Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[talahtnut]

5 hours ago, tebee said:

Brexit is enough to make you kill yourself....

 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-suicide-warning-if-exit-turns-chaotic-rjlhwb2n0

 

Please accept my apology tebee if I offended you,

but I dont like to see the extension of the establishment,

'bog roll' Times republished as an argument for remain,

because its misleading.

[malagateddy]

Brexit is enough to make you kill yourself....
 
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-suicide-warning-if-exit-turns-chaotic-rjlhwb2n0
 

Quick Tebee..hit the three 9's and tell the call-taker your suicidal feelings.
The white coats should be on standby in your part of France[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sandyf]

On 12/17/2018 at 10:18 AM, My Thai Life said:

The statistics I quoted are from the UK Office of National Statistics, which reports that exports in the last year to non-EU countries were £342 billion while exports to EU countries were £274 billion.

 

A second referendum is a travesty of democracy. Even May knows that: "New EU referendum would break faith with Britons, May to warn MPs" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46586673

 

 

Historical good news is exactly that, historical, very little bearing on the future, as any punter will tell you.

 

Do you really think that the British public would lose faith in the medical profession if their doctor asked for a second opinion.

[sandyf]

On 12/17/2018 at 10:30 PM, bristolboy said:

I'm not sure what being a WTO member means in this case. On the one hand, the UK is submitting a schedule for its services that duplicate the rules of the EU. But on the other hand, if another WTO member objects, then acceptance of this schedule can be put on hold. So clearly there is a difference in status between the kind of membership the UK has and the membership of other WTO members.

Yes the UK applied in July to adopt the EU WTO schedule and as yet no decision has been made. The UK can trade on this schedule without it being ratified, it would then be a question of who would want to trade on an unratified schedule.

Submitting another schedule at this stage is not really an option as there is a 3 month wait for members to raise objections and another schedule could open an even bigger can of worms.

[sandyf]

On 12/17/2018 at 1:11 PM, dick dasterdly said:

Compromise is entirely different from capitulation!

 

Compromise (IMO) is agreeing to pay a reasonable sum of money for a good trade deal - not paying 39bn for the privilege of not leaving, and no trade deal!

You seem to be unaware that the financial settlement is a fundamental factor of the withdrawal agreement and trade is not part of the withdrawal agreement. As much as brexiteers would like it, bartering with the two is just not an option.

 

The financial settlement is detailed in Part 5 of the following document with outstanding commitments covered in Article 140.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759019/25_November_Agreement_on_the_withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_European_Union_and_the_European_Atomic_Energy_Community.pdf

[HAKAPALITA]

The Allies n Churchill saved Europe, now they treat em like Crap.Im so happy Norway elders still doest trust the rest of Europe very much. Brits should never have joined imo. 

[Jip99]

2 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

The Allies n Churchill saved Europe, now they treat em like Crap.Im so happy Norway elders still doest trust the rest of Europe very much. Brits should never have joined imo. 

 

 

It sounded a good idea when it was a European Economic Community.

 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

The Allies n Churchill saved Europe

And what does that have to do with the EU and Brexit? 

[melvinmelvin]

44 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Yes the UK applied in July to adopt the EU WTO schedule and as yet no decision has been made. The UK can trade on this schedule without it being ratified, it would then be a question of who would want to trade on an unratified schedule.

Submitting another schedule at this stage is not really an option as there is a 3 month wait for members to raise objections and another schedule could open an even bigger can of worms.

 

I thought UK submitted schedule material to WTO this autumn?

If not a complete schedule so at least updates.

 

Anyway,

now there are a number of objections re UK on the table, Russia, USA, New Zealand, Australia ++ +

 

Not sure what Russia wants, maybe just revenge for BoJo's nerve gas accusations.

The others above probably want to squeeze UK re imports in the agricultural sector,

lousy US chickens

more sheep import etc now that UK no longer will buy on the EU quota.

 

What kind of status do objections to an unapproved schedule put that schedule in?

 

[dick dasterdly]

23 hours ago, Grouse said:

Well it's a little difficult n'est-ce pas?

 

There aren't any Brexiter experts.

 

When it comes to brexit, there are no 'experts' as it's the first of it's kind (as far as I know).

 

There is however, one hell of a lot of biased propaganda - as per your link - 'Three blokes in a pub'.....

 

As pointed out by Talahtnut, they are NOT 'three blokes in a pub' - they are "3 anti-brexiters having a jolly at someone else's expense.   Paid so called 'experts'."

 

It's pretty depressing when people resort to pretending they're 'just' 3 ordinary 'blokes' in a pub discussing brexit - when it's so clear that they're actually paid anti-brexiteers pretending to be something else.....

[melvinmelvin]

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

When it comes to brexit, there are no 'experts' as it's the first of it's kind (as far as I know).

 

There is however, one hell of a lot of biased propaganda - as per your link - 'Three blokes in a pub'.....

 

As pointed out by Talahtnut, they are NOT 'three blokes in a pub' - they are "3 anti-brexiters having a jolly at someone else's expense.   Paid so called 'experts'."

 

It's pretty depressing when people resort to pretending they're 'just' 3 ordinary 'blokes' in a pub discussing brexit - when it's so clear that they're actually paid anti-brexiteers pretending to be something else.....

 

not quite the first,

 

years and years ago Greenland had a referendum, following which they exited.

(wanted very different management of fisheries)

 

--

 

paid experts? pexperts

or salaried experts, sexperts

 

the etymological effects of Brexit

 

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

You seem to be unaware that the financial settlement is a fundamental factor of the withdrawal agreement and trade is not part of the withdrawal agreement. As much as brexiteers would like it, bartering with the two is just not an option.

 

The financial settlement is detailed in Part 5 of the following document with outstanding commitments covered in Article 140.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759019/25_November_Agreement_on_the_withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_European_Union_and_the_European_Atomic_Energy_Community.pdf

I can only genuinely apologise as I can't be bothered to trawl through your link.

 

Being a more common sense type of person, I can understand why the uk should contribute until the end of the current budget period, as they agreed to the expenditure within that budget period.

 

I can see no reason at all for a 39bn payment on top.

[Basil B]

New 50p coin for Brexit

[Henryford]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

Historical good news is exactly that, historical, very little bearing on the future, as any punter will tell you.

 

Do you really think that the British public would lose faith in the medical profession if their doctor asked for a second opinion. 

The Remoaners are crazy to ask for a second referendum. Their logic is that the British people were too stupid to understand between stay or go but think they can understand the complexity of a 600 page Withdrawal Agreement and make an "informed' choice.

[dick dasterdly]

42 minutes ago, Henryford said:

The Remoaners are crazy to ask for a second referendum. Their logic is that the British people were too stupid to understand between stay or go but think they can understand the complexity of a 600 page Withdrawal Agreement and make an "informed' choice.

Quite.

 

Funnily enough we rely on the media to provide us with the salient points, and even the media and politicians agree that May and the eu's deal is nothing other than leave in name only!

[rixalex]

The Remoaners are crazy to ask for a second referendum. Their logic is that the British people were too stupid to understand between stay or go but think they can understand the complexity of a 600 page Withdrawal Agreement and make an "informed' choice.

Also, it's only the withdrawal agreement. It doesn't specify what the agreement will be once we have left. So if there was another referendum, and people voted for May's deal, remainers will just argue that people only knew what the withdrawal agreement was, not what would come after, and they'll probably also question who bothered to read all 500 plus pages and question who was bright enough to understand it. We'll therefore be told we need another referendum.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

I thought UK submitted schedule material to WTO this autumn?

If not a complete schedule so at least updates.

 

The application was made on July 24th.

On 24 July, WTO members received the United Kingdom’s draft schedule setting out its WTO market access commitments for goods once the UK leaves the European Union. Members will now have a three-month period to review the schedule that has been put forward for certification.

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news18_e/mark_24jul18_e.htm

 

The 3 month period would have been up the last week in October but as I said previously they can still proceed during the negotiations to get ratification.

 

“When he gave evidence to my committee in July, Dr Fox assured me that this was all going fine. But his plan is now in tatters after the UK’s proposed WTO goods schedules faced formal objections from some 20 countries, including the US, China, Australia and New Zealand. ”
https://www.ft.com/content/5336653a-d93b-11e8-ab8e-6be0dcf18713

 

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I can only genuinely apologise as I can't be bothered to trawl through your link.

 

Being a more common sense type of person, I can understand why the uk should contribute until the end of the current budget period, as they agreed to the expenditure within that budget period.

 

I can see no reason at all for a 39bn payment on top.

The devil is in the detail, and the detail is in the document.

There is no "39bn payment" as such, that figure is an estimate on the total of the various liabilities less the refunds due.

[dick dasterdly]

22 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Also, it's only the withdrawal agreement. It doesn't specify what the agreement will be once we have left. So if there was another referendum, and people voted for May's deal, remainers will just argue that people only knew what the withdrawal agreement was, not what would come after, and they'll probably also question who bothered to read all 500 plus pages and question who was bright enough to understand it. We'll therefore be told we need another referendum.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Nah, it's leave in name only.  Remainers will be reasonably happy with this, although obviously not the cost and loss of any vote within the eu - despite still paying....

 

Edit - Even leavers recognise May's 'deal' as leave in name only.

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

The devil is in the detail, and the detail is in the document.

There is no "39bn payment" as such, that figure is an estimate on the total of the various liabilities less the refunds due.

Presumably you've read the 600 page uk govt. document?

 

In which case, would you mind quoting the relevant part stating this for us more lazy posters?

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I can only genuinely apologise as I can't be bothered to trawl through your link.

 

Being a more common sense type of person, I can understand why the uk should contribute until the end of the current budget period, as they agreed to the expenditure within that budget period.

 

I can see no reason at all for a 39bn payment on top.

This is an easier document to read, I did post it before and had a job finding it again.

 

How much will the UK pay?

The objective of the negotiations was to settle all obligations that will exist on the date of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Therefore, the agreement is not about the amount of the UK's financial obligation, but about the methodology for calculating it.

Both sides agreed on an objective methodology which allows honouring all joint commitments vis-à-vis the Union budget (2014-2020), including outstanding commitments at the end of 2020 ("Reste à liquider") and liabilities which are not matched by assets.

The UK will also continue to guarantee the loans made by the Union before its withdrawal and will receive back its share of any unused guarantees and subsequent recoveries following the triggering of the guarantees for such loans.

In addition, the UK agreed to honour all outstanding commitments of the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey. The UK will remain party to the European Development Fund and will continue to contribute to the payments necessary to honour all commitments related to the current 11^th EDF as well as the previous Funds. 

The UK's paid-in capital in the European Central Bank will be reimbursed to the Bank of England and the UK will cease to be a member of the ECB. In relation to the European Investment Bank, the UK paid-in capital will be reimbursed between 2019 and 2030 in annual instalments but will be replaced by a (additional) callable guarantee. The UK will maintain a guarantee of the stock of outstanding EIB's operations from the date of withdrawal until the end of their amortisation.

The UK will also maintain the EIB privileges and immunities (protocol 5 and 7 of the Treaty) for the stock of operations existing at the date of withdrawal. 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-6422_en.htm

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

This is an easier document to read, I did post it before and had a job finding it again.

 

How much will the UK pay?

The objective of the negotiations was to settle all obligations that will exist on the date of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Therefore, the agreement is not about the amount of the UK's financial obligation, but about the methodology for calculating it.

Both sides agreed on an objective methodology which allows honouring all joint commitments vis-à-vis the Union budget (2014-2020), including outstanding commitments at the end of 2020 ("Reste à liquider") and liabilities which are not matched by assets.

The UK will also continue to guarantee the loans made by the Union before its withdrawal and will receive back its share of any unused guarantees and subsequent recoveries following the triggering of the guarantees for such loans.

In addition, the UK agreed to honour all outstanding commitments of the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey. The UK will remain party to the European Development Fund and will continue to contribute to the payments necessary to honour all commitments related to the current 11^th EDF as well as the previous Funds. 

The UK's paid-in capital in the European Central Bank will be reimbursed to the Bank of England and the UK will cease to be a member of the ECB. In relation to the European Investment Bank, the UK paid-in capital will be reimbursed between 2019 and 2030 in annual instalments but will be replaced by a (additional) callable guarantee. The UK will maintain a guarantee of the stock of outstanding EIB's operations from the date of withdrawal until the end of their amortisation.

The UK will also maintain the EIB privileges and immunities (protocol 5 and 7 of the Treaty) for the stock of operations existing at the date of withdrawal. 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-6422_en.htm

Thank you.

 

As the document points out:-

 

"Therefore, the agreement is not about the amount of the UK's financial obligation, but about the methodology for calculating it."

 

In other words - "the agreement is not about the amount of the UK's financial obligation".....

 

Once again, says it all.....  Yet again (heavy sigh) May has agreed to the eu's agenda....

[My Thai Life]

duplicate

[My Thai Life]

duplicate

[My Thai Life]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

You seem to be unaware that the financial settlement is a fundamental factor of the withdrawal agreement and trade is not part of the withdrawal agreement. As much as brexiteers would like it, bartering with the two is just not an option.

You've made some good contributions in the last few days. I haven't been following the divorce payment issue in detail, but I do remember that the House of Lords opined that the payment wouldn't be necessary in the event of no ageement being reached. That was ealy 2017 I think.

 

And today or yesterday Raab suggested that the divorce payment should be used instead for tax breaks for British companies to offset the punitive Brexit that Macron and Selmayr have advocated.

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, Basil B said:

New 50p coin for Brexit

 

circulation to commence on April fools day, Brexit + 2

 

[nontabury]

Just now, melvinmelvin said:

 

circulation to commence on April fools day, Brexit + 2

 

 I beleive you are from Norway,so perhaps you would like to comment on this———-

 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, melvinmelvin said:

 

circulation to commence on April fools day, Brexit + 2

 

Always good to hear from someone that has no argument, so relies on 'funny' and photo-chopped pictures....

[rixalex]

Nah, it's leave in name only.  Remainers will be reasonably happy with this, although obviously not the cost and loss of any vote within the eu - despite still paying....
 
Edit - Even leavers recognise May's 'deal' as leave in name only.

That wasn't quite my point.

Whether or not remainers are happy with May's deal, the point is that if the binary vote in 2016 could be successfully argued as being too complex and that the people didn't really know what they were voting for, this proposed second referendum will be open to the same criticism, for anyone so inclined.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[My Thai Life]

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

Historical good news is exactly that, historical, very little bearing on the future, as any punter will tell you.

Obviously. But the statistics I referred to show that pre referendum BoE forecasts were wrong. So there is no need to take the BoE's current forecasts too seriously.

 

You seem to be informed enough to understand that the OP relates to a worst case scenario, not a forecast, but it's clear from the history of the thread that many of your fellow remainers do not.