Brexit - EU position

Dutchy · Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:02 am

Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 finance job.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41803604

Olddog · Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:10 am

Theses predictions have little value as it will depend of next negotiation round, if UK finally tells the EU when they will come....

I think the jobs loss is not really that important, but the pain would be rather if the EU cut the parasite access UK has on the €uro.

Aesma · Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am

75000 finance jobs is billions of €/£ less in purchasing power, taxes etc.

tommy1808 · Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:59 am

par13del wrote:
Remainer's would be more constructive if they could point the EU / UK towards some third form of membership, Full, Norway and ???????

Swiss or WTO.
Those where the options available when you voted. whoever voted leave, voted with one of those on their mind.

Best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:44 am

They voted WTO, because they wanted full control of the borders, no longer being subject to EU courts and not pay one more penny for EU institutions.

JJJ · Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:02 am

seahawk wrote:
They voted WTO, because they wanted full control of the borders, no longer being subject to EU courts and not pay one more penny for EU institutions.

You know all the 17 million Brits who voted leave?

Awesome.

par13del · Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:16 am

JJJ wrote:
You know all the 17 million Brits who voted leave?

Awesome.

It was either Leave (Out) or In(remain) so as you state, based on the result they voted leave.

The bank jobs being lost is / was a given, indeed much of the South East of the UK is heavily invested in the EU and the rest of the country has always said their net influence on the rest of the was out of proportion. Part of that is also tied to the perception that those who are in power pay little attention to the rest of the country, leave that to the EU.
As with the rest of the UK prior to and since the vote, no one in the financial sector has not been planning for life outside of the EU, the only plans they appear to have been working on is how many jobs will be lost, how much the economy will shrink, how much influence will be lost, not much on whether there is any possibility of a financial services sector outside of the UK.
It may be promising that the job numbers have come down, however, they have given no reason why the numbers now are lower.

Strange to think that those who voted leave did not think that there would be negative effects of leaving, they must not have been paying much attention to all the UK government and EU official announcements of the expected effects of leaving.

seahawk · Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:24 am

No, but I know what the leave campaign promised. I can not remember anybody saying "Oh, we leave the EU and go to a Norway kind of status, then we keep access to the common market but also pay a bit less for the EU and still have to follow their rules and must accept most of the 4 pillars of the common market...."

Sure leave promised full control of the borders, no longer being subject to EU courts and not pay one more penny for EU institutions while keeping access to the common market, but that was always a lie. So if voters that voted leave meant "leave but only if we keep access to the common market" and it turns out that this is no realistic option, they might want to reconsider.
If the vote was made on a lie or on conditions that turn out to be fantasy, then it might be the best idea to redo the vote under the new circumstances.

par13del · Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:11 am

seahawk wrote:
So if voters that voted leave meant "leave but only if we keep access to the common market" and it turns out that this is no realistic option, they might want to reconsider.
If the vote was made on a lie or on conditions that turn out to be fantasy, then it might be the best idea to redo the vote under the new circumstances.

We know who won, so in general parlance we look at what the winner promised as votes are always positive, we take the position that no one voted against what the other side was proposing.
Unfortunately, we do not take that position when it comes to implementing the result of the vote. The loss of the majority seats in the House by the Tory Party is touted as a change in direction from leaving the EU, as the Tory party is seen as the party of leave while the Labour party is seen as the party of remain. Yet, more people voted for the Tory party than voted for Labour, so does that mean that the majority of the electorate still supports leave?

Olddog · Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:18 am

There is no doubt that the UK will leave. There is also no doubt the EU will dictate the conditions....

par13del · Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:19 am

On the potential job losses front, I wondered how the numbers in this report compared to what actually happened to the financial services sector during the last financial crisis initiated by the 2008 crash. Based on a couple of the links, I guess I understand why the elderly are seen as Leavers and the young as Remainers, the older folks have been through this situation.
A lot more links to other news sites are available, simply google UK Financial Sector jobs losses 2008 financial crash.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... osses.html
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100394685
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -recession

par13del · Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:23 am

Olddog wrote:
There is no doubt that the UK will leave. There is also no doubt the EU will dictate the conditions....

Not much to dictate on leaving, Article 50 is fairly straight forward, the UK is only obligated to pay a prorated share of the EU budget up to their leave date, it even appears to state that no further financial obligations exist after the official leave.

JJJ · Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:23 am

seahawk wrote:
No, but I know what the leave campaign promised. I can not remember anybody saying "Oh, we leave the EU and go to a Norway kind of status, then we keep access to the common market but also pay a bit less for the EU and still have to follow their rules and must accept most of the 4 pillars of the common market...."

Sure leave promised full control of the borders, no longer being subject to EU courts and not pay one more penny for EU institutions while keeping access to the common market, but that was always a lie. So if voters that voted leave meant "leave but only if we keep access to the common market" and it turns out that this is no realistic option, they might want to reconsider.
If the vote was made on a lie or on conditions that turn out to be fantasy, then it might be the best idea to redo the vote under the new circumstances.

In other words, they promised something they couldn't give by any realistic measure. Leave campaign promised access to the single market, it also promised no border in Ireland and quick trade deals with just about every nation on earth.

They will have to break some promises, we'll have to see which ones specifically.

par13del · Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:36 am

JJJ wrote:
In other words, they promised something they couldn't give by any realistic measure. Leave campaign promised access to the single market, it also promised no border in Ireland and quick trade deals with just about every nation on earth.

They will have to break some promises, we'll have to see which ones specifically.

During the campaign it was shocking that the government and the EU did not debunk their claims, they all knew access to the common market was tied to the 4 pillars so no control over your own borders and no additional funds for NHS regardless of the actual amount, where TM is getting the 20 billion from for the divorce bill that could not be spent on NHS is a wonder but that is for another day.

As for which promises will be broken, that was taken care of when the new government was put in place, the majority of them did not support leave so to some degree, they can claim their actions have nothing to do with what was promised since they supported remain.

Olddog · Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:08 pm

Where were you? We were repeatedly told here that the UK was so important that the EU will have to bend over to accommodate it !

Does "they need us more than we need them" ring a bell ?

Dano1977 · Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:10 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 finance job.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41803604

Also from the same article.

JP Morgan said it might have to move 4,000 jobs, but since the referendum has cut that number to around 1,000.

The Swiss bank, UBS, said it may move as few as 250 jobs after initially planning to relocate as many as 1,000.

London will not lose it's status as a financial powerhouse.

1. The pre-eminence of the British court system in upholding the rule of law, including the protection of creditor and shareholder rights.

2. The UK’s tax and employment regulation that is conducive to the industry’s health and profits.

The World Bank’s Doing Business project ranks the UK fourth in the world in shareholder protection, behind only Hong Kong, New Zealand and Singapore. France ranks in at number 29 and Germany 49th.

In terms of tax and employment regulation, the financial services sector in the UK benefits from lower corporate tax rates and more flexible employment laws than Germany and France. In the World Bank’s Doing Business ranking on paying taxes, the UK is ranked 15th in the world, well ahead of Germany (ranked 72nd) and France (ranked 87th). The UK’s lead is even wider in terms of flexible labour regulation. The latter is especially important in the highly cyclical financial sector that annually hires and fires tens of thousands of white-collar professionals.

JJJ · Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:27 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 finance job.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41803604

Also from the same article.

JP Morgan said it might have to move 4,000 jobs, but since the referendum has cut that number to around 1,000.

The Swiss bank, UBS, said it may move as few as 250 jobs after initially planning to relocate as many as 1,000.

Because they're betting on a soft Brexit now. Make it hard and it's back to 4.000.

It all depends on the EU deal.

par13del · Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:02 pm

Olddog wrote:
Where were you? We were repeatedly told here that the UK was so important that the EU will have to bend over to accommodate it !

Does "they need us more than we need them" ring a bell ?

None of which is really relevant since the Leavers are not in power, take a look at the current UK cabinet, those who supported leave are in the minority so they and their rhetoric have already been sidelined, indeed the PM is being told to remove the biggest supporter of leave in her cabinet, you know who that is, the man behind the bus, Boris Johnson.
It is an interesting thought though to see what would have happened if leave supporters did form the government, would their negotiating stance have been the same, at least they would have no one to blame if things did not go well.

ElPistolero · Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:20 pm

Dano1977 wrote:

Also from the same article.

JP Morgan said it might have to move 4,000 jobs, but since the referendum has cut that number to around 1,000.

The Swiss bank, UBS, said it may move as few as 250 jobs after initially planning to relocate as many as 1,000.

London will not lose it's status as a financial powerhouse.

1. The pre-eminence of the British court system in upholding the rule of law, including the protection of creditor and shareholder rights.

2. The UK’s tax and employment regulation that is conducive to the industry’s health and profits.

The World Bank’s Doing Business project ranks the UK fourth in the world in shareholder protection, behind only Hong Kong, New Zealand and Singapore. France ranks in at number 29 and Germany 49th.

In terms of tax and employment regulation, the financial services sector in the UK benefits from lower corporate tax rates and more flexible employment laws than Germany and France. In the World Bank’s Doing Business ranking on paying taxes, the UK is ranked 15th in the world, well ahead of Germany (ranked 72nd) and France (ranked 87th). The UK’s lead is even wider in terms of flexible labour regulation. The latter is especially important in the highly cyclical financial sector that annually hires and fires tens of thousands of white-collar professionals.

I don't think anybody expects London to stop being a financial powerhouse.

The issue with these relocations, which typically involve high earners, is twofold:

- Hit on income tax revenue
- Hit on local companies that rely on high income earners' discretionary spending.

Assuming the average UK income is GBP 30,000, the average tax revenue per earner is GBP 4,000.

Now consider how much high earners pay:

GBP 75,000 = 18,700
GBP 100,000 = 29,000
GBP 150,000 = 53,300
GBP 250,000 = 98,300
GBP 500,000 = 210,800

While these numbers appear insignificant, what they imply is that to maintain current income tax revenue, you would have to replace each high earner with multiple average earners. To replace the tax revenue generated by 1 banker earning 150,000, you would need to create up to 13 average income jobs (or variations therein). Now multiply that by 250, or 1000. Or 5,000.

Doable? Sure. Likely? Questionable.

mmo · Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:24 pm

Olddog wrote:
There is no doubt that the UK will leave. There is also no doubt the EU will dictate the conditions....

You are joking? The UK has absolutely ZERO leverage when it comes to negotiations.

Olddog · Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:04 pm

I was polite

LJ · Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:07 pm

par13del wrote:
Agree, but as I said earlier, one would have to see each agreement, so in my opinion, making a blanket statement or article is just another example of Project Fear.

We do know that Nissan has a special deal with the UK which will result in compensation (in either cash or otherwise) should Brexit lead to less competitiveness of its Sunderland plant.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 38391.html

If Nissan got a deal, then one can be sure BMW got something similar.

JJJ wrote:
Because they're betting on a soft Brexit now. Make it hard and it's back to 4.000.

Indeed. I work for a financial firm which just located part of its business to London. However, the management already said that it would relocate the business again (to mainland Europe) should Brexit result in an "unfavourable business environment". That's moving 20 traders (whose income per person exceed EUR 100,000 easily)

LJ · Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:30 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
London will not lose it's status as a financial powerhouse.

1. The pre-eminence of the British court system in upholding the rule of law, including the protection of creditor and shareholder rights.

2. The UK’s tax and employment regulation that is conducive to the industry’s health and profits.

The World Bank’s Doing Business project ranks the UK fourth in the world in shareholder protection, behind only Hong Kong, New Zealand and Singapore. France ranks in at number 29 and Germany 49th.

In terms of tax and employment regulation, the financial services sector in the UK benefits from lower corporate tax rates and more flexible employment laws than Germany and France. In the World Bank’s Doing Business ranking on paying taxes, the UK is ranked 15th in the world, well ahead of Germany (ranked 72nd) and France (ranked 87th). The UK’s lead is even wider in terms of flexible labour regulation. The latter is especially important in the highly cyclical financial sector that annually hires and fires tens of thousands of white-collar professionals.

Depending on the outcome, London will loose the majority of the EUR trading business as much of it is tied to EEA membership (which the UK doesn't want either as it isn't anything different than it currently has). Moreover, leaving the EEA will have an impact on the investment startegies of EEA based financial firms as some EEA regulation (e.g. parts of liquidity regulation) is somewhat discrimantory towards non-EEA investments. Though this doesn't mean it won't be a powerhouse, depending on the outcome of the agreement, it can have a serious implications for the City. Hence why the City is lobbying so much for a soft Brexit (though they still prefer no Brexit at all). They even have their own lobbying people in Brussels which sometimes seem to operate contrary to the UK government negotiators.

Aesma · Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:26 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 finance job.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41803604

Also from the same article.

JP Morgan said it might have to move 4,000 jobs, but since the referendum has cut that number to around 1,000.

The Swiss bank, UBS, said it may move as few as 250 jobs after initially planning to relocate as many as 1,000.

London will not lose it's status as a financial powerhouse.

1. The pre-eminence of the British court system in upholding the rule of law, including the protection of creditor and shareholder rights.

2. The UK’s tax and employment regulation that is conducive to the industry’s health and profits.

The World Bank’s Doing Business project ranks the UK fourth in the world in shareholder protection, behind only Hong Kong, New Zealand and Singapore. France ranks in at number 29 and Germany 49th.

In terms of tax and employment regulation, the financial services sector in the UK benefits from lower corporate tax rates and more flexible employment laws than Germany and France. In the World Bank’s Doing Business ranking on paying taxes, the UK is ranked 15th in the world, well ahead of Germany (ranked 72nd) and France (ranked 87th). The UK’s lead is even wider in terms of flexible labour regulation. The latter is especially important in the highly cyclical financial sector that annually hires and fires tens of thousands of white-collar professionals.

I can trade all kinds of financial products from the comfort of my home.

In that sense, it's possible financial institutions will keep many people in the UK, that will really be working for the EU branch of the bank.

What the bilateral treaty will allow regarding profits and how they're taxed, that's another story.

Also, if you're an EU company wanting to do a merger with another company, or maybe a LBO, will you still look at London first to find a financial partner ?

mmo · Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:06 am

Aesma wrote:
I can trade all kinds of financial products from the comfort of my home.

In that sense, it's possible financial institutions will keep many people in the UK, that will really be working for the EU branch of the bank.

What the bilateral treaty will allow regarding profits and how they're taxed, that's another story.

Also, if you're an EU company wanting to do a merger with another company, or maybe a LBO, will you still look at London first to find a financial partner ?

While you might be able to do that, that is not the type of banking that is being referred to.

Right not the UK is the hub for all financial "passporting". That process handles most of the financing across the EU. To continue to handle that process, the UK must be a member of the Common Market and the EU. In spite of what the pro-brexiteers say, there is no way around that. Have a good friend of mine who is fairly high up in Credit Suisse at Canary Wharf and they are making plans to move their entire office out of the UK. We are talking about quite a few higher paying jobs which will leave the UK.

So while you can continue to do your internet banking, the real financial business will leave the UK. But then again Boris, Gove et al will take care of that issue.

Dutchy · Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:44 am

For instance, Dutch Pension funds, 1.200bn euro's, can't be handled by the City, they are only allowed to do this with EU banks which are supervised by the EU. So that business will be gone. And there must be many more examples like this.

Olddog · Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:37 am

Dano1977 wrote:
1. The pre-eminence of the British court system in upholding the rule of law, including the protection of creditor and shareholder rights.

Just because the EU and the ECJ allowed them to have a wide EU legal value. Guess what when you will leave ?

par13del · Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:23 am

Olddog wrote:
Just because the EU and the ECJ allowed them to have a wide EU legal value. Guess what when you will leave ?

...they will go back to being what they were prior to the formation of the EU and the ECJ just like France, Germany and all other current member of the EU had legal systems before they joined / formed the EU, they were previously all independent countries
How bad was the UK legal system before the formation of the EU and its legal entities, does anyone really care or think that something existed before and could very well exist after?

On the financial front, the UK economy will shrink, a lot of EU residents and thus their jobs will leave, with the mantra of taxes being paid to your home country regardless of where you live the tax hit may be lower - just ask the members states whose citizens have been working in the UK and still pay their fair share of tax -, consumer spending will fall especially in the south east, we can think of more where the economy and country will loose, is anyone thinking of the flip side?
The flip side on how the loss in revenue to the state will be replaced, how much of it has to be replaced, with the loss in jobs there will be fewer persons using government services, high property values in the south east will fall as numerous spaces are abandoned as EU residents relocate, this one is interesting, since most EU functions have to be domiciled in a member state, one would expect that most of the EU citizens will have to follow their jobs so why is the rights of EU citizens so high on the agenda if most are / should be expected to leave? A large number of those high paying financial sectors jobs are held y EU citizens as those jobs relocate so will they unless they choose to retire.
Forget the Boris bus for a minute, how much money does the UK pay in dues and other items as a member, that "tax" obligation is not revenue that has to be replaced by taxes elsewhere, like it or not, a reduction of the UK financial obligations to the EU is one of the few gains from not being a member, based on the divorce bill we will have to see how large of a gain if any it is if given away with no reciprocity.

tommy1808 · Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:21 pm

par13del wrote:
Olddog wrote:
There is no doubt that the UK will leave. There is also no doubt the EU will dictate the conditions....

Not much to dictate on leaving, Article 50 is fairly straight forward, the UK is only obligated to pay a prorated share of the EU budget up to their leave date, it even appears to state that no further financial obligations exist after the official leave.

You mean more than a year into Brexit for real you still haven´t even read article 50?

It says absolutely nothing about finances at all, none of what you just attributes to it is actually in it.

best regards
Thomas

par13del · Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:03 pm

Well if you want to go by the technical wording of the document that's fine, we could ask where the divorce bill is coming from which must be completed before trade talks can commence, as the future is governed by 218(3) which is specifically referenced in article 50, but even there no such divorce bill is mentioned.
I guess this is why no one has pushed real hard for the UK teams to release the details of the line by line rebuttal of the EU demands, as if the EU says it is relevant it is so.

tommy1808 · Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:26 pm

par13del wrote:
Well if you want to go by the technical wording of the document that's fine, we could ask where the divorce bill is coming from which must be completed before trade talks can commence, as the future is governed by 218(3) which is specifically referenced in article 50, but even there no such divorce bill is mentioned.

I think you are having a little bit of a missconception there. None of the EU treaties has to mention any divorce bill, as the EU is not claiming that the UK can't leave the EU without paying up first.
Sattling accounts is just an EU requirement for starting negotiations about a status different than WTO tarifs and regulations. The EU can set whatever precondition for that they please, without that ever being even discussed before. Just like the UK can. And both can just say "no" if they don't like it.

Divorce bill is a negotiating position, not a treaty requirement.

Best regards
Thomas

par13del · Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:19 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Divorce bill is a negotiating position, not a treaty requirement.

Best regards
Thomas

We all wish it was that simple, if it were logic dictates that the UK should just wait out the two years, leave the EU, go to WTO rules then attempt to negotiate a trade treaty with the EU.
We can almost be sure that a prorated value of their budget contributions to the end of the current budget, and a significant contribution to the EU pension scheme would not equal 20+ billion.
Hence the reason why the Remainer's in the EU parliament from TM on down will never present such an option to the population, perhaps they should detail that option to the public and see the response.

seahawk · Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:07 am

That is an option open to the EU, the question is if the EU would step down from the numbers of the divorce bill then or if they would want to negotiate.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:29 am

par13del wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Divorce bill is a negotiating position, not a treaty requirement.

Best regards
Thomas

We all wish it was that simple, if it were logic dictates that the UK should just wait out the two years, leave the EU, go to WTO rules then attempt to negotiate a trade treaty with the EU..

and that would influence the EU´s negotiating preconditions how? Not at all i would think.

best regards
Thomas

Olddog · Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:08 am

What is rather funny are the not so veiled threats of no paying what the UK has committed. Who do you think that could have a problem with that money not coming besides the Visegrad group, your potential only allies?

And, people should stop to talk about wto rules as they simply don't exist. WTO provide a framework to talk about trade deals. They are not a rule that allow UK to trade with the EU, nor the EU with the UK.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:37 am

Olddog wrote:
And, people should stop to talk about wto rules as they simply don't exist. WTO provide a framework to talk about trade deals. They are not a rule that allow UK to trade with the EU, nor the EU with the UK.

they are not a binding treaty that you can just put in force, but it gives an outline for a worst case trade condition. There is no rule not allowing the UK to trade with the EU, there are only rules saying what maximum tariff the EU can apply to that import, and without a trade deal saying something else, that is what you pay. So in that sense there are WTO tariffs and rules, it is not just one global set, but one that depends on who wants to trade with whom.

best regards
Thomas

par13del · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:19 am

tommy1808 wrote:

and that would influence the EU´s negotiating preconditions how? Not at all i would think.

best regards
Thomas

It would not be intended to influence anything but the UK economy, which will now have to survive on its own outside of the EU, or do you believe that they have 20+ billion sitting down doing nothing while their NHS has issues, austerity has been in place for roughly 10 years, none of which has anything to do with the EU.
In simple terms, the UK can start this journey with a 20+ billion debt to the UK population or nothing.

Next up is the release of economic papers, since we have a Remain administration we can be certain that the doom of the UK economy will be clearly highlighted, since the UK to the EU is minimal but the EU to the UK is massive.

par13del · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:22 am

Olddog wrote:
What is rather funny are the not so veiled threats of no paying what the UK has committed.

Well since Article 50 does not detail any commitments after a member leaves the EU, where exactly is this commitment?
If we wave Article 50 wording let's use it to understand how a member's commitment becomes a non-member commitment as mandated by some article not referenced in Article 50.

seahawk · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:29 am

It only becomes a commitment if you want a trade deal with the EU.

It is not much different to any business. Say 3 parties built a building. After some years one party decides to leave the contract and no longer wants to pay for the up-keeping of the house, the insurance and also not for long term commitments signed by all 3 parties. This sounds pretty normal, but then the party leaving wants to keep full access to the building and be free to open a shop to sell its products in it.

par13del · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:30 am

Olddog wrote:
And, people should stop to talk about wto rules as they simply don't exist. WTO provide a framework to talk about trade deals. They are not a rule that allow UK to trade with the EU, nor the EU with the UK.

Which is the entire point of the WTO it is a framework that presently exist, both side know what it is versus teh framework they are supposed to be working on now which has not started months after the triggering of article 50 and even more months after the vote, at present, it is the only certainty that business houses on both sides have of the divide have information on, if the start putting in place mechanisms to trade on WTO rules they will be decades ahead of the UK government.
It would also solve the EU border with NI is short order.

Olddog · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:31 am

You think the EU budget is build on thin air? Or that the commitments made have zero value? If you think so, just guess the trade deals you will get

par13del · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:32 am

Olddog wrote:
You think the EU budget is build on thin air? Or that the commitments made have zero value? If you think so, just guess the trade deals you will get

The issue would be how much money the Canadians and other non-EU nations paid the EU for trade agreements, if they paid nothing I would assume the UK would have a case to bring to the vaunted EU legal system regarding those pay for trade demands.

seahawk · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:36 am

Canada has no unlimited access to the EU market. The EU is free to make a trade deal with any partner they want, but no other country has a right that the EU must make a trade deal with them.

A trade deal is something the EU can grant, not something the UK can demand.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:53 am

par13del wrote:
Olddog wrote:
What is rather funny are the not so veiled threats of no paying what the UK has committed.

Well since Article 50 does not detail any commitments after a member leaves the EU, where exactly is this commitment?
If we wave Article 50 wording let's use it to understand how a member's commitment becomes a non-member commitment as mandated by some article not referenced in Article 50.

The UK is still the UK, i.e. any Commitment made as an EU member just continues on into the time as a non-EU member. Even when a nation seized to exist, if that nation has a legal successor state, that state inherits all the debts of the old one, and Commitments are just that, a debt.

Or do you think Seat would be suddenly debt and commitment free if Volkswagen sold it to Ford?

best regards
Thomas

par13del · Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:36 am

seahawk wrote:
Canada has no unlimited access to the EU market. The EU is free to make a trade deal with any partner they want, but no other country has a right that the EU must make a trade deal with them.

A trade deal is something the EU can grant, not something the UK can demand.

The point I was discussing is whether the EU can demand a massive payment from the UK if they exit the EU without a trade deal, the question was - even if in jest - how much the UK would have to pay for a trade deal, at present, that obligation to pay only exist until the end of March-2019. If that day arrives without a deal the options are stark and already known:
1. Appeal to the other members of the EU for an extension, since all 27 have to vote for it you simply replace the pre-exit amount demand with a extension amount demand
2. Commence trading with the EU via WTO frame works which the EU and the UK already have with third countries.

The core items are known to everyone, that the politicians and their business cohorts continue to play politics does not change the issues, it just postpones the inevitable.

seahawk · Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:46 am

The EU will still demand payments for obligations agreed on during the membership. Enforcing this demands will be difficult though if the UK decides for the hard Brexit.

par13del · Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:01 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
The UK is still the UK, i.e. any Commitment made as an EU member just continues on into the time as a non-EU member. Even when a nation seized to exist, if that nation has a legal successor state, that state inherits all the debts of the old one, and Commitments are just that, a debt.

Or do you think Seat would be suddenly debt and commitment free if Volkswagen sold it to Ford?

best regards
Thomas

Well let's consider the technicalities of some of your points, commitments made as a EU member has to change when that member leaves the EU, hence the wording in Article 50 it serves to protect the EU as well as the member leaving to ensure that neither side is held to ransom (regardless of how small) by a long and drawn out process.

The UK no longer has the protections of the EU legal system, the financial backing of the other 27 members since the financial commitments were made from the collective budget of the EU and not the UK parliament to ensure that the EU has full control, the jobs that those obligations provided, the other benefits including tax revenues, if EU buildings were domiciled in the UK to assist in the processing of those commitments based on what we are hearing the UK has to pay to relocate those institutions outside of the UK which also includes the loss of consumer spending since the workers will also relocate, if the third party has an issue since the EU had full control who and how splits the issue into what goes to the EU court system versus what goes to the UK court system, and on and on it goes, hence the clean break in article 50.

Let's use Puerto Rico as an example of a failed state, it is failing because of massive debt. If they cease to exist everyone will want a legal successor to take over since as you say, they will inherit the debt which pushed them into non-existence thus ensuring that the debtors can continue to hold the loans as assets on their books and control the country's day to day life. If however, they declare bankruptcy, everyone looses gaining pennies on the dollar if any and the nation states starts from scratch with nothing. Reality in this case is that business interest are fighting hard to ensure that bankruptcy is not declared even if it is in the best interest of the nation, that is the people.

Warranties are based on OEM "best guess" of how long their products will last with minimal maintenance cost, once that period is over, their obligation becomes whether it makes financial sense for them to continues to produce parts and services, if not, the product goes the way of the Do Do, sure we have many Europeans instances of such.

On this site, the USA Chapter 11 laws are vilified and mis-understood, but Article 50 can be looked at as being a dual purpose document, it can be used like Chpt.11 allowing both side to negotiate an amicable break, but failing that, it also provides the cold hard comfort of liquidation.

par13del · Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:06 pm

seahawk wrote:
The EU will still demand payments for obligations agreed on during the membership. Enforcing this demands will be difficult though if the UK decides for the hard Brexit.

As with your previous, they can demand but cannot enforce, so if their is no legal way to enforce, does it really make sense to demand versus saying let's sit down and discuss?
So far we have had demands and they are increasing, the new president of France added a new one for Dec-2017, the empowerment for those demands have a legal shelf life of
March-2019 as per the EU mandates.

seahawk · Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:11 pm

This document gives a good overview of the calculations for the divorce bill.

http://www.cer.eu/sites/default/files/p ... 3feb17.pdf

In the end it is a simple question. Would you sign a trade deal with a country, which has just refused to honour treaties signed in the past? And the EU or its member states can and probably will go to the ICJ if the UK refuses to honour the treaties of the past.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:24 pm

par13del wrote:
The UK no longer has the protections of the EU legal system, the financial backing of the other 27 members since the financial commitments were made from the collective budget of the EU and not the UK parliament to ensure that the EU has full control, the jobs that those obligations provided, the other benefits including tax revenues, if EU buildings were domiciled in the UK to assist in the processing of those commitments based on what we are hearing the UK has to pay to relocate those institutions outside of the UK which also includes the loss of consumer spending since the workers will also relocate, if the third party has an issue since the EU had full control who and how splits the issue into what goes to the EU court system versus what goes to the UK court system, and on and on it goes, hence the clean break in article 50..

The EU was not involved in the Brexit decision by the UK. And that makes it simply the UK business and problem. The EU has an obligation towards the people still having EU citizenship in 2020, but none whatsoever towards those that leave.

seahawk wrote:
This document gives a good overview of the calculations for the divorce bill.

http://www.cer.eu/sites/default/files/p ... 3feb17.pdf

In the end it is a simple question. Would you sign a trade deal with a country, which has just refused to honour treaties signed in the past? And the EU or its member states can and probably will go to the ICJ if the UK refuses to honour the treaties of the past.

exactly. No reason to trust a nation, that just weaseled out of commitments made, to keep commitments made in a new treaty.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net