UK PM Johnson says 39 billion pound divorce bill not due in no-deal Brexit

[Nigel Garvie]

8 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Similarly, I have noticed that most Remainers have difficulty understand (and certainly avoid to mention) is that under WTO rules, any lower customs duty rates imposed on products traded between any two WTO trading partners and you WILL get that same low customs duty as well.

Please translate into coherent English.

[JonnyF]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

One thing I've noticed that many Brexiters have difficulty understand is that under WTO rules, any tariffs imposed by the UK on EU goods and services will have to be equally imposed on all other trading entities not covered by a bilateral or multilateral trade agreement.

Lucky we've started lining up trade agreements then.

 

 

Many more in the pipeline...

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Lucky we've started lining up trade agreements then.

 

 

Many more in the pipeline...

Good, so the Koreans get to export about 4.5 billion more than they import from the UK on favourable terms.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Lucky we've started lining up trade agreements then.

 

 

Many more in the pipeline...

Mostly with countries that have a very small amount of trade with UK. Remember how it was touted that Japan would sign an agreement with the UK? The 3rd biggest economy in the world. And now even the government is saying that an agreement won't be signed by the projected brexit date. Apparently, Japan is playing hard to get. Maybe because they see that the UK is bargaining from a weak position?

About 60% of world gdp is divided amongst the USA, China, the EU, and Japan.

 

[Forethat]

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Good, so the Koreans get to export about 4.5 billion more than they import from the UK on favourable terms.

Can we expect that number to grow if the Koreans get the opportunity to export cars to UK while the European options are subject to tariffs? That'll bring joy to the German and French manufacturers...

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

One thing I've noticed that many Brexiters have difficulty understand is that under WTO rules, any tariffs imposed by the UK on EU goods and services will have to be equally imposed on all other trading entities not covered by a bilateral or multilateral trade agreement.

And that is why a negotiated trade deal with the EU is so important - for both the UK and EU.

 

It doesn't benefit either 'side' to not have a trade agreement in place - which brings us back to why the UK should only pay it's legally enforceable monetary obligations to the EU, and save some of the remaining 30bn odd to use as a 'sweetener' for a quickly negotiated, good trade deal.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

And that is why a negotiated trade deal with the EU is so important - for both the UK and EU.

 

It doesn't benefit either 'side' to not have a trade agreement in place - which brings us back to why the UK should only pay it's legally enforceable monetary obligations to the EU, and save some of the remaining 30bn odd to use as a 'sweetener' for a quickly negotiated, good trade deal.

Possibly because, as basic arithmetic shows, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK?

What is so difficult about understanding that the UK exports a bigger percentage of its GDP to the EU than the EU does to the UK?

And what is so difficult about understanding the even greater importance of unrestricted supply chains?

And the even greater importance of full access to the EU of the UK's service industry, which is where the UK runs a surplus with the EU?

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Good, so the Koreans get to export about 4.5 billion more than they import from the UK on favourable terms.

Indeed, and we didn't even have to pay them ridiculous amounts of cash for the right to buy their stuff from them, funny that...

 

If the EU play their cards right, they could continue to export 69 Billion more than they import from the UK. But if they're expecting the UK to pay 39 Billion for the privilege of buying their stuff, well I think you know how that plays out.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Indeed, and we didn't even have to pay them ridiculous amounts of cash for the right to buy their stuff from them, funny that...

 

If the EU play their cards right, they could continue to export 69 Billion more than they import from the UK. But if they're expecting the UK to pay 39 Billion for the privilege of buying their stuff, well I think you know how that plays out.

They're also paying for the privilege of exporting tariff-free to the EU about £290 billion. That's about 46 percent of the UK's total exports. 

[dick dasterdly]

23 minutes ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

And that is why a negotiated trade deal with the EU is so important - for both the UK and EU.

 

It doesn't benefit either 'side' to not have a trade agreement in place - which brings us back to why the UK should only pay it's legally enforceable monetary obligations to the EU, and save some of the remaining 30bn odd to use as a 'sweetener' for a quickly negotiated, good trade deal.

 

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Possibly because, as basic arithmetic shows, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK?

What is so difficult about understanding that the UK exports a bigger percentage of its GDP to the EU than the EU does to the UK?

And what is so difficult about understanding the even greater importance of unrestricted supply chains?

And the even greater importance of full access to the EU of the UK's service industry, which is where the UK runs a surplus with the EU?

Why did you quote my post when you didn't answer any of the points raised?

 

Personally, I doubt that the UK needs the EU much more than vice-versa.  But of course the UK has been a major contributor to the EU budget, hence the EU's concentration on how many years' contribution it can force from the UK as part of any leaving package....

 

Which is understandable, but there is no reason for the UK to pay anything more than that legally enforceable - without a good trade deal.

 

And no, that shouldn't cost (approx.) 30bn!

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

And that is why a negotiated trade deal with the EU is so important - for both the UK and EU.

 

It doesn't benefit either 'side' to not have a trade agreement in place - which brings us back to why the UK should only pay it's legally enforceable monetary obligations to the EU, and save some of the remaining 30bn odd to use as a 'sweetener' for a quickly negotiated, good trade deal.

Yes it doesn't benefit either side. But the side it "doesn't benefit" more, so to speak, is the UK. And most of the Brexiters I see posting here are in denial about that.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

One thing I've noticed that many Brexiters have difficulty understand is that under WTO rules, any tariffs imposed by the UK on EU goods and services will have to be equally imposed on all other trading entities not covered by a bilateral or multilateral trade agreement.

That's the default - WTO rules - he didn't indicate that he didn't understand them w.r.t other countries.

[nauseus]

45 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Possibly because, as basic arithmetic shows, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK?

What is so difficult about understanding that the UK exports a bigger percentage of its GDP to the EU than the EU does to the UK?

And what is so difficult about understanding the even greater importance of unrestricted supply chains?

And the even greater importance of full access to the EU of the UK's service industry, which is where the UK runs a surplus with the EU?

Percentage yes, value no. With a sensible and fair arrangement this could all be overcome. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Percentage yes, value no. With a sensible and fair arrangement this could all be overcome. 

As far as respective damage goes, it's percentage that's salient.

[candide]

1 hour ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

And that is why a negotiated trade deal with the EU is so important - for both the UK and EU.

 

It doesn't benefit either 'side' to not have a trade agreement in place - which brings us back to why the UK should only pay it's legally enforceable monetary obligations to the EU, and save some of the remaining 30bn odd to use as a 'sweetener' for a quickly negotiated, good trade deal.

The bill is composed of three parts:

- the contribution to EU budget as a member until 2020

- payment for some agreed projects

- liabilities such as pensions.

 

So in case of no-deal the only part that can be saved is the net contribution for 2020

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

 

Why did you quote my post when you didn't answer any of the points raised?

 

Personally, I doubt that the UK needs the EU much more than vice-versa.  But of course the UK has been a major contributor to the EU budget, hence the EU's concentration on how many years' contribution it can force from the UK as part of any leaving package....

 

Which is understandable, but there is no reason for the UK to pay anything more than that legally enforceable - without a good trade deal.

 

And no, that shouldn't cost (approx.) 30bn!

 

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Yes it doesn't benefit either side. But the side it "doesn't benefit" more, so to speak, is the UK. And most of the Brexiters I see posting here are in denial about that.

I give up, as more than a few remainers are convinced that the EU doesn't have a problem if there is no trade deal with the UK.....

 

And, getting back on topic - similarly believe that the EU have no problem with losing the UK's contribution, and only receiving the (at best?) 10bn that is legally owed, rather than their "expected" 39 bn....

Edited August 27, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Percentage yes, value no. With a sensible and fair arrangement this could all be overcome. 

Well if you like percentages, it is worth noting that 53% of EU imports into the UK come from just 5 of 27 countries, which of course will hardest hit from a no deal in terms of new tariffs and/or loss of trade.

Edited August 27, 2019 by nauseus

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

As far as respective damage goes, it's percentage that's salient.

 

 

Like a 52/48 percentage - that's salient.

 

Respective damage is irrelevant,it's not a pi55ing contest. Both the EU and the UK will be affected by Brexit and, as <deleted> Dastardly has said, it is in the interests of both 'sides' (because that is what we have now become, and what the EU wanted) to agree mutually beneficial trading terms that seek to maintain - or increase - current trading levels. ... and, no, that does not mean that expect the UK to receive the same terms that were enjoyed during membership; but equally anything deemed harsh, or penal, will be met with counteraction and will help nobody.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

As far as respective damage goes, it's percentage that's salient.

You should work for the EU with an attitude like that. The belief that it's OK to cause yourself great damage as long as the other side hurts a little bit more that you do. The willingness to cut off your nose to spite your face.  

 

Acting like a woman scorned is not a very mature, pragmatic approach to trade, is it? The EU countries who will suffer the consequences of the vindictiveness of these EU bureaucrats will not be impressed. The fact that the UK also suffers will be no consolation to those countries. And you wonder why people want out of this 'club'?

[Forethat]

26 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Are these numbers that you come out of your hat?

Debt estimation is a matter of specialists working in teams, sector by sector.

They do not always agree. Many believe, for example, that the amounts due are higher. 39B is simply the compromise accepted by the EU teams Barnier and UK May.

Oh, believe me, the £39B will grow if the proposed agreement is approved and ratified. The proposed agreement is very clear on the terms - the EU will issue the UK with a new bill on March 31 each year. 

 

Given the devious, intransigent, inflexible and cunning EU, we can almost certainly expect to be handed a bill totalling at least twice the amount.

[Rookiescot]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I couldn't give a toss what the EU are "expecting". If the EU were expecting UK negotiators to turn up naked with a begging bowl and rainbow colored Father Christmas hats on, does that mean they should do it? 

Hold the front page. Brexiteer in I dont give a stuff rant.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

And 39 Billion for what exactly? A number plucked from the sky for SFA, but even if it was for a trade deal then are they really expecting us to pay for the honour of being able to purchase their goods? They have a 69 Billion trade surplus with us, so why are we paying for the trade deal? 

Why would the EU give the UK free access to its markets when everyone else in the EU has to pay for it. Oh yeah thats right its because the UK is special.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I'm happy to pay the 7 Billion or so that we actually owe for future projects when we leave with a clean Brexit, assuming they hand back a portion of the assets that we have paid for in the last 40 years. Then if they want a trade deal we can talk. If not, they'll have to accept that tariffs will be put on their goods and UK consumers will start buying from elsewhere. They should remember it's a lot easier to buy than to sell and we are the net buyer and they are the net seller. 

And tariffs will be placed on the goods we sell to them and those Europeans will start buying from elsewhere. It is easier to buy than sell. Who are we going to sell to?

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

If EU products rocket in price due to tariffs resulting from having no trade deal, British consumers will simply stop buying them, the EU have to remember they are not the only shop in the village. The British consumer will be buying Japanese/Korean cars, Australian/Chilean wine, South American beef etc. It won't be long before the big businesses in the EU are demanding they sort out a trade deal as Germany slips into recession and the European banks continue to falter.  

 The UK needs to remember its a small fish in a big pond. The British consumer can already buy Japanese/Korean cars, Australian/Chilean wine and south American beef. So whats the point of Brexit? If Brexit was a good idea then the pound would be soaring. Its not.

If you think Germany is going to suffer because of Brexit wait till reality hits home for the UK. Germany will still have a huge EU market for its tariff free goods.

The UK will be going door to door trying to offload copies of Encyclopedia Britannica. 

[sandyf]

On 8/26/2019 at 3:14 PM, Sticky Wicket said:

Nothing has been ratified so how can there be an obligation

Obligation as such lies with each individual agreement and not the withdrawal agreement.

In the absence of a withdrawal agreement, liability will have to be recalculated against revised debts and refunds.

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, vogie said:

If we leave with no-deal we owe the EU nothing, the payment was a good will gesture from ourselves, why should we pay to trade with the EU.

But I will readily look at any detailed accounts of how this sum was arrived at, to me it was a figure just plucked out of the air to placate our EU friends.

The brexit myth "plucked out of the air".

There was a detailed breakdown published at the time and I posted a copy. It was a bit complicated and was just dismissed out of hand. A simpler summary can be found on the government website.

 

What if there is no deal?

In the event of no deal, it is likely that politics and the appetite for an ongoing EU-UK relationship will largely dictate the extent to which the two parties honour the agreement reached over the financial commitments. Both sides recognise it likely that negotiations would take place aimed at reaching an alternative financial settlement.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8039#fullreport

 

For the full details you need to read document CBP-8039.pdf, BRIEFING PAPER Number 8039, 19 July 2019 , the no deal scenario is addressed in para 4.1.

 

"The UK Government recognises that it would have outstanding financial commitments to the EU if it were to leave without a deal and not honouring these could see the UK being regarded as an unreliable partner.42,43 Ministers have suggested that an alternative settlement would have to be negotiated, which might not necessarily follow the precise terms set out in the financial settlement.44"

[Jack100]

I said the same thing to my wife... before …..the divorce . !

[david555]

3 minutes ago, Jack100 said:

I said the same thing to my wife... before …..the divorce . !

And...?

[sawadee1947]

18 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Well that’s exactly what the tin pots in Brussels have been doing for the last 3 yrs. Thankfully it has’t worked, unlike their insistence that the I.R tow the line.

How stupid people can be!? 

EU is biggest trade partner for UK. You need a deal after BREXIT urgently. 

Do you really believe EU would sign anything if you would not pay your debts?

Only the dumbest on fool's day might believe this ????????????

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, sawadee1947 said:

How stupid people can be!? 

EU is biggest trade partner for UK. You need a deal after BREXIT urgently. 

Do you really believe EU would sign anything if you would not pay your debts?

Only the dumbest on fool's day might believe this ????????????

Excuse me!? You tend to believe that a continuation of the current free trade deal was included in the proposed agreement?

 

If the EU are so keen on striking a deal AND getting their hands on the £39B, why didn't they just add that clause to the proposed agreement, and we would all have been hunky dory? 

 

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

Oh, believe me, the £39B will grow if the proposed agreement is approved and ratified. The proposed agreement is very clear on the terms - the EU will issue the UK with a new bill on March 31 each year. 

 

Given the devious, intransigent, inflexible and cunning EU, we can almost certainly expect to be handed a bill totalling at least twice the amount.

Given the devious, intransigent, inflexible and cunning EU...........oh for heaven's sake please grow up. This is not some inscrutable oriental Foo Manchu from a fantasy novel you are dealing with. Nor is it a film like "Those magnificent men and their flying machines" despite the on forum presence of Mr Dasterdly. The EU's senior statesmen are simply trying to do their job properly and representing the interests of the people in other EU countries. If only ours would do the same.  (I had to misspell Mr Manchu's first name for obvious reasons)

Edited August 27, 2019 by Nigel Garvie
spelling

[Forethat]

7 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Given the devious, intransigent, inflexible and cunning EU...........oh for heaven's sake please grow up. This is not some inscrutable oriental Foo Manchu from a fantasy novel you are dealing with. Nor is it a film like "Those magnificent men and their flying machines" despite the on forum presence of Mr Dasterdly. The EU's senior statesmen are simply trying to do their job properly and representing the interests of the people in other EU countries. If only ours would do the same.  (I had to misspell Mr Manchu's first name for obvious reasons)

So you're telling me that apart from my derogatory description of the EU, you agree with the part where I describe the likelihood of an annual bill from the EU, topping up the initial £39B? Does that mean you've read the proposed agreement brought to Parliament by May? Or do you need a reminder?

Edited August 27, 2019 by Forethat

[sawadee1947]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

Excuse me!? You tend to believe that a continuation of the current free trade deal was included in the proposed agreement?

 

If the EU are so keen on striking a deal AND getting their hands on the £39B, why didn't they just add that clause to the proposed agreement, and we would all have been hunky dory? 

 

Oh dear, you are one of those it seems.... 

Before Boris came there were business talks at the same level, as partners. 

But now you got a criminal as PM, I not only a clown. 

If you wouldn't agree to pay your debts how long you would expect the trucks to wait at Calais? 

The prices would go sky rocketing. 

Same as sticky rice here. 

But who cares. You are living in Thailand and the idiots in UK??? 

What do you think?