their silly politicians are now trying to call it "extortion", so they can flee from their commitment, the cunning little fucks
it's their fooking dues FFS,
Brexit: UK 'must not allow itself to be blackmailed'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41119870
their silly politicians are now trying to call it "extortion", so they can flee from their commitment, the cunning little fucks
it's their fooking dues FFS,
Brexit: UK 'must not allow itself to be blackmailed'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41119870
They were commitments based on us being in the EU, we're leaving so the EU will no longer be able to waste our money, enjoy making up the shortfall.
that's the cheap Chav version of events,
in the real world, you pay your commitment
if you leave a bank and owe them money, does this mean you should stop paying back ?
of course not, only a chav would think like that
at the end of the day, you are going to pay the full price, no matter how much you squeal
of course not, at least we have collateral if you default on your EU membership feesOriginally Posted by buriramboy
They are commitments made in the past that extend beyond the March 2019 deadline. This is not solely the EU budget until 2020. It includes commitments agreed by the UK to cover the Treaty of accession, a major financial commitment that I think will constitute the major portion of the bill. You don't agree to a major outlay like this and then walk away...not unless you want to make enemies.
The Tories are trying to hoodwink joe public by combining the past commitments with future ones. They want to offset this bill against future payments for staying within part of the club. This way they can claim short term victories that the public can see whilst claiming they are paying substantially lower contributions than before in order to obtain the same benefits.
It's a pipe dream and the eu will have none of it.
The UK is doomed as long as it thinks it has the upper hand in these negotiations. It is doomed as long as people think the same way as buriamboy
Can't quite see what the 'Treaty of Accession' has to do with anything (they are the individual treaties with potential new EU member States, the last of which was enacted in 2011 for Croatia).
It's incumbent on the applying new member state to meet the financial and administrative criteria of membership, so where does the UK fit into this scenario, other than the pre-accession amounts (the EU's contribution to help potential member states fulfill the qualification criteria). Some irony with this, the largest recipient of EU funds potential member state is Turkey, with some 636 million Euros a year. The irony being that Turkey has as much chance of joining the EU as North Korea.
The current budget, as with all other EU budgets, runs through to 2020, one year after the UK will have left the EU (any transition period apart). The UK has already stated it will meet it's obligations for the current budget period. Why on earth should it commit funds for the next EU budget 2021-2027?
One problem with Brexit appears to be the "services" sector which is running a 24 billion pound surplus in favour of Britain.
A removal of this to say Frankfurt would be at some cost to the British economy including employment. On the other hand Britain's massive deficit in goods will become a large problem for the EU. Although as a percentage of EU GDP(I think a measure used by Seeking ABC) it is not that large, the pain will not be spread evenly in terms of lost revenue by country, should these goods be sourced elsewhere outside of the EU. The most affected countries will be Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy ,Spain, France which are some of the main contributors of EU funds (forget Belgium that lives nicely on the EU tit). No wonder the EU is so insistent on continuing welfare from Britain. They are also staring down the barrel of decreasing revenue.
Until the final plan is revealed however this and other posts are purely supposition. One other fact not often mentioned is that the GDP of the vast majority of EU members has shrunk in the last 7 years. The problem with the Euro is although it helps prevent massive inflation in some circumstances (see Zimbabwe and Venezuela) It can hinder economic growth in poorer economies (see Greece) due to the lack of currency control.
I have no axe to grind either way. I wish both parties in the divorce well but as most marriages in the west one usually does better out of the deal. I will wait to see which one is the "wife".
A major portion of EU budget over the last 10 years has been funding the newly joined countries in order to narrow the gap between them and the rest of the EU. The UK fully supported this expenditure and need to honour those commitments.
The last EU budget commitment for the period 2014 -2020 is expected to be fully realised by 2023. The UK contribution to that commitment alone is around 36bn. The UK government agreed prior to the talks in July that it had a financial commitment to the EU and would honour it. Why is it now saying it doesn't?
I believe that the UK Government has said that it WILL honour those commitments (at least for the current 12-20 budget period). The EU budget for 21-27 hasn't even been made, so how on earth can the UK commit any funds to it?
I believe that what the UK is saying is that any form of payment, ex gratia, outwith the current budget commitment, has to be substantiated in a more tangible form than depending on some form of largess act by the UK taxpayers.
These squeals of exasperation from the EU negotiators is tiresome, and they're playing the 'no capitulation to our demands, no chance of even talking about trade' tactic which doesn't appear to be fazing the UK side (nor should it).
The UK is not Greece, and shouldn't waiver in it's desire to get the best possible deal for the UK (and the EU for that matter), without buckling on blackmail and veiled threats.
and from today's Times:
Manufacturers defy Brexit gloom with rapid growth
Britain’s manufacturing sector is growing at one of the fastest rates in more than three years, according to a closely watched City indicator.
At a time when negotiations between Britain and Brussels appear to have reached a low, the purchasing managers’ index (PMI) survey shows that manufacturers remain upbeat about the future, as the sharp fall in the pound since the Brexit vote has led to a surge of orders at home and abroad.
Foreign demand for British goods remains at one of its strongest levels since data started being collected in 1996, having reached a record high in July. Companies said that they had noted especially strong growth in orders from Europe and America. Demand was also robust in the UK, leading business confidence among manufacturers to rise to one of the highest levels in more than a year.
Winning business from overseas helped to support the fastest jobs growth since June 2014, according to the survey. “The figures are a clear sign that confidence is returning to the industry after years in the doldrums,” Edward Hardy, an economist at the currency firm World First, said. “This goes to show that despite parliamentary gridlock, pessimistic politicians and volatile financial markets, trade opportunities are still out there.”
The PMI showed a reading of 56.9 last month, up from 55.3 in July and one of the strongest readings since 2014.
A reading above 50 indicates growth; anything below is a sign that the sector is shrinking.
The pound jumped on the news, rising to its highest level against the dollar in more than three weeks, nearly passing $1.30, and rising 0.5 per cent against the euro to €1.09. The pound has fallen by 13 per cent against a basket of currencies since the Brexit vote, which has proved a boost for manufacturers as it makes UK goods more attractive to overseas buyers.
The manufacturing sector makes up about 10 per cent of the UK economy, but there are hopes it will play a more important role in economic growth at a time when consumer spending is slowing because of rising prices.
A downside to the weakness of the pound has been the rising cost of raw materials from overseas. About 30 per cent of companies reported an increase in prices.
The PMI surveys have consistently painted a better picture of health for the manufacturing sector than official figures. In the latest official figures, the manufacturing sector contracted by 0.6 per cent between April and June.
PMI surveys are considered a better indicator of future growth and economists believe that official figures will soon start to reflect this.
Andrew Wishart, an economist at Capital Economics, said: “The broad-based strength of the survey adds weight to our view that the sector will put a disappointing first half to the year behind it, and will probably provide a decent boost to [economic] growth in the second half of the year.”
The PMI survey asked hundreds of manufacturing companies across the UK to state baldly whether conditions were better, worse or the same on a variety of subjects, such as the level of new orders, purchasing intentions, investment and expectations.
It then takes the net position of the responses, adjusts for seasonal factors and produces a hard number.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...owth-kgg7b6gzq
a star always shine the brightest just before it collapseOriginally Posted by PAG
You referring to Macron?
not bad, but no, I was referring to the UK of course
I like the way this guy thinks.
Ah, I remember the wailling and gnashing of teeth about the UK not having the resources to be able to conduct negotiations with the EU. Apparently during the latest negotiations, a lawyer for the UK went point by point through the EU demands and proved them flawed and illegal. A point dismissed by the EU's chief negotiator as 'seeking nostalgia'.
Apparently? Either it happened or it didn't happen. If it happened post a link showing this point by point refutation.Originally Posted by PAG
^ Michel Barnier accuses Britain of 'nostalgia' for benefits of EU membership in frosty press conference
Michel Barnier accuses Britain of 'nostalgia' for benefits of EU membership in frosty press conference
31 AUGUST 2017
EU Brexit negotiators were left “flabbergasted” on Wednesday after their British counterparts launched a legal deconstruction of the so-called “Brexit bill” yesterday as the Brussels talks headed for an increasingly acrimonious impasse.
^ There's absolutely nothing in that link that supports the contention I have put in bold...
I'm 'flabbergasted' by what an idiot buriramboy is. That's not because of the force of his arguments.Originally Posted by PAG
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)