'Thanks for the war, now pay up' says Juncker.

Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • Au contraire Horizon - if the UK share of assets, ( especially if based on contributions), was indeed being taken into account, then they clearly wouldn't be quoting such a ridiculously high 'divorce bill' . Divorces usually take assets into consideration as well as liabilities do they not? - and it is inconceivable that those huge EU quoted 'divorce bills' could amount to 6 or more years worth of UK contributions - whether or not the UK's share of assets had been allowed. It is undoubtedly correct for the UK to pay it's share of costs , maybe even up to 2020, as we had agreed the budget before the referendum - but have a look at this wrt UK assets share......http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/


    Trading Companies have to allow for the differing trade tariffs with far more countries than are in the EU, including those that have FT agreements with them, ( not all products are tariff free even in RFTAs), so coping with such is hardly a major problem - and they should be further assisted by the subsequent removal of many of these onerous and costly EU regulations that they claim have constantly been damaging their businesses- large and small.


    But 'red herring' - undoubtedly not. Many non-EU countries have FT deals with the EU, WITHOUT having to accept EU dominance, in legislation or the paying of 'tribute' for the privilege - but, as WTO rules , which is the back stop 'agreement' could be harmful to the EU too, their attempts to 'punish' the UK will not, and cannot, ( as you rightly say), be punished by excessive tariffs - so their only mechanism for 'punishing the UK', and dissuading other countries from following suit , is by submitting an excessive 'divorce bill' , on the pretence that it is a real debt.....

  • We don't know what they've asked for, if anything. The EU wanted the UK to agree up-front the method, the formula, to work out the final divorce bill figure. The flip-side to that is, once you've agreed the formula to get to the final figure, then it doesn't take an insurmountable amount of work to actually get to the figure itself. Hence, by agreeing up-front the formula, we would've in effect be agreeing to the final divorce payment. That's what's pissing them off. Good!


    On your link, that bit about pre-financing (projects that already have been funded) was particularly interesting. As there is no need to give them more of our cash as these projects have already paid for and the bit I liked, was, that if the cash was not spent, it should be returned...


    You said in your earlier post about the black hole in the EU's finances post Brexit, and that link really does highlight it. It's a disaster for them. I have no sympathy. They could have given David Cameron some leeway to control our own borders and derogate ourselves from at least some ECJ judgments, they chose not to, because of their rigid rules, which are not rules at all.


    This will get nasty, very, very soon.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

    Edited once, last by Horizon: Added the word side to flip making flip-side. ().

  • Au contraire Horizon - if the UK share of assets, ( especially if based on contributions), was indeed being taken into account, then they clearly wouldn't be quoting such a ridiculously high 'divorce bill' . Divorces usually take assets into consideration as well as liabilities do they not? - and it is inconceivable that those huge EU quoted 'divorce bills' could amount to 6 or more years worth of UK contributions - whether or not the UK's share of assets had been allowed. It is undoubtedly correct for the UK to pay it's share of costs , maybe even up to 2020, as we had agreed the budget before the referendum - but have a look at this wrt UK assets share......http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/


    Trading Companies have to allow for the differing trade tariffs with far more countries than are in the EU, including those that have FT agreements with them, ( not all products are tariff free even in RFTAs), so coping with such is hardly a major problem - and they should be further assisted by the subsequent removal of many of these onerous and costly EU regulations that they claim have constantly been damaging their businesses- large and small.


    But 'red herring' - undoubtedly not. Many non-EU countries have FT deals with the EU, WITHOUT having to accept EU dominance, in legislation or the paying of 'tribute' for the privilege - but, as WTO rules , which is the back stop 'agreement' could be harmful to the EU too, their attempts to 'punish' the UK will not, and cannot, ( as you rightly say), be punished by excessive tariffs - so their only mechanism for 'punishing the UK', and dissuading other countries from following suit , is by submitting an excessive 'divorce bill' , on the pretence that it is a real debt.....

    We know that they know that the divorce bill is a pretence.


    And I'm sure that they know we know.


    The truth cannot be admitted by the EU that the amount of the divorce bill is not just for the UK to fulfil its agreed EU obligations but also for access to the EU markets, including not being screwed by customs rules and contrived irregularities, and relaxing or amending other rules, notably free movement.


    For the EU to admit that the divorce bill is for an agreed total package of negotiated agreements would destroy the EU's strategy or intention, which has never been said out loud, and it is this: if the EU can insist that the UK agrees and pays the divorce bill as a stand-alone obligation before discussing the trade deal and free movement, then the negotiation becomes one sided in the EU's favour. The EU can offer or withhold whatever they choose. It will be their way or the highway. They will have been paid their divorce bill, which means the UK will be on the hook, forced to throw good money after bad. Worse than that, what's the betting that granting access to the free market will hinge on the UK changing from sterling pound to the Euro within 5 years?


    The notion that the EU desperately needs us to remain is naive. The EU leaders have huge salaries, huge pensions, huge expense accounts and they and their immediate family will still be on this gravy train even after the EU economy falls apart. This rigid lemming approach is sometimes described as a long-term vision.


    Britain does not have a Prime Minister capable of winning this negotiation, on either side of the house. We don't have MP's willing to find a leader to support without analysing the solution to death And what puts the kibosh on pursuing the negotiations with this kind of common sense is that we don't have enough voting citizens who can get to mental grips with the problem or hold enough trust in the Government leader and cabinet - and we certainly don't have a media that can inform voters properly of the real issues.


    Democracy crumbles when fools vote for fools or opportunists

  • You may well be correct in asserting that the EU haven't as yet identified a specific sum - but Reuters has claimed that - "European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said Britain may have to pay some 60 billion euros ($70 billion) on departure, while some experts have estimated the up-front cost, before later refunds, could be nearly double that."

  • The notion that the EU desperately needs us to remain is naive. The EU leaders have huge salaries, huge pensions, huge expense accounts and they and their immediate family will still be on this gravy train even after the EU economy falls apart. This rigid lemming approach is sometimes described as a long-term vision.

    But who pays for that gravy, though?

    Britain does not have a Prime Minister capable of winning this negotiation, on either side of the house. We don't have MP's willing to find a leader to support without analysing the solution to death And what puts the kibosh on pursuing the negotiations with this kind of common sense is that we don't have enough voting citizens who can get to mental grips with the problem or hold enough trust in the Government leader and cabinet - and we certainly don't have a media that can inform voters properly of the real issues.


    Democracy crumbles when fools vote for fools or opportunists

    Having a government with no overall majority is the worst possible thing at this moment. Even if May is strong willed, she doesn't have the numbers. Brussels know this.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • You may well be correct in asserting that the EU haven't as yet identified a specific sum - but Reuters has claimed that - "European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said Britain may have to pay some 60 billion euros ($70 billion) on departure, while some experts have estimated the up-front cost, before later refunds, could be nearly double that."

    Take no notice of that tramp. Do they still let him in the front door at the EU's HQ?


    Don't they provide soup kitchens over there for the needy and vulnerable?8o

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Take no notice of that tramp. Do they still let him in the front door at the EU's HQ?


    Don't they provide soup kitchens over there for the needy and vulnerable?8o

    Of course not Horizon.....there are no 'needy and vulnerable' people in the EU HQ! ;o)

  • What a typical asinine comment from an evident Arch Europhile who spouts about Democracy crumbling when fools vote for opportunists, yet you appear to support the EU - which is governed by an unholy, unnecessary, and unelected Commission, and thereby undemocratic.

    You must have been looking into a mirror when you wrote that garbage.

  • What a typical asinine comment from an evident Arch Europhile who spouts about Democracy crumbling when fools vote for opportunists, yet you appear to support the EU - which is governed by an unholy, unnecessary, and unelected Commission, and thereby undemocratic.

    You must have been looking into a mirror when you wrote that garbage.

    If my posted comment causes you to conclude that I'm a Europhile then either I must write more clearly or you must concentrate a bit harder.


    Democracy hasn't so much crumbled in the EU as to have been wilfully abandoned or ignored,


    Here in Blighty there all sorts of examples of how democracy is crumbling. One example would your posted reply which replaces debate with insult and rant. It is typical of the kind of example which led to my sign off

  • Quote

    The EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, says he is planning for the possible collapse of Brexit negotiations with the UK.

    Mr Barnier was talking to French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche days after giving the UK a two-week deadline to clarify key issues.

    Barnier is putting the pressure on, we should just take the pressure off and stand firm. We'll know in six weeks whether they really wish to negotiation or not.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • If my posted comment causes you to conclude that I'm a Europhile then either I must write more clearly or you must concentrate a bit harder.


    Democracy hasn't so much crumbled in the EU as to have been wilfully abandoned or ignored,


    Here in Blighty there all sorts of examples of how democracy is crumbling. One example would your posted reply which replaces debate with insult and rant. It is typical of the kind of example which led to my sign off

    Really, well your fatuous comments from your earlier posts certainly fooled me - and before you say it, yes, that is perhaps easily done. However, your irrational comment on 'democracy' crumbling , and having been 'abandoned' is undoubtedly far more foolish than what I have stated, and if you think that pointing out your stupid comment is an insult then it is time you grew up, and learnt to debate as an adult.....and cease posting stupid comments.

  • Barnier is putting the pressure on, we should just take the pressure off and stand firm. We'll know in six weeks whether they really wish to negotiation or not.

    Unfortunately, up to now at least, May clearly does NOT know the best tactic to be adopted. The EU will sustain the greater loss - the UK have the potential of arranging many more trade deals to our benefit - and whereas we would gain in saving our huge subsidy, the EU will lose their second highest contributor.

    May should have illustrated from the word go what she claimed - that no deal is better than a bad deal - but unfortunately, our EU trading businesses are pressuring /threatening her in view of the prospect of them losing their UK taxpayer subsidised free trade.

    The UK citizen will not only benefit from subsiding those few businesses, but they will also have access to cheaper food - which consumes a significant amount of the family income - especially in view of the claimed rise in food banks.

  • They don't believe we'll walk away and having the likes of Tony Blair et all pop up on tv every five minutes, does not help our case either.


    Even if the pound does stay low, food should be cheaper. We get more and more from Africa, I'm sure the Kiwis won't mind selling more of their lamb and butter and at least three of America's states do nothing but produce food. It should get cheaper once we'll out of the protectionist clutches of the EU.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • European business leaders will meet Prime Minister Theresa May later on Monday to voice concerns about the future of UK-EU trade.

    Experts from groups including the CBI and BusinessEurope will stress the need for a transitional deal that preserves the status quo after Brexit.


    They will urge the government to clarify the future relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU.

    What can May say to them?


    She doesn't know what the future relationship will be, if anything. She should have done this after the next EU leaders meeting, then our "fate" would have been clearer.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • The whole bloody lot is going to pot if you ask me. Reports of Johnson and Gove making demands, 40 MPs ready to sign a motion of no confidence in May. May has simply got to get a grip or go. Her only choice to demand total loyalty and if she doesn't get it, to resign. The EU need to be told firmly either stop messing about and making demands and negotiate properly or we are out and will state trade negotiations immediately with other nations. They have a lot to lose as well and it's time we made them aware of the fact.


    Johnson has got to go, Gove and Leadsom told any more plotting and they are out. We are never going to make a success of this unless the remoaners stop their moaning, accept we are going to leave and get behind the rest of us instead of having nightmares and bedwetting about the prospect of our being an independent country again.


    Project Fear has never stopped and it's time the press and media did their bit in stopping it. The BBC may as well be renamed Barnier's Broadcasting Corporation, not a day goes by without some new prophecy of doom from them. Any remotely good news is countered in the same report with an "Oh yes, but .........." in the same report to neuter it.

  • David Davis predicted all this, he said the EU would play hard ball and it would go down to the wire.


    I agree about Johnson going, he is a disaster. That Iran thing, being the final straw.


    The BBC are very pro-EU and don't they show it...X/ I'm surprised they haven't said we'll be hit with a gigantic tidal wave if we leave the EU, but I'm sure they will, they have time!

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Really, well your fatuous comments from your earlier posts certainly fooled me - and before you say it, yes, that is perhaps easily done. However, your irrational comment on 'democracy' crumbling , and having been 'abandoned' is undoubtedly far more foolish than what I have stated, and if you think that pointing out your stupid comment is an insult then it is time you grew up, and learnt to debate as an adult.....and cease posting stupid comments.

    Any time you feel able and willing to debate or contest an opinion or suggestion I've made, feel free do so. Based on what you are churning out so far, I shan't be holding my breath

  • David Davis predicted all this, he said the EU would play hard ball and it would go down to the wire.


    I agree about Johnson going, he is a disaster. That Iran thing, being the final straw.


    The BBC are very pro-EU and don't they show it...X/ I'm surprised they haven't said we'll be hit with a gigantic tidal wave if we leave the EU, but I'm sure they will, they have time!

    Boris Johnson didn't lock this woman up , don't fall for the he's responsible he isn't, do you want people to never dare speak in public ? because that is the way it is sadly going. The hysterical constituency Labour MP from the womans address needs to get a sense of reality.

    Mr Gove got a hard time from the press yesterday as he said he didn't personally know what this woman was doing in Iran , why should he know this ?

  • Any time you feel able and willing to debate or contest an opinion or suggestion I've made, feel free do so. Based on what you are churning out so far, I shan't be holding my breath

    Really - well why not endeavour to support your claim that "The notion that the EU desperately needs us to remain is naive", with a more rational argument that the EU officials are well paid....an extremely difficult task for you admittedly, but who knows, that may lead to enabling you to debate properly - by attempting to provide credible evidence for your assertions.

  • What can May say to them?


    She doesn't know what the future relationship will be, if anything. She should have done this after the next EU leaders meeting, then our "fate" would have been clearer.

    Well May could ask if those business leaders wish to continue with tariff free trade would they be happy to pay the EU subsidy instead of the taxpayer ??? She wouldn't dream of it of course - but it would be interesting to see their reaction!!

  • I've not read what the outcome of her meeting was, I'll come back to this later.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Really - well why not endeavour to support your claim that "The notion that the EU desperately needs us to remain is naive", with a more rational argument that the EU officials are well paid....an extremely difficult task for you admittedly, but who knows, that may lead to enabling you to debate properly - by attempting to provide credible evidence for your assertions.

    I do wish you could write more clearly or without leaving out a word that completely changes the meaning of what you're trying to say. For example: where you say ".... rational argument that the EU officials are well paid ....." I think you've accidentally left out "than" between "argument" and "that".


    Heck, you not only foul up your own comments, you also foul up mine!


    "The notion that the EU desperately needs us to remain is naive. The EU leaders have huge salaries, huge pensions, huge expense accounts and they and their immediate family will still be on this gravy train even after the EU economy falls apart".


    I hardly need to provide evidence for the second of these two sentences. And hopefully you are capable of figuring out that the second sentence backs up the assertion of my first sentence. To make the connection perhaps you need to understand that decisions can also be based on reasons which are emotional, irrational, selfish, etc. Maybe the deeper problem is that you need to understand that an "assertion" without "evidence" is called an "opinion" and that an exchange - even a contest - of opinions helps to stimulate a debate?


    Imagine a debate between androids (Artificial Intelligence) which, stuffed full of information, can draw conclusions or predictions and even estimate the probability of each conclusion prevailing, but will have zero capability of forming an opinion. Is that your idea of a debate?


    Right now, you seem to be in a twilight zone, in that you don't offer an opinion (which would be proof of being a human rather than an android) but nor do you write clearly (which would be proof of being an android).


    I doubt we are going to find common ground. Assuming your reply will be along the same lines as your previous ones, my standard recommendation is that you should "be fruitful and multiply" ... but in only half that number of words.

  • I do wish you could write more clearly or without leaving out a word that completely changes the meaning of what you're trying to say. For example: where you say ".... rational argument that the EU officials are well paid ....." I think you've accidentally left out "than" between "argument" and "that".


    Heck, you not only foul up your own comments, you also foul up mine!

    Well you are certainly correct in pointing out that I erroneously missed out the word 'than' - but it certainly didn't 'foul' up yours - you are more than capable of doing that yourself - and my point was still valid, as your claim was , and still is nonsense.

    Whilst the EU officials are undoubtedly extremely well paid, it is ridiculous to claim that that fact alone makes it naive to believe that the EU are desperate for the EU to remain.......there are several valid reasons for the EU to wish the UK remain in the EU, with the loss of the EU's subsidy from the UK being a prime one, and the fact that clearly , many people, in all EU member states earnestly support the formation of the USSE - which even you should be capable of realising.

    You certainly are a strange person if you believe that a perceived 'insult' on a forum , a) replaces debate, and b) is somehow a threat to democracy.


    I hardly need to provide evidence for the second of these two sentences. And hopefully you are capable of figuring out that the second sentence backs up the assertion of my first sentence. To make the connection perhaps you need to understand that decisions can also be based on reasons which are emotional, irrational, selfish, etc. Maybe the deeper problem is that you need to understand that an "assertion" without "evidence" is called an "opinion" and that an exchange - even a contest - of opinions helps to stimulate a debate?

    I certainly wouldn't expect you to - because, as I have already pointed out, providing credible evidence to support your claims, is something that you generally appear not to do.....and even 'opinions' usually have a basis of 'facts' , whether true or not, which generate their formation.

    Edited once, last by Stevlin ().

  • Who will blink first?

    David Davis has said the EU must be willing to give ground too if further progress in Brexit talks is to be made.

    He told the BBC the UK has "been offering some creative compromises and not always got them back", insisting that "nothing comes for nothing".


    Many EU countries want to move on in the talks because they can see how important it is to their economies, he told political editor Laura Kuenssberg.

    Theresa May has been told she has two weeks to put more money on the table if the EU is to agree to begin Brexit trade talks before the end of the year.

    EU Council President Donald Tusk said he was "ready" to move onto the next phase of Brexit talks, covering future relations with the UK.


    But he said the UK must demonstrate more progress on the "divorce bill" and the Irish border by early next month.


    David Davis was in Berlin yesterday for talks and said that the EU needs to compromise a little and May has been meeting Tusk today.


    As has been the case since Article 50 was triggered back in March, the EU do not want to negotiate, or at least that's how it seems. If we're past Christmas and into the New Year and they still don't want to talk trade, then it's all over.


    May has supposedly already offered them more money, but this story today is saying that's not enough and Tusk is demanding more. If May gives into EU demands, her government will collapse. If she doesn't do what the EU demands, the Brexit negotiations will collapse.


    Sometimes I don't envy politicians, it's a lose, lose situation for her. Really, she needs to go and have someone the Conservatives can unite behind and someone who the EU will take a little bit more seriously.


    I don't know if anyone saw This Week last night. Michael Portillo was carping on that we should pay the bill as it would be "worth it."


    As one of those articles above states and as I've been saying, what the EU want is for us to agree line-by-line the formula, the method, for working out the divorce bill. By doing so, and to his credit Davis has been stalling the EU on this, if we agree the method to work out the final figure, it would in effect be agreeing to the actual final figure. It would be easy for the EU to work out the final sum once the method is agreed to. That's what the EU is demanding we do. Sod 'em!


    If May gives in to the EU demands, the country will never forgive her.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • If May caves in , the Tories will be electorally destroyed, then the country will be economically destroyed by comrade Jezza , SURELY our politicians realise this?

  • That's why she's in a lose-lose situation, Nigel.


    What's cheaper at the end of the day? Losing trade with the EU on single market grounds or having Comrade Corbyn as PM?


    Going by what the Comrade Shadow chancellor said recently about borrowing many, many billions of pounds, I think it would be cheaper for the country to walk away from the EU, rather than give in to them. But I never was any good at maths, so who knows.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • It shouldn't matter if the Brexit negotiations stop, as far as the UK is concerned , as the default basis of trade is already established - and is likely to result in the UK Treasury actually collecting revenue from EU trade, instead of subsidising the EU to benefit from it. All the UK will have to do is register/agree it's tariffs with the WTO.

    Naturally,those UK businesses that trade with the EU won't like that, but they should really be getting used to the idea that the UK tax payer will no longer subsidise their tariff free 'boon'. It may well of course register with the EU that their bluff has been called......and possibly stir them into action instead of 'trying it on'. May should NOT increase her so called offer to the EU.....unless the amount to be offered is a true reflection of what UK commitments can be properly supported .....including an amount in recognition of UK 'share' of assets.

  • May has already said we are going to keep funding various EU organisations as its in our interests to do so, post Brexit. So these EU tactics seem nothing more to scare others within the EU from leaving than actually being sensible and doing a proper deal with us.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • May has already said we are going to keep funding various EU organisations as its in our interests to do so, post Brexit. So these EU tactics seem nothing more to scare others within the EU from leaving than actually being sensible and doing a proper deal with us.

    Paying a 'fair' contribution for participation in one or more EU organisations is one thing, paying a subsidy, and accepting loss of legislative primacy in order to access so called Free Trade is something else again. However, to 'scare' the EU, we would have to refuse to agree or nominate ANY so called divorce bill UNTIL we have an agreed trade deal.

    I do realise that won't happen - which is a shame - because no deal really is better than a bad deal - and the latter is all we have had for over 40 years - but that is probably the only way to make the EU see sense.

  • The return of David Miliband.


    (click the link above to watch his interview)

    Although this is a few days old, I thought it was interesting that Tony Blar's heir apparent has decided to show his face now, presumably he's still in New York.


    In the interview, he thinks by coming out of the EU, we're losing influence in the world as we did such a great job within the EU. Obviously he never looked at the history of the major votes in the EU, when the UK got outvoted every time.


    Also interesting that as the hysteria around Comrade Corbyn is starting to fade a little, we've had both Tony Blair announcing he might return to front line politics and Milliband brother No 1, the one the Labour MPs actually liked all popping up at the same time. It's called positioning, nothing to do with Brexit what so ever.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.