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

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

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? 

Well, since you ask what I think, I must say that calling people in the UK "idiots" is a bit over the top. 

 

In terms of debts I think it is perfectly in order to pay ones debts and I expect the UK to pay every single penny that has been agreed. 

[sawadee1947]

6 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Well, since you ask what I think, I must say that calling people in the UK "idiots" is a bit over the top. 

 

In terms of debts I think it is perfectly in order to pay ones debts and I expect the UK to pay every single penny that has been agreed. 

Sorry for harsh words.  I agree with with you 

[CG1 Blue]

On 8/26/2019 at 3:58 AM, Nigel Garvie said:

I note pioneer has already addressed this, but just to give a helping hand:-

Banks have ALREADY left London, which planet were you on the last 2 years?

 

Try something simple like google "banks leave london brexit", you'll be able to find out where they have gone/ are going. I'll give you a start- Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin, Amsterdam.

or https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/3000398/brexit-banks-moving-out-of-london

Before someone tries to claim that it is all project fear, or MSM remainer bias please note:-

This site is a careers advisory service, providing advice to people working in the banking sector, not a political rag.

Let me deal with this part, given that I worked for Credit Suisse for 12 years: 

Where will Credit Suisse's European operations be after Brexit?

Credit Suisse plans to move its EU-focused investment bankers to Frankfurt post-Brexit, and its salespeople and traders to Madrid. Credit Suisse also has offices in Luxembourg, Milan, Paris, and Dublin.

Credit Suisse is expected to move 250 people.

 

CS already moved part of the the financing business to Dublin in around 2015.  This was mainly due to capital constraints imposed by the Bank of England. They're sending a handful of traders to Madrid in order to get around post-Brexit 3rd country rules.  A bit like when a company buys a name plate in the Cayman Islands to reduce the tax bill. 

 

All the big business, wealthy clients etc. are in London because London is a great city. That's why CS will only move a handful of people away from London.  A billionaire in Mayfair doesn't want to deal with a banker all the way over in Frankfurt. And successful bankers don't want to live in a dull and depressing city like Frankfurt. 

 

Strategically relocating around 200 people out of 5,500 UK staff is hardly the exodus that some would have us believe! 

 

[CG1 Blue]

4 hours ago, candide said:

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

If the UK pays for some agreed future projects, will the UK be able to benefit from those projects I wonder. If not then we shouldn't have to pay that part. 

 

Judging by the EU's disgraceful behaviour shutting the UK out of the Galileo project (after the UK contributed hugely with development expertise, and €1bn), I don't think the EU can claim any moral high ground on future obligations.  

[david555]

11 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If the UK pays for some agreed future projects, will the UK be able to benefit from those projects I wonder. If not then we shouldn't have to pay that part. 

 

Judging by the EU's disgraceful behaviour shutting the UK out of the Galileo project (after the UK contributed hugely with development expertise, and €1bn), I don't think the EU can claim any moral high ground on future obligations.  

Are you sure that 1 bn€ . Galileo is not taken in consideration when making that bill ….? Who knows … none of us from both sides where present when calculated ...so maybe yes , maybe not ...

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, Forethat said:

Similarly, one thing 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.

Actually, remainers have no trouble understanding that at all. Because they know that is only the case if there is no bilateral or multilateral trade agreement in effect amongst certain nations. In those cases WTO membership will not give you access to lower tariffs that apply only to participants in that agreement. It's Brexiters who repeatedly threaten to lower UK tariffs immediately to certain nations. And don't seem to understand that those same lower tariffs will apply to EU members as well.

[Mavideol]

13 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If the UK pays for some agreed future projects, will the UK be able to benefit from those projects I wonder. If not then we shouldn't have to pay that part. 

 

Judging by the EU's disgraceful behaviour shutting the UK out of the Galileo project (after the UK contributed hugely with development expertise, and €1bn), I don't think the EU can claim any moral high ground on future obligations.  

it would be interesting to see some supporting data for that Galileo & 1 bn claim... it could be true or maybe not

[Nigel Garvie]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

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?

No

[Nigel Garvie]

47 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Let me deal with this part, given that I worked for Credit Suisse for 12 years: 

Where will Credit Suisse's European operations be after Brexit?

Credit Suisse plans to move its EU-focused investment bankers to Frankfurt post-Brexit, and its salespeople and traders to Madrid. Credit Suisse also has offices in Luxembourg, Milan, Paris, and Dublin.

Credit Suisse is expected to move 250 people.

 

CS already moved part of the the financing business to Dublin in around 2015.  This was mainly due to capital constraints imposed by the Bank of England. They're sending a handful of traders to Madrid in order to get around post-Brexit 3rd country rules.  A bit like when a company buys a name plate in the Cayman Islands to reduce the tax bill. 

 

All the big business, wealthy clients etc. are in London because London is a great city. That's why CS will only move a handful of people away from London.  A billionaire in Mayfair doesn't want to deal with a banker all the way over in Frankfurt. And successful bankers don't want to live in a dull and depressing city like Frankfurt. 

 

Strategically relocating around 200 people out of 5,500 UK staff is hardly the exodus that some would have us believe! 

 

Interesting example from a survey of one bank. 

[bristolboy]

15 hours ago, hgma said:

I think that the UK deserves a fair exit, and like in a court of law, history of excellent behavior should be taken into account, we are talking about a Nation which , on its own, stood tall against the Nazi's, sacrificed hugely in human lives and destruction, hence responsible for most of us to pin down what we want, 

And what sacrifices did you make in battling the Nazis? If you want credit for that, do you also accept the blame for the UK's colonial crimes? Enough already of vicarious heroism.

[CG1 Blue]

5 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

it would be interesting to see some supporting data for that Galileo & 1 bn claim... it could be true or maybe not

Actually more like €1.4bn (£1.2bn)

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/01/galileo-britain-set-build-rival-satellite-system/

[bristolboy]

19 hours ago, Forethat said:

Yes, there is an agreement to pay the membership fees for 2019 and 2020. But there is NO agreement to pay the £39B which is for costs outside that fee.

 

Good heavens, am I talking a child here..?

Actually, you're wrong. The 2019 and 2020 payments are included in that £39B. Good heavens, am I talking to someone who isn't nearly as knowledgeable as he pretends to be?

 

"Britain must pay the £39 billion Brexit bill even if it leaves the EU without a deal, the European Commission has warned.

Britain agreed to pay the financial settlement to the EU, which include EU Budget payments up to 2020, to cover its liabilities to the bloc and unlock talks over the future relationship.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/30/brussels-orders-britain-pay-brexit-bill-even-no-deal-exit/

 

 

[bristolboy]

57 minutes ago, Forethat said:

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?

Given your belief that the £39 Billion did not include UK budget payments to the EU for 2019 and 2020, which would come to almost half of the total owed, it's dubious that you have much familiarity with the document in question.

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Given your belief that the £39 Billion did not include UK budget payments to the EU for 2019 and 2020, which would come to almost half of the total owed, it's dubious that you have much familiarity with the document in question.

What Document? Oh, you mean the PROPOSED agreement that was never agreed upon but simply put before the UK parliament where it was rightfully dismissed?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

[nauseus]

48 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, you're wrong. The 2019 and 2020 payments are included in that £39B. Good heavens, am I talking to someone who isn't nearly as knowledgeable as he pretends to be?

 

"Britain must pay the £39 billion Brexit bill even if it leaves the EU without a deal, the European Commission has warned.

Britain agreed to pay the financial settlement to the EU, which include EU Budget payments up to 2020, to cover its liabilities to the bloc and unlock talks over the future relationship.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/30/brussels-orders-britain-pay-brexit-bill-even-no-deal-exit/

 

 

That's right, except that if the UK is out with no deal in October and with no agreement signed, then the 2020 EU contribution could be withheld and contested because this was agreed on the basis that the UK would be still in the transition period with full access to EU markets.

[bristolboy]

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

That's right, except that if the UK is out with no deal in October and with no agreement signed, then the 2020 EU contribution could be withheld and contested because this was agreed on the basis that the UK would be still in the transition period with full access to EU markets.

That's true. But what I was referencing was this post by Forethat:

"Yes, there is an agreement to pay the membership fees for 2019 and 2020. But there is NO agreement to pay the £39B which is for costs outside that fee."

 

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That's true. But what I was referencing was this post by Forethat:

"Yes, there is an agreement to pay the membership fees for 2019 and 2020. But there is NO agreement to pay the £39B which is for costs outside that fee."

 

Correct, the £39B contains costs other than the membership fees. The contribution towards the 2019-20 membership fees is in the region of £12B if I'm not incorrect. We are legally bound per our membership contract to pay that, and we should. That leaves something like £27B in the dreaded "rest liquide" or whatever it's called. There's NO legally binding agreement to pay that.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Correct, the £39B contains costs other than the membership fees. The contribution towards the 2019-20 membership fees is in the region of £12B if I'm not incorrect. We are legally bound per our membership contract to pay that, and we should. That leaves something like £27B in the dreaded "rest liquide" or whatever it's called. There's NO legally binding agreement to pay that.

But that's not what you wrote, You explicitly excluded UK budget contributions for the year 2019 and 2020 from your reckoning:

"Yes, there is an agreement to pay the membership fees for 2019 and 2020. But there is NO agreement to pay the £39B which is for costs outside that fee."

How exactly do you get £39B + membership fees for 2019 and 2020 to equal  £27B? The only way that works is if those "membership fees" (actually budget contributions) are negative numbers. I don't think that's likely.

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But that's not what you wrote, You explicitly excluded UK budget contributions for the year 2019 and 2020 from your reckoning:

"Yes, there is an agreement to pay the membership fees for 2019 and 2020. But there is NO agreement to pay the £39B which is for costs outside that fee."

How exactly do you get £39B + membership fees for 2019 and 2020 to equal  £27B? The only way that works is if those "membership fees" (actually budget contributions) are negative numbers. I don't think that's likely.

I think I will go and have a drink.

[candide]

42 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Correct, the £39B contains costs other than the membership fees. The contribution towards the 2019-20 membership fees is in the region of £12B if I'm not incorrect. We are legally bound per our membership contract to pay that, and we should. That leaves something like £27B in the dreaded "rest liquide" or whatever it's called. There's NO legally binding agreement to pay that.

 

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But that's not what you wrote, You explicitly excluded UK budget contributions for the year 2019 and 2020 from your reckoning:

"Yes, there is an agreement to pay the membership fees for 2019 and 2020. But there is NO agreement to pay the £39B which is for costs outside that fee."

How exactly do you get £39B + membership fees for 2019 and 2020 to equal  £27B? The only way that works is if those "membership fees" (actually budget contributions) are negative numbers. I don't think that's likely.

Maybe some more precise figures would be useful? Here is what I found:

"In March 2018, the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) published the UK's economic and fiscal outlook including details of the financial settlement which it estimated at £37.1 billion (€41.4 billion).[31][26] The estimated settlement was made up of:

£16.4bn (€18.5bn) towards the UK’s contribution to the EU budget to December 2020 (after offsetting for the UK rebate);

£18.2bn (€20.2bn) towards outstanding commitments for projects that have been signed off but not yet paid for by 2020 (The Reste à Liquider ("RAL") from successive Multiannual Financial Frameworks) to be paid up to 2028; and

£2.5bn (€2.7bn) for other financial liabilities, being an estimate for pension liabilities of €9.5bn offset by other assets totalling €6.8bn.[26] The payments towards the pension liabilities are estimated to be made until 2064.[26]

The OBR's updated estimate of the financial settlement in March 2019 was £37.8 billion (€41.8 billion).[3]

The UK would continue to benefit from all programmes as before the withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable EU legal rules.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_divorce_bill

 

[billd766]

44 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I think I will go and have a drink.

I do agree with you.

 

It is 9.50 pm and I am just finishing my 3rd and last one, and then off to bed.

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

But that's not what you wrote, You explicitly excluded UK budget contributions for the year 2019 and 2020 from your reckoning:

"Yes, there is an agreement to pay the membership fees for 2019 and 2020. But there is NO agreement to pay the £39B which is for costs outside that fee."

How exactly do you get £39B + membership fees for 2019 and 2020 to equal  £27B? The only way that works is if those "membership fees" (actually budget contributions) are negative numbers. I don't think that's likely.

Correct. There is no agreement to pay the costs outside the annual membership fees.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Correct. There is no agreement to pay the costs outside the annual membership fees.

 You claimed that that "annual membership fees" (actually budget contributions) were not included in the 39 billion pounds. So according to you it was 39 billion pounds plus membership fees. Stop lying.

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 You claimed that that "annual membership fees" (actually budget contributions) were not included in the 39 billion pounds. So according to you it was 39 billion pounds plus membership fees. Stop lying.

I think we would both be happier if you gave up those condescending comments. This would also be a merrier forum. 

 

I suggest we get back to discussing the Brexit divorce bill. I'll start:

I think you are correct, there is no agreement to pay the costs outside the annual membership fees (or budget contributions).

[kingdong]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:37 AM, stevenl said:

Until reality of brexit sinks in. The pound has been on a downward trend since WWII, give me one reason why that would change now.

because we won,t be members of a corrupt little club and its restrictive rules.

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, Forethat said:

I think we would both be happier if you gave up those condescending comments. This would also be a merrier forum. 

 

I suggest we get back to discussing the Brexit divorce bill. I'll start:

I think you are correct, there is no agreement to pay the costs outside the annual membership fees (or budget contributions).

You think i'm correct? It's not a matter of opinion. And it reflects no great credit on me that I am correct. But it does cast great disqualifyindiscredit on those who, like yourself, got that huge fact, utterly wrong and yet claimed to be well-informed on the terms of Brexit.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, Forethat said:

 

I think you are correct, there is no agreement to pay the costs outside the annual membership fees (or budget contributions).

Wrong, there is an agreement that a new agreement need to be agreed in the absence of the agreement which within that agreement outlines the costs already agreed.

[Laughing Gravy]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Wrong, there is an agreement that a new agreement need to be agreed in the absence of the agreement which within that agreement outlines the costs already agreed.

I don't agree with your agreement.

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I don't agree with your agreement.

We have an accord.

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I don't think the EU can claim any moral high ground on future obligations.  

You need to com to terms with reality, the UK is no shining example, quite prepared to rip off their own citizens.

When the UK government reduced the qualifying years from 44 to 30 did they stop collecting at the required number, or refund over payments on voluntary contributions.

 

The UK parliament were fully aware of what they had committed to when they invoked article 50.