Uk's BREXIT BILL

[Poppy]

This seems more reasonable to me> "The Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) said Britain can and should refuse to pay any Brexit bill if Eurocrats refuse to give her a "good deal".

European Union officials have claimed the UK's divorce fee could be as high as £90 billion.

But a discussion paper published by the IEA described the sum put forward by European Commission officials as "going too far".

The think-tank's chief economist Julian Jessop today said the "upper limit" for any payment should be £26bn.

He argued that a compromise payment of up to £26billion to cover existing EU budget commitments and other liabilities including staff pensions.

He said there was no reason for the UK to pay more than £21bn for liabilities, and around £5 billion for pensions and other one-off items."

[kingfisher]

Until the assets which the UK has invested in in the EU and its precursors over the past 45 years are taken into account, I cannot agree with you or the IEA that it is "reasonable". UK has paid in £230,000,000,000 (230billion) to date. What is left of the UK fishing industry should make a big claim against the EU.

[ApusApus]

Personally, I think this is going to be one helluva mess to "negotiate" but we have the "best brains" in the UK & Europe working on this so hopefully ............


Shane

[Poppy]

You are probably right Kingfisher! It just seemed a lot more reasonable than the reported silly demands which appear to have escalated from 50 billion to 90 billion and as we have no idea what our assets are and what any liabilities may be I reckon it is useless guessing and I suppose I am as guilty as anyone.

[smudger]

First rule of financial negotiations - have all available info on hand, in writing, preferably with all supporting docs. Second rule, have exactly the same information available for the other side, which - as is probable in Brexit negotiations - may be pretty sparse. Therefore serious homework is necessary to establish the possible pros and cons of the other side.

Not so difficult as it may seem, guesstimates can easily be made of the assets accumulated from the UK over the period of its membership. Along with guesstimates of UKs financial obligations from day zero. Thereby, negotiations and subsequent discussions. UK.com just needs to get its act together, preferably before rolling over!

[Pete G]

First rule of financial negotiations - have all available info on hand, in writing, preferably with all supporting docs. Second rule, have exactly the same information available for the other side, which - as is probable in Brexit negotiations - may be pretty sparse. Therefore serious homework is necessary to establish the possible pros and cons of the other side.

Not so difficult as it may seem, guesstimates can easily be made of the assets accumulated from the UK over the period of its membership. Along with guesstimates of UKs financial obligations from day zero. Thereby, negotiations and subsequent discussions. UK.com just needs to get its act together, preferably before rolling over!

Quite agree, it all seems pretty straightforward to me.

If the UK leaves the table with no exit deal, the amount we owe the EU will precisely zero, so it seems to me that in order to justify a payment of 5bn or 21bn or 100bn, all the EU has to do is explain what benefits the UK gets out of a negotiated leaving deal that is worth whatever 'divorce' settlement they think is appropriate.

It clearly can't be to do with trade as the EU have insisted that this be negotiated separately, so it must be to do with something else that, I confess, has yet to reveal itself [to me at least]

I mean, they can hardly take the UK to court for non-payment

[Poppy]

Sorry HIC but why post this article here when as as far as I can see it has nothing to do with any exit bill.Do you always have to find a negative article on every positive post - gets very tiresome!! Now if you had commented on the actual post concerning exit fees I could understand but you chose to just drag another negative into the equation going completely off topic!

[WHL]

One pound or one hundred Billion pound no one knows, so this is a pointless thread. unless your sitting at the negotiating table?, which none of us are.

[ApusApus]

Sorry HIC but why post this article here when as as far as I can see it has nothing to do with any exit bill.Do you always have to find a negative article on every positive post - gets very tiresome!! Now if you had commented on the actual post concerning exit fees I could understand but you chose to just drag another negative into the equation going completely off topic!

I think he was having a "pop" at me & forgot all about the subject of the thread!


Shane

[Poppy]

You are quite right of course WHL as I said in my 2nd post.

[josef k]

Surely the financial terms of a split away from the EU would be contained in the "contract" the UK signed when it joined. So, what are the terms? How is the final calculation to be made? It should be there in black and white. If it isn't then those who signed it have been negligent.

[Firefly]

How true, however why don't we just say, bye we're off

Jackie

[Pete G]

How true, however why don't we just say, bye we're off Jackie

Nice simplistic idea, eh Jackie? However, that would constitute a 'Hard Brexit'. It would be an absolute disaster for the UK economy, which is why the CBI is wholly against it. I take you don't understand the advantages of having tariff-free access to the single European market...which might explain why you would make such a claim.

In fact it is quite nuanced.

It would have been simplistic, prior to the EU demand to split the negotiations into two separate and independent units, regarding the exit terms and future trading. The EU has now effectively bought it back into play as a valid option, making Firefly's comment quite a smart thing to say [and certainly in line with current government thinking, to judge by yesterdays actions]

This 'demand' means that no decision made in 'Brexit' phase can possibly bind either party in terms of agreements in the trade phase, so even if the UK promised to sacrifice the first born son of every UK family as a part of its exit, that still would not guarantee no 'hard Brexit' in the trade phase, as the EU have specifically said the two matters are not related.

It appears the rather childish desire to leave their options open to punish the UK 'pour l'encourager des autres' might in fact be a bit of a petard.

Remember how yesterday May published her 'offer' to EU citizens in the UK as to their future residency terms as if it were established fact?

I don't think that was done in error [or indeed, a mistake ]

[Poppy]

Pete G I read your posts with interest and have learnt a lot from them. It appears that you have more than an average bystanders knowledge of politics so may I ask if you have been a politician or indeed worked with them in the past?
As with Rita whose posts I also value, I believe worked with the Government for many years .

[kingfisher]

Poppy- I wholeheartedly agree with your admiration of Pete G’s posts.
Somehow though, I don’t feel we are blessed with an expired politician in Pete G. No disrespect to politicians but many of them couldn’t run a whelk stall, and my money is on a former life in the private sector.

[kingfisher]

We are shortly to receive a bill from the E.C.
There has been much pointless discussion on this subject. I decided to do a little research of my own, which I found both interesting and informative.
The horse’s mouth seemed a good place to start. The EU provides, as indeed it should, a guide to spending by member states on projects with which the EU has been involved.
This site is limited to projects > 50 million euros EU contribution. It lists each member state’s main projects over period 2007- 13. There is a very illuminating distribution map of the main projects listed. Perhaps not surprisingly they are very dense over eastern and southern Europe, and sparse or almost non-existent in other states.
The UK lists 13 projects. Poland has around 200, with Romania about the same, Greece, Hungary, Spain and Italy have 50 or so each, and France and Germany each have several times more than the UK’s share, although their economies are comparable.
The UK has been one of the main net contributors, over decades, to the EU. The UK has pumped many billions into the economies of other member states. This enforced largess on the part of the UK will never be reciprocated, yet the UK is badly in need of huge infrastructural improvement. Cladding tower blocks properly would be a good start.
The UK has INVESTED in the funding of projects in order to create jobs, wealth and increased efficiencies for other members, which I believe MUST be taken into account when the above bill is worked out. All we hear about at present is the UK’s pension liabilities and ongoing commitments to the EU.
We keep hearing how much, and how valuable the EU’s contribution to the UK has been. Take a look at the site and see the real picture for yourself.


http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/major/

[Firefly]

Kingfisher

A very good post, I like it.

Jackie

[geoffreys]

Kingfisher

A very good post, I like it.

Jackie

So do I - many thanks Firefly.
Geoff.