UK would still have to pay its EU budget bill - Moscovici

[Bluespunk]

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The British will have to settle their payments, and their financial contributions in all circumstances, regardless of whether there’s a deal or a ‘no-deal’,” Moscovici told Europe 1 radio.

 

“There is no room for discussion on this,” he added.

Ah, another dose of reality for johnson. 

[mlmcleod]

WOW! Brexiteers are just the same as Trumpeteers!

55555

[johnnybangkok]

The issue for the UK is that a refusal to pay (whatever the final bill comes out as) will be seen as a sovereign debt default. You don't want a sovereign debt default. It would result in higher interest rates on loans and bonds, increasing prices and contributing to inflation. In extreme cases it could result in no one lending money to the UK, resulting in the UK effectively going bankrupt. 

BJ knows all this and is again gambling the UK's future on a bluff .........but unfortunately for him, everyone can see his hand. There's no way he would risk a sovereign debt default and the EU knows this so he can pontificate to the cows come home; the bill will get paid.

 

[stephenterry]

Perhaps posters should read and digest the facts as stated by the OBR, before launching into 'we're not going to pay' scenario. As for Johnson, his ridiculous rhetoric is becoming more like Trump every day. 

 

 

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). 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.

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

The issue for the UK is that a refusal to pay (whatever the final bill comes out as) will be seen as a sovereign debt default. You don't want a sovereign debt default.

England’s history of defaulting on European lenders shows repercussions of not paying Brexit bill

http://theconversation.com/englands-history-of-defaulting-on-european-lenders-shows-repercussions-of-not-paying-brexit-bill-118637

Technically, the UK would argue that this is not a debt, as normally described when referring to sovereign defaults. Nevertheless, if the EU did consider it such a default, then the consequences would be very clear. They could include a hit to the UK’s credit rating, its scope for future borrowing at reasonable rates, and access to international markets.

International lenders are a low-risk taking group. It doesn't take much for them to lose confidence in a country's ability to meet its foreign financial responsibilities. When they do lose confidence, it's reflected in higher interest rates. To paraphrase Warren Buffet,“It takes [300] years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”

Why should the UK care about an EU default? It shouldn't if it emerges from Brexit as a healthy and growing economy. If instead its economy is on "life support," it will need foreign loans to stimulate the economy and consumer confidence. Don't expect interest rates offered by low-risk lenders. In effect the UK only "kicks the can" of its EU debt down the road - there's no free lunch.

[JonnyF]

43 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, another dose of reality for johnson. 

Here's a dose of reality for moscovici. He doesn't get to decide what the UK pays.

 

If we dispute the amount then it will go to the International courts to decide. moscovici should pipe down.

[Bluespunk]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Here's a dose of reality for moscovici. He doesn't get to decide what the UK pays.

 

If we dispute the amount then it will go to the International courts to decide. moscovici should pipe down.

I'll take Moscovici's view over yours.

 

Especially if that view is the one of the body the uk is desperate to get a trade deal with...

Edited August 28, 2019 by Bluespunk

[DannyCarlton]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Here's a dose of reality for moscovici. He doesn't get to decide what the UK pays.

 

If we dispute the amount then it will go to the International courts to decide. moscovici should pipe down.

And, having been presented by the facts on both sides, the international courts would adjudicate in the EU's favour. What then? Nobody likes a welcher.

[evadgib]

We won't be paying anywhere near 39bn & if BJ thinks he'll get away with 'May's deal minus the backstop' he should think again...

 

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, mlmcleod said:

WOW! Brexiteers are just the same as Trumpeteers!

55555

Yes supporting democratically elected people or causes.

[DannyCarlton]

13 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes supporting democratically elected people or causes.

Supporting or shafting? Depends on your grip on reality, I suppose.

[Laughing Gravy]

4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Supporting or shafting? Depends on your grip on reality, I suppose.

No supporting and shafting are not the same, whichever reality you look at it.

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

No supporting and shafting are not the same, whichever reality you look at it.

Correct. So you agree with me then? or you just don't understand what I said?

[evadgib]

17 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

As much as Kermit and his highly inflated ego (and vastly reduced following) wishes it, he has no part to play in negotiations with the EU.

 

The fact remains that the "divorce bill" was negotiated before any other negotiations took place. Why? Because the amount owed by the UK on leaving the EU, would be the same, no matter what exit route the UK took. It's based on previously made commitments by the UK.

 

It's owed, we will be paying, there's nothing that Boris, Kermit or anyone else can do about that.

 

However, it's not as punitive as Boris is painting it, "I'll have an extra 30 bn to spend on farmers subsidies etc. the day we leave with no deal". It's actually 3 bn as the 39 bn was spread over 10 years, 3.9 bn per year.

That 'vastly reduced following' will be much more conspicuous in a GE following a BRINO:

 

[Krataiboy]

9 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

When you agree to have dinner together and share the bill in a way you have agreed on then when you walk away after the appetizer, you are still morally obliged to pay for the whole dinner ...

Agreed. By the same token, if Parliament had a shred of morality, it would not be seeking to overturn Cameron's self-declared "binding" agreement to leave the EU.

 

(Now wait for all the Remainers to pile in with their lame excuses why this is not happening).

[DannyCarlton]

5 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Agreed. By the same token, if Parliament had a shred of morality, it would not be seeking to overturn Cameron's self-declared "binding" agreement to leave the EU.

 

(Now wait for all the Remoaners to pile in with their lame excuses why this is not happening).

It's been fully answered a thousand times on a hundred threads. Try coming up with something original, not the same old howling brexiteer rhetoric.

[Mavideol]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

EU Economics Commissioner sides with the EU in debate over EU economics. I'm shocked.

 

I say we let this go to international arbitration. As terryw said, the UK could well have a legitimate claim to a lot of EU assets that it helped fund over the years. 39 Billion is just an arbitrary number that Remainer May and Barnier dreamt up over dinner a couple of years ago and bears no relation to reality i.e. the amount legally owed in either direction.

 

We've seen that the EU is incapable of sensible negotiation so let the courts decide.

easy to blame the EU for the UK mistakes, please refresh our memories and tell us who asked to quit .... like in any business deal, prior to decide leaving/quitting one should assess the risks and live up to their prior obligations, in other words check the Pros and Cons before making any drastic decisions, once they do and the final decision is made, they should not start blaming the other side for the mistakes or bad decisions they made.... I remember when my kids were very young and one of them did something wrong he/she always blamed the other one that's the easy way out, much easier than to assume one's own mistakes, this has been said over and over but decided to say it one more time as it appears Nobody Is Listening 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mavideol

[CharlieH]

Reported post removed, as will any other post be if the childish name-calling is used.

[Krataiboy]

27 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

It's been fully answered a thousand times on a hundred threads. Try coming up with something original, not the same old howling brexiteer rhetoric.

You've just made my point for me. Well done.

[the guest]

UK is becoming a pathetic little country that can't even honor the vote of the people. After they leave the EU (if) then Britain will become less important and insignificant as a country. Hopefully nobody has to hear about the country for a few decades.

[sawadee1947]

17 hours ago, HeyHeyHey said:

Khun Johnson won't negotiate with terrorists

 

He is brave and has no fear. The savior of the Great Britain

I like your kind of humor in times of Armageddon for UK. 

(but why you call your MPs as terrorists?) ????

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

And, having been presented by the facts on both sides, the international courts would adjudicate in the EU's favour. What then? Nobody likes a welcher.

That's a huge IF. But IF that happened then the UK would pay.

 

Far more likely is the court decides on the UK side, reduces the 39 Billion to single digit Billions and the EU go sulking and refuse to discuss a trade deal for a couple of years.

[Forethat]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The only tiny problem with your extension of the analogy is that it's invalid. No such inflation of expenses has followed the British decision to exit.

I think it's a perfectly valid analogy as the proposed withdrawal agreement has a clause where the matter is covered:

EU reserve the right to hold the UK financially liable for expenses they might accrue AFTER the UK have left the EU. They have even given us the annual date when they'll send us the bar bill.  (Article 144 Paragraph 2):

Quote

On 31 March of each year, starting in 2021, until their amortisation, expiry or termination, for each financial instrument referred to in paragraph 1, the Union shall communicate to the United Kingdom the available information regarding the financial operations referred to in paragraph 1 that have been decided upon or approved before the date of entry into force of this Agreement and those that have been decided upon or approved on or after that date.

The withdrawal agreement states in clear text that the UK are financially liable for financial operations approved AFTER we've left.

 

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Cute.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Forethat

[Forethat]

8 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

I was serious for a change .... you are not.

I was in fact perfectly serious. In short, the proposed withdrawal agreement states that EU can hold UK financially liable for costs approved AFTER Brexit. I'm dead serious. 

[Basil B]

10 hours ago, Forethat said:

...only to realise that after you left they invited their friends and ordered a dozen cases of vintage champagne to go with the caviar.

Should not have left...

[Basil B]

19 hours ago, Scot123 said:

20 hours ago, maitite said:

But of course UK has to meet it's financial payments. That's just a fact of life. 

 

Why would any country trust UK, if it doesn't pay its bills?

 

It's quite hard to trust a country's honesty, when it is not honest with it's responsibilities. 

 

Why did UK became Venezuela, Zimbabve or similar, lesser stabile country in the world?

 

Possibly this would end up at the "International court of Arbitration", even then they could not force the UK to pay up but if we did not then the UK would lose credibility...  

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

You've just made my point for me. Well done.

Your point being that others hold and express different views to your own

 

I guess it evaded you, this is a discussion forum.

[bristolboy]

45 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I think it's a perfectly valid analogy as the proposed withdrawal agreement has a clause where the matter is covered:

EU reserve the right to hold the UK financially liable for expenses they might accrue AFTER the UK have left the EU. They have even given us the annual date when they'll send us the bar bill.  (Article 144 Paragraph 2):

The withdrawal agreement states in clear text that the UK are financially liable for financial operations approved AFTER we've left.

 

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Cute.

 

Really? At least we can finally localize the source of your misrepresentation.  This articles refers to obligations such as outstanding obligations including loans and pensions incurred before the agreement was expected to take effect. In other words, financial instruments dating from before Brexit the actual date of Brexit.

Here's the text:

"On 31 March of each year, starting in 2021, until their amortisation, expiry or termination, for each financial instrument referred to in paragraph 1, the Union shall communicate to the United Kingdom the available information regarding the financial operations referred to in paragraph 1 that have been decided upon or approved before the date of entry into force of this Agreement and those that have been decided upon or approved on or after that date. "

 

You would be well advised to consult this reasonably detailed explanation of an agreement that you have so abysmally misrepresented.

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

 

 

Y

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

easy to blame the EU for the UK mistakes, please refresh our memories and tell us who asked to quit .... like in any business deal, prior to decide leaving/quitting one should assess the risks and live up to their prior obligations, in other words check the Pros and Cons before making any drastic decisions, once they do and the final decision is made, they should not start blaming the other side for the mistakes or bad decisions they made.... I remember when my kids were very young and one of them did something wrong he/she always blamed the other one that's the easy way out, much easier than to assume one's own mistakes, this has been said over and over but decided to say it one more time as it appears Nobody Is Listening 

1. I don't see any mistake. The mistake was staying this long, we're getting out just in time.

2. We are Leaving not quitting.

3. The fact that the EU is trying to extort 39 Billion from us because we are leaving is not a failing of the UK but an increasing typical vindictive reaction from a failing protectionist racket that is becoming desperate for cash to fill the gap that UK contributions will leave.

 

They don't decide how much we pay them any more than a husband decides how much his wife needs to pay him before she can leave the family home. If an agreement cannot be reached between BOTH parties then the courts can settle it. I'm happy with that.

[Mavideol]

Just now, JonnyF said:

1. I don't see any mistake. The mistake was staying this long, we're getting out just in time.

2. We are Leaving not quitting.

3. The fact that the EU is trying to extort 39 Billion from us because we are leaving is not a failing of the UK but an increasing typical vindictive reaction from a failing protectionist racket that is becoming desperate for cash to fill the gap that UK contributions will leave.

 

They don't decide how much we pay them any more than a husband decides how much his wife needs to pay him before she can leave the family home. If an agreement cannot be reached between BOTH parties then the courts can settle it. I'm happy with that.

not worth too much discussion but....... there are always 2 versions, you have yours and I have mine and we may have to agree to disagree, time will tell