What amount do you think the UK should settle with the EU?

[kingfisher]

A member state electing to leave the Union has no precedent, as it was probably never envisaged. Consequently, the question of assets, and of the ownership of jointly funded investment projects, must be quite a thorny issue. If a young member state builds a motorway with EU funds, (which money will have originated from the several net contributory states like UK), then is there any obligation on the assisted state to re-pay anything as it grows and prospers as a consequence of the investment? If so, the UK must surely be in a position to ask for these sort of investments to be proportionately recovered, particularly in the light of the recent dictatorial and belligerent dictates from the EU over “obligations” (I didn’t see a single word about the UK’s assets in last week’s paper).

[Jimgym]

I'd guess Kingfisher that the UK will get nothing back as apparently the EU hold all the aces. Made me laugh anyway.

[Jim B]

As I understand it the payment is for promised future budget contributions and for pensions. No doubt there are certain expenditures the UK promised to contribute to but are now talking about welching on these promises.

Jim

[Poppy]

1) Who said the UK are talking about welching on these promises? Can you provide some factual information here Jim?
2) You say the UK promised to contribute to... Do you not mean that the EU vote from 28 members was that the UK should contribute to as a member? Surely once that membership ceases then such obligations cease?
3) You could assume maybe that once the UK leaves the EU then the responsibility towards pension contributions for the UK MEPs could revert to the UK?

[Varky]

Posturing has/is taking place on both sides. One side is not better or worse than the other in this. Let's see what happens when negotiations start.

[Pete G]

As I understand it the payment is for promised future budget contributions and for pensions. No doubt there are certain expenditures the UK promised to contribute to but are now talking about welching on these promises.

Jim

You are absolutely correct, however the EU are hiding their perfidy behind the language, not unusually.

As is usual behind socialist government run 'pension schemes' it is actually a massive Ponzi scheme, and in no way resembles an actual pension scheme

If it were actually a pension scheme, then the logic would simply run whilst you were a 'shareholder' in the EU enterprise, you made sufficient payments to cover the fund which guaranteed future payments to the pensions of people who were in your employ at the time.

The EU does not do this however, and extracts pension payments directly from their haul on taxation in the current year, preferring to spend the money they should have been investing against future payments on whatever irrelevant boondoggles they think will both neutralise member states criticism and, of course, line their pockets, and allow their previous EC members to continue to receive the bribes they have been paid for their 'support'

Their 'demand' is the functional equivalent of the perpetrator of a private Ponzi scheme informing one of his victims, that once he has entered the scheme he is morally committed to continue to make payments, otherwise his fellow sufferers will be even further debilitated

[Jim B]

1) Read the papers.

2)No, I'm not saying anything, just repeating what the EU is saying.

3) Again I'm not saying It, just repeating what the EU is saying

Talk about shooting the messenger.

Jim

[Poppy]

Ah Ok then Jim so you blindly believe everything that the EU say!!
I'll say no more!

Pete G - Forgive my ignorance but what is a Ponzi scheme?

[Jim B]

Pete G
Apologies, your post popped up between my reply to Poppy.

My initial answer was to clarify why the EU was requesting 50 billion euro's.

Jim

[Jim B]

Pete G
Apologies, your post popped up between my reply to Poppy.

My initial answer was to clarify why the EU was requesting 50 billion euro's.

Poppy

The question was asked and I clarified why the EU was asking for It, I really can't see where I said I believed if it was right or wrong.

Jim

[Jim B]

Pete G

I though most Government Pensions worked on the Ponzi Scheme principal; the British Pension a case in point?

Jim

[Poppy]

Pete G - ignore my request to clarify what a ponzi schene is as I have now googled it! You learn something every day!

[Pete G]

Pete G

I though most Government Pensions worked on the Ponzi Scheme principal; the British Pension a case in point?

Jim

You are again quite right. The UK State Pension Scheme as set up in 1948 by the Labour Party was indeed advertised as a pension scheme on the basis that the Government would raise a new tax [National Insurance] to set up a fund from which future pensions would be paid, and therefore you were, by paying your NI, simply investing in your own future, and helping out other people less fortunate than you at the same time, what could go wrong?

Except, of course, they lied [colour me surprised] and the fund was a complete chimera, and the new income was spent were it was more needed [i.e. trying to mitigate the economic cost of lunatic nationalisation schemes and paying off the unions for their support].

As to the 'most' bit I'm afraid I'm not really in a position to have a particularly good view. I can certainly understand how communist and post communist states have little choice but to operate in this mode [though are obviously less concerned about inflation locks, etc.] the Italian scheme is certainly v similar to ours [in terms of it's funding], and I should imagine it is also true in Greece and Cyprus, but quite a few European countries [Germany before unification for example, Switzerland and most of the Scandinavian countries] rely either on a public/private fusion which does require some [if not 100%] investment provisions and/or means testing of recipients, to mitigate their exposure at least to some extent.

Perhaps someone else on the forum has a better insight?

[Poppy]

I don' t think for one moment that Theresa May thought negotiations were going to be easy! Try as they might to deny it the EU leaders need us for trade - just remind me how much the UK imports from the EU?
Surely,looking at it from a very simplistic point of view,if the EU impose high tarifs eg french cars then the price will not be competitive and us UK residents will surely plump for the non eu cars of which we have a good few to choose from.

[ApusApus]

Sorry HiC but do you really think that BMW, Mercedes, VW Audi, Peugeot-Citreon, Renault, Thales, Airbus Industries, EDF, RWE, BASF et al will be able to do without UK business ............ I think not!

Reason will prevail which is more than you seem to be exhibiting on this subject, and this is coming from a "Remainer"!


Shane

[kingfisher]

Economic pragmatism and realpolitik will define the final agreement.
In practice, (and in contrast to the PR razzmatazz of unanimity "in less than fifteen minutes"), the reality will be (I believe) that the 27 end up like a barrel full of eels, in spite of desperate attempts from the elite at orchestration.
"EU holding all the aces"- I think not!

[Jimgym]

Sorry HiC but do you really think that BMW, Mercedes, VW Audi, Peugeot-Citreon, Renault, Thales, Airbus Industries, EDF, RWE, BASF et al will be able to do without UK business ............ I think not!

Reason will prevail which is more than you seem to be exhibiting on this subject, and this is coming from a "Remainer"!


Shane

Ahhh but don't forget, the EU hold all the aces!

[Royal]

I don' t think for one moment that Theresa May thought negotiations were going to be easy! Try as they might to deny it the EU leaders need us for trade - just remind me how much the UK imports from the EU?
Surely,looking at it from a very simplistic point of view,if the EU impose high tarifs eg french cars then the price will not be competitive and us UK residents will surely plump for the non eu cars of which we have a good few to choose from.

Spot on, Poppy in all respects! As far as the EU-UK trade balance goes, no less than 21 of the 27 EU countries export substantially more to the UK than they import from us. Only Ireland, Malta and Denmark buy more goods from us than we sell to them and given their background, culture, geography and history, that is unlikely to change after Brexit.

In a trade tariff war, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Poland, Italy, Czech Republic, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and Greece are set to lose the most. There will be fierce lobbying on their respective governments by the German car industry, the French wine industry, the Spanish fruit producers, Dutch cheese manufacturers and the whole panoply of other industries which are worried about the effects on their businesses of Brexit. We can (if necessary) buy all of these products from other Global producers at substantially lower prices if the EU wish to play hardball.

....and yet Lloyd insists that we have no aces? A poor poker player indeed! Thankfully, May is made of sterner stuff!

Let's see how the 'united front' stands up to the nitty gritty negotiations once underway in earnest!

[Jimgward]

Interesting that Ireland is and could be one of our most important partners, yet dislike of Ireland and the Irish is still strong in the Uk. Not to do with a`IRA atrocities, it predates that and is more a religious/cultural dislike.

[Jimgym]

Interesting that Ireland is and could be one of our most important partners, yet dislike of Ireland and the Irish is still strong in the Uk. Not to do with a`IRA atrocities, it predates that and is more a religious/cultural dislike.

Ireland is one of our important partners, not could be, they are now, according to the figures posted. Not sure what religious or others issues has to do with trade and how that would change? Will people become more intolerant of Ireland because of religious/cultural dislike and not trade with them?