EU bureaucrats to demand €60 billion from UK as price of leaving

Really too early to tell until neggotiations get under way and the UK givernment states what it wants, then the EU can respond.
We shouldnt pay any more than what our legal obligations dictate.
All the speculation is pretty pointless.
It could well be a really hard brexit will just ensure both sides lose.

Reply 3

_Fergo

For the obligations the UK already has. It seriously baffles me that Brexiters think they can have everything with any payment at all.

Also, convenient you left out that part of the article.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 4

OP

Original post by 999tigger

Really too early to tell until neggotiations get under way and the UK givernment states what it wants, then the EU can respond.
We shouldnt pay any more than what our legal obligations dictate.

As it is a negotiation between sovereign entities, fundamentally we have no "obligations". We could pay nothing if we want.

Of course the Eastern Europeans are already freaking out because Brexit will mean a 10% budget cut and the net payer states won't want to take on more for political reasons.

In reality, it should be a negotiation as you say; if they are reasonable about negotiating an FTA and passporting for financial services, we can be reasonable on budget contributions (maybe even agree to pay them for a decade after we leave; I would be okay with that if we get no free movement, FTA + financial services passporting).

I did find it interesting that some EU states are now complaining that the whole Brexit debate is "internal to the UK" and that the UK needs to put its cards on the table. This after they have said no negotiations before Art 50 is triggered.

Reply 5

OP

Original post by _Fergo

For the obligations the UK already has. It seriously baffles me that Brexiters think they can have everything with any payment at all.

What does "have everything with any payment at all" even mean? You presumably left out some operative term that would turn it into an intelligible sentence.

If you mean that you're surprised Brexiters think they can get everything and pay nothing, we (or at least, I) don't. But it is the EU Commission that is saying we get nothing; no FTA, no financial services passporting, but they also want 60 billion euro. If that is the situation then we should pay nothing and they can't force us to pay anything, as we are a sovereign country.

But if the situation is that they are open to Free Trade Agreement + no free movement + financial services passporting in exchange for, say, ongoing budget contributions for 10 years after we leave, I personally would be okay with that. We get everything we want, they get the money they so desperately need

Also, convenient you left out that part of the article.

Which part of the article? Specifically which part of the article are you claiming I left out that is relevant to the matter?

Reply 6

The Last Citizen

Employer: 'Hi, after considering your application we'd like you to join our organisation! Congratulations. We think you will be a fantastic addition to our team.'

You: 'That's great!'

Employer: 'All we need you to do is sign this contract of employment.'

You: 'Ah, no problem!'

TWO YEARS LATER.

You: 'I'm not happy here. I appear to be losing more money than I'm making.'

Employer: 'Ah, okay. We're trying to integrate some new employees and we've had to give them your wages. Sorry.'

You: 'Do I get a say in that?'

Employer: 'Not really. You can vote, however some of our employees are poorer than others and do very well out of the arrangement.'

You: 'Ah, okay. Well, I don't think it's fair. I'd like to leave.'

Employer: 'Really? Why would you want to do that? Don't you care about your colleagues?'

You: No...it's not that...

Employer: 'Are you some sort of colleague-phobe?'

You: 'No! Not at all!'

Employer: 'You do realise your life may suffer if you leave. We won't sell your our products any more; 9 out of 10 of our expert employees will advise you this is a very bad idea. Our Financial Director will take away your pension. '

You: 'What? Why?! Look, I just want to leave!'

Employer: Okay, this is very unusual. You're going to have to trigger Article P45. It will probably take two years.'

You: 'What? Are you serious?'

Employer: 'Yes. It's in your contract.'

You: 'Well, I guess I don't have a choice.'

Employer: 'Okay. That will be £10,000 please.'

Reply 7

999tigger

Original post by AlexanderHam

As it is a negotiation between sovereign entities, fundamentally we have no "obligations". We could pay nothing if we want.

Of course the Eastern Europeans are already freaking out because Brexit will mean a 10% budget cut and the net payer states won't want to take on more for political reasons.

In reality, it should be a negotiation as you say; if they are reasonable about negotiating an FTA and passporting for financial services, we can be reasonable on budget contributions (maybe even agree to pay them for a decade after we leave; I would be okay with that if we get no free movement, FTA + financial services passporting).

I did find it interesting that some EU states are now complaining that the whole Brexit debate is "internal to the UK" and that the UK needs to put its cards on the table. This after they have said no negotiations before Art 50 is triggered.

I dont think that takes it any further forward. The UK should live up to and pay its treay obligations nor more and no less. I doubt they will pill the sovereign nation argument, its a non starter.

UK government needs to ask for what they want and then the EU need to consider it. Clearly they have stated they arent going to give access without free movement, so on current stance it would seem your suggestion is a bit of a fantasy. One of the reasons why we are more likely to go hard brexit becayse the loss to the EU by giving free access at little cost has more importnat implications for the remaining members than whatever economic loss a hard brexiting UK will have. I suspect they will ahve some sort of agreement where both sides claim victory because they are politicians.

Hopefully everyone will just get in with it and a deal can be done asap. I think the govt is deluding itself a bit in what it believes it can get, but we will see.

Reply 8

_Fergo

Original post by AlexanderHam

What does "have everything with any payment at all" even mean? You presumably left out some operative term that would turn it into an intelligible sentence.

No payment at all*

Apologies for making such a dramatic mistake that prevented your brain from processing the sentence. Don't want to overburden the thing.

Original post by AlexanderHam

If you mean that you're surprised Brexiters think they can get everything and pay nothing, we (or at least, I) don't. But it is the EU Commission that is saying we get nothing; no FTA, no financial services passporting, but they also want 60 billion euro. If that is the situation then we should pay nothing and they can't force us to pay anything, as we are a sovereign country.

The first ones are entirely obvious. You knew what you were voting for, and they made these warnings resolutely. Exiting the EU by definition removes the 'passporting' rights and the FTA. Are you surprised by this?

As for the payment, no - you aren't 'sovereign' in the traditional sense. By agreeing to the EU treaties, all member states conceded 'some' of their sovereignty. The UK will have to pay for any benefit it will receive under the EU budget as well as the obligations all member states have to pay.

Britain will be an EU member until the Art 50 process concludes.

Original post by AlexanderHam

But if the situation is that they are open to Free Trade Agreement + no free movement + financial services passporting in exchange for, say, ongoing budget contributions for 10 years after we leave, I personally would be okay with that. We get everything we want, they get the money they so desperately need

No.

'Desperately need'. Funny you should say that. I suppose you're referring to the UK's need of the FTA.

I'm guessing you just realised the consequences of your vote, having thought that the EU will bow down before the demands of the UK. Sorry, but once again that was never the case.

Original post by AlexanderHam

Which part of the article? Specifically which part of the article are you claiming I left out that is relevant to the matter?

The one talking about the obvious obligations. The FT's research said it to be 20bn, but a wider consideration of obligations is likely to apply.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 9

anarchism101

17

Original post by AlexanderHam

They really are fools. It's almost like they want Marine le Pen to win the French elections next year. They are going to blunder into yet another ****-up through the arrogance and ideological rigidity that led to Brexit in the first place.

I say **** 'em. I've had enough of being dictated to; I was an extremely reluctant Leave voter by the very narrowest of margins (for reference, I hate Trump, UKIP and the alt-right), but everything I've seen since confirms my conclusion that we are better off out, better off unshackled from these control freaks, even if it's painful in the short-term.

Unsurprising really. It's well worth reading Yanis Varoufakis' accounts of the "negotiations" (according to Varoufakis, almost nothing was ever actually negotiated) at the various EU summits he attended. It's not even so much ideological rigidity as technocratic dogmatism.

Reply 10

Asolare

20

Imagine that, the UK actually having to pay considering it still wants to keep some of the benefits of the EU without being in the EU, absolute utter madness.

~roll eyes~

Reply 11

Davij038

13

Eurgh, I really am bored of defending the EU but come on what's unreasonable about this?

It's like quitting your work and getting mad because you don't get to keep the work car and don't get invited to the xmas party,

Reply 12

OP

Original post by Davij038

It's like quitting your work and getting mad because you don't get to keep the work car and don't get invited to the xmas party,

No, it's like getting a divorce from a marriage where you have no children, and your wife demands that you not only sign the house over to her, but you also continue to pay the mortgage while she lives in it with her new boyfriend.

Once we leave the EU, we are no longer getting the benefit of the budget so why should we continue paying into it? That's leaving aside the fact that, as a matter of law, we have no ongoing obligations once we leave.

If they want us to continue to pay, that is a matter for negotiation; they don't dictate to us.

Reply 13

OP

Original post by _Fergo

Apologies for making such a dramatic mistake that prevented your brain from processing the sentence.

You seem to be getting angry that I didn't fill in the gaps to make your otherwise unintelligible into something intelligible.

First, you claim that it was your mistake because you thought I would fill in the gaps for you. But you obviously didn't think that because you otherwise would have written something that makes sense. So again you've just posted something laughably incoherent.

Second, for me to fill in the gaps the end result would actually have to make sense, which it didn't. Even filling in the gaps, placing the most benign and intelligent construction on what you wrote, it's still trash; utterly lacking in any grasp of the facts, of international law, or of a pragmatic understanding of how the world really works.

You knew what you were voting for, and they made these warnings resolutely. Exiting the EU by definition removes the 'passporting' rights and the FTA.

You are, again, confused. Exiting the EU by definition does nothing; everything hinges on the deal we negotiate. First, you say exiting the EU "removes... the FTA". You clearly don't understand how the EU works; we don't have an FTA with the EU, we are part of the EU.

Second, countries outside the EU (such as Switzerland and Norway) have market access to the EU, so there is nothing inherent in being outside the EU that would mean there must be a certain state of affairs (or lack thereof) in respect of trade. Finally, financial services passporting between the EU and numerous non-EU countries is already on the horizon with TISA, so the UK keeping passporting is not some alien concept; it's something numerous countries will likely have within the next ten years as part of TISA.

Now, if the EU wants to say, "**** you; you get nothing. We won't make any agreement with you in any area" that's their prerogative. But you're an idiot if you think the UK will then turn around and say, "Oh, okay. We'll still contribute to the EU budget, we'll still take pressure off your economy by giving unemployed Eastern Europeans privileged access to our labour market, we'll still give you privileged access to the Anglo intelligence network that is light-years ahead of anything you have, and we'll still expend significant resources to reinforce the Eastern border of the EU to help keep you safe from Russian aggression".

It seems like a lot of Remainers are so infuriated by the Brexit vote, so contemptuous of their own country's interests, that they genuinely want us to get a bad deal, and they are so credulous that they accept at face value, as fact, what are simply initial negotiating positions being put forward by the Europeans (because obviously your initial negotiating position is that you ask for as much as possible and concede as little as possible).

As for the payment, no - you aren't 'sovereign' in the traditional sense. By agreeing to the EU treaties, all member states conceded 'some' of their sovereignty.

You are confused. Unfortunately being somewhat uneducated on the subject of international law, most of what you say is trash; completely worthless. Sovereignty means just that; a sovereign country can resile from any treaty, at any time, for any reason. They can't force us to pay anything, and if we leave the EU by definition we aren't receiving the benefit of the budget so why would we continue to pay? Now in practical terms, yes we will probably agree some ongoing payment because it helps the EU transition from the significant stress that the UK's exit will place on the EU budget and net payer countries like Germany; we will agree to such things in exchange for concessions on other areas. But fundamentally we have no legal obligation to do anything the second EU law ceases to be effective in the UK's legal system.

I'm guessing you just realised the consequences of your vote, having thought that the EU will bow down before the demands of the UK.

You're obviously quite emotional over this; it's genuinely hilarious. Any fair-minded observer would see that I've repeatedly said that the question of the terms on which we leave are a matter for negotiation; of course we don't dictate to them, but nor do they dictate to us.

Like most insecure lower-middle class Remoaners, feeling a sense of association with Europe is a cipher for a worldliness you will never possess; it makes you feel more sophisticated and cultured than you really are. And Brexit threatens that, so you lash out; you begin to despise your own country and identify with the EU over the UK. And your zero-sum sense of this leads you to adopt the most laughably credulous mindset; anything that EU leaders say in the way of initial negotiating positions, you take as a gospel expression of the truth. In fact, you hope it's the truth because you want the UK to be punished; that would make you feel good, subconsciously that's something that would help justify the hysteria and the personal attacks and the lies that the Remain side engaged in.

It's clear that the puerile and crude assertions of the UKIP/Daily Express crowd, that the UK can just dictate everything to the EU, is not true. But equally, the positions taken by, say, that violent drunk Juncker, are equally implausible; what is interesting is that you not only take his extreme positions to be the truth, but you want them to be the truth.

The one talking about the obvious obligations. The FT's research said it to be 20bn, but a wider consideration of obligations is likely to apply.

You seem to be confused again; you don't appear capable of actually articulating what you were claiming, nor do you seem to understand what the FT staff were claiming the 20bn represented.

Once we leave the EU, we have no obligations except those to which we willingly bind ourselves; that is a pretty basic tenet of international law. You really would benefit yourself and us if you did some research and familiarised yourself with it, thus you would be able to contribute something meaningful and insightful to this thread rather than just the embittered, emotional kneejerk reactions you're typing up.

Reply 14

OP

Original post by Inexorably

Imagine that, the UK actually having to pay considering it still wants to keep some of the benefits of the EU without being in the EU, absolute utter madness.

~roll eyes~

Obviously you don't really understand this topic, and what is being discussed.

If we leave the EU then we are, by definition, not getting the benefits of the EU budget; our farmers won't get payments under the CAP, our universities won't get the central research grants, our regions won't get the infrastructure investments (which, by the way, are paid for with our money so it's not like they're a gift to us).

The moment we leave the EU, that all ceases. So why would we continue paying in? If you're going to comment on this subject, it helps if you do some basic research to familiarise yourself with what's being discussed, otherwise you just look a little bit silly.

Reply 15

l'etranger

2

I object to the term alt-right.

Reply 16

United Britain

Original post by AlexanderHam

https://www.ft.com/content/480b4ae0-aa9e-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122

They really are fools. It's almost like they want Marine le Pen to win the French elections next year. They are going to blunder into yet another ****-up through the arrogance and ideological rigidity that led to Brexit in the first place.

I say **** 'em. I've had enough of being dictated to; I was an extremely reluctant Leave voter by the very narrowest of margins (for reference, I hate Trump, UKIP and the alt-right), but everything I've seen since confirms my conclusion that we are better off out, better off unshackled from these control freaks, even if it's painful in the short-term.

£60 billion they are demanding for us leaving, are they not aware that a contributing factor of us voting leave apart from immigration was the cost of the EU. We are currently spending £18 billion a year which works out at £346 million pound we receive rebate which we have no say over how it is spent. Now this? The link from the financial times is suggesting it is solely for the purpose of renegotiating our trade deals- These had better be stunning trade deals if they are going to take £60 billion-but no the bureaucrats will ensure the EU member states will get the better deal out of us. Free trade is good and healthy for businesses, but the people voted against paying into this dictatorship and receiving 330,000 immigrants a year. Why is it we can not have free trade with these people but no immigrants in return for it- at the end of the day we spend more on the EU imports then we spend on there exports, so even if we do not do a deal we will be better off then if we did trade with them. I think i would rather pay tariffs then risk having free trade and unlimited immigrants. Although i have done zero research into this i am happy to make the claim that big businesses influence the EU rules to suit there own needs or agenda.

Reply 17

United Britain

Original post by Davij038

Eurgh, I really am bored of defending the EU but come on what's unreasonable about this?

It's like quitting your work and getting mad because you don't get to keep the work car and don't get invited to the xmas party,

How is it like quitting work and keeping the company car? It is like quitting work and your employer demanding all the wages they paid you back.

Reply 18

Davij038

13

We can all come up with stupid examples but the facts are we signed up to various contracts which we are beholden to in or outside of the EU which we signed up to. Of course this will be negotiated when we do leave the EU but it is perfectly reasonable for the EU to protect its interests and want the UK to honour its commitments.

It is perfectly clear that no matter how much a Leavers deny it what we are seeing is exactly how the UK would have behaved if Scotland had chosen to leave.

Reply 19

United Britain