no pension pot waiting to pay these people, so it will be funded by future spending.

So am I - the employer is the EU. The UK is a part of that enterprise and so a contributor at the moment. When it leaves it isn't any longer, but the employer is still the EU, that doesn't change.

> I'm sure the EU is trying to screw us for some dubious expenses elsewhere, but regarding the pensions, in simple terms;

I don't think I've seen any real detail behind the huge figures being thrown around.

> Do you think an employee should receive their contractually agreed benefits?

Generally, yes. However, continuing the company analogy, if benefits were promised that cannot be afforded (see all the private pensions that vanished/shrank) then no. If the EU made promises it can't keep based on funding it's lost then it has to sort that problem out. It's the company, not the UK.

> And do you think the UK has an obligation to pay costs (including future commitments) incurred during it's membership of the EU?

Generally, no. We made promises based on that membership, when we're no longer members those promises no longer have meaning.
Bob Hughes - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> That's a big difference from £50, or £100, billion.

Yes, pensions is only part of it. There are breakdowns in the links below. Neither are official figures from the EU but estimates from either Breugel, a think tank, or the FT - both based on EUnumbers.

(paywall)
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e2

(no paywall)
http://bruegel.org/2017/03/the-uks-brexit-bill-what-are-the-possible-liabilities/

> What counts as a UK eurocrat?

Don't know - i assume anyone employed by the EU




thomasadixon - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Thanks, I'll have a read.
Trangia on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Just one question to anyone who voted Leave?

Why did you vote blind when you had absolutely no idea how much it was going to cost the country?
Post edited at 14:48
baron - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to Trangia:
Because it was only a blind vote in the sense that nobody, on either side, could predict what the economic short and long term costs or benefits of leaving will be.
But then for some it wasn't just about money.

Dave Garnett - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

> But then for some it wasn't just about money.

Enjoy your £10-60bn worth of sovereignty.

Presumably you are planning some fairly epic act of self-determination?
Trangia on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

> Because it was only a blind vote in the sense that nobody, on either side, could predict what the economic short and long term costs or benefits of leaving will be.

Isn't that very unwise given the enormity of the proposal? In climbing terms isn't it a bit like launching off up a series of irreversible moves over a yawning abyss in the hopes that you will reach good holds which may or may not be there? OK it's an individual decision, but what about your family and grandchildren who are on the rope behind you?

> But then for some it wasn't just about money.

I understand there were other issues at stake, such as legal sovereignty, immigration etc, but weren't they inevitably tied up with the economy, given that the EU is first and foremost an economic community?

Do you not believe now, that with the benefit of hindsight, the Leave vote was unsafe given that it was an economic gamble with unknown odds? Nothing in life is ever perfect, but wouldn't it have been prudent to have remained within, with the intention of continuing to lobby for change as a member with equal rights?

The difference for Remainers was that they already knew the Devil they were voting for, it was far from perfect, but still preferable to the totally "Unknown Devil" we are now starting to glimpse?

baron - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well I'm sat in Vegas at the moment trying to decide whether to put it all on black or red - sort of describes my financial planning.
baron - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to Trangia:

The referendum gave me only two choices. Having been a long time critic of the EU it wasn't a difficult choice to make.
Would it have been easier to stay in the EU, of course.
Would it have been better, who knows?
It would certainly have been easier and better to stay in a reformed EU but that was never going to happen.
And I can't claim not to have been selfish in my choice.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Generally, yes. However, continuing the company analogy, if benefits were promised that cannot be afforded (see all the private pensions that vanished/shrank) then no. If the EU made promises it can't keep based on funding it's lost then it has to sort that problem out. It's the company, not the UK.

I'm afraid that principle doesn't apply to civil servants and bankers.

Also, in this case I think it would be totally unfair to shaft some poor guy that happened to work in some necessary but boring function like condom standardization or trade negotiation that got transferred from the UK government to the EU. It also wouldn't be too smart if you were just about to need to hire a bunch of trade negotiators or condom standardisers because the EU wasn't going to do it for you any more.



RomTheBear on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Generally, no. We made promises based on that membership, when we're no longer members those promises no longer have meaning.

That's just wishful thinking. There is simply no defined "contract" as to who owes what when we leave. It simply isn't in the treaties.

That's exactly what needs to be worked out - a framework to agree on fair settlement of liabilities. Some of it will be based on precedent in international law, and some of it will just have to be negotiated - that is, if we have any intention of keeping a good relationship.

So far the EU has put forward their own methodology, but we've not seen any counter proposal from the UK, even though they a year to prepare for this...
Post edited at 17:18
Bob Hughes - on 18 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> If it's just a UK citizen employed by the EU, where somebody would have had that job regardless of EU membership, that's rather different from being (say) an MEP, who only exists because of the UK's EU membership. I'm wondering what the stat means. Bob?

Having read through those links a bit further it seems like it means the UK's share of eurocrats and that share seems to be calculated as "all eurocrats * 15%" because UK's contributon to the EU budget is 15% (or 12% if you count the rebate). So not very scientific but that's how the FT worked it out, not necessarily how the EU has worked it out.
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That's just wishful thinking. There is simply no defined "contract" as to who owes what when we leave. It simply isn't in the treaties.

Well exactly, there is no contract that says we owe anything when we leave, it just says if we want to leave we give 2 years' notice. We owe right now, and need to keep paying for a while longer. After that our legal commitment ends.

> That's exactly what needs to be worked out - a framework to agree on fair settlement of liabilities. Some of it will be based on precedent in international law, and some of it will just have to be negotiated - that is, if we have any intention of keeping a good relationship.

The EU's not a country remember, we're a member of a group and that's how its structured. We don't need to split liabilities, we don't need to split assets, the EU has assets and liabilities and we have a relationship with the EU which is ending.

> So far the EU has put forward their own methodology, but we've not seen any counter proposal from the UK, even though they a year to prepare for this...

We'll see how things go.
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

I've not read through the links yet, but in general I don't see why we should be liable for liabilities going forward when we get no share of the assets, because we're not members. If there are payments owed because they're given in advance and then paid for fair enough we pay the shortfall. If its effectively paying interest/repaying a loan then I don't see why we should effectively continue to be liable.

Anything else is up for negotiation. I can see an argument for covering UK MEPs' pensions, but EU staff are EU staff, that we currently contribute 15% does not mean we're liable for that after we leave.
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I'm afraid that principle doesn't apply to civil servants and bankers.

It certainly applies to state run pension schemes (see Greece) and private companies.

> Also, in this case I think it would be totally unfair to shaft some poor guy that happened to work in some necessary but boring function like condom standardization or trade negotiation that got transferred from the UK government to the EU. It also wouldn't be too smart if you were just about to need to hire a bunch of trade negotiators or condom standardisers because the EU wasn't going to do it for you any more.

The EU are still liable to that poor guy in exactly the same way as they are now. The vast majority of jobs would still need to be done, so the EU will still employ that poor guy (or another in his place).
tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The EU are still liable to that poor guy in exactly the same way as they are now. The vast majority of jobs would still need to be done, so the EU will still employ that poor guy (or another in his place).

It isn't about whether the EU would still employ him. It is about his pension which is a liability which accrued at the time when the UK was a member of the EU. It is effectively part of the cost of employing him, in the private sector the money would be paid into a separate pension fund month by month.

RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Well exactly, there is no contract that says we owe anything when we leave, it just says if we want to leave we give 2 years' notice. We owe right now, and need to keep paying for a while longer. After that our legal commitment ends


> The EU's not a country remember, we're a member of a group and that's how its structured.

Explain to us why is that supposed to matter ? Statement of the obvious with no logical connection.

> We don't need to split liabilities, we don't need to split assets, the EU has assets and liabilities and we have a relationship with the EU which is ending.

Well yes indeed we don't need to do anything we can screw our partners and stick them with the tab if you want to become North Korea and become a totally isolated country that nobody can trust and deal with. However it's likely to hurt us most.
Post edited at 05:10
Bob Hughes - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I've not read through the links yet, but in general I don't see why we should be liable for liabilities going forward when we get no share of the assets, because we're not members.

This is an open debate over how to calculate the bill which is dealt with in the Breugel document. In effect it is deciding between the correct analogy. If we view it as leaving a club then there is no share of assets or liabilities. If we view it as a divorce then there would be a share of both assets and liabilities. Having said that, if we view it as leaving a club then normally when you leave a club you have to pay out your membership dues during a certain period of time. e.g. if i leave my Gym i am still on the hook for the next 6 months, during which time I can continue to use the gym. After that i'll leave and dont have a claim on my share of the changing rooms nor am I liable for the gym's loan repayments.

The key question will be how long should the membership dues be paid for - as this isn't already stipulated. In 2013, the UK voted in favour of the Multi-annnual Financial Framework, which is a long-term budget. Under this framework the UK's share of payments which have already been committed but not yet paid up to 2018 is between 29.9bnEUR and 39.9bnEUR (depending on whether you take the UKs share to be 12% (with rebate) or 15% (without rebate). A further 21.9bn - 28.6bn is due in 2019-2020.

This last bit is more contentious but I suspect we'll end up paying it in return for a transitional arrangement where we'll have access to the single market, customs union etc for a defined period.

None of the above includes pensions, loan liabilities etc. its just spending plans. Some of it can be offset by spending which is intended for the UK itself.


Bob Hughes - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well yes indeed we don't need to do anything we can screw our partners and stick them with the tab if you want to become North Korea and become a totally isolated country that nobody can trust and deal with. However it's likely to hurt us most.

Despite the noise coming from Boris Johnson, the UK has already conceded that we will have to pay something.
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Isn't a better analogy than the club / divorce ones that it's more like going to a restaurant with friends?

The table orders food to be shared between everyone, at the amount that seems right for the number of people at the table.

We've eaten our fill of the shared starter and now want to leave before the main arrives. We don't want to pay for the whole meal anymore, because we say we won't eat it, but its been ordered and will have to be paid for. Should the rest of the group just suck it up and pay the whole main, even though they might have ordered differently if there had been one fewer person there, or should we pay for the meal because its been ordered?

Yes, we could probably just storm off, but then we'd never be invited for dinner again, and these are our friends. If we want to remain friends then we should seek to do something that they consider fair.

The issue I can see is that lots of leavers have constructed what feels like hatred towards the EU, so they don't want to be friends.
BnB - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Isn't a better analogy than the club / divorce ones that it's more like going to a restaurant with friends?

> The table orders food to be shared between everyone, at the amount that seems right for the number of people at the table.

> We've eaten our fill of the shared starter and now want to leave before the main arrives. We don't want to pay for the whole meal anymore, because we say we won't eat it, but its been ordered and will have to be paid for. Should the rest of the group just suck it up and pay the whole main, even though they might have ordered differently if there had been one fewer person there, or should we pay for the meal because its been ordered?

> Yes, we could probably just storm off, but then we'd never be invited for dinner again, and these are our friends. If we want to remain friends then we should seek to do something that they consider fair.

> The issue I can see is that lots of leavers have constructed what feels like hatred towards the EU, so they don't want to be friends.

I think it's probably only going to get us so far providing analogies for an unprecedented event that was not foreseen in the drawing up of the union and which is now being exploited by both sides as part of a wider negotiation about the future relationship. Your meal is easily quantifiable with well defined ground rules defined by etiquette. Here there is no precedent, nor contract.

Anyone who thinks it's about making a proper reckoning of our residual obligations and no more or less is in dreamland. The EU wants as much hard cash as it can leverage and the UK should, with that in mind, be determined to cough up as little as possible. All in the context of continuing to exploit eachother for financial gain and political/military security in the future. Or stay friends, as you put it
Bob Hughes - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Anyone who thinks it's about making a proper reckoning of our residual obligations and no more or less is in dreamland. The EU wants as much hard cash as it can leverage and the UK should, with that in mind, be determined to cough up as little as possible.

Well, yes and no. The UK of course wants to pay as little as possible and would do regardless of what the EU wants. The proper reckoning of residual obligations is how we go about arbitrating those two positions.
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Isn't a better analogy than the club / divorce ones that it's more like going to a restaurant with friends?

The thing is the club "analogy" isn't really an analogy, it's actually how the legal structure of the EU was set up, it's how it works. We're being told we're liable for ongoing costs, but as a matter of fact we're not. It makes a big difference as to how we can react to demands.

> The table orders food to be shared between everyone, at the amount that seems right for the number of people at the table.

Being a member of the EU isn't an event though. Every day we're getting food, and every day we're paying our share. We've decided we're not going to attend anymore. We've given them 2 years' notice that this is going to happen, plenty of time for them to rearrange matters. In the meantime we're continuing to pay our share. They think that we should keep paying after the two years, even though we're no longer going to the daily meal and we're not invited to the planned events they expect us to keep paying for. They also think that we should be punished for no longer going to the meals. Friends?

> Yes, we could probably just storm off, but then we'd never be invited for dinner again, and these are our friends. If we want to remain friends then we should seek to do something that they consider fair.

Are they? If they're our friends it might be time for them to do something we would consider fair, rather than just demanding with menaces as much as possible. They're much closer to business colleagues really, which is why our whole relationship was a series of written contracts to ensure that everyone stuck to their obligations.

> The issue I can see is that lots of leavers have constructed what feels like hatred towards the EU, so they don't want to be friends.

You don't think this might be the case the other way around? Leavers just want the EU to not be able to give us orders, once we're out they can't so I don't see why there needs to be bitterness from this side. The demands are coming from the EU, and the anger seems to be coming from remainers to me.
BnB - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> Well, yes and no. The UK of course wants to pay as little as possible and would do regardless of what the EU wants. The proper reckoning of residual obligations is how we go about arbitrating those two positions.

Of course, but we won't end up settling at an ideal arbitrated value because of all the other considerations. The settlement will reflect factors well outside the obligations.
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Explain to us why is that supposed to matter ? Statement of the obvious with no logical connection.

You want me to explain why legal liabilities matter?

> Well yes indeed we don't need to do anything we can screw our partners and stick them with the tab if you want to become North Korea and become a totally isolated country that nobody can trust and deal with. However it's likely to hurt us most.

Andyfallsoff - see the anger?
RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Of course, but we won't end up settling at an ideal arbitrated value because of all the other considerations. The settlement will reflect factors well outside the obligations.

Finally someone making some sense ?
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Why do you say it's not already stipulated? The agreements were set up through the EU, the payments are demanded by the EU and it's EU members that are obliged to pay them. When we're not an EU member where does the obligation to keep paying come from?

What do you see as the difference between spending plans lasting 6 years, and ones lasting 30 years (eg pensions)?
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

We agree on something!
RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> We agree on something!

Well apparently not, your position being the exact opposite of BnB's
Post edited at 13:13
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Why do you say it's not already stipulated? The agreements were set up through the EU, the payments are demanded by the EU and it's EU members that are obliged to pay them. When we're not an EU member where does the obligation to keep paying come from?

Not sure why you don't understand that this is very much uncharted territory - there is little precedent so a framework needs to be negotiated to work out outstanding obligations and how to settle them. In fact this is very much the process set out in article 50.

Even discounting that, your argument doesn't stand. There is no god given legal principle that says that leaving a club absolves you of any outstanding financial obligation towards it, in fact it is generally speaking the opposite.

If your position is that we should just not bother working out a fair settlement for everybody, and effectively stick the tab on our EU partners, I'm afraid is a wholly self destructing strategy which will almost certainly trigger heinous retaliation from the EU, and destroy our reputation as a country that deals fairly with others.
Post edited at 13:30
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Where your comments fall down is that you assume that the obligations are only incurred as they crop up - i.e. pay as you go. Do you not think that the EU has any obligations that go forward for longer than 2 years? Pensions is an example; we also talk about a lease on just one building upthread, which could be 25 years of liability (subject to whatever can be done to mitigate the cost).

We were part of the club; we went along with the commitments the club made; there are now costs for the club that reach forward past the date when we are saying we will have left the club, but which were made while we were there. Why should we say "well we're leaving so we have no liabilities anymore, don't care that you're stuck with increased costs for these things that run into the future"?

As for this:

> Are they? If they're our friends it might be time for them to do something we would consider fair, rather than just demanding with menaces as much as possible.

It cuts both ways. We've been threatening the EU as much as they have us, and we have started off by saying we don't want to pay. Why shouldn't we try to do what is fair by them as well?

Finally - the EU doesn't give us "orders", we agreed to be part of a legal system and we have MEPs who are entitled to vote on all of the laws that emanate from the EU which we are subject to.
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Andyfallsoff - see the anger?

I can see frustration because people who want to leave keep suggesting that we could walk away and not suffer from doing so.
fred99 - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Isn't a better analogy than the club / divorce ones that it's more like going to a restaurant with OTHERS?

See what I did - You could be sort of right there.
The situation seems to be one where certain rather forceful people want to split the bill equally, even though they've had the most expensive starter and main course, a full bottle of wine each already, and are just working out which new bottle would wash down their sweet.
The original idea of the EU was to bring new member countries up to the same level as the better off.
What actually happened was that some were constantly paying in, whilst others constantly benefitted, and had (have) no intention of changing their position.
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to fred99:
> See what I did - You could be sort of right there.

> The situation seems to be one where certain rather forceful people want to split the bill equally, even though they've had the most expensive starter and main course, a full bottle of wine each already, and are just working out which new bottle would wash down their sweet.

OK - can you give an example of these new spending commitments that the EU has proposed, that we are being asked to share and that we don't want? As far as I can see, when we've wanted to opt out of stuff, we've been able to.

> The original idea of the EU was to bring new member countries up to the same level as the better off.

> What actually happened was that some were constantly paying in, whilst others constantly benefitted, and had (have) no intention of changing their position.

But they have benefitted in terms of economic growth, and are now closer to the richer countries which is exactly the point - and isn't that the "changing position" you refer to? When you look at the growth stats, the comparatively poor countries have experienced economic growth and are closer to the overall trend. (Particularly the case in all the eastern block countries, which the UK incidentally lobbied to be accepted in the EU).
Post edited at 13:50
Bob Hughes - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Why do you say it's not already stipulated? The agreements were set up through the EU, the payments are demanded by the EU and it's EU members that are obliged to pay them. When we're not an EU member where does the obligation to keep paying come from?

That's your interpretation. It is not stipulated because it is not written down anywhere - least of all Article 50, which would be the logical place for it - whether your interpretation is correct or whether, as the EU is saying, the UK shoud honour commitments made during its membership even if the commitments extend beyond membership. e.g. the UK voted in favour of a financial plan which extends to 2020. If we leave in early 2019, should we pay up until March 2019 or until the end of 2020?

The answer will be a matter of negotiation (as BnB says and I agree with him) but neither side's interpretation is unreasonable.

> What do you see as the difference between spending plans lasting 6 years, and ones lasting 30 years (eg pensions)?

In a sense I think there isn't any. If I make a commitment to pay for 6 years it is the same as if i make a commitment to pay for 30 years. The difference is it is not so clear in the case of pensions exactly how or if the UK committed to making a payment towards pension liabilities.

The EU staff regulations state that: "Benefits paid under this pension scheme shall be charged to the budget of the Communities. Member States shall jointly guarantee payment of such benefits in accordance with the scale laid down for financing such expenditure." but i haven't yet found where each member state agrees to that.

thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

No one has suggested that.
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
The EU certainly has obligations that go forward for more than 2 years. They are not our obligations.

> We were part of the club; we went along with the commitments the club made; there are now costs for the club that reach forward past the date when we are saying we will have left the club, but which were made while we were there. Why should we say "well we're leaving so we have no liabilities anymore, don't care that you're stuck with increased costs for these things that run into the future"?

Because we don't get a share of the assets. Taking on liabilities with no share of the assets is hardly fair.

Can you point to where we have threatened them?

While we're part of the EU legal system we're subject to their orders. I'm subject to UK court orders too. It's just a word.
Post edited at 14:26
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not sure why you don't understand that this is very much uncharted territory - there is little precedent so a framework needs to be negotiated to work out outstanding obligations and how to settle them. In fact this is very much the process set out in article 50.

And I'm not sure why you don't understand the way that law works, despite claiming to be an authority.

> Even discounting that, your argument doesn't stand. There is no god given legal principle that says that leaving a club absolves you of any outstanding financial obligation towards it, in fact it is generally speaking the opposite.

There is a very clear legal principle that contracts mean what they mean, and that unwritten terms cannot be invented later by one side because it suits. God's got nothing to do with anything.

> If your position is that we should just not bother working out a fair settlement for everybody, and effectively stick the tab on our EU partners, I'm afraid is a wholly self destructing strategy which will almost certainly trigger heinous retaliation from the EU, and destroy our reputation as a country that deals fairly with others.

No, that's not my position. I've never said that it was. You're just making stuff up (as usual).
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> That's your interpretation. It is not stipulated because it is not written down anywhere - least of all Article 50, which would be the logical place for it - whether your interpretation is correct or whether, as the EU is saying, the UK shoud honour commitments made during its membership even if the commitments extend beyond membership. e.g. the UK voted in favour of a financial plan which extends to 2020. If we leave in early 2019, should we pay up until March 2019 or until the end of 2020?

There's a big difference between what we "should" do and what we're legally obliged to do. What we're obliged to do is written down. We have to pay to the last day we're a member.

> The answer will be a matter of negotiation (as BnB says and I agree with him) but neither side's interpretation is unreasonable.

Everything's down to negotiation, absolutely.

> In a sense I think there isn't any. If I make a commitment to pay for 6 years it is the same as if i make a commitment to pay for 30 years. The difference is it is not so clear in the case of pensions exactly how or if the UK committed to making a payment towards pension liabilities.

So even though the situation has completely changed, and we no longer get the benefits that we expected to get when we made those commitments we should still be liable, in perpetuity?

> The EU staff regulations state that: "Benefits paid under this pension scheme shall be charged to the budget of the Communities. Member States shall jointly guarantee payment of such benefits in accordance with the scale laid down for financing such expenditure." but i haven't yet found where each member state agrees to that.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here - Member States as a group will no longer include us in the future. The budget of the Communities will no longer have any relation to us.
Mr Lopez - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> What we're obliged to do is written down. We have to pay to the last day we're a member.

Where can we read that resume of obligations?
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> No one has suggested that.

I don't know what you're replying to - suggested what?
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> The EU certainly has obligations that go forward for more than 2 years. They are not our obligations.

This is obviously where we differ in opinions. I think when you agree to obligations as part of a club, you then take on some liability for those obligations.

> Because we don't get a share of the assets. Taking on liabilities with no share of the assets is hardly fair.

What assets are there that you think can be liquidated without causing massive disruption?

> Can you point to where we have threatened them?

- David Davis threatening the EU with no security cooperation in March this year;
- May / Hammond threatening to turn the UK into a tax haven, start of this year;
- just today, the UK has told the EU that it considers it has the right to return radioactive waste to the EU.

These are a few that sprung to mind.

> While we're part of the EU legal system we're subject to their orders. I'm subject to UK court orders too. It's just a word.

It's misleading, though. Do you describe the UK as "giving you orders"?
Post edited at 14:54
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

"I can see frustration because people who want to leave keep suggesting that we could walk away and not suffer from doing so."

You can just click "in reply to" by the way.
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> This is obviously where we differ in opinions. I think when you agree to obligations as part of a club, you then take on some liability for those obligations.

I think we might just be talking about different things.

> What assets are there that you think can be liquidated without causing massive disruption?

What's your point?

> - David Davis threatening the EU with no security cooperation in March this year;
> - May / Hammond threatening to turn the UK into a tax haven, start of this year;
> - just today, the UK has told the EU that it considers it has the right to return radioactive waste to Brussels.

Links? The first is a misrepresentation of what happened, for sure.

> It's misleading, though. Do you describe the UK as "giving you orders"?

Yes.
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Thanks. What don't you think anyone has suggested - that we could just walk away? Sorry, it seemed to me like that was broadly your argument (and there are certainly those who are arguing that). If you're saying you concede we need to do what's right by the EU, then I don't think we'd have the level of frustration.

To be honest, I don't really see why you made the first "see the anger?" comment...
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I think we might just be talking about different things.

OK, although I don't then understand what you're talking about.

> What's your point?

You think we shouldn't pay liabilities unless we get a share of assets. I think that walking out and then saying we need a share of assets might not be feasible / possible.

> Links? The first is a misrepresentation of what happened, for sure.

Is it? It doesn't seem that way to me. Care to explain why?

> Yes.

Odd, I've never heard anyone refer to the UK in those terms before, but fine.
Bob Hughes - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So even though the situation has completely changed, and we no longer get the benefits that we expected to get when we made those commitments we should still be liable, in perpetuity?

This is where pension commitments are a specific case. They are, by definition, commitments which are devilered after the benefit has long since retired. Imagine, hypothetically, someone who started working for the EU in 1973 and retired in 2019. The UK will have fully enjoyed the benefit of their work for the EU.

> I'm not sure I get what you're saying here - Member States as a group will no longer include us in the future. The budget of the Communities will no longer have any relation to us.

I wasn't really getting at anything in particular there. It was just all that i had found on the question.

thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Thanks. What don't you think anyone has suggested - that we could just walk away? Sorry, it seemed to me like that was broadly your argument (and there are certainly those who are arguing that). If you're saying you concede we need to do what's right by the EU, then I don't think we'd have the level of frustration.

The whole thing - that we could walk away without consequence. There will always be consequences. We shouldn't do "what's right" by the EU unless they do the same in return. They don't appear to be so inclined so far...but then we're still at the start really.

> To be honest, I don't really see why you made the first "see the anger?" comment...

"we can screw our partners and stick them with the tab if you want to become North Korea"

I guess we see different things.
Mr Lopez - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:


> Here.

I've just read through it and there's nothing saying that the EU member's financial obligations end on the date membership stops.

Can you point to the particular article or paragraph that you think supports your assertion that it does?
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> OK, although I don't then understand what you're talking about.

Legal liabilities, as separate to moral ones.

> You think we shouldn't pay liabilities unless we get a share of assets. I think that walking out and then saying we need a share of assets might not be feasible / possible.

I don't think it fair that we get no benefit from payments but are still obliged to make them. Certainly appreciate that it would be very hard to split assets, but I'm not suggesting we should do that - I'm saying that given that the EU get pretty much the entire benefit of shared assets built up over time it's a bit rich to demand that we take the liabilities that relate to them.

> Is it? It doesn't seem that way to me. Care to explain why?

Because there's a difference between saying that the UK needs to be punished, and saying that we would like to do X, but if you're not willing to work with us we will need to do Y instead.

> Odd, I've never heard anyone refer to the UK in those terms before, but fine.

Sturgeon?
Mike Stretford - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The whole thing - that we could walk away without consequence. There will always be consequences. We shouldn't do "what's right" by the EU unless they do the same in return. They don't appear to be so inclined so far...but then we're still at the start really.

What would the EU doing 'what's right' entail?
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> This is where pension commitments are a specific case. They are, by definition, commitments which are devilered after the benefit has long since retired. Imagine, hypothetically, someone who started working for the EU in 1973 and retired in 2019. The UK will have fully enjoyed the benefit of their work for the EU.

The EU will have needed, in most cases, to have paid that person regardless of our membership. Due to the nature of the organisation its quite likely that the work of that person will continue to benefit the EU. The EU could have set up a fund to cover this cost. Instead it chooses to pay pensions as the UK government does, from income. The EU is responsible for that decision, not the UK.

When we joined in 1973 were we made exempt from payments for pensions, or any other long term commitments, or a relevant portion?
RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> And I'm not sure why you don't understand the way that law works, despite claiming to be an authority

You don't need to be an authority to realise that this is uncharted territory and there is no set of established legal principle for leaving the EU other than providing for a negotiation to take place.
BTW you're not answering.

> There is a very clear legal principle that contracts mean what they mean, and that unwritten terms cannot be invented later by one side because it suits. God's got nothing to do with anything.

Well the "contract" is the EU treaties, and they do not have any provisions for the case of an EU member leaving other than stating that the leaving member must negotiate withdrawal terms within the two years.
So yes the terms of withdrawal have to be "invented", they will be the outcome of a negotiation.
Why you don't get something so simple is beyond me.

> No, that's not my position. I've never said that it was. You're just making stuff up (as usual).

So, what is your position ?
Post edited at 16:28
RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> "we can screw our partners and stick them with the tab if you want to become North Korea"

I'm not sure why you see any anger in this comment.
RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The EU certainly has obligations that go forward for more than 2 years. They are not our obligations.

This yet has to be worked out.

> Because we don't get a share of the assets. Taking on liabilities with no share of the assets is hardly fair.

That is wholly untrue.
Tell me, have you even bothered reading the position paper from the EC ?

RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> There's a big difference between what we "should" do and what we're legally obliged to do. What we're obliged to do is written down.

Really ? It's written down ? Please point out where, the actual text of law that tells us what we're legally obliged to do upon leaving, other than the few lines of art 50 ?

The only thing that's written down is a requirement to have a negotiation on the terms of withdrawal, which is exactly what's happening. There is simply no rule as to how financial liabilities have to be resolved, they essentially have to be worked out.
Post edited at 16:54
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> The whole thing - that we could walk away without consequence. There will always be consequences. We shouldn't do "what's right" by the EU unless they do the same in return. They don't appear to be so inclined so far...but then we're still at the start really.

OK - so (1) we disagree with what they should do that is "right by us". Seems to me that you think they won't be doing right by us unless they don't ask for money.

> "we can screw our partners and stick them with the tab if you want to become North Korea"

Yes, I got that, but why are you pointing out that you think this is angry? Why would someone's frustration / anger at your suggestions support your point anyway?

> I guess we see different things.

Clearly
Post edited at 16:47
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Legal liabilities, as separate to moral ones.

> I don't think it fair that we get no benefit from payments but are still obliged to make them. Certainly appreciate that it would be very hard to split assets, but I'm not suggesting we should do that - I'm saying that given that the EU get pretty much the entire benefit of shared assets built up over time it's a bit rich to demand that we take the liabilities that relate to them.

But we could have the benefit of them if we stayed - it's our choice to walk away from the benefits!

Try and see things from the EU's perspective - we built this thing up with them; we agreed to contribute towards it (and they agreed the terms / amounts, including preferential treatment for us); they will have costs arising from it going forwards (whether we stay or go).

We now decide to leave, and we are quibbling about paying for the things that we all agreed to pay for at the time (plus we're being pretty rude about it).

> Because there's a difference between saying that the UK needs to be punished, and saying that we would like to do X, but if you're not willing to work with us we will need to do Y instead.

It's a semantic difference, unless what we are threatening is the only option (which isn't the case in any of the points I highlighted above). We aren't being forced to become a tax haven, or to ship radioactive waste to the continent, or to cease to cooperate on security measures, or to not immediately give EU citizens unequivocal assurance of their rights to stay here... each of these was a choice.

> Sturgeon?

Touche!

thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> OK - so (1) we disagree with what they should do that is "right by us". Seems to me that you think they won't be doing right by us unless they don't ask for money.

I think demanding money for nothing (and before anything else can be discussed) isn't doing "right by us". But then Mike Stretford's question is the main one - "doing right" is a silly way to phrase it. They need to offer something in return for what they want from us, not demand, and then we can move forward. There is no "doing right", there's only reasonable agreement based on things each of us want.

> Yes, I got that, but why are you pointing out that you think this is angry? What would someone's frustration / anger at your suggestions support your point?

You said that leavers have hatred towards the EU. I said that it seems to me that the anger/frustration is on the other side, and then Rom provided support for that with his N Korea crap.
andyfallsoff - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I think demanding money for nothing (and before anything else can be discussed) isn't doing "right by us". But then Mike Stretford's question is the main one - "doing right" is a silly way to phrase it. They need to offer something in return for what they want from us, not demand, and then we can move forward. There is no "doing right", there's only reasonable agreement based on things each of us want.

In substance, you're saying the same thing. You're saying we shouldn't give them a penny unless they give us something - which is the same as saying we owe them nothing. And we're back to our fundamental disagreement...

> You said that leavers have hatred towards the EU. I said that it seems to me that the anger/frustration is on the other side, and then Rom provided support for that with his N Korea crap.

OK. I think there's a difference between hatred towards a thing (a lot of leavers' feelings on the EU) and annoyance because we're throwing away our country's reputation, economy and stability to pursue a fairly pointless exercise that essentially involves cooperating less with our neighbours - but still.
RomTheBear on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> I think demanding money for nothing (and before anything else can be discussed) isn't doing "right by us". But then Mike Stretford's question is the main one - "doing right" is a silly way to phrase it. They need to offer something in return for what they want from us, not demand, and then we can move forward. There is no "doing right", there's only reasonable agreement based on things each of us want.

They are offering something in return - if we come to an agreement on a financial settlement that everybody can live with, then it opens the door for a continued partnership that will allow us to protect our vital interests.

Is it a form of extortion or blackmail ? Maybe it is, but that's exactly the kind of risk we have exposed ourselves to by taking the decision to leave the EU.

One would have thought that the leavers surely must have considered this very obvious risk, if they were up to it, why are they whining now about the EU demands ? They should either be constructive and put forward a realistic counter-proposal, or just accept that we crash out with nothing - and they have only themselves to blame for the consequences.
Post edited at 17:54
thomasadixon - on 19 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> In substance, you're saying the same thing. You're saying we shouldn't give them a penny unless they give us something - which is the same as saying we owe them nothing. And we're back to our fundamental disagreement...

Not a penny more than we actually owe them, absolutely. You think we should...pay them whatever they demand on top of that without anything in return? Or something less than that?

> OK. I think there's a difference between hatred towards a thing (a lot of leavers' feelings on the EU) and annoyance because we're throwing away our country's reputation, economy and stability to pursue a fairly pointless exercise that essentially involves cooperating less with our neighbours - but still.

I don't think people ever hated the EU as an entity, rather they hate that the UK is subject to EU laws. If we're not, if we're dealing as neighbouring free states, then I don't see why there would be any anger towards them. I don't see it causing a problem in the negotiations. There's irritation/anger at remainers trying to pretend that we can effectively stay in the EU and somehow respect the vote, absolutely, but that's not at the EU. In the EU there are plenty who are clearly angry, and talk of punishing the UK, that's more of a problem.
thomasadixon - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> But we could have the benefit of them if we stayed - it's our choice to walk away from the benefits!

So?

> Try and see things from the EU's perspective - we built this thing up with them; we agreed to contribute towards it (and they agreed the terms / amounts, including preferential treatment for us); they will have costs arising from it going forwards (whether we stay or go).
> We now decide to leave, and we are quibbling about paying for the things that we all agreed to pay for at the time (plus we're being pretty rude about it).

I'm happy to stick with the terms we agreed. They have costs going forward, yes, but then they want to keep it running, they want to expand its powers. We don't. Try and see it from a leaver's perspective - we've contributed vast sums of money, stayed in even when it went in a direction we didn't want, and then when we made clear we'd only stay in if we got exemptions from that direction they offered very little. In a situation where you can't find agreement its reasonable to walk away.

> It's a semantic difference, unless what we are threatening is the only option (which isn't the case in any of the points I highlighted above). We aren't being forced to become a tax haven, or to ship radioactive waste to the continent, or to cease to cooperate on security measures, or to not immediately give EU citizens unequivocal assurance of their rights to stay here... each of these was a choice.

Well we're dealing in semantics here. What does forced mean, etc? The talk of punishing the UK has not been in any way paralleled in the UK. I've still not seen this radioactive waste story.

This is from the guardian story about a supposed tax haven:

"Hammond responded that “most of us who had voted remain would like the UK to remain a recognisably European-style economy with European-style taxation systems, European-style regulation systems etc. I personally hope we will be able to remain in the mainstream of European economic and social thinking. But if we are forced to be something different, then we will have to become something different”.

Asked to clarify his remarks, Hammond said: “We could be forced to change our economic model, and we will have to change our model to regain competitiveness. And you can be sure we will do whatever we have to do.""

A threat, really?

> Touche!

Well he is the equivalent of a leaver... ;) I guess I see "order" on government documents a bit more than most.
Post edited at 00:13
RomTheBear on 20 Jul 2017
> A threat, really?

You're right, not so much of a threat, more of a laugh.


thomasadixon - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Really ? It's written down ? Please point out where, the actual text of law that tells us what we're legally obliged to do upon leaving, other than the few lines of art 50 ?

There isn't anything Rom, that's the point. If there's no relevant law, we don't have to do anything.

> The only thing that's written down is a requirement to have a negotiation on the terms of withdrawal, which is exactly what's happening. There is simply no rule as to how financial liabilities have to be resolved, they essentially have to be worked out.

There's not even a requirement on us to have a negotiation.

> Is it a form of extortion or blackmail ? Maybe it is, but that's exactly the kind of risk we have exposed ourselves to by taking the decision to leave the EU.

We were talking about "doing right". It's right for the EU to effectively blackmail and wrong for the UK to refuse to be blackmailed? Not your best argument Rom. We all knew full well that there was/is a risk that the EU will refuse to make any deal, we'll see what happens.
RomTheBear on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> There isn't anything Rom, that's the point. If there's no relevant law, we don't have to do anything.

You don't have to do anything indeed if your only plan is to sleepwalk into chaos.

> There's not even a requirement on us to have a negotiation.

Well the process set out in art 50 is that the terms of withdrawal have to be negotiated within two years. Failing that you crash out.

> We were talking about "doing right". It's right for the EU to effectively blackmail and wrong for the UK to refuse to be blackmailed?

Are you really that naive ? Of course the EU knows full well that the UK has a lot more to lose by crashing out than the other way around.
The UK exposed itself to this type of bargaining.

"doing right" would be to agree on a fair and equitable way to settle outstanding commitments.

> we'll see what happens.

Sounds like a well thought out trategy ! I'm sure it's going to work out great.
Post edited at 00:42
thomasadixon - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The UK exposed itself to this type of bargaining.

Like the woman wearing a short skirt, the UK is responsible for the acts of others because it exposed itself? We were talking about "doing right"! You think that the EU is in one position, I think it's in another, and we'll never agree, but either way relative strength shouldn't determine morality.

Night Rom, I'm off to sleepwalk into chaos .
RomTheBear on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Like the woman wearing a short skirt, the UK is responsible for the acts of others because it exposed itself? We were talking about "doing right"! You think that the EU is in one position, I think it's in another, and we'll never agree,

Yes we are entirely responsible for having put our relationship with Europe up for bargaining, nobody else did it.
And now, pathetically, and predictably, you're whining because the EU, unsurprisingly, drives a hard bargain ? But it seems to me you're getting exactly what you wanted.

> but either way relative strength shouldn't determine morality.

Very true, but then you're getting what you voted for. Once we leave the EU we revert to the default state of affairs, where relative strength determines the relationship.
Post edited at 01:34
Doug on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:



> I don't think people ever hated the EU as an entity, rather they hate that the UK is subject to EU laws.

Laws which were agreed to by the UK government after, in most cases, years of discussion & negotiation involving UK ministers. EU law is our law - we, as much as anyone, are responsible for it
Mike Stretford - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Like the woman wearing a short skirt, the UK is responsible for the acts of others because it exposed itself?

What are the 'acts of others', that would be so harmful to the UK you are comparing it to sexual abuse?
fred99 - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I think when you agree to obligations as part of a club, you then take on some liability for those obligations.

Let us assume that you and I were both members of a Club with a hut.
You're an electrician, I'm a plumber.
Said hut would require maintenance, toward which members would pay a sum of money, and members would also be expected to carry out work intermittently.

If you were to leave said club, and hence have no right of access to the hut and other facilities, then what would be your reaction to me (and the rest of the club) demanding that you pay for maintenance for the foreseeable future, along with an amount to pay for a tradesman to carry out the rewiring that we had hoped you (as an electrician) had been expected to oversee.

In such a situation you would (I imagine) go ape !

If you leave a club, and hence no longer have its benefits, you also no longer have its responsibilities.
Mike Stretford - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to fred99:

> If you leave a club, and hence no longer have its benefits, you also no longer have its responsibilities.

The problem with this analogy is, when it comes to Brexit the UK is going to be asking for some of the benefits.
Bob Hughes - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The EU will have needed, in most cases, to have paid that person regardless of our membership.

At a general level the EU will have had to employ more people the more members it has. Although this is not going to be allocated on a one-to-one basis.

> Due to the nature of the organisation its quite likely that the work of that person will continue to benefit the EU.

Depending on what they do, it is also likely to continue to benefit the UK.The recent announcement from the Treasury that they will ban credit card surcharges (along with a package of new regulation to encourage competition in financial services) is a direct response to the publication of Payment Services Directive II from the EC.

> The EU could have set up a fund to cover this cost. Instead it chooses to pay pensions as the UK government does, from income. The EU is responsible for that decision, not the UK.

Yes and the EU employees acquire rights to a pension over time, which the UK was fully aware of. Those rights were guaranteed by EU member states. I suppose the legal debate would be whether they are guaranteed by countries which were member states at the time of acquiring the right or at the time of realising the right.

fred99 - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

True.
But if you hire a club hut for the weekend you don't expect to have to pay for the maintenance over the next 10 years, or for that matter hand over a wedge of cash for the new drying room that they're planning for.
Mike Stretford - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to fred99:
> True.

> But if you hire a club hut for the weekend you don't expect to have to pay for the maintenance over the next 10 years, or for that matter hand over a wedge of cash for the new drying room that they're planning for.

The UK wants ongoing befits......to go with your analogy, we want to camp outside and use the kitchen every evening. So yeah they expect a price for that.
Post edited at 13:08
Mike Stretford - on 20 Jul 2017
Someone doesn't like being told they can't have the moon on a stick
elsewhere on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to fred99:
When you hire a club hut you don't have millions people moving (investing) their future, career, health care, taxes, mortgage, pension, marriage, home, education and children etc into the club hut. Four million EU citizens and Brits have moved between UK and EU.

The EU/Brexit is a bit more than a club hut, golf club membership, divorce, woman in a short skirt or whatever the analogy.
Post edited at 15:59
Ramblin dave - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> No, and nobody is suggesting any punishment of the sort. This is just paranoia.

It's not paranoia, it's rationalization.

Brexiteers have been telling us for ages that there's nothing to worry about, the negotiations are going to be a cinch, we've got a really strong negotiating position, we're going to walk in and say what we want and the rest of the EU will give it to us with a bow on because the Germans want to sell us cars.

When that turns out not to happen, and the EU acts rationally to take advantage of it's extremely strong position and we have the choice of compromising or getting the thick end, what can they do? They could admit that they were talking bollocks all along and now we're in a world of shit and it's basically their fault, or alternatively they could say that of course they weren't wrong and Brexit would be going brilliantly if only the nasty spiteful EU wasn't sacrificing its own interests to punish us and if that's the sort of operation they are then doesn't that just prove that we're better off out?

Which option do you think they're going to take?

I suspect that we're going to see a lot more of this sort of stuff over the next few years. My worry is that there are enough people with a vested interest in pushing it that it'll actually get some traction and significantly delay the point where we can look at the situation rationally and think about having a sensible, mutually beneficial relationship with our nearest neighbors again.
Post edited at 17:04
ads.ukclimbing.com
tom_in_edinburgh - on 20 Jul 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

> When you hire a club hut you don't have millions people moving (investing) their future, career, health care, taxes, mortgage, pension, marriage, home, education and children etc into the club hut. Four million EU citizens and Brits have moved between UK and EU.

Exactly - and not only millions of people but hundreds of thousands of businesses have shaped themselves over decades to function efficiently inside the EU.

Any rational person would conclude that membership of the EU is no longer reversible without an unacceptable degree of disruption.

fred99 - on 21 Jul 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Any rational person would conclude that membership of the EU is no longer reversible without an unacceptable degree of disruption.

I totally agree.
Unfortunately it would appear that 52% of those who voted are not rational.
I was one of the 48% !
Big Ger - on 00:10 Sat
In reply to fred99:

> I totally agree.

> Unfortunately it would appear that 52% of those who voted are not rational.

Or maybe they are rational, and the disruption was a price they were prepared to bear.

Still, as ever, as long as the remoaners can make themselves feel smug, and carry on insulting those who voted differently to them, then they'll be happy.

RomTheBear on 00:44 Sat
In reply to Big Ger:
> Or maybe they are rational, and the disruption was a price they were prepared to bear.

Prepared to bear the price of disruption, for the privilege to achieve nothing, if not a worse position.

Yep, entirely rational.
Post edited at 00:44
Big Ger - on 01:18 Sat
In reply to RomTheBear:

Keep up the insults then, that'll make everything better....
GrahamD - on 08:31 Sat
In reply to Big Ger:

> Still, as ever, as long as the remoaners can make themselves feel smug, and carry on insulting those who voted differently to them

I'm guessing the irony is intentional?
RomTheBear on 09:34 Sat
In reply to Big Ger:

> Keep up the insults then, that'll make everything better....

No insults, just contempt.
Big Ger - on 00:22 Sun
In reply to GrahamD:

> I'm guessing the irony is intentional?

What's it to you, git face?

;-)
thomasadixon - on 02:26 Sun
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> At a general level the EU will have had to employ more people the more members it has. Although this is not going to be allocated on a one-to-one basis.

Agreed, and paying for UK MEPs' pensions, for example, seems reasonable enough. We're not obliged though, and we should only be reasonable if the EU are being reasonable to us.

> Depending on what they do, it is also likely to continue to benefit the UK.The recent announcement from the Treasury that they will ban credit card surcharges (along with a package of new regulation to encourage competition in financial services) is a direct response to the publication of Payment Services Directive II from the EC.

Whether a particular law is a benefit depends whether we want it or not, we've still got to implement EU law at this stage. I take your point though, we could be said to benefit from laws that were drawn up through planning at the EU, some of those will be beneficial. We paid for that though, at the time.

> Yes and the EU employees acquire rights to a pension over time, which the UK was fully aware of. Those rights were guaranteed by EU member states. I suppose the legal debate would be whether they are guaranteed by countries which were member states at the time of acquiring the right or at the time of realising the right.

The question is whether pensions are something that are paid for out of the daily EU budget (as they are) or whether they're something special such that we're obliged to keep paying for them. I don't believe we (or any other country) got any sort of opt out from existing pensions when joining the EU, so why does it work differently when we leave? Members contribute to the EU and the EU spends as it chooses, spending isn't separated and allocated among member states who were around when specific pensions were granted/plans were made. For the legal debate you're talking about to work that has to be the case, states would have to be directly liable for specific spending promises, and they're not.
thomasadixon - on 02:35 Sun
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> The UK wants ongoing befits......to go with your analogy, we want to camp outside and use the kitchen every evening. So yeah they expect a price for that.

Except we don't, we want to be able to sell stuff to the kitchen, and pay to use the kitchen without being charged extra. We're offering exactly the same for our club hut in return. We're not asking the EU for favours, this is a business relationship based on mutual gain.
Mike Stretford - on 12:01 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Except we don't, we want to be able to sell stuff to the kitchen, and pay to use the kitchen without being charged extra. We're offering exactly the same for our club hut in return. We're not asking the EU for favours, this is a business relationship based on mutual gain.

^ This is a typical problem with Brexiteer thinking, you see everything through the prism of nationalism, to the point were you start telling other countries what's best for them, and make muddled analogies.

They may feel it is better to compete for business based in the UK (and potential business)......that's fair enough and there's nothing we can do about it. They are unlikely to allow a country on the single markets border to take advantage of the infrastructure and ongoing investmentin the EU, without paying for it, and it looks like that includes a lump sum on exit.
Post edited at 12:08
baron - on 12:21 Mon
In reply to Mike Stretford:

There are probably 20 countries in the EU who take advantage of the infrastructure and investment of the EU without paying for it, that was one reason for some people to vote leave.
But you're right that the EU will demand money from the UK, rather than from these non contributing countries, to keep its infrastructure and investment going, even though the UK won't be a member.
It would be interesting as to how attractive the EU would be if all countries had to pay their way but as that won't happen it's sort of a pointless question.
Mike Stretford - on 12:34 Mon
In reply to baron:
> There are probably 20 countries in the EU who take advantage of the infrastructure and investment of the EU without paying for it, that was one reason for some people to vote leave.

> But you're right that the EU will demand money from the UK, rather than from these non contributing countries, to keep its infrastructure and investment going, even though the UK won't be a member.

You see things quite one dimensionally. Germany is a huge net contributor, but most would say as a country they have done quite well out of it. Yes, there's the payment to the EU budget, then there's the payback in increased markets who you can easily sell to, and the increased quality of life to citizens who can moved around a well organised continent. Bexiteers think they can slash one half of the equation without effecting the other.

Economic development isn't something we implement well on a national level, so you can see why some in the UK struggle with the concept.
Post edited at 12:34
Ramblin dave - on 12:51 Mon
In reply to baron:

> But you're right that the EU will demand money from the UK, rather than from these non contributing countries, to keep its infrastructure and investment going, even though the UK won't be a member.

We have got the option to refuse to pay and leave with no deal. I mean, our economy will take a big hit and we'll have to deal with increased prices so we'll generally be a lot worse off than we are now, but we would get the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that we aren't paying for bridges in Romania or anything. Do you think that's worth it?
baron - on 13:04 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yes.
baron - on 13:11 Mon
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Economic development of Europe isn't the UK's job.
If the Germans, French, etc want to undertake a grand European project then that's their business but not one I want to be part of.
I do understand the theory that if countries are developed then they provide a market for the UK to trade with.
Isn't this one of the reasons for the overseas aid budget?


neilh - on 13:16 Mon
In reply to baron:

Give me a rough idea as to what % of your income you are prepared to sacrifice for the privilige of coming out of the EU.
baron - on 13:21 Mon
In reply to neilh:
Zero.
Why would I want to do that?
Ramblin dave - on 13:26 Mon
In reply to baron:

> I do understand the theory that if countries are developed then they provide a market for the UK to trade with.

But you just don't care because you think that net contribution to the EU budget is more important than the total benefit of being a member.

Do you understand why many people would consider this attitude to be bafflingly irrational?
baron - on 13:31 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I disagree with some countries contributing while others do not yet receive the same if not greater benefits.
Ramblin dave - on 13:40 Mon
In reply to baron:

> I disagree with some countries contributing while others do not yet receive the same if not greater benefits.

But this is a point of principle that you're willing to stick to even if the only way that we can avoid it is by making ourselves poorer? By increasing our cost of living while damaging our economy to an extent that our net contribution to the EU wouldn't begin to cover?

Do you not think it would be more rational to ask what's the deal that we get that can offer us the best standard of living, the best job opportunities, the best public services and so on, and take that without worrying about what other people are getting?
jkarran - on 13:42 Mon
In reply to baron:
> Economic development of Europe isn't the UK's job.

It is if we want to benefit from the stability and growth in market it brings. We understood that all too well in 1945 but we've been quick to forget.

> If the Germans, French, etc want to undertake a grand European project then that's their business but not one I want to be part of.

Fine but then you also have to accept you will receive no benefit from it and you will rapidly get poorer relative to your nearest neighbours.

> I do understand the theory that if countries are developed then they provide a market for the UK to trade with.

But what, you don't believe it or you think the dubious benefits possibly afforded by tearing up our trading relationships with the EU27 and c60 other nations outweigh the costs? What do *you* expect to get out of this?

I expect to get poorer and live in a country who's government's actions no longer reflect my values or those of my generation. I think that is a significant problem, one which deserves a bloody good explanation for why that risk is worthwhile, one which is not yet forthcoming.

> Isn't this one of the reasons for the overseas aid budget?

One of them, yes. What is the relevance to our EU membership or future relationship with the remaining 27?

What would it take to make you wonder seriously whether what you're getting is what you thought you were getting, what you thought you wanted? To my astonishment this weekend I found several of my brexit supporting mates (all older guys, 50s-70s) now appear to have changed their minds and either regret their choice or have resigned themselves to it delivering nothing of value.
jk
Post edited at 13:43
baron - on 13:48 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:
No.
Why would the UK continue to contribute very large sums of money while most countries make no net contribution whatsoever?
Because we always have?
Maybe if our economy takes the nose dive that you're predicting then the EU will allow us to rejoin and we can become net recipients of the EU largesse.
Ramblin dave - on 14:10 Mon
In reply to baron:

> Why would the UK continue to contribute very large sums of money while most countries make no net contribution whatsoever?

> Because we always have?

No, because we are on the whole much better off doing so than not doing so. Because there's no deal that we can expect to get where we get such a big share in the benefits of the single market and a prosperous Europe without, for the moment, being a net contributor to making those things happen. And it's normally rational behaviour to pick the option that is most beneficial to yourself rather than to make yourself worse off overall purely because you don't want to feel like someone else isn't paying their way.
RomTheBear on 14:15 Mon
In reply to baron:

> Zero.

Too late then.
neilh - on 14:47 Mon
In reply to baron:

Do you live in the uk?
baron - on 15:06 Mon
In reply to neilh:
Yes
neilh - on 15:13 Mon
In reply to baron:

Are you retired or working?
baron - on 15:19 Mon
In reply to neilh:

Retired
Ramblin dave - on 15:40 Mon
In reply to baron:
Ah right, so it's other people's livelihoods that you're so cavalier about putting on the line, then?
Post edited at 15:44
baron - on 15:48 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:
There's nothing cavalier about deciding to upset the status quo when you are retired. It would have been much easier to vote to remain but doing something because it's easy isn't the same as doing something because it's right.
And since when have most people voted for what's best for others rather than themselves.


andyfallsoff - on 16:39 Mon
In reply to baron:

> Zero.

> Why would I want to do that?

But you are making a choice which will have the effect of reducing other people's income, or making them more expensive for them!

I've already had a pay freeze because of Brexit - that cost me some thousands of pounds. Plus prices are up, exchange rate is down - food and holidays have all been more expensive.

It's all well and good for you to say that you wouldn't sacrifice a penny, but some of us (who didn't want this) have already been paying for it...
jkarran - on 16:56 Mon
In reply to baron:

> There's nothing cavalier about deciding to upset the status quo when you are retired. It would have been much easier to vote to remain but doing something because it's easy isn't the same as doing something because it's right.

Erm, don't you have the 'triple lock' on your pension and IIRC you were a teacher so that's a taxpayer/state borrowing backed pension not tied to economic performance, right? It's very much other peoples futures you've gambled, yours is secured and we're going to be paying for your credulity for decades.

> And since when have most people voted for what's best for others rather than themselves.

Ignoring how awful that attitude is given the seriousness of the matter: explain to me how the hell you believe brexit is good for the majority of people who voted for it? It makes them poorer, it makes them weaker, it makes them less safe.

How is it good for *you*?
jk
baron - on 16:59 Mon
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Where was this concern for others, especially us old folk, when our savings were being decimated since the financial crash?
Many people's retirement plans went on permanent hold.
While the younger generation has been revelling in and benefiting from artificialy low mortgage rates many older folk have seen their standard of living plummet.
When we get fed up of this and vote for a change you want to criticise us.
I'm genuinely sorry that you've lost money and that your holiday will cost you more through no fault of your own.



andyfallsoff - on 17:17 Mon
In reply to baron:
> Where was this concern for others, especially us old folk, when our savings were being decimated since the financial crash?

That is the same policy that has helped push up house prices and shut lots of young people out of the market - I don't think it is a policy that is a hobby horse of the young. Quite the opposite. There are also a lot of other policy choices that have gone in favour of the older generations, and relatively few that have gone in favour of younger generations (although I'd be interested to hear if that's how you see it).

> Many people's retirement plans went on permanent hold.

> While the younger generation has been revelling in and benefiting from artificialy low mortgage rates many older folk have seen their standard of living plummet.

> When we get fed up of this and vote for a change you want to criticise us.

> I'm genuinely sorry that you've lost money and that your holiday will cost you more through no fault of your own.

Thanks. If it seemed there was any advantage to brexit, I wouldn't mind so much - I don't expect that the world always works in my favour. But all I can see is a decision that will make us all poorer, financially, culturally and politically.
Post edited at 17:18
stevieb - on 17:18 Mon
In reply to baron:

> Where was this concern for others, especially us old folk, when our savings were being decimated since the financial crash?

> Many people's retirement plans went on permanent hold.

> While the younger generation has been revelling in and benefiting from artificialy low mortgage rates many older folk have seen their standard of living plummet

You're right that, by and large, mortgage payers were insulated from the financial crash, but that was done to ensure that property values didn't plummet.
The property owning older people, especially those who will never move to a bigger house, held onto all of this wealth, through the crash, at the expense of their income (savings interest)

neilh - on 17:39 Mon
In reply to baron:

So who does the shopping in your house?
baron - on 18:23 Mon
In reply to neilh:

Shopping, what shopping?
I'm retired! I cant afford shopping!
neilh - on 18:37 Mon
In reply to baron:

For food.....
baron - on 18:42 Mon
In reply to neilh:
My wife, she's one of the group of women who had their state pension age increased with little notice.
Something else that should have created a commotion but didn't.
paul__in_sheffield - on 18:48 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Ah right, so it's other people's livelihoods that you're so cavalier about putting on the line, then?

While not defending Baron, I think it's worth pointing out that it's possible to be retired but still contributing lower or higher level tax on pension income and contributing as much or more than those still working. Retired people also have livelihoods to put on the line.
wercat on 19:57 Mon
In reply to stevieb:


"The property owning older people, especially those who will never move to a bigger house, held onto all of this wealth, through the crash, at the expense of their income (savings interest) "

That's a real comfort to older people without property with crap interest rates and jobs lost at the wrong end of the age spectrum ever to recover from someone else's crash
neilh - on 20:04 Mon
In reply to baron:
So do you know anything about the cost of food shopping or do you leave it all to your wife?
baron - on 20:08 Mon
In reply to neilh:
I know that if I shop in Lidl or Aldi the food bill is much smaller than when my wife does the shopping in Marks and Spencers.
She would point out that she wouldn't be seen dead in a budget supermarket while I think she's a snob.
Guess most humans don't always act rationally.
stevieb - on 20:30 Mon
In reply to wercat:


> That's a real comfort to older people without property with crap interest rates and jobs lost at the wrong end of the age spectrum ever to recover from someone else's crash

Yes I know, that's exactly why I made it a qualified statement. Thank you.
neilh - on 20:36 Mon
In reply to baron:

And what is your experience on food prices pre and post Brexit?
Does your wife now shop more at Lidl or Aldi?

What is her view on what has happened to prices?
baron - on 20:42 Mon
In reply to neilh:
My wife says food prices have gone up in M and S - I wasn't joking when I said that she wouldn't be seen dead in aldi or lidl.
Food prices have also gone up in the budget supermarkets.
She thinks that food prices have gone up due to people making money from Brexit, a bit like the currency speculators.
I think that food is ridiculously cheap considering how far much of it travels from its point of origin.
Anything else you'd like to know?

neilh - on 20:59 Mon
In reply to baron:

the fall in the value of the £- as a direct result of Brexit -has led to the price of food going up.

So Brexit has cost you money.

Not something you voted for.
Ramblin dave - on 21:01 Mon
In reply to baron:
> Where was this concern for others, especially us old folk, when our savings were being decimated since the financial crash?

> Many people's retirement plans went on permanent hold.

Many people's "having a job" plans went on permanent hold. And that's before you get to the knock-on effects of austerity - which affected young and old alike. It seems a bit self-centered to huff about concern for others while pretending that an economic crisis is all a jolly bit of fun for young working people.

> When we get fed up of this and vote for a change you want to criticize us.

How were you "voting for a change"? You were voting for another blow to the economy, and it's doubtful whether you'll do any better out of this one than you dd out of the last one.
Post edited at 21:02
baron - on 21:03 Mon
In reply to neilh:
The pound has dropped due to people speculating.
Luckily the FTSE has risen due to the same currency speculation and despite my meager investments I'm ahead of the game.
Not what I voted for but being pragmatic I'll settle for it.
ads.ukclimbing.com
baron - on 21:10 Mon
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Policy choices in favour of the old?
I must have missed those.
baron - on 21:13 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Economic crisis?
That'll be something seen in the 1930's or the early 1980's.
Most people have a far better standard of living than ever.
Including us old folk.
Your depressing forecast of the economic future of the UK doesn't appear to be supported by the current facts.
Ramblin dave - on 21:32 Mon
In reply to baron:


> Most people have a far better standard of living than ever.

> Including us old folk.

Weird, a minute ago people weren't showing enough concern for your awful plight.
baron - on 21:35 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

They aren't showing enough concern.
But my plight isn't awful.
It's nowhere near where I would like it to be but compared to previous generations we are all better off.
andyfallsoff - on 21:39 Mon
In reply to baron:

Triple lock pensions, winter fuel allowance protected, crises in funding for things like uni all dealt with by payment from the young?

As the Resolution Foundation have explained, both labour and Tory policies would overwhelmingly disadvantage the young (by default, thereby being better to the old).

To put it another way - what policy decision has gone against the old? You've discussed interest rates, but these (a) aren't decided by politicians, and (b) have pushed up property prices so on average (other than for those older people who don't own property) have benefitted the old more.
andyfallsoff - on 21:45 Mon
In reply to baron:

But you aren't showing any concern for the working age population who will be living with the consequences of Brexit throughout their whole working lives.
baron - on 21:54 Mon
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Triple lock pensions are great if you are in receipt of a state pension and can live on not a lot of money.
Many retired people aren't and can't.
Winter fuel allowance helps but is hardly a huge sum of money.
Crisis in university funding is hardly the fault of older people when 90% of them never had a uni education.
Interest rates not decided by politicians?
The Bank of England is supposed to be independent but I'm not sure that it would fly in the face of government policy.
Increased house prices often mean that older people see their increased wealth spent on care homes.
Just because young people are penalised doesn't mean that older people benefit.
The one thing the government has done is to allow people to gain access to pension funds that would previously have been tied up in almost worthless annuities.
As older people cash in their pensions, pay their tax(again) and spend the money this can only be a boost to the economy.
baron - on 21:57 Mon
In reply to andyfallsoff:
True.
But your assuming that Brexit will only have negative affects.
You must be old enough to know that people vote for selfish reasons.
Most wouldn't admit to that on an internet forum and I'm sure that some people do vote for the good of the nation but generally looking after number one is the priority.
Rob Exile Ward on 22:32 Mon
In reply to baron:

'You must be old enough to know that people vote for selfish reasons.'

Yeah, the stupid thing is that all those people who voted for Brexit for selfish reasons are going to lose out. Because we all are. Big time. (Except that it will be a gradual deterioration of living standards vs what we would have enjoyed in the EU.)
baron - on 22:34 Mon
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
This is a possibility.
neilh - on 08:42 Tue
In reply to baron:
Well there is slot of speculation that the £ may be in parity with the £ soon. Soon being a wide time frame depending on the negotiating. Let us hope for your sake this does not happen.

I understand where you are coming from. But the stock market performance is just as much to do with the global economy and would probably be doing just as well without Brexit.
andyfallsoff - on 09:04 Tue
In reply to baron:

So your argument to all of these is to say that just because not every single old person benefits from each measure, they aren't geared towards older people?

Let's be clear - these are all means by which the older generation is funded predominantly by the younger. That includes house prices, which are funded by entrants to the market paying inflated prices. I don't really know where to start with your argument as to why inflated house prices don't benefit the older generation who own most of the housing wealth - if people become more wealthy then they might use that wealth, yes. By that rationale, you should be pleased with any outcome that leads to you having less money, as that way you won't be required to pay for things?

Your reply is a great example of confirmation bias - you have a "but" to each point, and even where you have no argument (winter fuel allowance) you just begrudgingly say "well it isn't much anyway"...
Big Ger - on 09:10 Tue
In reply to neilh:

> Well there is slot of speculation that the £ may be in parity with the £ soon.

I cannot see that happening myself...


;-)
andyfallsoff - on 09:13 Tue
In reply to baron:

> True.

> But your assuming that Brexit will only have negative affects.

I'm assuming that the effect Brexit will have will be broadly in line with the detailed studies that have looked at the effects of different trade relationships, applied to the UK's circumstances. So not "only" negative effects (it is possible that we could see some trade benefits) but in aggregate, negative effects (because we will have removed ourselves from the best trading relationship we have).

> You must be old enough to know that people vote for selfish reasons.

Some people vote based on what they feel is right, rather than narrow self interest.

> Most wouldn't admit to that on an internet forum and I'm sure that some people do vote for the good of the nation but generally looking after number one is the priority.


baron - on 10:09 Tue
In reply to andyfallsoff:

OK, you win the argument.
I conceed defeat.
neilh - on 10:09 Tue
In reply to Big Ger:

Not sure. I get regular phone calls from currency dealers as I get paid in US dollars alot.They all seem very keen on buying US dollars at the moment( and they give you obtuse reasons for you selling them).

Its a tricky one.
BnB - on 10:19 Tue
In reply to neilh:

> Not sure. I get regular phone calls from currency dealers as I get paid in US dollars alot.They all seem very keen on buying US dollars at the moment( and they give you obtuse reasons for you selling them).

> Its a tricky one.

Generally the prices of financial instruments exceed their logical level on good news and fall well below it on bad. My advisors tip sterling to recover from its current oversold state. It's not really something I can act on since all but a tiny percentage of my holdings are in GBP anyway and for obvious reasons.

You must be enjoying those USD transactions at least. Although no doubt there's a swing to that roundabout.
Big Ger - on 10:22 Tue
In reply to neilh:

You missed your typo mate.
neilh - on 11:07 Tue
In reply to Big Ger:

? I sell, they buy/
Big Ger - on 11:12 Tue
In reply to neilh:

Mate?

> Well there is slot of speculation that the £ may be in parity with the £ soon.
neilh - on 11:15 Tue
In reply to BnB:

You probably have more sophisticated advisors than me, but on currency as I see it they have been saying for about 3 years it should be trading at between $1.50/$1.60 to the £.

Enjoying it because of the positive news in the global economy, we are very because of this and cannot make product fast enough.The £ has little bearing on demand for niche engineered products( something which seems lost on both political parties)
neilh - on 11:16 Tue
In reply to Big Ger:

Did not spot that one
jkarran - on 13:09 Tue
In reply to baron:

Can I ask what are your thoughts on this: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-negotiator-europe-euratom-airline-safety-negotiations-...

What do we get in return for this?
jk
wercat on 13:35 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

blind faith that it will be all right for some people an unspecified time in the future?
baron - on 13:56 Tue
In reply to jkarran:
Extricating the UK from the EU is obviously going to be a complicated business given that we have been members for a long time. Your link provides some specific examples of how tied to the EU we are.
Imagine how complicated it would be if the UK also belonged to the Euro and was part of Schengen.
The situation isn't helped by the seemingly inept negotiationing skills of the politicians involved and the lack of a clearly defined policy.
One gets the feeling that they would like the whole thing to go away.
Do these difficulties make Brexit a bad thing?
You'll say yes and I'll say no.
Could the whole thing turn into a complete mess?
Possibly.

ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 14:22 Tue
In reply to baron:
> Do these difficulties make Brexit a bad thing?
> You'll say yes and I'll say no.

That's a bit light, isn't it.
The difficulties and expense of extricating ourselves of the EU are clear.
What's less clear is where are the supposed benefit.
According to you, how would the average person would benefit from it ? (Other than being able to wear their Union Jack underpants with renewed pride)
Post edited at 14:23
Sir Chasm - on 14:25 Tue
In reply to baron:

> Extricating the UK from the EU is obviously going to be a complicated business given that we have been members for a long time. Your link provides some specific examples of how tied to the EU we are.

This is stupidly obvious, we’re tied to the EU because we’re a member of the EU.

> Imagine how complicated it would be if the UK also belonged to the Euro and was part of Schengen.

Irrelevant, we’re not in the euro or Schengen.

> The situation isn't helped by the seemingly inept negotiationing skills of the politicians involved and the lack of a clearly defined policy.

There’s always someone to blame, isn’t there? What do you want them to negotiate? Do you want them to negotiate us in or out of Euratom for instance?

> One gets the feeling that they would like the whole thing to go away.
Do these difficulties make Brexit a bad thing?
You'll say yes and I'll say no.
Could the whole thing turn into a complete mess?
Possibly.

You’ve avoided giving any hint of what you want to get out of it, how does this benefit us as a country?
baron - on 14:32 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:
Your last comment shows the disdain that you have for leavers and doesn't warrant any further reply.
baron - on 14:41 Tue
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Jkarran and I have exchanged opinions on Brexit for a long time. He's well aware of my thoughts and desires on the subject so I didn't feel the need to explain my position again, as it was he I was replying to.
The tone of your post leads me to believe that you think I'm stupid and that you're a firm remainer so why would you want to enter into a debate with me when there's no chance of you changing your mind and I'm too thick to change mine.
Sir Chasm - on 14:43 Tue
In reply to baron:

It's a simple enough question, how do you see brexit benefiting the country?
RomTheBear on 14:49 Tue
In reply to baron:
> Your last comment shows the disdain that you have for leavers and doesn't warrant any further reply.

I do have utter contempt and disdain for those who voted leave for purely chauvinistic reasons.

But according to you it was a rational decision, hence why I am asking you, what are the benefits concretely for the average person in the UK ? You seem to be struggling...
Post edited at 14:52
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14:59 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

i'm struggling to wonder how 93% of the worlds population survives outside of the EU after reading this thread
Sir Chasm - on 15:04 Tue
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> i'm struggling to wonder how 93% of the worlds population survives outside of the EU after reading this thread

Is survival the sum total of your brexit aspirations? How about brexit being an improvement? Or even not worse?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15:15 Tue
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is survival the sum total of your brexit aspirations?

Not mine... but it is about the sum total of the best case scenarios of most of the predictions on this thread.
baron - on 15:15 Tue
In reply to Sir Chasm:
See my reply to Rom.
jkarran - on 15:17 Tue
In reply to baron:

> Extricating the UK from the EU is obviously going to be a complicated business given that we have been members for a long time. Your link provides some specific examples of how tied to the EU we are.
> Imagine how complicated it would be if the UK also belonged to the Euro and was part of Schengen.

Why? We're not and weren't on the path to be so unless and until it suited us which was not in the foreseeable future.

> The situation isn't helped by the seemingly inept negotiationing skills of the politicians involved and the lack of a clearly defined policy.

The problem isn't the politicians, it's the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of this: we have the best deal now, from here on in it is a massive damage limitation process that for a variety of utterly foreseeable reasons cannot but go poorly.

> One gets the feeling that they would like the whole thing to go away.

No, surely not.

> Do these difficulties make Brexit a bad thing?
> You'll say yes and I'll say no.

Actually I'd say 'no', the difficulties are what they are, they were totally foreseeable and they easily negate any possible benefit we might have yielded out of the EU for decades to come but I believe brexit is a terrible idea for much more fundamental reasons of culture and security.

I just want you to understand and acknowledge the consequences then having done so tell me what good comes from this?

> Could the whole thing turn into a complete mess?
> Possibly.

It already f***ing is!
jk
Sir Chasm - on 15:19 Tue
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Rubbish, you're just making things up. But as you're here, and baron can't answer, how do you see brexit benefiting the country?
Ramblin dave - on 15:19 Tue
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> There’s always someone to blame, isn’t there?

Of course. You can't expect people to go admitting that all the stuff they believed about how the German car industry would make sure we got an amazing deal dead easily was, as folk kept trying to point out at the time, transparently a load of guff. It must be that our negotiators are unexpectedly incompetent!
baron - on 15:20 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm not struggling, I just don't want to have to referendum debate again.
I can't be bothered to type the whole thing again especially since we've crossed swords enough times for you to know my position.
What I will do is add one more reason for Brexit and that's to annoy you.
Yes, a very childish reason but I'll treat it as a small victory.
Off to pub now, before that has to close due to Brexit.
Sir Chasm - on 15:25 Tue
In reply to baron:

A stupid, spiteful reason. Well done you.
jkarran - on 15:26 Tue
In reply to baron:

> Jkarran and I have exchanged opinions on Brexit for a long time. He's well aware of my thoughts and desires on the subject so I didn't feel the need to explain my position again, as it was he I was replying to.

Actually I'm not. I've never understood what you want, what you think you're getting from this that outweighs the massive and growing list of downsides.

> The tone of your post leads me to believe that you think I'm stupid and that you're a firm remainer so why would you want to enter into a debate with me when there's no chance of you changing your mind and I'm too thick to change mine.

I don't think you're stupid. I think you're in a very difficult position, forced to defend the increasingly indefensible or to change your mind in the light of new evidence, something widely but wrongly perceived as weakness. I don't think you voted to make anyone poorer or weaker or less safe and as it becomes apparent that those are the unintended consequences and the promised benefits were illusory your position gets harder and harder to maintain intellectually. I think you were conned.
jk
Post edited at 15:29
baron - on 15:46 Tue
In reply to jkarran:
Sorry if I took you for granted, not my intention.
Being conned would mean being liedmto and believing those lies.
Easily done if you believed the £350 on the bus or listened to those politicians chosen to lead the leave campaign.
I Feel many leavers had decided how to vote well before the referendum was even announced.
So my personal main reasons for Brexit, pre referendum

Reduce monetary payments to EU.
Return sovereignty to the UK parliament.
Gain control of immigration.
Make UK politicians more accountable by removing their excuse of 'the EU made us do it'.

Reasons for Brexit post referendum

All of the above.

Am I open to persuasion?
I like to think so.
Am I easily persuaded?
No.

What I do know is that changing my mind and the UK not leaving the EU is the easy answer.
But that doesn't address any of my or millions of others concerns about EU membership.
You can't turn the clock back and pretend that millions of people aren't so discontented that they'd risk their futures on an uncertain outcome.
Sorry if this doesn't address your questions but we're rerunning the referendum debate again and despite What some people believe we're not really any closer to knowing the outcomes.


Ridge - on 16:15 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> According to you, how would the average person would benefit from it ? (Other than being able to wear their Union Jack underpants with renewed pride)

In the Rees-Mogg thread you posted this:

> Of course the causes are complex and numerous, but I think there is something there about people feeling left behind, humiliated in an economic system that gives status, power, and influence to a small technocratic elite and gives them no sense of pride and self-worth - even if they enjoy a high standard of living.

You've given a very good summary there about what a lot of people believe they'll gain from leaving the EU, (even though I suspect they'll be horribly disappointed).

No need for the union jack undies bit.
jkarran - on 16:23 Tue
In reply to baron:
Thanks.

> Reduce monetary payments to EU.

Why. We benefit massively from membership, far far more than it costs us. I guess you don't believe this.

> Return sovereignty to the UK parliament.

Why? Why is that where exactly where all the power should lie, why not with the sovereign, or the lords, or the local council or with you through direct democracy? At the end of the day we benefit massively from pooling some sovereignty, some issues are supranational, then need supranational solutions and it's not like we'd completely ceded control, the EU is a democratic institution and we were extremely influential within it.

> Gain control of immigration.

Won't happen or at least very high immigration will continue whether or not we notionally 'have control' of it. If you want to reduce nett immigration the only way is to reduce economic opportunity/growth which I'm going to presume is not what you want. Yes there are issues with high rates of influx especially where they are very localised but the solution is in targeted investment to alleviate the stresses, not in visas and throwing up useless fences, not in taking control we cannot hope to wield without seriously harming ourselves. The problem is austerity at the hands of our Conservative government, not people coming here to live and work.

> Make UK politicians more accountable by removing their excuse of 'the EU made us do it'.

Meh. Not worth the cost. They'll just find another scapegoat, who knows, it could be you next 'the aging population who need to take more responsibility for themselves' or some such bollocks. If it happens I confess I'll enjoy a moment of schadenfreude. If you want your politicians properly held to account then invest in a muscular free press, not the sad tory/vested-interest propaganda engine it's become of late.

> Am I open to persuasion?
> I like to think so.

So how many of your goals will they have to fail to deliver at what personal cost before you consider this may have been a scam?

> But that doesn't address any of my or millions of others concerns about EU membership.

But they're illusory or impossible.

We spend nett about £8.5Bn on the EU, much of that we'll be spending anyway after we leave on duplicating institutions. Is that a big number? Well it looks it but it's actually really not, it's about 7% of the NHS budget, it's less than twice the price of the universal perks given to pensioners (winter fuel, tv licence, bus pass, £5Bn). For that we get and benefit from unfettered access to the world's biggest marketplace, one we've been at the forefront of shaping and regulating.

> You can't turn the clock back and pretend that millions of people aren't so discontented that they'd risk their futures on an uncertain outcome.

And an almost exactly equal number of people stand in opposition so don't give me that will of the people crap. Britain is divided, there is no clear mandate for radical change. Most had and still have no idea the risk they're taking, many (and I spoke to a lot of people while campaigning so this is from direct experience) simply had no real understanding of what they were actually voting on or the potential consequences.
jk
Post edited at 16:25
Mike Stretford - on 16:48 Tue
In reply to Ridge:
> No need for the union jack undies bit.

I disagree, it always was and is about nationalism, and the exploitation of that. The 'left behind' narrative is just window dressing.
Post edited at 16:48
baron - on 20:03 Tue
In reply to jkarran:
I wasn't trying to say that we should go ahead with Brexit because it's the will of the people but that not going ahead would cause as much chaos, albeit of a different sort, as Brexit itself.
jkarran - on 21:27 Tue
In reply to baron:

> I wasn't trying to say that we should go ahead with Brexit because it's the will of the people but that not going ahead would cause as much chaos, albeit of a different sort, as Brexit itself.

We can deal with chaos and protest with solid foundations, in economic distress we're seriously vulnerable to dangerous forces internal and external. We've voted for ruin, we don't have to go through with it in light of new information no matter how hard that conversation is to have with others and with ourselves.
jk
Post edited at 21:27

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.