Brexit consequences

[Spinflight]

Can't find the old one, despite a search. Hence a year on...

I started it to compare the doom and gloom predictions from people who should know better, especially the treasury, to actual observable facts.

Thus far the treasury predicted our borrowing costs would soar by over 130 points. In fact they're down about 100.

No trade deals possible before (I forget the date they said, was far in the future though) compared to actual negotiations beginning with the USA later this month with the president firmly behind them. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, South Korea and several others I've forgotten have shown a great desire for a deal quickly.

Ftse 100 and 250 are well up, just shy of 7500.

Best of all from a macro economic perspective is inflation touching 3%. When you are £1800 billion in debt rating that away with inflation is far preferable to actually paying it off.

Growth has dropped a bit, though nowhere near the instant recession that was predicted. Bit early to say though this is likely due to the referendum.

External investment is actually nicely up, with several major companies announcing various large commitments.

Things could be rosier, though it would be a struggle to describe them generally as bad, quite contrary to 'informed' opinions. Even the oecd recently ate their pre referendum words.

If no UK to EU future liabilities... urh what do we OWE. for WHAT?
(we have agreed to pay in principle), tell us what we owe so we can say how much we think belongs to the UK.
Has not been presented from a city of EU bureaucrats, They have never shown a bill, and yet the accounts are all OK according to the EU.
, why not, Paperwork, how when we have no paperwork can we work out answers to their amounts.
if they said THEY were ready to negotiate, negotiate what, oh that would be the sky high amounts pulled out of thin air.
and are clearly in a much better position to know the liabilities of 27 other member states than we are. So what do we owe and how much?

mummy2017 why don't you read the EU position paper that I linked to above?

It's so much easier to make a coherent point if you have at least a small clue about what you are talking about. But this requires you to take the time to read something that wasn't written by a tabloid journalist.

There are no figures attached to this document.
It says it does not include any Assets help by the EU.
It agrees that money in the EU banks should be of set against this amount.
This is a very simple paper.
So according to this ALL countries have a share of the debts, so that would also include those that have joined or may join, even if they were not ones who agreed when these funding obligations were laid out, as in joining they are agreeing to be part of a group who have pre decided obligations.
Also since it only says upto 2020 does that not mean there must be adjustments in the EU to cover the fact as of that date we are on longer members so the Trust need to reset their fiances to reflect this, which would then reduce the obligations of all countries including the other EU member states?

The EU lend money to members so in lending this money is returned, this means we may be asked to cover the debt, but as you say several have repaid early, so this means the debt is a fluctuating thing.
Why should we have to pay towards obligations for EU items that we are now being told we will no longer have access to, lots on the list will now be EU Agency only, surely we were paying to use these each year, and since we will no longer be in the EU why should we be made to pay for these, i.e why should we be paying to train their police force when you can be sure they won't want to pay for ours.

There are no figures attached to this document.

Well, no. That's my point. Any figures you have seen come from journalists or think tanks - not from the EU.

You claim that the EU has presented "a bill". By definition, a bill will have numbers on it. Can you show me evidence of this bill?

I did say the Bill was for a Blank Cheque.
how can we pay when we don't know what the bill is for.

And yes I did read the LIST you gave me a link to, but you need figures to work out how much of it your expected to pay, so are we paying on the size of each country, the amount of people in each country, the length of membership or does everyone have 1/28th of the bill?

How can a "Bill" be for a "Blank Cheque"? (As an aside, I note that the Brexit crowd is inexplicably adopting German capitalisation practices. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I guess).

The EU has put forward their thoughts on how the bill should be negotiated. The UK negotiating team is supposed to put forward their thoughts (they might get round to it eventually); discussions then occur, common ground is reached on some points, remaining issues are subject to back and forth negotiations.

If you're complaining that the UK's negotiating hand is poor ... well, you'd be right. We've been telling you that for months.

So Mistigri which way are we to decide how are far share is worked.
So are we paying on the size of each country, area,
the amount of people in each country,
the length of membership
or does everyone have 1/28th of the bill?

How it will be worked out is the whole point of the negotiations surely? Each side makes proposals about how the financial settlement might be worked out, together they examine which points they have agreement on and which need to be negotiated further. That's just how negotiations work.

But both sides have to make concrete proposals and so far - on this issue - only one side has done so.

The EU issued its position papers ages ago. It's the UK side that has been holding things up.

Thanks too to Mistigri for patient and intelligent argument. You and Math have the patience of saints.

Mistigri - you must be a bureaucrat, as you are so full of it.

And its exactly this type of Brussels bullsquirt by them and their apologists, why the UK is best OUT of the EU, as what an expensive waste of time when e-v-e-r-y single EU decision needs at least 27 ‘dance cards’ – as no one there can make a decision without first dancing around each other, before reaching a consensus.

The UK has said it will meet its FULL EU liabilities (minus assets?), how can any divorce ‘liabilities’ be put forward and then BE CALLED “concrete”, without a figure, it’s a nonsence.

The EU in the insistence of order of negotiations schedule, its unreasonable opening demands, and post Brexit hostile declarations i.e. ‘frictionless trade not possible’ and what not to expect once the UK is OUT of their club – must know what we actually owe, but those members in Brussels apparently NOT looking for Euro 100 billion, and yet DID ask their own EU lawyers where they legally stood – yet clearly expect a UK divorce bill PREMIUM, to get feck all back from them.

Isn’t that ‘the cake and eat it’ they accuse the off????

“€100bn Brexit bill is ‘legally impossible’ to enforce, European Commission’s own lawyers admit”

“The Telegraph has seen minutes of internal deliberations circulated by Brussels’s own Brexit negotiating team, which had warned against pursuing the UK for extra payments.”

“But member states appear to have ignored the Commission's own advice by demanding €100bn (£85bn) from the Government, a sharp hike in the original demand of €60bn.”

So much for “only Brussels correspondents”, or do they INSTRUCT EU lawyers what to look into?

If I was you I’d concentrate more on YOUR facts, rather than MY English, as its clear that the EU, in their own estimations, will have around a Euro 20 billion annual SHORTFALL after we leave – with no pleasant way to make that difference up – so are trying to knob us, over and above, what we OWE, so far offering nothing back.

The UK obviously cannot ‘negotiate’ the divorce bil premium they are CLEARLY after, if the EU refuses to talk about Trade at the same time, which funny old world, is what the UK said at the beginning.

P.S. I think we may have an EU 'groupie',

I am pretty sure when I READ the document you pointed me towards it only showed the liabilities and said the bank account balance would be taken off.
As said there are other assets.
and for a 3rd time how much of a share of the liabilities are we taking.
A 28th could be seen to be fair, as there are 28 in the club.
Going by the number of people in the EU
Working out how many are UK that could work... 743: 66 an 11th.
Area of EU to UK 10.18 : 0.2425 oh a 42ndth not good for the EU.
Not even going to do the length on membership on.. too many numbers.
But I do hope you see my point, that we are not going to just split it equally, and do you really thing that the number cruncher's on both sides aren't doing this...

you must be a bureaucrat

Just a humble private sector economist ;)

mummy2017 no idea what any of that meant, but I find it odd to get your knickers in such a twist about a financial settlement that hasn't even been negotiated yet.

"but they will also not be committing to spend in areas of deprivation as they currently do that are in the UK."

So its the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels that may never have set foot in Britain that only knows how to spend our EU contribution money best, whereas the UK government of any colour, is unable to do that? Got it.

As for the EU divorce bill, its like going into a local Barclays Bank and asking them what the total liabilities for the whole group is, when only the Barclays Head Office Treasury would have that figure.

The UK is one of 28 satellites, if the small army of Brussels bureaucrats don't have a running total of all current and future 'promises' (and assets of the EU), who the feck does.

Maybe they lost the figures, moving their offices every month from Brussels for a week in Strasbourg, and they'll turn up on a train soon.

Mistigri

"Just a humble private sector economist ;)"

Apart from the fact there is no such thing (as a humble economist), that explains a lot.

And I know from experience, having spent a lot of time with, listening to, and reading their stuff.

As someone once said;

"If you put 10 economists in a room, you'll get 11 different opinions"

What with Bathildabigshot#1 warning me on another thread something along the lines of 'don't mess with me on economics, I have the economics brain the size of a planet' - I should feel 'outgunned, but I'll soldier on.

Sorry Misti just home from work,
It is a load of ways of sharing the costs.
Either by the number of people in the room,
How big each persons house is in area... square feet,
How many live in the house.
Or how long you have live in the the house.
I am just a humble leaver, and if I can work that out in about 3 mins, do you really think it hasn't been done in the back rooms of whitehall.
The EU have said what the cost is of liabilities the EU have but not what share.
This was in answer to someone else about the Bill.

A benefit of leaving the EU is that food is 20% more expensive in the EU.
Once out of the EU should we need to buy goods that there is a world surplus of we will be able to buy this and so have lower costs in the UK.
Also should one of out Industries be in trouble we would be able to lend them money and help them. which is not allowed while a member .

"Also should one of out Industries be in trouble we would be able to lend them money and help them. which is not allowed while a member"

Its not allowed under the WTO dearie.

"Once out of the EU should we need to buy goods that there is a world surplus of we will be able to buy this and so have lower costs in the UK"

Only if we abolish tariffs here too, which means that our farmers who can't compete with Ukranian wheat etc, will fail. The IEA even said it today, abolishing tariffs puts 8% of UK jobs under threat. Essentially saying goodbye to our mass manufacturing and almost all of our argicultural industries.

Poor attempts to use economics again, do try harder.

"Don't mess with me on economics, I have the economics brain the size of a planet"

I didn't actually say that, but yes your economics is very poor.

But have you not in the forum constantly told me we don't grown enough to feed ourselves, so we will need food imports, and there will be things we can buy, legally that is cheaper than the EU. Less cost equals lower food prices.

We don't, we import a lot of our food, but to reduce tariffs to the world for food which is what is mooted, our farmers could not compete on price.

The IEA report, which I imagine you are trying to paraphrase here, acknowledges that.