tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, it couldn´t be said about those.

Yes it could. I just did.

tommy1808 wrote:

Yup, so just as with taxes, they are gone once you paid them.

I totally agree - that was my point. But now, magically, the EU seems to think that they are not membership fees but contributions to specific spending. Can't have it both ways.

tommy1808 wrote:

If the UK doesn´t like it, they can take it up with the ECJ.

If we get to the end of the 2 year notice period without agreement, I can just see the EU going running to the ECJ with all of their demands for payments. Funny this, the UK will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ at that point.

tommy1808 wrote:

For the liabilities the UK has created and agreed to pay for. Not a dime beyond that.

But we haven't. The EU has created the liabilities and agreed to pay them. The UK has only agreed to pay a membership fee, as you agreed above.

tommy1808 wrote:

The public servants who´s pensions you will pay for did work on your behalf.

They were employed by, and did work for, the EU. Does the golf club expect me to pay their employees pensions after I have left, just because they cut the grass for me to play on? No.

tommy1808 wrote:

with your aggressive barking attack politicians on the UK side, that haven´t uttered a single reasonable proposal yet

The most aggressive politician so far has clearly been Junckers and, if you actually read the letter that Theresa May wrote to trigger this whole process, you will find a number of proposals in there. Just because you don't like the proposals that the UK has made so far, does not mean that they do not exist.

tommy1808 wrote:

, it is only a matter of time until the letter for letter by treaty and law approach of the EU will be over, and some will go into full "you know what, screw you" mode. With all 27 having to agree to the treaty, your bleak outlook could become true, but do to the vastly different scales it will of course hit the UK much harder.

I think you are right about the "screw you" - our "leaders" really are that stupid, as Junckers is very ably demonstrating at the moment. But I'm sure you are wrong about which side will be harder hit. Too many of the EU economies are far too fragile to withstand the fallout and I very much doubt that any of the stronger ones are going to be willing to prop things up any more than they already are doing. It will mean the end of the EU in its present form. Independent forecasts have estimated the impact on the UK as roughly equal to the GFC, which we survived.

tommy1808 wrote:

I would not be surprised at all if all of this is just theoretic to get an election win, and poor Ms. May will tell her voters afterwards "we have to go for the Norwegian model, because that is the only agreement we can reach"

She knows that she has no hope whatsoever of getting away with that. Despite what you seem to think, the UK electorate is not that stupid.

considering the conversation and it seems like it reflects the EU27 vs UK pretty well, what is the chance of an divorce agreement in 3-4 month in order to give some time for a free tade agreement?

I start to consider that 50-50 chance is optimistic.

speedbored wrote:

Despite what you seem to think, the UK electorate is not that stupid.

We are talking about the same electorate that swallowed "350 million £ per week" hook, line and sinker, despite the ease of finding out the truth, right?

Best regards
Thomas

olle wrote:

considering the conversation and it seems like it reflects the EU27 vs UK pretty well, what is the chance of an divorce agreement in 3-4 month in order to give some time for a free tade agreement?
I start to consider that 50-50 chance is optimistic.

I think you are way too optimistic there.

Chance of a separation agreement in under 4 months? As close to zero as non-existent, I'd say.

tommy1808 wrote:

We are talking about the same electorate that swallowed "350 million £ per week" hook, line and sinker, despite the ease of finding out the truth, right?

You'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who believed that. A few on the remain side, perhaps.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, the vast majority of leave voters voted that way for reasons other than money.

speedbored wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, it couldn´t be said about those.

Yes it could. I just did.

Well, ok, you can *say* it. I just see no way to arrive at that conclusion locically....

tommy1808 wrote:

Yup, so just as with taxes, they are gone once you paid them.

I totally agree - that was my point. But now, magically, the EU seems to think that they are not membership fees but contributions to specific spending. Can't have it both ways.

I am sure Scottland will be pleased to hear that, when they leave the UK, can offload public servants, payments for infrastructure build in or for Scotland on the remaining UK tax payers, but keep everything made with that money for free.

tommy1808 wrote:

For the liabilities the UK has created and agreed to pay for. Not a dime beyond that.

But we haven't. The EU has created the liabilities and agreed to pay them.

The UK is x% of the EU, therefore the UK agreed to pay for x%of the expenses.

tommy1808 wrote:

The public servants who´s pensions you will pay for did work on your behalf.

They were employed by, and did work for, the EU. Does the golf club expect me to pay their employees pensions after I have left, just because they cut the grass for me to play on? No.

That is actually what you do. Even when you buy bread, you are paying for the sales person pension. You only usually don't have the option to postpone the payments until after the employment.

tommy1808 wrote:

with your aggressive barking attack politicians on the UK side, that haven´t uttered a single reasonable proposal yet

The most aggressive politician so far has clearly been Junckers and, if you actually read the letter that Theresa May wrote to trigger this whole process, you will find a number of proposals in there. [/quote]

I find a lot of sweet talking, and a good bit of hypocrisy. ..
We understand the four freedoms, but we want a super free trade agreement.....
I also didn't fail to notice that she confirms there will be obligations for the UK as a departing state....

Just because you don't like the proposals that the UK has made so far, does not mean that they do not exist.

Right... give us pretty much full access to your markets ain't a proposal....

Best regards
Thomas

Well chances to find a deal are hard to decide now as May is using the old trick: us against the bad foreigners to win the internal elections.

It is not easy to say if EU negotiators will forgive theses arguments after June 12...

tommy1808 wrote:

Well, ok, you can *say* it. I just see no way to arrive at that conclusion locically....

I could say the same about so many conclusions coming out of the EU at the moment.

tommy1808 wrote:

I am sure Scottland will be pleased to hear that, when they leave the UK, can offload public servants, payments for infrastructure build in or for Scotland on the remaining UK tax payers, but keep everything made with that money for free.

That is absolutely exactly what Sturgeon's plan is. She also wants no share in the UK national debt, and wants to keep all sorts of other impossible things like EU membership.

tommy1808 wrote:

The UK is x% of the EU, therefore the UK agreed to pay for x%of the expenses.

And we've been paying far in excess of x% ever since we joined. Do we get a refund of the overpayment?

tommy1808 wrote:

That is actually what you do. Even when you buy bread, you are paying for the sales person pension. You only usually don't have the option to postpone the payments until after the employment.

Ah, so you are saying we have already paid for all those pensions. Makes one wonder why the EU is now expecting us to pay for them again.

What I don't understand is why the UK are now being expected to pay the pensions of their own nationals when that is not how it has worked for any retired EU civil servants so far. Up to now, pensions have been paid out of EU funds so the net contributor countries have paid for the pensions of their own civil servants and those from all of the net beneficiary countries. After we leave, we will no longer be a contributor so why should we have to pay for any ex-EU employee pensions?

tommy1808 wrote:

Right... give us pretty much full access to your markets ain't a proposal....

Never has she, or any other UK politician I am aware of, come even close to proposing that.

You probably have not realised yet that I am mostly playing devil's advocate here - I don't believe most of the posturing on either side and hope that the politicians on both sides will see sense and come up with an agreement that works for both sides. Currently I think both sides are starting much too far on their own side of the equation for that to be likely to happen, especially if nobody reins in the more idiotic politicians like Juncker and Farage.

I actually think it would be better if negotiations began not from a starting point of "how much should the UK pay to leave", nor on expat citizens rights, nor on a trade deal, but from a calculation of the damage that will be done to both sides if no agreement is reached. If everyone concerned had a better understanding of that, rather than just ignored it on the assumption that they will get what they want, then I think negotiations on everything else might get to a sensible agreement more quickly.

"Currently I think both sides are starting much too far on their own side of the equation for that to be likely to happen, especially if nobody reins in the more idiotic politicians like Juncker and Farage."

Farage time is over, the only influence he had was over the public vote, everything going forward is going to be done via Government and Parliament where he has zero influence. Yes, he may continue to vent / give his opinions in public, the referendum did show the level of discontent the population has in its politicians not hearing the cries of the "man in the street" and the upcoming election may clear out even more.

Juncker is a whole different story, right now he is elevated, I suspect he will remain so until after the election and the new UK government finally goes about making some concrete proposals on their expectations.

Can someone explain to me why a €50 billion bail is so unreasonable to the UK? In the end it is only 6-7 more years of the current contribution.
The UK GDP is around €2500 billion, so if they just pay (like they do now) 0,3% of their GDP for 5 years, it is a finished business. It doesn't seem so unreasonable to me, it seems like a small price to pay if you look at the bigger picture.

sf260 wrote:

Can someone explain to me why a €50 billion bail is so unreasonable to the UK? In the end it is only 6-7 more years of the current contribution.
The UK GDP is around €2500 billion, so if they just pay (like they do now) 0,3% of their GDP for 5 years, it is a finished business. It doesn't seem so unreasonable to me, it seems like a small price to pay if you look at the bigger picture.

I think the impression here is that we're being held up for money that's been plucked out of thin air. Especially given how our usual annual contribution is smaller than that (including the rebate).

If you want us to carry on making our annual contribution for another few years, fine, but to ask for sums including the absurd one of 100 billion straight up is stupid.

Well according to the EU and UK Remain Experts, the UK GDP is expected to take a major hit and the country will ultimately go into a recession once they leave the EU with standard of living and GDP falling, so the 50bill may end up being a bigger deal than if they remained in the EU.

sf260 wrote:

Can someone explain to me why a €50 billion bail is so unreasonable to the UK? In the end it is only 6-7 more years of the current contribution.

Maybe because we are leaving in less than 2 years and have already contributed far in excess of most of the remaining countries?

sf260 wrote:

it seems like a small price to pay if you look at the bigger picture.

Not if we get nothing in return. If the EU refuse to even discuss a trade deal then why would we bother to pay anything?

So what can we expect from a trade deal?

Normally a trade deal handles cars and other products but no services.

Also by EU law the € clearing need to stay in a EU country. How will that affect London as an economic hub? What will be the losses in GDP and tax revenue for UK government by loosing this? Considering that the Euro countries tried in 2011 to move it already I do not believe it will stay in London.

speedbored wrote:

Maybe because we are leaving in less than 2 years and have already contributed far in excess of most of the remaining countries?

You already agreed and approved what you are paying now, and what you have paid in the past. So basically, you think it is fair to break up a contract from one side, without any penalty at all? Life doesn't work that way, not for private persons, not for businesses, not for governments.

speedbored wrote:

Not if we get nothing in return. If the EU refuse to even discuss a trade deal then why would we bother to pay anything?

The EU doesn't refuse to discuss a trade deal, they very much would like to when the time is right, when it's clearer what the separation will be like.

I think if the UK (end the EU to a lesser extent) show willingness to come to an agreement, that a lot is possible.

Your chances of reaching an agreement are decimated if you go to the negation table with a mindset like "rather no agreement than a bad agreement".

sf260 wrote:

You already agreed and approved what you are paying now, and what you have paid in the past. So basically, you think it is fair to break up a contract from one side, without any penalty at all?

Yes, absolutely, when that "contract" has an exit clause with no penalties (i.e. article 50). That is exactly how life works.

sf260 wrote:

I think if the UK (end the EU to a lesser extent) show willingness to come to an agreement, that a lot is possible.

So do I but it is a very big IF

sf260 wrote:

Your chances of reaching an agreement are decimated if you go to the negation table with a mindset like "rather no agreement than a bad agreement".

Why? Surely that is the mindset that everyone should approach negotiations with. Otherwise we'd almost always end up with bad agreements.

tommy1808 wrote:

speedbored wrote:

Despite what you seem to think, the UK electorate is not that stupid.

We are talking about the same electorate that swallowed "350 million £ per week" hook, line and sinker, despite the ease of finding out the truth, right?

Best regards
Thomas

Thomas, your condescension and arrogance towards the United States and the United Kingdom is truly nauseating. Please try posting coherent arguments rather than ill-founded "gotcha" statements and insults.

The £350 million per week to the NHS idea was not one promoted by a political party, but by the 'Leave' campaign, the purpose of which was to highlight the amount of money the United Kingdom sends to the EU every week and suggest how it might better be used. It was not a cast iron promise or pledge.

speedbored wrote:

Yes, absolutely, when that "contract" has an exit clause with no penalties (i.e. article 50). That is exactly how life works.

That might be your interpretation of 50.3 and would mean a "hard" Brexit by default, which I meant to avoid by proposing to discuss the "penalty" (50.2).

speedbored wrote:

Why? Surely that is the mindset that everyone should approach negotiations with. Otherwise we'd almost always end up with bad agreements.

Don't take my quote of its context. We are discussing Brexit. Brexit is not going to be a win-win situation, we already discussed this earlier.

sf260 wrote:

Brexit is not going to be a win-win situation, we already discussed this earlier.

Just have to see how it goes won't we?

Ok I have to say, as an independent observer from the other side of the Atlantic, this thread is one of the funniest (in a sad way) I have ever read.

From one side, I see the scorned woman posts of the EUrophiles - the bitchy nasty comments about the UK, how useless they are, how incompetent, how terrible and crazy their government are. You sound a bit crazy. Calm down a bit. The UK hasn't got to where it is in the world right now, by being totally incompetent, as well you know it.

I see hardly any posts from UK members - I mean why would they post here in such a hostile environment. Not one of the EU posters here has said anything positive about the UK leaving the EU. Why would you not say - congratulations on your democratic decision, yes there are bills to reconcile, agreements on reciprocal nationals living in each other's jurisdictions etc, but once we work it out, I hope you go on to work it out and be sucessful.
Why all the animosity from the EUrophiles in this forum?

So I hear you about the UK isn't being helpful, nor putting forward a strong position about where it wants to be.
But you are all being a little bit dim here. There is an election going on. Elections are going on elsewhere too - France, Germany, Malta. Bitch at the UK holding things up - I bet if another EU state dares to have an election in the next 18 months, you won't complain about them holding talks up.

Theresa May is looking to boost her majority, and will say all sorts of anything (mostly bollocks) to get that through. Hello - welcome to politics!! Dur. Some of the posturing on this forum from both sides really is very silly.

After the General, I would expect to see a very different tone in the negotiations, - much more conciliatory, willing to negotiate, do a deal. I think - I forget who is in charge of the EU - so many unelected heads of state - who is it - Junker? Tusk? I forget. Anyway - who is briefing them should be fired. Stop briefing Germany first. Agree to brief only the EU27 and no individual states, and cross fingers for some sort of deal.

I think a deal that benefits both sides would be good for all EU states and the UK. Let's be positive. I hate this negativity on this discussion right now.

Let's assume you're in the US, what would happen if a state, say Texas, seceded from the union ?

KLDC10 wrote:

Thomas, your condescension and arrogance towards the United States and the United Kingdom is truly nauseating.

I am not condescending towards the USA, just toward the despicable kleptocratie currently occupied it.
You know, the folks that just had a champagne and smiles photo-op, celebrating killing thousands of US citizens to give money to the rich...

The £350 million per week to the NHS idea was not one promoted by a political party,

You must be replying to the wrong post, since I never claimed they did

It was not a cast iron promise

It was simply a lie, and the "smart" electorate bought it.

Best regards
Thomas

I am - its an interesting opening argument. My initial reaction is - apples and oranges. We are all one nation here in the USA. Not quite the same.
But some rumblings about California going independent have happened - as a state, their "GDP" is as big as many big countries. I'm just working off the top of my head. I don't know the numbers.
But I think the argument of a US state leaving the USA is slightly detracting from the purpose of this thread so lets keep it focused on that....

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Not one of the EU posters here has said anything positive about the UK leaving the EU.

Because it's a lose-lose situation for both parties involved.

A British leader used the EU as a scapegoat for internal party politics one time too much, and this time it bit him back.

They have shown not just a complete lack of preparation for such an outcome but more worryingly very little in the way of knowledge of how the EU and international politics work.

Personally I'm glad the UK is leaving, but I have nothing positive to say about those that made it happen because they didn't do it in a fair way. Instead of arguing that the UK wasn't in agreement with the direction most EU countries wanted to go, and proposing a separation so that both the UK and the EU could go their separate but amicable way, they used lies and xenophobia, and this for years, to get there. Sorry if I'm not going to be thankful for that.

JJJ wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Not one of the EU posters here has said anything positive about the UK leaving the EU.

Because it's a lose-lose situation for both parties involved.

A British leader used the EU as a scapegoat for internal party politics one time too much, and this time it bit him back.

They have shown not just a complete lack of preparation for such an outcome but more worryingly very little in the way of knowledge of how the EU and international politics work.

I don't think they expected a "leave" vote in the referendum, from what I have read.
If a yes vote was anticipated, I think much more would have been done in advance. I see lots of rushing around, panic stations what do we do now? Kind of thing happening in Westminster. Hence the rapid change of government, lots of posturing etc.

I guess my point was - maybe the General will let all that subside, and allow Mrs May to take a deep breath, think clearly, and approach the negotiations with a little more clarity and diplomacy than she has shown recently.
And hopefully, the EU leaders will show some similar diplomacy, sensible thinking than they have also shown in the last few days.

JJJ wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Not one of the EU posters here has said anything positive about the UK leaving the EU.

Because it's a lose-lose situation for both parties involved.

A British leader used the EU as a scapegoat for internal party politics one time too much, and this time it bit him back.

They have shown not just a complete lack of preparation for such an outcome but more worryingly very little in the way of knowledge of how the EU and international politics work.

You are right - the EU has been a scapegoat for all sorts of issues in the UK. They have been part of the club but non stop bitched about the issues it has faced as a member. One would say - well why don't you leave if you don't like it so much

But - to be a devils advocate for a second - in this thread I read much about how wonderful the EU is - why would anyone want to leave? What has made the UK make this decision to leave if the EU club is so perfect? Something I'm missing - help me out here.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

I don't think they expected a "leave" vote in the referendum, from what I have read.
If a yes vote was anticipated, I think much more would have been done in advance. I see lots of rushing around, panic stations what do we do now? Kind of thing happening in Westminster. Hence the rapid change of government, lots of posturing etc.

I guess my point was - maybe the General will let all that subside, and allow Mrs May to take a deep breath, think clearly, and approach the negotiations with a little more clarity and diplomacy than she has shown recently.
And hopefully, the EU leaders will show some similar diplomacy, sensible thinking than they have also shown in the last few days.

You are late to the party. It seems you missed the fact that the EU acknowledged the referendum result without a protestation.

EU thinks it s moronic but OK.

The problem we have is that the UK pretend that the EU breaks all its rules to please UK needs.

AND EU IS TOTALLY FED UP WITH UK SPECIAL DEALS.

Since article 50 is triggered, the UK has no weapon left. Let say EU has to go on WTO rules with UK, it will be a big inconvenience but just that. According to UK treasury, WTO rules could mean a 66 billions £ loss a year.

Guess who has a better position ?

tommy1808 wrote:

It was simply a lie, and the "smart" electorate bought it.

Actually, no it was not. If you look at what the leave campaign actually said about the £350m figure, it was correct. But, as usual, the claim was misrepresented in the media and by the other side to attempt to discredit it (i.e. normal campaigning). It is only "smart" you who seems to have "bought it".

As I said previously, the reasons why the "smart" UK electorate voted leave had very little to do with money. The main drivers were immigration and sovereignty (i.e. wanting to make our own decisions instead of being dictated to).

JJJ wrote:

but more worryingly very little in the way of knowledge of how the EU and international politics work.

I think you'll find that most of us have a very good grasp of those - that is why we voted to leave.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

And hopefully, the EU leaders will show some similar diplomacy, sensible thinking than they have also shown in the last few days.

Many of them already are - Tusk, for example. Junckers, on the other hand, is incapable of it.

Olddog wrote:

Guess who has a better position ?

In the event of the UK leaving with no agreement, I think you will be surprised which side is affected most. Yes, the UK will be badly hit but we have a strong enough economy at the moment to survive the impact. Too many of the EU member economies are currently so close to tipping point that they will almost certainly fare a lot worse. The EU will not be able to stand even 1 more Greece happening, let alone 2 or 3.

I seriously believe that the UK leaving with no agreement will trigger the breakup of the EU, which would be a far bigger disaster for everyone concerned. Let's hope that some sanity gets injected into negotiations soon so that we can avoid it.

Olddog wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

I don't think they expected a "leave" vote in the referendum, from what I have read.
If a yes vote was anticipated, I think much more would have been done in advance. I see lots of rushing around, panic stations what do we do now? Kind of thing happening in Westminster. Hence the rapid change of government, lots of posturing etc.

I guess my point was - maybe the General will let all that subside, and allow Mrs May to take a deep breath, think clearly, and approach the negotiations with a little more clarity and diplomacy than she has shown recently.
And hopefully, the EU leaders will show some similar diplomacy, sensible thinking than they have also shown in the last few days.

You are late to the party. It seems you missed the fact that the EU acknowledged the referendum result without a protestation.

EU thinks it s moronic but OK.

The problem we have is that the UK pretend that the EU breaks all its rules to please UK needs.

AND EU IS TOTALLY FED UP WITH UK SPECIAL DEALS.

Since article 50 is triggered, the UK has no weapon left. Let say EU has to go on WTO rules with UK, it will be a big inconvenience but just that. According to UK treasury, WTO rules could mean a 66 billions £ loss a year.

Guess who has a better position ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... e6363d7487

£66Billion a year - Wasn't that figure rejected as being part of "Project fear" by ex chancellor George Osborne?

Even Brexit hating left wing rag The Guardian isn't quoting that figure!

The figure quoted in the The Guardian is £6billion

Then when you cost in the EU slush fund money (minus rebate) of £13billion we will not be paying every year.
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-memb ... 5-million/



http://www.civitas.org.uk/reports_artic ... -uk-trade/

Our analysis shows that if the UK leaves the EU without a trade deal UK exporters could face the potential impact of £5.2 billion in tariffs on goods being sold to the EU. However, EU exporters will also face £12.9 billion in tariffs on goods coming to the UK.
Exporters to the UK in 22 of the 27 remaining EU member states face higher tariffs costs when selling their goods than UK exporters face when selling goods to those countries.
German exporters would have to deal with the impact of £3.4 billion of tariffs on goods they export to the UK. UK exporters in return would face £0.9 billion of tariffs on goods going to Germany.
French exporters could face £1.4 billion in tariffs on their products compared to UK exporters facing £0.7 billion. A similar pattern exists for all the UK’s major EU trading partners.
The biggest impact will be on exports of goods relating to vehicles, with tariffs in the region of £1.3 billion being applied to UK car-related exports going to the EU. This compares to £3.9 billion for the EU, including £1.8 billion in tariffs being applied to German car-related exports.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Not one of the EU posters here has said anything positive about the UK leaving the EU. Why would you not say - congratulations on your democratic decision, yes there are bills to reconcile, agreements on reciprocal nationals living in each other's jurisdictions etc, but once we work it out, I hope you go on to work it out and be sucessful.
Why all the animosity from the EUrophiles in this forum? .

Wrong I am from the EU and I support the Brexit because the I think the EU is a failure and not the right way to go and the desire to be free again can only be supported. However I am deeply disappointed by the British government and how unprepared they are. They should have a vision and clear goals and not some fairy tale wishes that they should know the EU will never grant them. The future of the UK is outside of the EU, that is were work needs to be done.

speedbored wrote:

Actually, no it was not. If you look at what the leave campaign actually said about the £350m figure, it was correct.

350.Mil more per week for the NHS, please to explain how that claim is correct.

In the event of the UK leaving with no agreement, I think you will be surprised which side is affected most. Yes, the UK will be badly hit but we have a strong enough economy at the moment to survive the impact.

Rediculus statement. Not just that it is somewhat laughable that the UK will take a 10% GDP loss easier than EU nations 1 or 2%, but mostly because that will be spread farily evenly over all businesses while your financial sectors will get a real kick in the nuts of they have to vacate the continent. And banks in trouble kill economies faster than anything else

Best regards
Thomas

So basically you are saying a biased source as Civitas is more right than UK treasury ?

It's not because you are dismissing bad news as project fear that you make them disappear. One thing you may want to consider is who is ultimately paying these tariffs taxes? The consumer .....

Olddog wrote:

So basically you are saying a biased source as Civitas is more right than UK treasury ?

It's not because you are dismissing bad news as project fear that you make them disappear. One thing you may want to consider is who is ultimately paying these tariffs taxes? The consumer .....

How is Civitas bias?

Just curious?

Dano1977 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

b]Since article 50 is triggered, the UK has no weapon left. Let say EU has to go on WTO rules with UK, it will be a big inconvenience but just that. According to UK treasury, WTO rules could mean a 66 billions £ loss a year.[/b]

Guess who has a better position ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... e6363d7487

£66Billion a year - Wasn't that figure rejected as being part of "Project fear" by ex chancellor George Osborne?

Even Brexit hating left wing rag The Guardian isn't quoting that figure!

The figure quoted in the The Guardian is £6billion

Then when you cost in the EU slush fund money (minus rebate) of £13billion we will not be paying every year.
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-memb ... 5-million/

The GDP of Great Britain is around £2,200b, the GDP falling by 5% means a loss to the British economy of £110b, which I could see happening, the £66b represents 3% loss, why wouldn't that be a real possibility. But even 1% less economic grow means a loss of £22b, the effect of £6 is a fantasy. Why being part of the EU if you pay £13b and the total effect on your economy is only £6b.

The best estimates for the Netherlands are: we pay net less than 200euro's per person and the effect on our economy is around 2.200euro's, so the best investment ever. I guess the figures for GB are a bit different, fewer benefits, but I think GB pays even less.

The effect of tariffs is not simple to take into account. It's not just the tax slapped on products and the end. Instead, it changes what people and companies will buy. In fact it's the reason to have tariffs to begin with, to protect its producers against foreign competition. Now if that protection means local production is favored despite being uncompetitive, the loss to the economy might be much higher.

That might be a good thing, after all there is no reason to buy things made on the other side of the planet if you can make them locally, the environment would be better for it, but if you look at financial numbers, it will not look good. And it seems to me the UK is a country that has embraced unfettered economic liberalism like no other, to the point people are ready to vote for Tories even if those policies screw them, they don't even realize it and instead blame the EU. So for a country like that to now go for protectionism will be very bad for the successful parts of its economy.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Ok I have to say, as an independent observer from the other side of the Atlantic, this thread is one of the funniest (in a sad way) I have ever read.

I welcome an independent observer and yes, it has been quite heated up, but it is important to the future of Europe, I would say.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

From one side, I see the scorned woman posts of the EUrophiles - the bitchy nasty comments about the UK, how useless they are, how incompetent, how terrible and crazy their government are. You sound a bit crazy. Calm down a bit. The UK hasn't got to where it is in the world right now, by being totally incompetent, as well you know it.

Please distinguish between their current government and the UK as a whole. I feel PM May and her government are in a panic and they aren't on top of things and aren't doing the best thing with dealing with this situation.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

I see hardly any posts from UK members - I mean why would they post here in such a hostile environment. Not one of the EU posters here has said anything positive about the UK leaving the EU. Why would you not say - congratulations on your democratic decision, yes there are bills to reconcile, agreements on reciprocal nationals living in each other's jurisdictions etc, but once we work it out, I hope you go on to work it out and be sucessful.
Why all the animosity from the EUrophiles in this forum?

I can only speak for myself, but I have nothing positive to say about the Brexit, it is a loose - loose. Not going to chear along, sorry.
But like I have said before, I wish Britain all the best, and hopefully, we can reach an accommodation like the Norwegians have, then the effect will be minimized, the best outcome for everyone, but not the most likely outcome if you look at why the referendum was there in the first place and the drive to a hard Brexit from Theresa May. The conservatives seems likely to win these elections. A hard Brexit will be the real loose - loose outcome.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

After the General, I would expect to see a very different tone in the negotiations, - much more conciliatory, willing to negotiate, do a deal.

Hopefully yes, but rhetoric really can damage relations and can maneuver someone into a place she doesn't want to be.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

I think - I forget who is in charge of the EU - so many unelected heads of state - who is it - Junker? Tusk? I forget. Anyway - who is briefing them should be fired. Stop briefing Germany first. Agree to brief only the EU27 and no individual states, and cross fingers for some sort of deal.

Whom is in charge? The council of heads of state of the remaining 27 countries, democratically controlled by the 27 democratically elected parliaments. Junker is kind of the head of the EU civil servants, with his council. Tusk is the permanent foreman/spokesperson of the council of heads of state, he hasn't have any powers. The EU isn't one country, it is a supra national body, so no EU head of state.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

I think a deal that benefits both sides would be good for all EU states and the UK. Let's be positive. I hate this negativity on this discussion right now.

From my perspective, it is damage control in this loose-loose situation. So the best we can hope for is a minimal impact.

speedbored wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Guess who has a better position ?

In the event of the UK leaving with no agreement, I think you will be surprised which side is affected most. Yes, the UK will be badly hit but we have a strong enough economy at the moment to survive the impact. Too many of the EU member economies are currently so close to tipping point that they will almost certainly fare a lot worse. The EU will not be able to stand even 1 more Greece happening, let alone 2 or 3.

I seriously believe that the UK leaving with no agreement will trigger the breakup of the EU, which would be a far bigger disaster for everyone concerned. Let's hope that some sanity gets injected into negotiations soon so that we can avoid it.

I think if Britain chooses a hard Brexit - yes it is in Britains ballpark, not the EU, the EU is willing to grant the same rights (benefits and constraints) as with many other trade deals (just not willing to grand GB any more special relationships and exemptions as is perfectly reasonable point of view) -, I think we will see Great Britain break up before we will see the EU failing. But granted it will not benefit the EU either, but it will hurt Britain way more. I think your government is subscribing to your point of view and is betting on it actually to get a far better trade deal than the realistically can aspect.

The Brexit negotiation from an EU point of view will be to minimize the negative impact of Brexit. The biggest negative impact of Brexit is not Brexit itself but send out a lethal torpedo for the EU project. Even Hungary and poland agree to that. I suppose that even the UK will agree that a Europe without a functional EU will have very negative impact on UK.

So this is where the UK internal debate and EU27 internal debate differ and creates different conclusions of the Brexit negotiation.

For EU the better the Brexit becomes for UK the more negative it becomes for the EU project. An Brexit that gives UK equal or better rights without the costs will create a centifuge of EU and EU might be dead in 20 years.

So EU27 will probably not give in too much for UK demands and might even let UK out in the cold for a few years in order to handle its ther internal affairs.

For EU27 right now Uk is like Mexico is for US from a political point of view.

Tariffs on imports on hurt the importers if there are locally produced products in competition, but somehow I doubt that this is the case for most industries that are selling to the UK. Sure you can decided to tax German cars, but then nearly all car production facilities in the UK belong to non British firms and are exporting to the EU. So if you do not want this production to move outside the UK you must make sure that they can import and export freely. In the end the customer in the UK will end up paying the import taxes on the products. On the Eu side there are not many products from the UK that could be be substituted with a product made in the EU, so there the impact will probably hurt British firms the most.
The UK has not much production but a very service orientated economy, so import and export tariffs will mostly hurt you.

olle wrote:

For EU the better the Brexit becomes for UK the more negative it becomes for the EU project. An Brexit that gives UK equal or better rights without the costs will create a centifuge of EU and EU might be dead in 20 years.

Any deal which gives the UK equal or better rights without the costs is unreasonable. That is freeloading. So Britain will not get that anymore, like in the past they did with all the exemptions. It is up to the UK to decide what they want, more benefits than more cost or no benefits but also no cost, or somewhere in between, but on that line, everything else is unreasonable to expect.

olle wrote:

For EU27 right now Uk is like Mexico is for US from a political point of view.

No, Mexico has NAFTA and as it stands today the relationship with UK - EU is heading towards WTO-rules, so the relationship US has with Australia now TPP has failed.

Dutchy wrote:

That is freeloading. So Britain will not get that anymore, like in the past they did with all the exemptions.

Yes, as one of the highest net contributors to the EU for many many years, we have just been freeloading.

With that sort of attitude from the rest of the EU, you still wonder why we were so stupid as to vote leave???

Some people need to watch this (skip to ~37 seconds to get to the content):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu-UTk0QbPw

The second world war argument is old and exhausted. The main reason you could resist is just due to the fact that England is an island, not miraculous will of bravery .

Olddog wrote:

The second world war argument is old and exhausted. The main reason you could resist is just due to the fact that England is an island, not miraculous will of bravery .

I always wondered whether I would ever feel strongly enough about any post to add the poster to my ignore list.

Now I know the answer - you, sir, are the winner.

I am honoured

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That is freeloading. So Britain will not get that anymore, like in the past they did with all the exemptions.

Yes, as one of the highest net contributors to the EU for many many years, we have just been freeloading.

With that sort of attitude from the rest of the EU, you still wonder why we were so stupid as to vote leave???

Some people need to watch this (skip to ~37 seconds to get to the content):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu-UTk0QbPw

That's conveniently cut: "Any deal which gives the UK equal or better rights without the costs is unreasonable. That is freeloading."

So do you feel Britain is entitled to equal or better rights without the cost? And is this entitlement based on WWII? And if so, when will that end? After 100years, after 200years?

And Dutchy you forget to add: from an organization you were not a founding member and in fact you tried to prevent.

Considering that each Swede pays €304, a german € 240 per person and year and a UK pays only € 180 should Sweden have better terms then UK if we leaves?


https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... pean-union

Olddog wrote:

One thing you may want to consider is who is ultimately paying these tariffs taxes? The consumer .....

This is especially true for the UK car industry where 50% - 60% of the parts are imported mostly from continental Europe. Thus in case of a hard Brexit and increasing tariffs and red tape, UK car manufacturers either will have to find oher suppliers, raise prices or accept reduced margins. To be honest, the only positive I see in a hard Brexit is that we'll be having a real life case which tests the economic theory that free trade improves the well being of both trading parties.

Swedens total spending of EU is around 25% of UK spending. Our poulation is 10 million UK 60 million. I think that UK story about how big the payments is is not wellcome in Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia. Why should we payfor UK?

The Uk enjoyed some nice rebates during the time in the EU.