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

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • 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-uk…et-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.

  • 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-uk…et-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

  • 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 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.

    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.

  • 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

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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!!

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!