Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[The perfect fumble]

You see that is another example of the cheap posting I have referred to - it is pure distraction and offers nothing in substance.

I post:

"May keeping it all down to sound-bites and not putting herself in a position where she gets drawn into offering definitive positions, is simply sensible electioneering from the position of the Conservatives"

That is a simple FACT of how the Conservative Party have decided to play this campaign out. They see nothing of benefit and possibly significant risks to play it differently such as entering into debates to make definitive statements

You and others might not like it - it will certainly frustrate you but my observation, given how things are unfolding, is self-evidently accurate and therefore adds something to the thread.

Your, lets be generous and call it a response, offers fuck all - it is just childish distraction - you do so much of it.

Wrong again, you believe expediency trumps all other considerations. You come across as a rigid man with solid convictions based on nothing more than your own prejudices. You justify lies not for the greater good, that might have some shred of justification, but on the basis of your rock solid belief in the superiority of the governing class and their professional helpers over the ignorant masses.

You're a snob and you bore us to death with you monotonous class based diatribe.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Wrong again, you believe expediency trumps all other considerations. You come across as a rigid man with solid convictions based on nothing more than your own prejudices. You justify lies not for the greater good, that might have some shred of justification, but on the basis of your rock solid belief in the superiority of the governing class and their professional helpers over the ignorant masses.

You're a snob and you bore us to death with you monotonous class based diatribe.

Hows the retirement going mate?

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I absolutely agree. Given there is a 100bn leaving bill being talked about, if that was lawfully and obviously the case it should have been disclosed/used by remain.

Me thinks its just bluster as this would have been gold dust to the remainers.

They have yet to add on the use of their wives, husbands and partners à la Del Boy. The fact that we haven't taken up the offer still requires us to pay the price.

 

[smudgedj]

the remain camp should have pushed more on this divorce bill of €100bn as part of their campaign. It does make sense that we honour our commitments (albeit we will have no say on direction) but surely this should have been pushed at the time.

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty for any exit fees.

 

[smudgedj]

Hows the retirement going mate?

His time is being taken up by practicing his irony at the moment.

 

[Len Rum]

There is little to change. We export the same shit that we import. In the service sector it's much the same with some notable exceptions. But to be clear even the EU is not able to properly explain the financial markets as the figures from various national bodies don't tally.

What will change is the consumer. When face with the choice of a German car at twice the price of a British built (probably Japanese) car they will buy British.

Those companies that assemble cars in Britain may well have fcuked off in the event of no deal.
As for exporting the 'same shit that we import' that's not true in the case of computers, machinery, industrial goods. We might operate in some of those those sectors but not not to the extent that our EU partners do and the goods are not always interchangeable, ours are usually technically inferior products.
What about a product such as wine? If sales of EU wines plummet in the UK there may be an opportunity for increase in British wine production but I'm sure UK consumers will predominantly switch to other imported wines. Same goes for food, a drop in demand for EU products could be met by increase in UK production but we will still rely mainly on imported food. As regards regulated services we are a major exporter, a loss of business in EU will not be picked up by extra demand from the UK, it will simply be lost business.
There is no way of knowing how the pattern of trade will change when a major economy like Britain leaves a geopolitical trading bloc like the EU because it has never happened.
What is certain is that a chaotic and unmanaged no deal will be bad for the EU and a disaster for the UK( a managed no deal less so but still bad for both sides).
Increasing UK supply to meet increased domestic and non EU demand will not happen quickly after we leave the EU ( if at all on a significant level), and therefore we will be faced with a period of economic hardship which may last years. This is really my point ,your view is a long term aspiration which may or may not happen but the short term damage from no deal is much more certain and might in fact harm our economy so much that we don't even get the chance of reaching your long term economic forecast.

 

[inbetween]

Those companies that assemble cars in Britain may well have fcuked off in the event of no deal.
As for exporting the 'same shit that we import' that's not true in the case of computers, machinery, industrial goods. We might operate in some of those those sectors but not not to the extent that our EU partners do and the goods are not always interchangeable, ours are usually technically inferior products.
What about a product such as wine? If sales of EU wines plummet in the UK there may be an opportunity for increase in British wine production but I'm sure UK consumers will predominantly switch to other imported wines. Same goes for food, a drop in demand for EU products could be met by increase in UK production but we will still rely mainly on imported food. As regards regulated services we are a major exporter, a loss of business in EU will not be picked up by extra demand from the UK, it will simply be lost business.
There is no way of knowing how the pattern of trade will change when a major economy like Britain leaves a geopolitical trading bloc like the EU because it has never happened.
What is certain is that a chaotic and unmanaged no deal will be bad for the EU and a disaster for the UK( a managed no deal less so but still bad for both sides).
Increasing UK supply to meet increased domestic and non EU demand will not happen quickly after we leave the EU ( if at all on a significant level), and therefore we will be faced with a period of economic hardship which may last years. This is really my point ,your view is a long term aspiration which may or may not happen but the short term damage from no deal is much more certain and might in fact harm our economy so much that we don't even get the chance of reaching your long term economic forecast.

The fact is even in the event of no deal we will adapt and change our ways to cope. For the most part costs will be passed on and inflation will rise but companies will adapt and just increase prices. How that will change demand, no-one knows but new industries will open, others will close.

The biggest problem we will have is not in GDP figures which will probably barely change. The problem will be how the population copes with the change in jobs, inflation etc. A rise in inflation is inevitable, it is already happening now and that is going to hurt people as wages are not likely to rise anytime soon.

Luckily this will happen slowly and to be honest I don't think anything will be sorted in the next decade. It is not even practically possible to negotiate a free trade deal in 2 years let alone consider immigration laws, processes etc. It has taken the EU 8 years to negotiate a deal with Canada and that does not include things like immigration arrangements or anything else.

I think the government is not even going to negotiate any form of free trade type deal, they will negotiate the best (cheapest/quickest) way of leaving and then begin to negotiate afterwards a free trade deal as a totally independent country.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Hows the retirement going mate?

I've never been busier, moving house, setting up a little business.

I could do with a break.

 

[BlueHammer85]

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty for any exit fees.

So the EU is just making this figure up ?

 

[CityStu]

So the EU is just making this figure up ?

I imagine there is some basis for asking the UK to continue contributing to areas it has said it will contribute to. However, one would also assume that we would be eligible for any benefits from the areas we're contributing to as well, on top of a proportion of the assets we've contributed to so far.

I'm very sceptical of the figure they've arrived at though, considering it's increased dramatically in a matter of weeks.

 

[Vic]

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty for any exit fees.

The bill (whatever it is) is for stuff we've signed up to as EU members (projects and pensions). Not paying would put us in the "Philip Green" moral bracket.

Whether the EU could legally get it after we leave is one question but the issue is simply whether we should pay for stuff we agreed to pay for. And if we want a deal we will have to pay something.

May's already lost the plot (if she ever had it). I don't see the EU not wanting a deal but they won't be impressed by her slogans. I expect "we want a strong and stable Brexit" any day now.

 

[CityStu]

The bill (whatever it is) is for stuff we've signed up to as EU members (projects and pensions). Not paying would put us in the "Philip Green" moral bracket.

Whether the EU could legally get it after we leave is one question but the issue is simply whether we should pay for stuff we agreed to pay for. And if we want a deal we will have to pay something.

May's already lost the plot (if she ever had it). I don't see the EU not wanting a deal but they won't be impressed by her slogans. I expect "we want a strong and stable Brexit" any day now.

Depends on your viewpoint. We've signed up for EU projects based on the assumption that we'd get some benefit from those projects in return for our contributions. Now that we're leaving, we're very unlikely to get those benefits. I'd class pensions as a different kettle of fish and would suggest we honour those promises.

 

[Vic]

Depends on your viewpoint. We've signed up for EU projects based on the assumption that we'd get some benefit from those projects in return for our contributions. Now that we're leaving, we're very unlikely to get those benefits. I'd class pensions as a different kettle of fish and would suggest we honour those promises.

That's why we need a deal. It's quite feasible that scientists farmers etc could still get payments under those projects even after we leave.

 

[CityStu]

That's why we need a deal. It's quite feasible that scientists farmers etc could still get payments under those projects even after we leave.

I'd be more than willing to continue to contribute to beneficial mutual projects whilst we get our house in order (science is a good example but I believe farmer's payments should be brought internally ASAP).

However, the line from the EU is that we need to meet their demands of an exit payment before we can even begin to negotiate an exit deal. That would mean that we're committing to these EU projects without any clarification that we'll be able to benefit from them. If I had to choose between that and immediately severing all ties with the EU, I'd pick the latter. We may get fuck all but at least we aren't risking spending billions upfront for the privilege.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

The bill (whatever it is) is for stuff we've signed up to as EU members (projects and pensions). Not paying would put us in the "Philip Green" moral bracket.

Whether the EU could legally get it after we leave is one question but the issue is simply whether we should pay for stuff we agreed to pay for. And if we want a deal we will have to pay something.

May's already lost the plot (if she ever had it). I don't see the EU not wanting a deal but they won't be impressed by her slogans. I expect "we want a strong and stable Brexit" any day now.

Perhaps they should pay to access our market bearing in mind they sell us more than we sell them.

Not a fan of the torries but she is playing the negotiation strategy perfectly at the moment. Give them nowt at the start, keep your cards close to your chest. Play hard ball and then compromise a bit if needed. Better than the prats corbyn, sturgeon and farron who clearly couldnt negotiate fuck all between them.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I'd be more than willing to continue to contribute to beneficial mutual projects whilst we get our house in order (science is a good example but I believe farmer's payments should be brought internally ASAP).

However, the line from the EU is that we need to meet their demands of an exit payment before we can even begin to negotiate an exit deal. That would mean that we're committing to these EU projects without any clarification that we'll be able to benefit from them. If I had to choose between that and immediately severing all ties with the EU, I'd pick the latter. We may get fuck all but at least we aren't risking spending billions upfront for the privilege.

There is nothing in article 50 that says a country leaving the eu has to agree to pay whatever the other remaining states want let alone before any negotiation over trade security and people. They are making stuff up as they go along. Mays lack of specific comment on their deliberate leaks and made up gossip sugests to me that she is playing them perfectly.

 

[blueinsa]

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty for any exit fees.

No there isnt and its being made up as they go along.

We are still members and we will still be contributing during the 2 year exit period that we legally triggered via article 50.

At the end of that period we leave, end of and if they want to do a mutually beneficial trade deal then great.

If they dont, thats up to them isnt it.

Excellent from our PM this afternoon in the face of rhetoric and jingoism of the very worst kind over the last few days from Brussels but that doesnt come as a surprise to 52% of those who voted does it?

 

[smudgedj]

So the EU is just making this figure up ?

Of course; but I bet we would all love to see a fully, independently audited and itemised bill.

 

[blueinsa]

So the EU is just making this figure up ?

Yes.

Next question?

 

[smudgedj]

The bill (whatever it is) is for stuff we've signed up to as EU members (projects and pensions). Not paying would put us in the "Philip Green" moral bracket.

Whether the EU could legally get it after we leave is one question but the issue is simply whether we should pay for stuff we agreed to pay for. And if we want a deal we will have to pay something.

May's already lost the plot (if she ever had it). I don't see the EU not wanting a deal but they won't be impressed by her slogans. I expect "we want a strong and stable Brexit" any day now.

It seems a large part of the €100bn "divorce settlement" is apparently our share of the RAL deficit - the EU's unfunded commitments for the next 7 years. This 7 year budget was based upon calculations of when we were members; we wont be members in 2 years therefore they need to adjust their budget accordingly.

There is no moral dilemma here as the treaty is clear - There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty for any exit fees. We obey the treaty.

With the pensions we can just transfer them to the UK civil service pension scheme and offer a take it or leave it 50p in the pound. If we have to, and really we shouldn't, the EU offered the generous pensions they should pay them.

The Prime Minister is correct in her stance, we aren't competing parties in these negotiations; they are about finding mutually beneficial ground, or walking away, and until the EU realises that Brussels isn't Versailles we need the 'No deal is better than a bad deal' on the table.

It's all about our money.