Guessing whether payments are due to the EU on UK's exit is practically impossible unless you have all of the information to hand. Presumably the all party Lords select committee had a sufficient amount of information to form an opinion that the UK was not legally obligated to pay in to the EU budget after Brexit. They did add if the UK paid some payments it could set the financial and political gains from other elements of the negotiations. Obviously the EU have thought of a figure and doubled it a couple of times. I'm sure David Davis has a level of ransom he would sanction, probably miles away from the EU's ridiculously high figure. Why should a present Tory government be saddled with the consequences of a previous desperate Labour government who made a complete cock up of estimating migrant numbers.
Wrong, the money being lent is from member countries, including the UK. The UK provides 16% of the capital of the EIB. It is a net contributor, it puts up 16% and only 8% of the assets have been invested back into the UK. In 2015 accounts total capital held was 21.7Bn euros plus 41.6bn of profits. Uk's share worth 10.2bn. The EU needs this working capital, I'm sure DD will use this as part of the negotiations.
Nope. What you conveniently failed to explain is the UK has put into the EIB twice what it has been lent for projects. The UK is entitled to its fair share of the considerable profits that have been built up over the years. Just like the funds we send to the EU the likelihood is we will actually have a greater lending facility after Brexit because we will not be contributing capital for the EIB to dish out.
Why do you refer to it as ransom SH. ? If Scotland were to leave the UK. then you would be the first to demand that they settle their financial obligations first - together with being held liable for their share in UK. national debt. If Scotland were to simply say 'we're off' without any negotiations whatsoever then would you be ok. with this ? You would also be irritated if Scotland presumed it could open trade deals outside of the UK. before it had settled on a plan for settling its existing obligations as part of the UK. I think you would be even further irritated if Scotland were to further say 'either play ball with us or we will turn ourselves into a tax haven on your doorstep'.
You have chosen the Financial Times 'guess' as they are part of a anti- brexit campaign.The Lord's select committee obviously had access to greater amount of information.
I have no problem with the UK paying anything that is justifiable. As frenchie's earlier faulty 'project fear' attempt showed there is a UK share of EU assets to be fairly offset against genuine financial commitments.
The FT only allows a very limited access without paying. Type the title in and you should have access to the article. Here is another based on the same information. The UK's stake in the European Investment Bank - Full Fact
Having SH on 'Ignore', I'm not sure what this argument is about - but will point out that Scotland has no financial obligations to the UK, nor are they liable for a share of the national debt. The SG have to 'balance the books' against the Block Grant annually and have done so every year since 2007, unlike the previous Labour Administration. Under the Barnett formula, the Block Grant received is adjusted to take into account any borrowings made by Westminster 'on behalf of Scotland' - borrowings which, it has to be said, rarely match what is actually spent on Scotland. In the lead up to the 2014 Referendum, Westminster agreed that this was the case - and that all UK debts would remain the sole responsibility of rUK. At the time, the SG made it clear that they were willing to take over a percentage share of the debt based on population share - in light of what happened after, and is continuing to happen now, I couldn't imagine a repeat of that somewhat generous offer if the situation arises again.
The EIB is a non-profit bank set up with the purpose of providing funding to countries mainly for infrastructure projects. It has shareholders with France, Germany, Italy and the UK holding the greatest percentage at 16.1% each while the remaining members of the EU have lesser stakes, but all have some. As it doesn't make a profit, just retains funds for distribution on new projects, it doesn't have funds to pay out dividends to countries. This is a quite common arrangement with things like credit unions. The figures I quoted of borrowings by UK organizations, which you didn't deny, far exceed our £3.3 bn shareholding and even if you take the UKIP figure of £9 bn as something we could try and claim, we would still be owing them ten of billions. How you can claim that we have have put in twice as much as we have been lent just doesn't stand up to any examination.
Simple maths say otherwise, we put in 16% of the total contributions but only receive 8% of the investment. This is a political idea mainly to help those less well off members of the EU. After Brexit the UK will then have twice the investment available when it is not subsidising other countries. In addition the loans will be cheaper when the EIB are not adding their mark up in interest rates. Your project fear analysis of the situation was totally inaccurate, you obviously had not understood the workings before you made your negative predictions.
We put in £3.3 bn our 16% and have taken out loans in excess of £45 bn. After Brexit we will still be paying off those loans for up to 30 years. What makes you think we are increasing our shareholding? It is not required. The money we are putting in is to pay off the money we have borrowed.
Post-Brexit Britain and the European Investment Bank (EIB) | Global ... The EIB is a commercial outfit, 10% of their business is outside of the EU. Any loans made to organisations in the UK are under normal business rules, these should not be affected by Brexit. I do not know if individual government members underwrite loans within their own areas. You are however again failing to understand the workings. There is about 250 billion euros of subscribed EIB capital, only 21 billion is paid in. The rest is callable, meaning it would only be paid in if necessary. The UK has been committed to being a major contributor at 16%, it only receives 8% of the investment in projects. Post Brexit it would be more efficient and cheaper for the UK when investment came directly from a UK investment bank backed by the UK government.
You have finally agreed that additional money would only be paid in if necessary. There is no indication anywhere that this has been required.
This has never been the issue. You tried to assert that funding for UK projects would dry up after Brexit. This is totally inaccurate, I have explain how inefficient the present system is through the EIB for potential UK projects and how the simple maths shows how the investment stream will improve and be cheaper post Brexit.
Judging by some of the comments seen this morning, many people are getting into a bit of a state now it appears that there will be no border controls for EU citizens entering the UK. It also appears that the controls on people living or working in the UK will mirror those that currently exist in the EU. I had to register the fact that I lived here at the Town Hall, and had a visit from the police who checked me out. Having done that, it cost nothing, I then started to receive bills for council tax, received a voting card, joined the health system and with the aid of a passport was able to open bank accounts. Simple checks to prove who I am and where I live. If only the UK had followed a similar system they might have a clue just who lives legally in the country.
