Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Goldhawk-Road]

The £39bn is not significant at all. It's payable over 60 years according to our esteemed Chancellor.

Only a very small part relating to pensions goes that long. Wiki:

In March 2018, the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) published the UK's economic and fiscal outlook including details of the financial settlement which it estimated at £37.1 billion (€41.4 billion).[27][28] The estimated settlement was made up of:

• £16.4bn (€18.5bn) towards the UK’s contribution to the EU budget to 2020 (after offsetting for the UK rebate);
• £18.2bn (€20.2bn) towards outstanding commitments for projects that have been signed off but not yet paid for by 2020 (The Reste à Liquider ("RAL") from successive Multiannual Financial Frameworks) to be paid up to 2028; and
• £2.5bn (€2.7bn) for other financial liabilities, being an estimate for pension liabilities of €9.5bn offset by other assets totalling €6.8bn.[28] The payments towards the pension liabilities are estimated to be made until 2064.[28]

 

[bobmid]

No one wants it per se. They'd take it though, to break the log jam. The fact is that the best way of getting an acceptable deal (which means limiting the Irish backstop) is to go seriously for a no deal. The EU won't let that happen - their economies would be rocked and they need that $39bn

I didnt think you could limit the Irish backstop. Personally , anything that will make this country poorer or potentially worse off is lunacy. Who in their right mind would choose to do that? It genuinely confuses me.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

I didnt think you could limit the Irish backstop. Personally , anything that will make this country poorer or potentially worse off is lunacy. Who in their right mind would choose to do that? It genuinely confuses me.

The argument of Brexiteers is the "poorer" bit is transitional. And thereafter, the UK and City of London would be highly profitable. This is what the EU is so afraid of. Remember, the EU wants to expand East into poor countries. EU monies will be poured into those countries, funded indirectly by the wealthier members.

 

[sb_73]

See, there's where we disagree. It is not impossible for the UK, the fifth biggest economy in the world, to be independent.

It's hard to make the break, sure, like it's hard to get clean of heroin, but it will be done.

We are now behind France and India, 7th biggest economy.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-gdp/

 

[bobmid]

The argument of Brexiteers is the "poorer" bit is transitional. And thereafter, the UK and City of London would be highly profitable. This is what the EU is so afraid of. Remember, the EU wants to expand East into poor countries. EU monies will be poured into those countries, funded indirectly by the wealthier members.

50 years or so? Damn we dont want any involvement in helping poorer countries. That's ridiculous. They should stay poor similar to the poor in our country!

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

We are now behind France and India, 7th biggest economy.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-gdp/

Won't lose sleep over it. India is of course a massive economy with a huge population and meagre GDP per capita. UK's slip below France is explained by the weakness of the pound caused by transitional problems over Brexit according to The Times.

 

[Willhoops]

And that is a 50 odd years, ....maybe. Not sure anyone would deal with the UK if it flips the bird to the EU about the 39 bill obligations signed up for.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

50 years or so? Damn we dont want any involvement in helping poorer countries. That's ridiculous. They should stay poor similar to the poor in our country!

We can give overseas aid. The question is whether you want the Brussels bureaucrats to spend the UK's money or the UK parliament. You may say it makes no difference to you - fair enough - to some it does

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

50 years or so? Damn we dont want any involvement in helping poorer countries. That's ridiculous. They should stay poor similar to the poor in our country!

In the event of a no deal, there would have to be an international arbitration to determine amounts owed. The delay is what the EU wants to avoid

 

[Staines R's]

We can give overseas aid. The question is whether you want the Brussels bureaucrats to spend the UK's money or the UK parliament. You may say it makes no difference to you - fair enough - to some it does

Not forgetting the pigs at the EU trough have to also spend money on their needs, wages and pensions....can’t have them suffering can we.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Not forgetting the pigs at the EU trough have to also spend money on their needs, wages and pensions....can’t have them suffering can we.

Quite right. Someone has to pay for their fine wine cellars and exorbitant monthly expense claims

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

I'm constantly amazed at how far and how often people overstate the importance of the £39bn 'stick' that we hold. It's a nice card to have, sure, but in context, it's a relatively small amount. It's for a two-year period, and so is c.£20bn each year. The EU's annual budget is approx £150bn per annum, so we are talking roughly 13% of a budget for a fixed two year period. A challenge to go without? Yes. A huge challenge? Not really.

Let's put those figures in context. The UK's public sector net borrowing is c.£45bn per year. At the peak of the financial crisis, this was c.£150bn and it was deemed acceptable and necessary to borrow that amount for a short period of time (it quickly fell). I need to spend more time looking into the rules and regulations around whether there is anything prohibiting the EU from simply borrowing the £39bn over the next 5-year budget cycle, but as the EU budget is often in surplus, and unlike the UK doesn't have £1.78 trillion of net debt, I can't see why they would panic over the figure...

 

[DT’s Socks]

Yes, that's Rapists, Armed Robbers and an extreme religious group.

France may have it right on this one by banning the face mask

Exactly i believe if you visit a country then you respect the values . Time all religions accepted that... it’s getting nearly impossible to practice Voodoo in public places.

The U.K. has no right to quote it’s tolerance to the world when the entire place is in a mess We pretend we live in a place without prejudice but the reality is everyone has a Anglo Saxon chipset inside them that wobbles to a varying degree about groups of any sort of people ... we all do it

If it’s not Muslims then it’s Yogurt Knitters or Gyspies ... we put people into stereotypes and then enjoy moaning about .. it’s the English way.

I currently hate yoga types who seriously believe they are Buddhists .

Extinction Rebellion Hypocrisy is another
The world according to them is already destroyed
I have friends joining in on this now ... it’s just a growing trend on a very ****ed up island

Bollocks

 

[DT’s Socks]

We are now behind France and India, 7th biggest economy.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-gdp/

Said before that the U.K. will outside the top ten soon. When will people understand the U.K. is in decline ... everything I believe is related to that fact and people are just coming to terms with that ... that’s where the root of all the anger is

Say again a average street anyway in England couldn’t put a cake sale on without some argument or conflict

 

[DT’s Socks]

I'm constantly amazed at how far and how often people overstate the importance of the £39bn 'stick' that we hold. It's a nice card to have, sure, but in context, it's a relatively small amount. It's for a two-year period, and so is c.£20bn each year. The EU's annual budget is approx £150bn per annum, so we are talking roughly 13% of a budget for a fixed two year period. A challenge to go without? Yes. A huge challenge? Not really.

Let's put those figures in context. The UK's public sector net borrowing is c.£45bn per year. At the peak of the financial crisis, this was c.£150bn and it was deemed acceptable and necessary to borrow that amount for a short period of time (it quickly fell). I need to spend more time looking into the rules and regulations around whether there is anything prohibiting the EU from simply borrowing the £39bn over the next 5-year budget cycle, but as the EU budget is often in surplus, and unlike the UK doesn't have £1.78 trillion of net debt, I can't see why they would panic over the figure...

39bn is nowt to the EU they are ready and willing to just get rid of us. Then we shall see exactly how great Boris and Farage really are

Fur coat no knickers

The globals hold the power

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

I'm constantly amazed at how far and how often people overstate the importance of the £39bn 'stick' that we hold. It's a nice card to have, sure, but in context, it's a relatively small amount. It's for a two-year period, and so is c.£20bn each year. The EU's annual budget is approx £150bn per annum, so we are talking roughly 13% of a budget for a fixed two year period. A challenge to go without? Yes. A huge challenge? Not really.

Let's put those figures in context. The UK's public sector net borrowing is c.£45bn per year. At the peak of the financial crisis, this was c.£150bn and it was deemed acceptable and necessary to borrow that amount for a short period of time (it quickly fell). I need to spend more time looking into the rules and regulations around whether there is anything prohibiting the EU from simply borrowing the £39bn over the next 5-year budget cycle, but as the EU budget is often in surplus, and unlike the UK doesn't have £1.78 trillion of net debt, I can't see why they would panic over the figure...

Fair comment, but it seems to me that part of the value to the EU of insisting on the £39 bn payment before trade talks, is that the amount owed has been crystallized. Otherwise there are strong arguments for the UK saying that past monies have been spent on EU assets, buildings, equipment etc and the UK should be given credit for these. The £39 bn was agreed by May, predicated on a free trade deal. Without the deal, there's no incentive by the UK to agree sums owed and an international arbitration would be long and uncertain. I do not see the EU being relaxed about this.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Fair comment, but it seems to me that part of the value to the EU of insisting on the £39 bn payment before trade talks, is that the amount owed has been crystallized. Otherwise there are strong arguments for the UK saying that past monies have been spent on EU assets, buildings, equipment etc and the UK should be given credit for these. The £39 bn was agreed by May, predicated on a free trade deal. Without the deal, there's no incentive by the UK to agree sums owed and an international arbitration would be long and uncertain. I do not see the EU being relaxed about this.

Agree they won't be relaxed, they will try and get as much as they can. Who wouldn't in their shoes? And it is still a problem for them - 13% isn't "nowt" Monsiuer DT. They won't want to have to borrow it if they don't have to (or want to take a bit more from other members). I just equally don't think we should overestimate the strength of our hand, which isn't helpful for us going into negotiations again.

Edit - and the other point I mentions demands more investigation than I'm willing to do. The EU's own budget rules may not allow them to borrow and run a deficit etc. I can't be bothered to look that up, but it may explain it...

 

[Stroller]

I'm constantly amazed at how far and how often people overstate the importance of the £39bn 'stick' that we hold. It's a nice card to have, sure, but in context, it's a relatively small amount. It's for a two-year period, and so is c.£20bn each year. The EU's annual budget is approx £150bn per annum, so we are talking roughly 13% of a budget for a fixed two year period. A challenge to go without? Yes. A huge challenge? Not really.

Let's put those figures in context. The UK's public sector net borrowing is c.£45bn per year. At the peak of the financial crisis, this was c.£150bn and it was deemed acceptable and necessary to borrow that amount for a short period of time (it quickly fell). I need to spend more time looking into the rules and regulations around whether there is anything prohibiting the EU from simply borrowing the £39bn over the next 5-year budget cycle, but as the EU budget is often in surplus, and unlike the UK doesn't have £1.78 trillion of net debt, I can't see why they would panic over the figure...

According to the figures Goldie posted earlier (and if I read them correctly), the total settlement is £37.1bn, of which £16.4bn is over two years, £18.2bn is over 9 years, and £2.5bn is over 50 years. That works out at roughly £10bn for each of the first two years, then around £2bn per year for the next 7 years. So an even smaller percentage of our and their annual budgets than you have suggested.

I saw an interview with Hammond where he suggested that the whole amount was payable over 60 years, which, if correct, would make the sums wholly insignificant.

Johnson is being specious as ever with his claim that we would be 'writing a cheque' for the whole amount.

 

[sb_73]

Won't lose sleep over it. India is of course a massive economy with a huge population and meagre GDP per capita. UK's slip below France is explained by the weakness of the pound caused by transitional problems over Brexit according to The Times.

Just trying to make sure that claims are evidenced based.

I find it hard to express how little I care about economic league tables.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Just trying to make sure that claims are evidenced based.

I find it hard to express how little I care about economic league tables.

More or less than you care about whether we will finish 14th, 15th, 16th or 17th next year?