Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[sun_tzu]

So far as the bulk of any bill goes, the figure must be fairly well fixed and a readily quantifiable amount. Consequently, the sudden doubling of the number just comes across looking daft. More-so when you consider that May had opened the door to future ongoing contributions (though diminished) during her fist major speech.

And thats the difficult part...

I mean how do you value the assets? - take property for example the UK could say its worth X and the EU will say but it would take years to find a buyer so its value for a fire sale is Y and thats the value we are going to use if you want to treat it as an asset that can be bartered

Will the UK fix a price in Euros - Will the EU fix a price in £ ... do we do what a lot of international agreements do and fix in a third traditionally stable currency (e.g. yen) - and is it apyment up front or payment over a number of years - if so is there flexibility on over / underpayments - what about interest rates - etc etc etc... I dont think you can just fix a number I honestly dont - It took us a year to agree a pricing schedule in yen for three years payment schedule for asset financing aprox quarter of a billion euros of infrastructure with one government - let alone 27 when they are looking to offset assets - and the Uk rebate etc etc... fecking complex proposition they face and thats even before a trade deal... Joining the EEA as a transition agreement whilst its all figured out is the logical one but politically Im not sure there is the will on either side

 

[devilish]

Which court, if the ECJ no longer has any over the UK why would the UK abide by any decision it makes? Why would the UK pay anything without an incentive?

Do you think its wise for global Britain to treat its former allies and trade partners that way? The message send on the global fora would be that global Britain is fickle and will show the middle finger to any trade deal signed whenever it feels like. Considering its small market and the effort needed to sign a trade deal then most countries would just opt to stay away from such fickle trade partner.

 

[Kentonio]

Consequently, the sudden doubling of the number just comes across looking daft.

You mean the figure that no-one has actually provided at any point, and that is purely just speculation on the part of the press and pundits?

 

[PedroMendez]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/15/jp-morgan-landmark-office-dublin-brexit

JP Morgan appears to make good on Brexit threat with new Dublin office

 

[sun_tzu]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/15/jp-morgan-landmark-office-dublin-brexit

inevitable... wont matter for EU based banks but all the USA, Japanese etc will need some european expansion for passporting etc and none of them are going to hand about 2 years on the off chance a financial services deal is secured.

Dublins a fairly logical place as well I suppose - relatively easy to relocate staff (and families etc) due to speaking English and fairly close to London - wouldnt be surprised to see a few more follow them there.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You mean the figure that no-one has actually provided at any point, and that is purely just speculation on the part of the press and pundits?

Somebody did provide the figure, the Tories

 

[Javi]

I read other estimates that the City is about to lose 20'000-25'000 jobs from a total of 700'000. They will take a hit but it doesn't look like their rank in the worlds biggest financial districts is threatened. Standard Chartered for example are relocating 20 jobs to Frankfurt (they have 1'700 in London). With JP Morgan it looks like 700-800 (makes sense to have room to grow in the new builduing) from 11'000.

 

[Full bodied red]

Do you think its wise for global Britain to treat its former allies and trade partners that way? The message send on the global fora would be that global Britain is fickle and will show the middle finger to any trade deal signed whenever it feels like. Considering its small market and the effort needed to sign a trade deal then most countries would just opt to stay away from such fickle trade partner.

A Trade Deal is a Trade Deal....

Membership of the EU is / was just ever so slightly more than just a Trade Deal....

And most of those potential new Trade Partners know exactly what the EU can be like and are unlikely to ever consider the UK to be a fickle partner.

 

[devilish]

A Trade Deal is a Trade Deal....

Membership of the EU is / was just ever so slightly more than just a Trade Deal....

And most of those potential new Trade Partners know exactly what the EU can be like and are unlikely to ever consider the UK to be a fickle partner.

A trade deal is a lengthy process which is often negotiated by big teams of highly paid people. It has an impact on several industries each different in shape and style but need consistency to operate efficiently. Would anyone be willing to seal a deal like that with a unreliable player? Trump thought of doing the same with NAFTA and guess what? He backtracked furiously. We're talking about the US here a financial and military superpower with an enormous market of its own. The UK isn't even remotely near to the US.

The EU is a tough player. However its way less tough than other market leaders of its size/magnitude. China, the US and India are way more conservative in terms of trade deals then the EU is. None of them will ever agree to an unrestricted access to their market especially the US whose lead by the most protectionist president in the past half a century.

I am confident that the UK will be able to sign a number of trade deals. However I doubt that these trade deals can ever compensate to the one it will lose with the EU.

 

[PedroMendez]

I read other estimates that the City is about to lose 20'000-25'000 jobs from a total of 700'000. They will take a hit but it doesn't look like their rank in the worlds biggest financial districts is threatened. Standard Chartered for example are relocating 20 jobs to Frankfurt (they have 1'700 in London). With JP Morgan it looks like 700-800 (makes sense to have room to grow in the new builduing) from 11'000.

that is probably more or less true. Somewhere between 20k-80k people might get relocated.

here is a decent look at the issue: https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb17-9.pdf

 

[devilish]

I read other estimates that the City is about to lose 20'000-25'000 jobs from a total of 700'000. They will take a hit but it doesn't look like their rank in the worlds biggest financial districts is threatened. Standard Chartered for example are relocating 20 jobs to Frankfurt (they have 1'700 in London). With JP Morgan it looks like 700-800 (makes sense to have room to grow in the new builduing) from 11'000.

It would be unwise to move all operations at once. This hemorriage will take years if not decades.

 

[Javi]

It would be unwise to move all operations at once. This hemorriage will take years if not decades.

I haven't read anything of the sort of what you're suggesting. But I'm lacking the legal framework knowledge of the financial sector in the EU. Maybe @PedroMendez can help out also.

So I'm guessing the EU have completely aligned regulations for all their members and have also eliminated all barriers between members to make business. This then resulted in banks being able to manage office operations from one place, mostly London. Now the UK will again have barriers and possibly different regulation - although they could just copy the EU's, don't know. Could said banks now, in order to keep their EU business running, just relocate minor staff to an EU country (Ireland and Germany are apparently top of the list) to do some minor thing and then somehow "shift" the services inside the company to that EU country and from there to the entire EU? TIA.

 

[PedroMendez]

I haven't read anything of the sort of what you're suggesting. But I'm lacking the legal framework knowledge of the financial sector in the EU. Maybe @PedroMendez can help out also.

So I'm guessing the EU have completely aligned regulations for all their members and have also eliminated all barriers between members to make business. This then resulted in banks being able to manage office operations from one place, mostly London. Now the UK will again have barriers and possibly different regulation - although they could just copy the EU's, don't know. Could said banks now, in order to keep their EU business running, just relocate minor staff to an EU country (Ireland and Germany are apparently top of the list) to do some minor thing and then somehow "shift" the services inside the company to that EU country and from there to the entire EU? TIA.

As long as the UK accepts the same regulation, they’ll also get access to the single market via equivalence assessment. So one day one after leaving, they could still get the same access as long as London is not changing any laws/regulations. The whole process that can grant access via equivalence assessment isn’t really created to deal with the EU-UK situation, because this situation too complex and would be inherently unstable. Financial regulations are constantly evolving and the UK won’t just copy EU laws/regulations. So without additional agreement, they’ll lose access.
Losing access means, that UK companies need to found subsidiaries in the EU, that follows all the EU laws. These subsidiaries have to be legally, financially and organisationally separated from their parent company. It is not possible to just create them „on paper“. Yet what's often overlooked is, that different financial sectors have very different requirements/needs when it comes to accessing the single market. Retail/business banking, trading, wealth management, investment banking, insurance/re-insurance, asset management, market infrastructure (e.g. clearing; broker; securities) all have to follow different rules and regulations. Some of them won’t be affected by Brexit at all while some sectors might be hit quite hard. Yet it is possible, that both sides agree on a deal, that allows only one of these sub-sectors to access the single market. That could make a major difference.
For example: UK Investment banking relies heavily on access to the single market, while insurance/re-insurance companies are already using subsidiaries in most countries (don’t ask why that is; the single market is not perfect). The gist is, that this is not a „access vs. no-access“ situation. Details in each sub-sector will determine the future of the industry in London. Yet even if everything goes wrong, London will continue to be the capital of financial services.

 

[Abizzz]

And thats the difficult part...

I mean how do you value the assets? - take property for example the UK could say its worth X and the EU will say but it would take years to find a buyer so its value for a fire sale is Y and thats the value we are going to use if you want to treat it as an asset that can be bartered

This is a complete non-starter, and only mentioned in brexit newspapers or by Boris repeatedly.

The UK chose to leave the European Union, not sell it's share of it back to the rest of the Union. Nobody has any interest in buying the UK's share and the UK does not own "1/28th" of the EU assets. The EU as entity will continue to exists and as such keep its assets.

 

[sun_tzu]

This is a complete non-starter, and only mentioned in brexit newspapers or by Boris repeatedly.

The UK chose to leave the European Union, not sell it's share of it back to the rest of the Union. Nobody has any interest in buying the UK's share and the UK does not own "1/28th" of the EU assets. The EU as entity will continue to exists and as such keep its assets.

given the financial contributions I think the argument would be that we "own" a lot more than 1/28th... as I say its a very difficult negotiation and certainly things like cash reserves, property and other assets are not something it is likley we will just waiver going into a negotiation... especially if the other party is plucking numbers like 100bn out as a starting point.

as to the ownership of those assets... well I guess that is something that could potentially end up in the european courts... and wouldn't that be ironic if they ruled in the uk's favour

that said there is certainly not time in the process for lengthy legal cases so one would hope that some heads can be banged together and talks begin properly but i have some considerable doubts myself that we will see any quick progress.

 

[Abizzz]

The UK agreed to the last EU Long Term Budget - which expires in 2020, and nothing after 2020.

On that basis, the UK has to pay until 2020, which is for the two years they will still remain in the EU, plus an additional year at around €12 billion.

Anything more than that is just EU blackmail which the UK should rightly laugh at.

There's a lot more than the 2020 budget to consider.

For example: The European Medicines Agency is located in London. It is located in London because prior UK governments made a bid for it to be there (it made lots of sense while the UK is part of the EU), undoubtedly on the basis of the UK being a EU member. It was located there with EU funds and contributions by EU member states. It will now need to be relocated at a huge expense. Why should I, or any other European pay for this relocation? How can a Referendum in another country (In which I have had no say) decide over my taxes? Why should the EU agree to anything other than the government responsible for it's location and relocation paying for it?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, once we turn on brexit/Telegraph type populism we'll find a million and 1 good reasons for the UK to pay a lot more than their contributions until 2020. The UK isn't the only country with a tabloid press or easily irritable right...

 

[Abizzz]

given the financial contributions I think the argument would be that we "own" a lot more than 1/28th... as I say its a very difficult negotiation and certainly things like cash reserves, property and other assets are not something it is likley we will just waiver going into a negotiation... especially if the other party is plucking numbers like 100bn out as a starting point.

I honestly think the UK has run away with this thought of owning a part of something and now giving it back... that isn't the sentiment here. Whatever your 1/28th is (ok lets make it 4/28ths for arguments sake), we don't want it. The UK can have 4/28ths of any European building they like for all I care for. Or sell their 4/28ths ownership of the physical property to the Chinese or Japanese, let us see how they value it... There only being 1 realistic, yet reluctanct "buyer" doesn't exactly make it a sellers market...

I wasn't around at the time, but did the UK pay a one off huge lump sum when it entered the common market? There had been European institutions prior to it's membership, when did that "buy in" happen?

as to the ownership of those assets... well I guess that is something that could potentially end up in the european courts... and wouldn't that be ironic if they ruled in the uk's favour

Would be ironic, but also hugely surprising.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

I dont know about that... I mean if we are expecting our share of the assets (which i assume we are) then its fair about the liabilities being shared as well
Of courese a number of these assets (property etc) are not exactly liquid so there needs be a lot of "horse trading" and offsetting etc... whilst you dont make a payment until deals are in place I think its reasonable to at least agree what liabilities / assets and how they are valued etc will form part of that pre trade deal agreement

From the EU standpoint I'd probably do the same and start with a high figure knowing its going to be chipped down... Id actually probably take a different course to the UK government though and Id come out and formally grant EU citizen rights (subject to reciprocal arrangement) and I'd also formally publish something with the liabilities we accept and the offest we expect in assets rather than the continual leaking... would probably put the EU on the back foot and also give cause to claim that we are trying to push the basis of an agreement forwards... at the very least when the EU rejects the UK financial assessment they will probably be forced to reveal the make up of their assessment thus the "horse trading" rather than posturing can begin.[/QUOTE]

This is true but seemingly the assets are significantly less than the liabilities, ie what we were due to pay nevermind the £100billion exit clause. Germany are arguing whether we're due a share of the assets. That alongside a larger exit payment than we signed up for currently and no parallel trade talks is leading to the notion that the EU will punnish us to stop others leaving rather than we both get a mutually beneficial deal in place.

It all comes back to there being no incentive to offer an exit payment without trade guarantees.

 

[Full bodied red]

There's a lot more than the 2020 budget to consider.

For example: The European Medicines Agency is located in London. It is located in London because prior UK governments made a bid for it to be there (it made lots of sense while the UK is part of the EU), undoubtedly on the basis of the UK being a EU member. It was located there with EU funds and contributions by EU member states. It will now need to be relocated at a huge expense. Why should I, or any other European pay for this relocation? How can a Referendum in another country (In which I have had no say) decide over my taxes? Why should the EU agree to anything other than the government responsible for it's location and relocation paying for it?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, once we turn on brexit/Telegraph type populism we'll find a million and 1 good reasons for the UK to pay a lot more than their contributions until 2020. The UK isn't the only country with a tabloid press or easily irritable right...

So it'll cost how much to relocate the European Medicines Agency ? Anything even approaching €10 million, €50 million ( millions, that is...Not billions ) ?

Your other point, however, is an absolute classic and about 15 million UK citizens agreed with you last June....

Why should they pay to build motorways in, say, Portugal or Latvia. How can any Government decisions in Portugal or Latvia ( in which they have had no say in electing those Governments ) require them to have to contribute to building those motorways ?

Don't believe me ?

Cigarettes in the UK, about € 9.50 per packet, of which about €6.00 is tax, some of which is spent to help build / maintain the UK's motorways.

Cigarettes in Portugal, about €4.80 per packet, of which about € € 2.00 is tax. Now if the Portuguese Government collected taxes of € 6.00 per packet instead of €2.00, they could finance the construction of Portuguese Motorways for Portuguese motorists instead of UK Taxpayers contributing to the construction of Portuguese Motorways which they are unlikely to use themselves.

So why should UK Taxpayers continue to agree to anything other than the Portuguese Government being solely responsible for building and paying for the Portuguese Motorways.

Another reason why so many in the UK said, quite simply, enough's enough with EU Ponzi schemes.

 

[Abizzz]

So it'll cost how much to relocate the European Medicines Agency ? Anything even approaching €10 million, €50 million ( millions, that is...Not billions ) ?

Your other point, however, is an absolute classic and about 15 million UK citizens agreed with you last June....

Why should they pay to build motorways in, say, Portugal or Latvia. How can any Government decisions in Portugal or Latvia ( in which they have had no say in electing those Governments ) require them to have to contribute to building those motorways ?

Don't believe me ?

Cigarettes in the UK, about € 9.50 per packet, of which about €6.00 is tax, some of which is spent to help build / maintain the UK's motorways.

Cigarettes in Portugal, about €4.80 per packet, of which about € € 2.00 is tax. Now if the Portuguese Government collected taxes of € 6.00 per packet instead of €2.00, they could finance the construction of Portuguese Motorways for Portuguese motorists instead of UK Taxpayers contributing to the construction of Portuguese Motorways which they are unlikely to use themselves.

So why should UK Taxpayers continue to agree to anything other than the Portuguese Government being solely responsible for building and paying for the Portuguese Motorways.

Another reason why so many in the UK said, quite simply, enough's enough with EU Ponzi schemes.

Money is redistributed within the EU so less affluent regions have a chance of making up lost ground (an incredibly difficult thing to do). Not every EU citizen agrees with that, but the vast majority do, and that is delivered via their government. That's why it is possible and being done.
Helping less well of regions within the EU isn't at all comparable to brexit. If it were as easy as you make it out to be, why not just reduce cigarettes taxes in the UK though?

The UK Taxpayer (or 52% of those) has decided it doesn't want to be part of it anymore... and accordingly is now leaving. So whats your point? Where is my option to leave your leaving? You're leaving, at least pay for you're way out (after decades of 60% rent because of previous a tantrum).

 

[Full bodied red]

Your comment about the Robin Hood style EU finances is understood and, believe it or not, I agree with some of its better intentions to help the less well off members. But if they are are going to need this help for the rest of their lives, why were they allowed to join in the first place ? As Americans often say - If you want to play in the big leagues, you have to have what it takes.

And I think the UK has no objection to and has already agreed to pay anything which it is legally required to pay. I fully agree that the UK must pay its contributions through to 2019 and for the final year of the 2013 - 2020 Budget which the UK agreed to, plus any other non-budgeted extras.

But what most people in the UK are now asking is -

1 - When did the UK agree to the 2020 - 2027 EU Finance Budget. To the best of my knowledge, the EU doesn't yet have one, let alone one agreed by the UK, so for the EU to demand money from the UK for its ' future commitments and obligations' is bollocks if the EU itself doesn't yet know how much and for what it's going to be handing out cash between 2020 and 2027.

2 - The UK are scratching their collective head and pouring over the zillions of EU regulations for Membership, but still nobody has been able to find the rule that says EU members have to pay to leave the EU.

Until the EU stops the blackmail, there'll be absolutely no progress on a Trade Deal, and millions of EU citizens who rely on the UK market for their own and their companies' exports will feel as much social and economic pain from a no deal BREXIT as will the UK's citizens and businesses - and all because the EU Politburo are putting their own political dogma before the social and economic welfare of its remaining members.

 

[x42bn6]

Your comment about the Robin Hood style EU finances is understood and, believe it or not, I agree with some of its better intentions to help the less well off members. But if they are are going to need this help for the rest of their lives, why were they allowed to join in the first place ? As Americans often say - If you want to play in the big leagues, you have to have what it takes.

And I think the UK has no objection to and has already agreed to pay anything which it is legally required to pay. I fully agree that the UK must pay its contributions through to 2019 and for the final year of the 2013 - 2020 Budget which the UK agreed to, plus any other non-budgeted extras.

But what most people in the UK are now asking is -

1 - When did the UK agree to the 2020 - 2027 EU Finance Budget. To the best of my knowledge, the EU doesn't yet have one, let alone one agreed by the UK, so for the EU to demand money from the UK for its ' future commitments and obligations' is bollocks if the EU itself doesn't yet know how much and for what it's going to be handing out cash between 2020 and 2027.

It doesn't have to be the budget. Pensions, for example, were agreed years ago and pensions are naturally forward-looking.

2 - The UK are scratching their collective head and pouring over the zillions of EU regulations for Membership, but still nobody has been able to find the rule that says EU members have to pay to leave the EU.

Until the EU stops the blackmail, there'll be absolutely no progress on a Trade Deal, and millions of EU citizens who rely on the UK market for their own and their companies' exports will feel as much social and economic pain from a no deal BREXIT as will the UK's citizens and businesses - and all because the EU Politburo are putting their own political dogma before the social and economic welfare of its remaining members.

Ah, now you're into geopolitics...

True, the EU loses out from hard Brexit, but the proportional impact is significantly less, because the EU is so much larger. As an analogy, if Italy embargoed San Marino, Italy would naturally be hurt, but San Marino would be crippled because it's smaller. This is why the EU has a stronger hand to begin with and that is why "the UK will pay something" is the de facto starting point.

Think about it - one of the arguments Leave made was that short-term pain for long-term gain was good for the UK. Well, why can't the EU make the exact same argument - short-term pain for long-term gain?

And to call it blackmail is just ludicrous. Another argument made was that the UK could stand strong on its own two feet, but calling the first sign of a threat "blackmail"? It's not blackmail - it's geopolitics, and Brexit Britain is going to have to master that again, hopefully in the next two years.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

There's a lot more than the 2020 budget to consider.

For example: The European Medicines Agency is located in London. It is located in London because prior UK governments made a bid for it to be there (it made lots of sense while the UK is part of the EU), undoubtedly on the basis of the UK being a EU member. It was located there with EU funds and contributions by EU member states. It will now need to be relocated at a huge expense. Why should I, or any other European pay for this relocation? How can a Referendum in another country (In which I have had no say) decide over my taxes? Why should the EU agree to anything other than the government responsible for it's location and relocation paying for it?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, once we turn on brexit/Telegraph type populism we'll find a million and 1 good reasons for the UK to pay a lot more than their contributions until 2020. The UK isn't the only country with a tabloid press or easily irritable right...

Or you could just leave it where it is given that expense but that is the EU's choice isn't it as I doubt the UK will be demanding it closes.

 

[Abizzz]

Or you could just leave it where it is given that expense but that is the EU's choice isn't it as I doubt the UK will be demanding it closes.

Now you're just openly wumming, aren't you?

Typical brexiteers response to a serious problem... deny it.

 

[foolsgold]

Now you're just openly wumming, aren't you?

Typical brexiteers response to a serious problem... deny it.

No one disputes it's not a serious problem, it's simply not the UKs problem anymore after March 2019.

Leave it or move it, it's the EUs decision and cost. The legal position is clear.

 

[foolsgold]

given the financial contributions I think the argument would be that we "own" a lot more than 1/28th... as I say its a very difficult negotiation and certainly things like cash reserves, property and other assets are not something it is likley we will just waiver going into a negotiation... especially if the other party is plucking numbers like 100bn out as a starting point.

as to the ownership of those assets... well I guess that is something that could potentially end up in the european courts... and wouldn't that be ironic if they ruled in the uk's favour

that said there is certainly not time in the process for lengthy legal cases so one would hope that some heads can be banged together and talks begin properly but i have some considerable doubts myself that we will see any quick progress.

The legal position is clear, the EU is not a partnership like a marriage where the assets belong jointly to the member states, it's an association like a golf club, the assets and debt belong entirely to it.

When you divorce a partnership is dissolved and the assets split, however if you resign membership of a golf club you don't own part of the clubhouse nor are you under any obligation to pay them any more fees.

Brexit is legally like the second case. The EU retains all assets and debt, there is no UK obligation to anything, no legal basis for a brexit bill of any type.

 

[Abizzz]

No one disputes it's not a serious problem, it's simply not the UKs problem anymore after March 2019.

Leave it or move it, it's the EUs decision and cost. The legal position is clear.

So you're comfortable with the UK's future commitments being viewed as being untrustworthy, at best?
The UK government had a huge role in lobbying for it to be located where it is, on the basis of it's EU membership. It's the UK government that is solely responsible for the need to move it now. Any problem of this nature will naturally be made the UK's problem if there is to be a future relationship with the EU.

 

[foolsgold]

So you're comfortable with the UK's future commitments being viewed as being untrustworthy, at best?
The UK government had a huge role in lobbying for it to be located where it is, on the basis of it's EU membership. It's the UK government that is solely responsible for the need to move it now. Any problem of this nature will naturally be made the UK's problem if there is to be a future relationship with the EU.

So, straight to the extortion, nice.

 

[Abizzz]

So, straight to the extortion, nice.

We're back at "The EU defending it's interests is extortion", are we?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Now you're just openly wumming, aren't you?

Typical brexiteers response to a serious problem... deny it.

You've yet to come anywhere near justifying an additional 50bn in monies owed, yourself. A one-off payment of 100bn let alone half that much, will be a No Deal moment so far as London is concerned. Instead of possibly maintaining a continuing contribution of 2-3bn per annum, Europe falls into the category of hostile.

But why is there any haste in moving the facility? If it had to be near MEPs or commissioners it already would be. Geographically speaking, the UK isn't so very different from a half dozen places lobbying as host.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You've yet to come anywhere near justifying an additional 50bn in monies owed, yourself. A one-off payment of 100bn let alone half that much, will be a No Deal moment so far as London is concerned. Instead of possibly maintaining a continuing contribution of 2-3bn per annum, Europe falls into the category of hostile.

But why is there any haste in moving the facility? If it had to be near MEPs or commissioners it already would be. Geographically speaking, the UK isn't so very different from a half dozen places lobbying as host.

1. The EMA is for EU member states (UK will no longer be one in two years time and they decided to leave and were not pushed out)

2. The £100bn is a Tory invention to make people believe the EU is hostile, until a bill is decided and negotiated there is no set figure.

3. The UK won't will be fooled again

 

[Abizzz]

You've yet to come anywhere near justifying an additional 50bn in monies owed, yourself. A one-off payment of 100bn let alone half that much, will be a No Deal moment so far as London is concerned. Instead of possibly maintaining a continuing contribution of 2-3bn per annum, Europe falls into the category of hostile.

But why is there any haste in moving the facility? If it had to be near MEPs or commissioners it already would be. Geographically speaking, the UK isn't so very different from a half dozen places lobbying as host.

Where did I claim to justify the numbers currently being circulated by brexiteers (After all that's who's throwing the 100bn etc. around, the Mail, Telegraph and their likes). Please reread the thread, if you're not inclined to do that, let me sum up:
- @Full bodied red wrote the UK's commitment is limited to the current fiscal plan until 2020.
- I wrote that there's more to consider than that, as an example EMA.
- Then we go on trying to settle who's problem it is.

-You appear and ask me to justify the 100bn. A figure I have rejected 1 page back.

 

[Chorley1974]

I'm not sure. I heard the ex Finnish Prime Minister on Radio 4 this morning. He seemed unperturbed and said that negotiations will be difficult and with further flare ups.

There is a lot of grandstanding and hysteria but I still think a deal is likely to be done. I would say that the chance of a hard Brexit has gone higher though.

G20, G7 will apply pressure to sort it the feck out, there will be a deal, much to the disappointment of some or even many of the pricks on here.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

1. The EMA is for EU member states (UK will no longer be one in two years time and they decided to leave and were not pushed out)

2. The £100bn is a Tory invention to make people believe the EU is hostile, until a bill is decided and negotiated there is no set figure.

3. The UK won't will be fooled again

1. How is it prevented from conducting these operations, even in the light of Brexit? I would further point out that science is one area in particular where close cooperation will remain.

2. It isn't actually, despite your having said so countless times now. Its origins do not reside with either the government or the Telegraph, but rather a pro-Brussels source.

3. Like had we voted to remain, you mean, and ignoring four decades of evidence regarding the EU's reformability.

 

[Chorley1974]

Whats starting to annoy me is this dithering regarding EU Citizens in the UK and UK Citizens in Europe, living in Germany I do not have a clue what is going to happen. As far as I am concerned those who have work, own houses etc. and pay into the system regardless of here in Europe or back in the UK should not have to worry about what is going to happen. I could go and get German Nationality in a worse case scenario but why should I, despite living in Germany this year for 30 years including time still in the army I am British and wish to stay British.

Not sure why the insecurity, countries are not just going to wholesale kick folks out.

 

[Rams]

The legal position is clear, the EU is not a partnership like a marriage where the assets belong jointly to the member states, it's an association like a golf club, the assets and debt belong entirely to it.

When you divorce a partnership is dissolved and the assets split, however if you resign membership of a golf club you don't own part of the clubhouse nor are you under any obligation to pay them any more fees.

Brexit is legally like the second case. The EU retains all assets and debt, there is no UK obligation to anything, no legal basis for a brexit bill of any type.

What about the pensions of EU workers that UK nationals & residents for example? Or does that not count?! So much ignorance..

 

[Chorley1974]

What about the pensions of EU workers that UK nationals & residents for example? Or does that not count?! So much ignorance..

Ignorance is the issue, but it's all a bargaining chip at the moment, and all parts in motion at the moment.

 

[Rams]

1. How is it prevented from conducting these operations, even in the light of Brexit? I would further point out that science is one area in particular where close cooperation will remain.

2. It isn't actually, despite your having said so countless times now. Its origins do not reside with either the government or the Telegraph, but rather a pro-Brussels source.

3. Like had we voted to remain, you mean, and ignoring four decades of evidence regarding the EU's reformability.

1. The scientific community is probably the biggest opponent of Brexit.

2. So you agree, we don't know what the Brexit bill is. The rest is speculation.

3. Again, speculation. Of the biased sort in this case.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

1. How is it prevented from conducting these operations, even in the light of Brexit? I would further point out that science is one area in particular where close cooperation will remain.

2. It isn't actually, despite your having said so countless times now. Its origins do not reside with either the government or the Telegraph, but rather a pro-Brussels source.

3. Like had we voted to remain, you mean, and ignoring four decades of evidence regarding the EU's reformability.

Why would an EU body be based in a non-EU country, any objection to the Bank of England moving to Paris?

TheEU have said that the figure could be anywhere between £20+ bn and £100bn , wonder which figure was chosen

The last part is not worth discussing yet again but should become evident in due course

 

[foolsgold]

What about the pensions of EU workers that UK nationals & residents for example? Or does that not count?! So much ignorance..

These people were EU employees, their contract with the EU. Brexit doesn't change that at all. The EU as their employer would still have the legal commitment.

They were never employed by the UK. What's the complexity?