Brexit crisis: Commons leader quits, piling pressure on Britain's May

[geoffbezoz]

Just now, nauseus said:

Using the right number is absolutely relevant to calculating what the UK should pay the EU on Brexit. 

 

I challenged all of these numbers because I don't like falsification. I see the 6 has been changed to a 9 already. What else could be wrong, I wonder?

Brexiteers don't like quoting actual numbers, a bit like facts, destroys their arguments ????

[stephenterry]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Whether the posters numbers are wrong or right is pretty much irrelevant?

 

"The UK currently pays about £9 billion (net) to the EU for membership costs"

 

So why on earth would the uk pay 39bn for BRINO?

C'mon DD. Think about it.  May's deal for leaving the EU (and not paying the £9b membership cost) included a £39bn payment to cover existing committments that don't just fizzle out if Brexshit happens.

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

You look it up. It's the UK's GDP.

OK. But who benefits most from the 39b. I bet it's not the UK.

[evadgib]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So why on earth would the uk pay 39bn for BRINO?

When May goes the EU know that will too, along with her mickey mouse treaty ????

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Brexiteers don't like quoting actual numbers, a bit like facts, destroys their arguments ????

You got that the wrong way round. Catch up at your leisure.

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

OK. But who benefits most from the 39b. I bet it's not the UK.

Read my post number 32. IT'S TO PAY FOR EXISTING COMMITTMENTS.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/withdrawal-agreement-the-financial-settlement/

[nauseus]

Just now, stephenterry said:

Read my post number 32. IT'S TO PAY FOR EXISTING COMMITTMENTS.

Not my Q. After these so-called "negotiations", it's obvious that the EU will be sure to take the money for the benefit of themselves. There will be no benefit for the UK.

[stephenterry]

Just now, nauseus said:

Not my Q. After these so-called "negotiations", it's obvious that the EU will be sure to take the money for the benefit of themselves. There will be no benefit for the UK.

Read 36, before jumping into action.

.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

If it was that simple, Brexshit would have already happened. IMO, the only way out of the impasse is a GE. As for the financial aspect, the UK is committed to continue paying the EU for existing project agreements for the next few years, so your last sentence is clearly skewed and inaccurate.

 

Pity, really, because your posts normally contain informative opinion and are reasonable assumptions. In particular I agree that Leadsom - if she doesn't get the PM's job - will be rehired by a new leave PM.  

 

And if that happens, the two party polarisation would continue to wreck any government's attempt to reunite the UK. 

   

But it is that simple. The reason we didn't leave on March 29 on WTO terms was Theresa May. She's a duplicitous Remainer who wanted to tie us to the EU but couldn't get her surrender treaty through Parliament. So she extended the deadline (despite saying over 100 times we would leave on 29 March) so she could try again. 

 

A GE would solve the impasse for sure. A landslide win for the Brexit party and a WTO exit. All roads lead to WTO now as far as I can see, unless the EU cave on the backstop at the last minute but even then it might be too late.

 

We won't pay 39bn on WTO. There will be some outstanding bills to clean up for sure, but nowhere near 39bn. Single digit billions. The rest we can keep to smooth over transitional issues that will arise from a clean break.

[evadgib]

5 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Read my post number 32. IT'S TO PAY FOR EXISTING COMMITTMENTS.

My suspicion is that the EU dictated this figure very early in proceedings and that May rolled over and accepted it without or before knowing what UK can expect in return.

[Basil B]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Labour lawmaker Ian Lavery, chair of the opposition party, said the resignation underlined that "the prime minister's authority is shot and her time is up".

"For the sake of the country, Theresa May needs to go, and we need an immediate general election," he said.

Brainless Turkey, needs to see how the EU election pans out first, do not think Corbyn would be happy being invited to be a junior partner in a LibDem lead coalition...

[dick dasterdly]

31 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Whether the posters numbers are wrong or right is pretty much irrelevant?

 

"The UK currently pays about £9 billion (net) to the EU for membership costs"

 

So why on earth would the uk pay 39bn for BRINO?

 

20 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

C'mon DD. Think about it.  May's deal for leaving the EU (and not paying the £9b membership cost) included a £39bn payment to cover existing committments that don't just fizzle out if Brexshit happens.

So why do we not know these 'commitments' that equate to more than 4 years of membership costs?

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

OK. But who benefits most from the 39b. I bet it's not the UK.

Farage for starters, his pension etc.

 

 

[stephenterry]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

So why do we not know these 'commitments' that equate to more than 4 years of membership costs?

read post 36 link, and it will explain.

[dick dasterdly]

23 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Read my post number 32. IT'S TO PAY FOR EXISTING COMMITTMENTS.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/withdrawal-agreement-the-financial-settlement/

What a load of crap drawn up by 'our' remainer govt. and civil service....

 

I stopped reading after:-

 

"the UK’s withdrawal from the EU shouldn’t make any member states financially worse off;"

 

????.....

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

So why do we not know these 'commitments' that equate to more than 4 years of membership costs?

This has been explained multiple times here on TVF since this Brexit crock started.

 

In case you missed it, here’s a very good explanation:

 

https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorce-bill-explained-why-the-uk-needs-to-pay-the-eu-to-leave/

 

[edit] 

 

This particular paragraph answers your specific question:

 

“Britain signed up to the EU’s budget framework when it became a member; budgets are not calculated year by year. The EU budget is a “legal act” and is over a seven year span. The last one started in 2014 and it ends in 2020. So, when Britain leaves the EU—tentatively set for March, 2019—it will still be liable to pay its share for the remaining seven quarters—from April 2019 until the end of 2020.“

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This has been explained multiple times here on TVF since this Brexit crock started.

 

In case you missed it, here’s a very good explanation:

 

https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorce-bill-explained-why-the-uk-needs-to-pay-the-eu-to-leave/

qz.com?!?!?! ????

 

The international court of justice will decide, not qz.com. It won't be anywhere near 39 Billion.

[dick dasterdly]

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

OK. But who benefits most from the 39b. I bet it's not the UK.

 

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Farage for starters, his pension etc.

 

 

Please don't make yourself look even more silly.....

 

Or perhaps you really believe this???????

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

WTO doesn't include the 39 Billion for Sweet FA that May's surrender treaty does. Clear enough?

I never mentioned the term WTO. My question was whether you really believe that the EU won’t get the 39bn just because the deal fails. The outstanding contractual obligations will not just vanish. Apart from taking it to courts, the EU can just sit back and wait until you want to negotiate whatever you want from the EU. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

qz.com?!?!?! ????

 

The international court of justice will decide, not qz.com. It won't be anywhere near 39 Billion.

The question DD asked was for an explanation not some imagined future court ruling.

 

Do try to keep up.

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The international court of justice will decide, not qz.com. It won't be anywhere near 39 Billion.

“It won't be anywhere near 39 Billion” — didn’t you just say the court will decide?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Please don't make yourself look even more silly.....

 

Or perhaps you really believe this???????

Nauseous asked who benefits, I gave Farage as a ‘for a start’ example.

 

It is neither an exhaustive example, nor does it exclude others.

 

I hope this isn’t turning into a comprehension class for those who can’t keep up.

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This has been explained multiple times here on TVF since this Brexit crock started.

 

In case you missed it, here’s a very good explanation:

 

https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorce-bill-explained-why-the-uk-needs-to-pay-the-eu-to-leave/

 

[edit] 

 

This particular paragraph answers your specific question:

 

“Britain signed up to the EU’s budget framework when it became a member; budgets are not calculated year by year. The EU budget is a “legal act” and is over a seven year span. The last one started in 2014 and it ends in 2020. So, when Britain leaves the EU—tentatively set for March, 2019—it will still be liable to pay its share for the remaining seven quarters—from April 2019 until the end of 2020.“

Precisely - and I'm very glad that you've pointed this out.

 

The uk had to pay for their commitments until the end of the budget period - 2020.  And yet the 39bn equates to more than 4 years of payments!

[yogi100]

2 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

I am beginning to get the feeling that she has been on an anti-Brexit agenda since day ! ????

Is 'she' May or Leadsom.

 

Few Tories wanted to leave the EU so they selected a remainer to pretend to be taking us out thinking that Joe Public is as daft as they think he is.

 

Now they're paying the price if the polls are anything to go by.

[malagateddy]

Brainless Turkey, needs to see how the EU election pans out first, do not think Corbyn would be happy being invited to be a junior partner in a LibDem lead coalition...

Only in YOUR dreams

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

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nauseous asked who benefits, I gave Farage as a ‘for a start’ example.

 

It is neither an exhaustive example, nor does it exclude others.

 

I hope this isn’t turning into a comprehension class for those who can’t keep up.

And these type of exchanges are why so many are giving up on posting their opinion nowadays as so many posters prefer to rely on insulting others with a different opinion, rather than genuinely discussing the issue ☹️.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Precisely - and I'm very glad that you've pointed this out.

 

The uk had to pay for their commitments until the end of the budget period - 2020.  And yet the 39bn equates to more than 4 years of payments!

I suspect one or all of three reasons.

 

£9Billion x4 = £36Billion (Net) 

 

So £3Billion adrift.

 

Perhaps one or any combination of the following:

 

1. The budget runs to a little over 4 years.

2. Contributions grow over the life of the budget.

3. Other long term budget commitments that sit outside the 7 year budget [For example, but by no means only, Farage’s pension].

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And these type of exchanges are why so many are giving up on posting their opinion nowadays as so many posters prefer to rely on insulting others with a different opinion, rather than genuinely discussing the issue ☹️.

I suggest you read the post (your post) I was responding to and run it by your comment above.

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest you read the post (your post) I was responding to and run it by your comment above.

Sorry, but whoever posts their flag atop Mt Moral Highground first gets to claim it for all eternity.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suspect one or all of three reasons.

 

£9Billion x4 = £36Billion (Net) 

 

So £3Billion adrift.

 

Perhaps one or any combination of the following:

 

1. The budget runs to a little over 4 years.

2. Contributions grow over the life of the budget.

3. Other long term budget commitments that sit outside the 7 year budget [For example, but by no means only, Farage’s pension].

 

 

What a ridiculous argument!

 

You are quite right in pointing out that the eu budget period ends in 2020 - and you come up with this crap?!

 

I'd agree that the uk needs to pay until the end of the budget to which they'd agreed - but that ends in 2020 and 39bn to the eu is another 3 to 4 years of payments, without any explanation......