May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Similarly, I doubt those who voted for bexit will accept a deal that leaves the UK subject to all EU rules and still paying a huge amount -whilst having no say.

 

Will the politicians find a way around this conundrum?

Of course they will -- as long as it ensures their jobs

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, jpinx said:

.... and there we have the nub of it,  but the reality is that the UK is a much bigger deal for the EU then the other countries put together.   TM will be winding up a series of cogent and persuasive arguments about why the UK should be given a better deal, and if Germany, France and Netherlands agree, they rest of the EU's minion countries will do what they're told because they're all net takers -- not givers.

 

I don't buy this. Our net contribution is about 0.4% of GDP. This is not unreasonable. There are 11 net contributors. We are 9th calculated as GDP per head. How else would you calculate it? Based on area? Average height? For EU countries, keeping the bonds together is much more important than some minor cash benefits. I have been travelling extensively in Europe over the past couple of months and can speak from first hand experience. The UK continues to disappoint though plenty of European visitors to London due to weaker pound. General gloom in the north....

[SheungWan]

23 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Similarly, I doubt those who voted for bexit will accept a deal that leaves the UK subject to all EU rules and still paying a huge amount -whilst having no say.

 

Will the politicians find a way around this conundrum?

 

ADVFN Market Report for yesterday evening reporting that May stopped pound plunging further as she indicated the UK could continue paying into the EU budget if it represents good value for money. This detail  interpreted by traders as a soft Brexit message, UK not heading for the cliff edge and put bit of a floor under Cable.

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Sorry for that, but being behind a paywall and being very relevant, I pushed my luck

Behind a paywall?

 

Anyway, you're forgiven. If you can get ANY TVite to read The Economist you will improve the level of debate immeasurably ?

[dick dasterdly]

26 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Of course they will -- as long as it ensures their jobs

Coming up with a deal that results in  the UK subject to all EU rules and still paying a huge amount -whilst having no say is likely to lose them their MP positions at the next election?

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

I don't buy this. Our net contribution is about 0.4% of GDP. This is not unreasonable. There are 11 net contributors. We are 9th calculated as GDP per head. How else would you calculate it? Based on area? Average height? For EU countries, keeping the bonds together is much more important than some minor cash benefits. I have been travelling extensively in Europe over the past couple of months and can speak from first hand experience. The UK continues to disappoint though plenty of European visitors to London due to weaker pound. General gloom in the north....

Comparing "per capita" is nonsense,  better to compare by the raw net take or give by each country.  Even making that calculation is fraught with "interpretations"    What is "The EU"  you refer to -- you mean the commission?  or the members?  or what is it that wants the "bonds together".  I have no idea where you get the idea of there being 11 net contributors.  It is another invention of some number-cruncher with an agenda

[dick dasterdly]

11 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

ADVFN Market Report for yesterday evening reporting that May stopped pound plunging further as she indicated the UK could continue paying into the EU budget if it represents good value for money. This detail  interpreted by traders as a soft Brexit message, UK not heading for the cliff edge and put bit of a floor under Cable.

Not sure what this has to do with the voters' reaction as per my post?

[Grouse]

Our most recent net contribution was 8.5 billion (GDP about 2000 billion GBP). If the contribution is calculated in Euro, does that mean the contribution rises to about 9.5 billion GBP?

[Grouse]

10 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Comparing "per capita" is nonsense,  better to compare by the raw net take or give by each country.  Even making that calculation is fraught with "interpretations"    What is "The EU"  you refer to -- you mean the commission?  or the members?  or what is it that wants the "bonds together".  I have no idea where you get the idea of there being 11 net contributors.  It is another invention of some number-cruncher with an agenda

 

You can google EU contributions. There are 11 out of 27 net contributors.

 

contributions per head is nonsense? How would you calculate it? 

 

I was referring to popular outlook in countries who are members of EU. As I say, solidarity seems to outweigh pecuniary advantage 

 

(Spain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Eire, Lithuania - nothing scientific but a straw poll nevertheless)

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not sure what this has to do with the voters' reaction as per my post?

 

Brexit means brexit

 

If TM believes the optimal Brexit involves staying in the customs union and the free trade area with similar financial contributions then that is what you will get!

 

You're not suggesting a referendum to approve terms are you? ?

[jpinx]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

You can google EU contributions. There are 11 out of 27 net contributors.

 

contributions per head is nonsense? How would you calculate it? 

 

I was referring to popular outlook in countries who are members of EU. As I say, solidarity seems to outweigh pecuniary advantage 

 

(Spain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Eire, Lithuania - nothing scientific but a straw poll nevertheless)

We could swap link all night, but not make any progress.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/11221427/EU-budget-what-you-need-to-know.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/677634/EU-referendum-Brexit-map-Britain-UK-net-contribution-Brussels-Cameron

http://english.eu.dk/en/faq/faq/net_contribution

As I said - - the net contribution is a number.  There is no need to divide it by a population number and introduce another raft of uncertainties in how the population is calculated.

Your straw poll is just that - - straw.  The EU is a block of countries and all are equally important when it comes to voting.  You can most certainly not count on France being in favour, and Spain and Netherlands become more sceptical all the time.  Why on earth you include Lithuania  in your crazy poll?  I suppose you went there recently?    

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by jpinx

[melvinmelvin]

On 18.12.2016 at 5:28 PM, 7by7 said:

 

Errr, as the EC (European Commission) is the executive body of the EU, same thing.

 

Of course, just as, for example, the British civil service proposes and drafts legislation for the British government, the commission does the same for the EU. But the civil service cannot make law, and neither can the commission.

 

To become EU law, proposals have to be agreed by the European Parliament and/or the Council of Ministers.

 

In this case; both: EU freedom of movement and residence

But we're splitting hairs.

 

 

If you say so, I can't be bothered to search through the agreement.

 

However, I think it's safe to say that whatever agreement the UK and EU come to on this issue will be accepted by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland as well.

 

splitting hairs, maybe so . . .

 

I said EC rather than EU, mistake, I should have said EEC rather than EU

(as far as I remember the naming of the directives follows the name of the Union

 at the time where/when the buraucrats finds legal authority for the directive in the Treaty of Rome or later updates.

 The free movement stuff is old, hence EEC rather than EU.)

 

The Commission has legal authority to issue binding directives in certain areas, without the support of upstairs.

One of these areas has to do with state monopolies. (old Article 97 stuff)

 

the above may fall in the hair split basket

 

your last bit I quite simply disagree with

I think its fairly unlikely that Iceland and Norway would be happy to see UK as an EFTA/EEA member.

 

In this matter Li-stein=Switzerland.

Switzerland would probably jump at the possibility of becoming the watchdog of UK behaviour within EEA (EFTA).

This is one of the many oddities of the EEA treaty. It is EFTA that polices the EFTA/EEA

members and their adherence to the treaty. Ie, Switzerland is part of the policing.

 

I doubt that the Commission would be comfortable with UK in the EFTA/EEA bracket.

The EEA treaty sports a fair number of provisions re EFTA member's rights vis a vis the EEC/EU

when it comes to acquis. These provisions have never been tested in reality.

With UK in that bracket it is highly likely that these provisions would be called upon.

The EU wouldn't like to see that, in my view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, jpinx said:

We could swap link all night, but not make any progress.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/11221427/EU-budget-what-you-need-to-know.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/677634/EU-referendum-Brexit-map-Britain-UK-net-contribution-Brussels-Cameron

http://english.eu.dk/en/faq/faq/net_contribution

As I said - - the net contribution is a number.  There is no need to divide it by a population number and introduce another raft of uncertainties in how the population is calculated.

Your straw poll is just that - - straw.  The EU is a block of countries and all are equally important when it comes to voting.  You can most certainly not count on France being in favour, and Spain and Netherlands become more sceptical all the time.  Why on earth you include Lithuania  in your crazy poll?  I suppose you went there recently?    

 

 

 

Lets try and be rational here. How can you expect a country with 10M population to pay the same as a country with 65M? How can you justify a country with a GDP of 1B USD paying the same as one with a GDP of 3.5B? It's a fair point I think. If you want to dodge it, fair enough.

 

My straw poll is just that. Taxi drivers, business chat, pub talk. Just a general gut feel. Just reporting back. No axe to grind...

 

You base your opinions on what? MSM? Seaweed? Entrails? ?

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

 

Lets try and be rational here. How can you expect a country with 10M population to pay the same as a country with 65M? How can you justify a country with a GDP of 1B USD paying the same as one with a GDP of 3.5B? It's a fair point I think. If you want to dodge it, fair enough.

 

My straw poll is just that. Taxi drivers, business chat, pub talk. Just a general gut feel. Just reporting back. No axe to grind...

 

You base your opinions on what? MSM? Seaweed? Entrails? ?

You really don't understand what "net contributor" means?  For someone who has been grinding an axe for some months now, isn't it possible that your vision is somewhat clouded? 

[Grouse]

In 2015, the U.K. Contributed 8.5 B to the EU. The EU spent 4.5B on the UK. Therefore net contribution was 8.5B?

 

Am I missing something? Is it a trick question? 

 

I see your lickers are out again. I wonder if they have a rational contribution?

 

My vision is indeed slightly clouded after several pints of ESB during a liquid lunch in Kensington!

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

In 2015, the U.K. Contributed 8.5 B to the EU. The EU spent 4.5B on the UK. Therefore net contribution was 8.5B?

 

Am I missing something? Is it a trick question? 

 

I see your lickers are out again. I wonder if they have a rational contribution?

 

My vision is indeed slightly clouded after several pints of ESB during a liquid lunch in Kensington!

 

"Am I missing something"

 

Yes. The gross contribution was 13 billion.

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Lets try and be rational here. How can you expect a country with 10M population to pay the same as a country with 65M? How can you justify a country with a GDP of 1B USD paying the same as one with a GDP of 3.5B? It's a fair point I think. If you want to dodge it, fair enough.

 

My straw poll is just that. Taxi drivers, business chat, pub talk. Just a general gut feel. Just reporting back. No axe to grind...

 

You base your opinions on what? MSM? Seaweed? Entrails? ?

 

Do you find that people in one-on-ones tend to agree with you a lot? A lot of nodding and smiling? 

[SheungWan]

25 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

"Am I missing something"

 

Yes. The gross contribution was 13 billion.

 

Not quite right. The gross contribution is 18 billion. However there is a rebate of 5 billion, = 13 billion. But it doesn't stop there because there is EU spending on the UK, including payment to farmers and poorer regions of about 4.5 billion, = 8.5 billion. Sources: HM Treasury European Union Finances, 2015. Please do continue with the GDP discussion above.

Edited December 20, 2016 by SheungWan

[Khun Han]

22 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Not quite right. The gross contribution is 18 billion. However there is a rebate of 5 billion, = 13 billion. But it doesn't stop there because there is EU spending on the UK, including payment to farmers and poorer regions of about 4.5 billion, = 8.5 billion. Sources: HM Treasury European Union Finances, 2015. Please do continue with the GDP discussion above.

 

Not quite right. The rebate is given before any payment is made, so the gross payment actually made was 13 billion (or 12.9 billion to be more exact).

[Khun Han]

PM May appearing before the Liason Committee:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38383216

 

And showing that she has her finger on the pulse:

 

"It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote to leave the EU, but to change the way the country works and the people for whom it works forever."

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

"Am I missing something"

 

Yes. The gross contribution was 13 billion.

ESB is good stuff!

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Do you find that people in one-on-ones tend to agree with you a lot? A lot of nodding and smiling? 

Yes, they're all terrified of my superior intelligence and wit....

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Not quite right. The rebate is given before any payment is made, so the gross payment actually made was 13 billion (or 12.9 billion to be more exact).

So the net payment for 2015 was about 8.5?

 

Can we get back to the point?

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

PM May appearing before the Liason Committee:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38383216

 

And showing that she has her finger on the pulse:

 

"It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote to leave the EU, but to change the way the country works and the people for whom it works forever."

So that's what she inferred!

 

These grammar school girls are very intuitive aren't they!!

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Not quite right. The rebate is given before any payment is made, so the gross payment actually made was 13 billion (or 12.9 billion to be more exact).

 

Have another go because the pre-referendum claim by the Brexiteers of EU membership costing the UK 350 million pounds per week missed out that rebate. 350m X 52 = well fancy that!

[SheungWan]

49 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So the net payment for 2015 was about 8.5?

 

Can we get back to the point?

 

Indeed it is, but even then does not account for the economic benefits of membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal.

[nontabury]

Wishing everyone on this thread, A merry Christmas and a prosperous and Brexit New Year.

   

[sandyf]

TM on the spot.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-eu-immigration-plans-regulations-yvette-cooper-border-controls-a7487446.html

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

Have another go because the pre-referendum claim by the Brexiteers of EU membership costing the UK 350 million pounds per week missed out that rebate. 350m X 52 = well fancy that!

 

I don't need to have another go because I was right and you were wrong .

 

Even with the separate issue that you now raise (which isn't my argument, and never has been), the people who used that argument will point out that the UK has no real input on how the rebate is spent: it's the EU's call. But, like I said, it's not a big issue for me. There are far bigger (political) issues which justify getting out, which are above the financial ones.

[Khun Han]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

So the net payment for 2015 was about 8.5?

 

Can we get back to the point?

 

Sorry? Which/whose point? Yours?