Aesma wrote:

The EU has a formula and the result.
Eventually.

So publish it and move on, they have published all their other negotiation positions, and since the position is that nothing can get done until this is settled, what is the big secret?
The treaties are supposedly all in the public domain, the EU has audited financial statements, folks are already stating that the UK is already obligated to pay, we just seem to be struggling to determine what they are supposed to pay.
I accept it is more complicated than a mortgage, but if you decide to pay off your debt early, the bank does not sit and ask you to calculate the interest and principal and give them a figure, they hold the cards and tell you the extent and value of your debt obligation.

You don't seem to read the links we post. All is answered.

Olddog wrote:

You don't seem to read the links we post. All is answered.

Did not see the one where the EU showed how they got to 60 billion and counting, but I did see where they said the UK should tell them what they are willing to pay, the process is convoluted, especially since there are supposed to be legal, public documents behind everything.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Remember when Barroso compared building the EU to empire building?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ralocq9uE

Not just Britain that's got imperial nostalgia is it?

Haven't watched the video, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Barroso's version of Empire doesn't aspire to achieve the same standards of racism and human rights violations that the British Empire achieved at its peak.

I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that the moral compass guiding Barroso's idea of empire is based on present day values (equality, human rights etc), and consequently quite different to the moral compass that guided the British version of Empire (racism etc). No?

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.

You'll get it eventually

par13del wrote:

Did not see the one where the EU showed how they got to 60 billion and counting, but I did see where they said the UK should tell them what they are willing to pay, the process is convoluted, especially since there are supposed to be legal, public documents behind everything.

Read that https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-brussels
and you may see why discussions are complicated.

The British position should be clear, not one penny after the Brexit to the cleptocrats in Brussels. Whatever it costs.

Oh I think Britain's position is very very clear:

"We've hit the iceberg chaps and are sinking.. but look at all these ice cubes!! G and T anyone whilst we all die what ho?"

seahawk wrote:

The British position should be clear, not one penny after the Brexit to the cleptocrats in Brussels. Whatever it costs.

You/They should have should have thought about that before signing commitments. And before asking for "nice deals" when there is no intention of meeting such signed commitments.

Jayafe wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The British position should be clear, not one penny after the Brexit to the cleptocrats in Brussels. Whatever it costs.

You/They should have should have thought about that before signing commitments. And before asking for "nice deals" when there is no intention of meeting such signed commitments.

If the 60 billion number is to be believed and considering an average net contribution of the Uk to the EU of about 9 billion annually, it would take 6,5 years before the UK saves a penny from leaving the EU and that is without any negative effects of leaving the EU and if full market access can be kept.

Even 30 billion would mean well over 3 years before the UK starts to save any money and that is (again) under the presupposition that no additional effects create additional costs or a reduced tax income for the UK.

So I wonder how the saved money will help to fund the NHS? Imho it is telling that the British do not even want to bring their own calculations and just discuss the numbers of the EU, which imho is just a political theatre for the voters at home, because imho it shows that the Brits came to similar numbers and now the costs will be blamed (one final time) on the EU.

And that theatre will continue when the talks switch to access to the EU market. Imho May has 2 options.

1. hard Brexit
2. come clear and say that the Brexit is a mistake and that actual numbers show that the Uk is better off within the EU, then have a new referendum based on the revised numbers

Jayafe wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The British position should be clear, not one penny after the Brexit to the cleptocrats in Brussels. Whatever it costs.

You/They should have should have thought about that before signing commitments. And before asking for "nice deals" when there is no intention of meeting such signed commitments.

The talk I hear is yes we should pay for what we signed up to, and the EU should pay what it promised us in various projects etc.

But there is discussion over other figures, which both UK and EU lawyers have said aren't binding or can be enforced.

Actually the saved money will help to fund the NHS.. Plenty of EU doctors are planning on leaving now due to Brexit.. No one really wants to go onto the new NHS contracts so the saved money can be spent on locum agencies (Crapita and friends) charging out at £100 an hour for a doctor.

Dano1977 wrote:

But there is discussion over other figures, which both UK and EU lawyers have said aren't binding or can be enforced.

As long as both parties sign the formula it will be binding.

Of course the UK can always walk away from talks, but will they?

seahawk wrote:

So I wonder how the saved money will help to fund the NHS? Imho it is telling that the British do not even want to bring their own calculations and just discuss the numbers of the EU, which imho is just a political theatre for the voters at home, because imho it shows that the Brits came to similar numbers and now the costs will be blamed (one final time) on the EU.

And that theatre will continue when the talks switch to access to the EU market. Imho May has 2 options.

1. hard Brexit
2. come clear and say that the Brexit is a mistake and that actual numbers show that the Uk is better off within the EU, then have a new referendum based on the revised numbers

Not taking their calculations to the EU is not a sign that they are correct, but a negotiation tactic, which was previously hinted at and now Mr. Davis has officially said that is what he will do.

As it relates to the accuracy of the EU figures, folks within and outside the EU disagree on their audited statements, maybe, just maybe, Brexit is assisting the EU in coming to grips with their financial reporting. The UK made obligations as a member of the EU, and the EU made obligations to the UK as a member, now that the relationship is being severed, the obligations on both sides have to be looked at and negotiated to see if any side wants to continue with the obligations after the cut-off date. Perhaps the UK should follow the EU's lead and put down the EU's obligations to the UK on departure, that way both sides would be at the same starting point, much easier to start negotiations rather than talking past each other.

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditor ... eu-budget/

Lol if your argument is based on a fringe website with a clear agenda, you are worst than Davis and his constructive ambiguity....

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So I wonder how the saved money will help to fund the NHS? Imho it is telling that the British do not even want to bring their own calculations and just discuss the numbers of the EU, which imho is just a political theatre for the voters at home, because imho it shows that the Brits came to similar numbers and now the costs will be blamed (one final time) on the EU.

And that theatre will continue when the talks switch to access to the EU market. Imho May has 2 options.

1. hard Brexit
2. come clear and say that the Brexit is a mistake and that actual numbers show that the Uk is better off within the EU, then have a new referendum based on the revised numbers

Not taking their calculations to the EU is not a sign that they are correct, but a negotiation tactic, which was previously hinted at and now Mr. Davis has officially said that is what he will do.

As it relates to the accuracy of the EU figures, folks within and outside the EU disagree on their audited statements, maybe, just maybe, Brexit is assisting the EU in coming to grips with their financial reporting. The UK made obligations as a member of the EU, and the EU made obligations to the UK as a member, now that the relationship is being severed, the obligations on both sides have to be looked at and negotiated to see if any side wants to continue with the obligations after the cut-off date. Perhaps the UK should follow the EU's lead and put down the EU's obligations to the UK on departure, that way both sides would be at the same starting point, much easier to start negotiations rather than talking past each other.

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditor ... eu-budget/

It seems like a strange negotiation tactic to me. The EU comes to the table with probably a quite complete set of numbers, they see as the baseline, and the UK comes with nothing? With the UK tactic being to sit and say that this is too much and that is too much without being able to come up with calculations on why it would be too much? The EU is not trying to sell the Uk a new car, for which it would be enough of preparation to know how much you are willing to pay, the UK needs a quick agreement with the EU on the financial details so that the future trade deal can be discussed.

Some one should call London and tell them that this is not the same as the former budget negotiations with the other EU countries, when they actually wanted to sell you the EU membership.

Olddog wrote:

Lol if your argument is based on a fringe website with a clear agenda, you are worst than Davis and his constructive ambiguity....

Not making an argument, just showing that there are disagreements on the financial reporting within the EU, one has to assume that these same financial experts are behind the 60 billion figure, which some within the EU are still saying is on the low end, it should be 100.
So if there are treaties and obligations, how is it possible for the figure to fluctuate so widely, differing ways to reporting?

olle wrote:

But EU asks UK for presenting the model for the exit bill being calculated from. Does UK pretend they will gain anything by going to October without showing they are serious?

Serious about what, the initial value the EU has provided or the larger value being bandied about, maybe they should just say ok for the 60 and move on, unless the EU is going to ask the UK to justify the EU figure?

The EU has already stated that there can be no trade negotiations until the rights of citizens and the exit bill is agreed - note that payment can be negotiated - so if the amount of the bill is dragged on, it does one of two things:
a. Pushes the Hard Brexit
b. Causes a delay in the exit during which time the UK remains in the EU giving more time for a change of heart, new referendum etc etc etc.

TM was in the Remain camp, which of the two do you think she would favour, the majority of folks who are in favour of leaving are the voters, not the politicians, lawyers, etc etc etc.

Sometimes I think you guys make the rules up as you go along you know that?

par13del wrote:

TM was in the Remain camp, which of the two do you think she would favour, the majority of folks who are in favour of leaving are the voters, not the politicians, lawyers, etc etc etc.

The majority of voters is in favor of staying into the common market and they are with overwhelming majority. In that sense you are right, your politicians give a flying f*ck about the wishes of their constituents by pushing a hard Brexit.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

The majority of voters is in favor of staying into the common market and they are with overwhelming majority. In that sense you are right, your politicians give a flying f*ck about the wishes of their constituents by pushing a hard Brexit.

best regards
Thomas

Well the rebuttal to that would be that the Common Market was not on the referendum ballot, all polls leading up to the vote also showed the Norway Model was a non-starter .
However, once the vote came in, we suddenly had Hard and Soft Brexit, Norway Model, EEA Area, Common Market, Customs Union, etc etc. funny thing is that all these are coming from the politicians and their financial supporters.
As in all things, time will tell, the interesting thing is that there is a count down clock, which does not have an off switch.

Only the hard Brexit is a clear an literal application of the decision of the voters.

seahawk wrote:

Only the hard Brexit is a clear an literal application of the decision of the voters.

But politicians wont allow that, as means sending the whole country to bankruptcy straight away. Remember that the fact that people can vote doesnt mean they should, or they know anything at all.

If slavery, civil rights or international agreements would have been decided via referendum, humanity would be extincted so far.

Actually, Boris seems to have stopped hallucinating....

Boris Johnson concedes UK will have to pay for Brexit
Foreign secretary says UK will meet legal obligations to pay divorce bill to EU, having previously said it could ‘go whistle’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... for-brexit

par13del wrote:

Well the rebuttal to that would be that the Common Market was not on the referendum ballot, all polls leading up to the vote also showed the Norway Model was a non-starter .

1) Well, failure to put the proper options on the ballot does not effect what the voters want, which is staying in the Common Market
2) A government lying to its voters, we get everything we want, still free to travel and of course stay in the common market and so on, doesn´t change what the voters want when the bluff is called either, it does however remove all the cloud the vote had. One could make the argument that the actual vote was staying in the EU, as Norway model was a non-starter as you say and the only other option to stay in the common market, what is what the majority wants, is to stay in the EU. Implying to the voters that they can leave the EU and stay in the common market basically makes the whole thing voter fraud.

However, once the vote came in, we suddenly had Hard and Soft Brexit, Norway Model,

Funny, how you manage to say that no one talked about all that stuff and point out that the Norway model was a non-starter before the vote in the very same posting. ... which one is it?
Or course everybody was talking about hard vs. soft Brexit before the vote, they just didn´t call it that at that point.

As in all things, time will tell, the interesting thing is that there is a count down clock, which does not have an off switch.

No one is preventing the UK government from getting a mandate that can actually bare some weight. Put staying in the common market vs. not doing so on a ballot and have a vote, and you are all set. Of course that minority of people that want a hard Brexit is all the government cares about, and since the outcome is clear, they won´t do that. if a hard Brexit even had just the chances of a snowball in hell, they would have asked that question.

and their financial supporters.

you know in that kind of context that is code for "the jews", right?

best regards
Thomas

Jayafe wrote:

But politicians wont allow that, as means sending the whole country to bankruptcy straight away. Remember that the fact that people can vote doesnt mean they should, or they know anything at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... for-brexit

It is the duty of the politicians to educate their voters on all matters pertaining to a vote, including consequences and reprecussions, I don't think anyone can claim that the politicians
in the UK government and opposition did not educate the voters prior to the vote on the damage that could be done to the country if they voted leave, they were all against and Project Fear was created and pushed out.
The voters voted for the cliff edge in their parlance.

tommy1808 wrote:

you know in that kind of context that is code for "the jews", right?

best regards
Thomas

I am using it in the context of campaign financing, where influential business interest and their special advisor's become the principal client that politicians work for and cater to, they usually are not party specific, they support whoever will push their agenda, which is always to make more money.

If I have offended anyone I apologize, it was not my intent.

tommy1808 wrote:

Funny, how you manage to say that no one talked about all that stuff and point out that the Norway model was a non-starter before the vote in the very same posting. ... which one is it?
best regards
Thomas

The Norway model was mentioned during the run up to the vote and in all the polls, the citizens response was that they were not interested in the Norway model, even the media houses like the BBC stated the model as the UK paying into the EU without having a voice on the rules and regulations that they would have to follow.
In this context, since the mood of the country before the vote was to reject the Norway model, why bring it up again?

par13del wrote:

In this context, since the mood of the country before the vote was to reject the Norway model, why bring it up again?

That doesn´t remove the inconsistency from your post, it rather reinforced it. Why bring it up again? Because the government lied to its voters, telling them they can have all the goddies of the Norway model, without having to pay a dime and have 350 million pounds per week extra for the NHS. ........
There are two ways to stay in the common market, being an EU member or being associated with the EU like Norway is. That´s it. Since a majority doesn´t want to leave the common market, those are the options.

best regards
Thomas

Because, people were led to believe they could get their cakes and eat them. Do you thinks Europeans are that stupid ?

Jayafe wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Only the hard Brexit is a clear an literal application of the decision of the voters.

But politicians wont allow that, as means sending the whole country to bankruptcy straight away. Remember that the fact that people can vote doesnt mean they should, or they know anything at all.

If slavery, civil rights or international agreements would have been decided via referendum, humanity would be extincted so far.

Actually, Boris seems to have stopped hallucinating....

Boris Johnson concedes UK will have to pay for Brexit
Foreign secretary says UK will meet legal obligations to pay divorce bill to EU, having previously said it could ‘go whistle’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... for-brexit

If you know that you can not allow the vote. And if the Boris Johnson finally has reached reality, it would be his duty to the people of the UK to speak up and reverse course before the country reaches the cliff.

tommy1808 wrote:

Because the government lied to its voters, telling them they can have all the goddies of the Norway model, without having to pay a dime and have 350 million pounds per week extra for the NHS. ........
There are two ways to stay in the common market, being an EU member or being associated with the EU like Norway is. That´s it. Since a majority doesn´t want to leave the common market, those are the options.
best regards
Thomas

I will have to go an re-read documents and articles, I do not recall seeing anywhere where DC and his Project Fear architects stated that the UK should go with or even consider the Norway model, indeed they were totally against any vote to leave with no fall back position whatsoever.
Even Boris and Nigel did not promote the Norway model and they were the biggest leave campaigners outside of the UK government.

The vote resulted in a change in government, Boris while out of government promoted how much money would go to NHS, we even have pictures of his bus here on this site, to now claim that this was the promotion of the government is a stretch. Yes he is now a part of the government, so let's deal with what he has said since he became a member of the government. One was that the UK would not pay a cent, that the 60 billion figure was a fantasy figure, now he is saying the the UK will only pay what they are legally obligated to pay, one does wonder why he actually used the word legally.

Speaking of politicians lies, what about all those ones back in the 1970s that we weren't joining a "European Superstate"?

Most likely because the EU number is probably quite correct. In the end the EU is just a huge public administration and the political influence to tweak the numbers will have been limited, because the EU has no interest in inflating the numbers nor in keeping them lower than legally correct. The british position will be interesting to watch, because it seems like they are goign with tried and tested tactic of refusing to pay that much and demanding a rebate. I just wonder what the "or threat will be"

Reduce the sum or we will leave the EU - no
Reduce the sum or we will not talk about a trade deal - no
Reduce the sum or we will have no access to the common market - no
Reduce the sum or this negotiations will go on forever - no

seahawk wrote:

Most likely because the EU number is probably quite correct.

Which one the 60 or 100 billion?
I admit there is a slight difference between the two, let's ignore the noise from the politicians who say it should be more.

The numbers you are posting are not from Barnier and his team. Only from self proclaimed experts that expect to make troubles.

Olddog wrote:

The numbers you are posting are not from Barnier and his team. Only from self proclaimed experts that expect to make troubles.

Who are all over the place on the UK and the EU side, I mean Boris is not on the negotiating team but his numbers are being given heavy weight also....
Does make you go hhhmmmmm, but yes, unfortunately for us we are not seeing or hearing the actual numbers that the teams are discussing, on the UK side we now know that Davis will not be putting forward any numbers or their calculation at the next session, let's see how long he uses that strategy.

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Most likely because the EU number is probably quite correct.

Which one the 60 or 100 billion?
I admit there is a slight difference between the two, let's ignore the noise from the politicians who say it should be more.

Also simply both could be correct, one net and one gross.

Best regards
Thomas

The problem is David is not willing to put any number or formula. Talks will stall at that point.

tommy1808 wrote:

Also simply both could be correct, one net and one gross.

Best regards
Thomas

I seriously doubt that, but time will tell. If I understand correctly, on the date of the deadline to leave, all financial obligations cease, unless negotiated otherwise.
Net and Gross could be what the UK was to contribute versus what the EU was to spend in the UK, however, both numbers are put forward by the non-experts as the amount the UK has to pay, which means signed documents - treaties etc.
Even if they were looking at prorated values post departure, it is still not a figure that the EU can come up with on its own without UK participation, so for me, when those numbers are thrown around, they most likely have some foundation in treaties and the EU budget, which is a multi-year instrument, where prorated values have to be used.
Now if you say that the prorated value is 60 billion but we would like you to pay the non-prorated value, that is a question to be asked, not something to be thrown up as you must settle this before we move on, in the same way that the payment option has already been settled, it does not have to be lump nor paid immediately, that was easy.

I just noticed this report by the Office of National Statistics as per the BBC. It seems that rather than leaving in droves some EU citizens are actually wanting to stay. Obviously many explanations but rather goes against the theories foreign nationals would simply opt out and go home. Something must be keeping them here for those numbers to be correct, especially the Germans by all accounts although it also shows net migration is down since the Brexit vote. A rather confusing picture.
EU countries with most applications 2016-17
% increase from 2015-16
1. Poland 6,179 (+43.9%)
2. Italy 2,950 (+166%)
3. Romania 2,713 (+40%)
4. France 2,508 (+168.5%)
5. Germany 2,338 (+193.4%)
6. Bulgaria 1,697 (+43.8%)

You can find here (me) an example of a EU citizen who moved out the UK shortly after (and because of) referendum's result.

tommy1808 wrote:

par13del wrote:

In this context, since the mood of the country before the vote was to reject the Norway model, why bring it up again?

That doesn´t remove the inconsistency from your post, it rather reinforced it. Why bring it up again? Because the government lied to its voters, telling them they can have all the goddies of the Norway model, without having to pay a dime and have 350 million pounds per week extra for the NHS. ........
There are two ways to stay in the common market, being an EU member or being associated with the EU like Norway is. That´s it. Since a majority doesn´t want to leave the common market, those are the options.

best regards
Thomas

Still peddling the old NHS line.... Change your playlist on the MP3!!!

LAH1 wrote:

I just noticed this report by the Office of National Statistics as per the BBC.

If theses statistics are as accurate as the one about foreign students, you can correct them by a truckload of salt.

Dano1977 wrote:

Still peddling the old NHS line.... Change your playlist on the MP3!!!

You need a safe space to protect your feeling's from being hurt by being reminded how easily you got suckered?

Best regards
Thomas

par13del wrote:

Even if they were looking at prorated values post departure, it is still not a figure that the EU can come up with on its own without UK participation

Sure they can. Let's say 60 billion when no EU dime enters the UK after Brexit, 100 Billion when the EU finishes everything in the UK as planned, UK universities and scientists stay in Science programs until conclusion and not just Brexit, and so on and so forth.
In that way it would mean 60 billion is the absolute minimum and under no circumstances more than 100 billion. The space between is where the UK can negotiate. The technique is known as pre-commitment, and fairly common in negotiations.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Still peddling the old NHS line.... Change your playlist on the MP3!!!

You need a safe space to protect your feeling's from being hurt by being reminded how easily you got suckered?

Best regards
Thomas

Nah....

How ever, arriving back from Berlin last night, I couldn't believe how many Germans said we were brave to leave the EU.

I also got the distinct feeling that Juncker is not held in high regard and far too many young Germans are hooked on the EU cool aid.

Most Germans would leave the EU when given a choice. But that does not mean that they will support a special deal for the UK.

seahawk wrote:

Most Germans would leave the EU when given a choice. But that does not mean that they will support a special deal for the UK.

We don't want a special deal - We want a non punitive fair deal.