Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The €60 billion question. The EU exit charge and what it means
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The €60 billion question. The EU exit charge and what it means
Picture: The front page of yesterday’s Times newspaper.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Once again, Alastair, you are determined to put the worst possible interpretation on the British position, to align with your own prejudices.
They will pay (or at least take on) the real liabilities on pensions. I'd imagine there will also be a deal for the remaining year of the current budget. Accepting that is not a "morally or legally weak" position.
But it's a far cry from accepting the Eur 60bn figure.
It's also important to appreciate that we have *always* said we will pay something. It's one of the cards we have to play on our side - and the traditional British gambit in European politics.
As a matter of interest Charles, to what extent did you feel the need to edit your opening post?
What they will do (at least in the UK) is use the big liability number to justify what, in reality, are payments for access. "Britain is honest, we pay our bills. These are real liabilities, but haven't we done well, we've agreed to pay them off over 10 years"
It's a long story, but the bottom line is that if the richest man decides he's no longer welcomed by the group, then the other nine have learn to drink fewer beers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html
http://m.slashdot.org/story/32324
Of course that's not to mean that the UK should place themselves to take advantage of American protecionism, just that this isn't the issue to get excited about.
Despite all the bravado and guff about German cars, methinks that will probably be us.
Journalism where you get to write your own strapline? It could catch on....
That's a big number to dispute between iScot and rUK.
Looks like you got lucky with yours though!
Lord preserve us !! ..... and to make matters worse you will have the Brexiteers foaming at the gills and having a fit of the vapours in commending the notorious Remoaner - Alastair Meeks.
What a way to start a Sunday ....
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.
But I won't let the facts get in the way of your constant delusional rantings about how we need the EU oh so very much.
I believe Norway pays £140/head vs. £220/head for UK.
Now they choose to opt into things and we might choose not to.
But around half of that seems to be linked to access/free trade....
https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/
IMO makes sense for UK to compromise on payments far more than other issues.
But is TM strong enough in her own party to do this?
That the true cost for UK menbership has been grossly under estimated for decades?
As for a deal with the US, it will be what the US tells us it will be. We can then choose to take it or leave it.
I'd have a fast track for anyone on £100k or taking a university research post, we shouldn't be asking many questions of anyone in that position , bar a security check.
Look at it this way, if Britain succeeds economically outside of both the political and economic parts of the EU, what value does it then hold for everyone else? An economic zone which excludes 90% global GDP with an inwards looking political elite is doomed to fail. We gave them ample opportunity to alter the course of the EU, they chose not to and now it doesn't look like there is a way back for them.
Even if our export trade with the EU was 20% it could hardly be termed as "irrelevant". Brexit hyperbole is as much to be deprecated as Remainiac scaremongering.
Leaving the EU allows us to think more about which immigration is beneficial and which isn't.
But that doesn't mean it's comparable: no one has given the EU money expecting the UK to be part of the repayment plan.
Every other outcome of Brexit will be plagued by counterfactuals ("Inflation would have happened anyway, and is a good thing" etc). The immigration figures will be how May's Brexit will be judged, and she knows it. Immigration is not going to be getting easier.
Assuming the EU survives as is... Or even adds an extra country or two...
Will it ever be the case that they are not our largest trade partner?
The EU is roughly the same size as US economy. Yet we trade something like three times as much with EU despite sharing a common language with US....
EU share of world GDP will decline as poor countries catch up. The same will happen for US.
But will the likes of China ever be as big a trading partner? They're far away and have very different systems... Just a thought.
With that being the case and it seems acknowledged in your piece, I am surprised you see the response To be as bad as you say, since it is presumably only a negotiating position. Now, maybe it's a poor one, but this piece isn't as convincing as the a50 one.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/13/guest-slot-the-impact-of-leaving-the-eu-on-londons-technology-start-up-scene/
As I said when the report was issued, government lawyers are wrong plenty of times, and presumably European lawyers will be wrong at least as often, so the posturing stuff seems irrelevant. It's not in their interests to have us legally fight such payments nor in our should we fail, so it's in both our interests to concede something. Who concedes the most remains to be seen. Certainly my reading of the initial headline was to add an unwritten 'but we'd pay something to make things easier because we're so nice'. Others may take it literally to mean the gov thinks it will not pay a dime.
Public perceptions are far more nuanced than you'll ever understand if you just poke fun at the views...
Although seriously, I know little of IT systems and am sure the technical wizardry must be damn complicated, but why do they capita so many billions sometimes?
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/838292390611927042
As I have pointed out, there are still unpaid fines within the EU that could be used to offset this. France still owes us £2.1 billion over that illegal ban on our beef (a fine that the Commission decided not to enforce). The Commission as a whole should probably owe us quite a lot for that given that it was morally and legally unjustifiable from the outset.
The big error to my mind is that by playing for such a big figure to start with when it is inevitably either negotiated down to about £10 billion or simply not paid they will look weak and ineffectual, and have implanted the idea that it is possible to leave the EU without financial penalty. That could prove rather a dangerous impression going forward.
The comment from the MEP was that we had an obligation to pay our share "up and until withdrawal"
That is why despite the fact it is 1% of the size of India we do twice as much trade with Belgium.
Services have certain advantages in this regard, but even they experience difficulties and delays about distance (faults on the cable, electrical storms on the satellite, etc.).
For these reasons Europe will always be disproportionately important to us as an export market (and was even in the nineteenth century).
In respect of the first the EU budget that we agreed runs until 2019. If we were to leave before that there may be an argument that we should honour those commitments. After that not so much. There are longer term liabilities of the EU, such as the pensions of their well paid staff. I can see the UK taking on the responsibility to pay those of UK citizens although I can also see an argument that we have a right to roughly 20% of the value of EU Institutions that have been built up with our money. A trade off looks likely.
Going forward, there remains the possibility that we will remain in some sort of relationship with some EU institutions. So we might remain a part of the EU patents system, for example. If we do then we will inevitably have to contribute to the cost of those institutions in the same way as we do now.
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
What I'd probably do is set up a 'free zone', with minimal taxes, their own work permits and cheap rents for startup tech businesses. I hope the ministers in the business department are having a good look at how similar schemes work elsewhere in the world.
A general bonfire of unnecessary regulation aimed at small businesses is also long overdue, maybe Brexit gives the opportunity to take a look at this, at the same time.
I'd never expect him to make such stupid mistakes as Osborne made re: compulsory pensions, I'd be very surprised if quarterly reporting happens etc
Interestingly, Ladbrokes has shorter odds for Juppe and longer for Fillon than Betfair. That's mostly been the other way around. If Juppe does replace Fillon, I wonder if Le Pen becomes a third place favourite for the presidency.
On paying the EU - there are a few different factors. We'll have made certain commitments (most obviously the fees for until 2019) and may wish to pay for membership of the bodies that should be independent but which the Euromonster has its tentacles wrapped around (EURatom etc). As mentioned below, if Canada has better single market access with no fee, then having the same for us seems a minimum standard rather than a special deal.
Also, as Mr. Max stated, we should not neglect the French fine.