Support NeoGAF

[kmag]

As the UK is a net contributor I think we can safely say that it has spent more than it has received.

Most of the money doesn't go on assets, it goes on the CAP.

Technically the rebate would need to be included if we get technical as it's technically a repayment to the UK.

 

[Joni]

If it's not the singular and every food producer paid a decent wage then supermarkets would have to pay the price the market demands. So they then either raise prices or heaven forbid slash shareholder profits and CEO wages.

Big supermarkets have one advantage. They can just wait. Farmers can't. That is why the one common trend we see is that supermarkets push prices down and the EU sets for instance quota to keep prices livable

So yeah tusk just said phase 1 (financial agreements, ireland and citizens) have to be agreed on before phase 2 (trade agreement)

Ireland is going to be interesting.

Ooft. There's another bullet in the gun to the head.

If UK/EU get a FTA spain can still veto gibraltar being a part of it?

As expected May backtracked on security threats:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/847727911540932608

Also shotdown any suggestings of industry only access to single market (car industry, financial industry).

Spain is going to ask to have Gibraltar.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

So yeah tusk just said phase 1 (financial agreements, ireland and citizens) have to be agreed on before phase 2 (trade agreement)

Good, I think all of us in Europe and the UK have worries about Ireland at this point.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Spain is going to ask to have Gibraltar.

To be honest if that were to be the actual arrangement, I think the Spanish might just avoid ever actually taking ownership of Gibraltar, because that is an immense amount of power to have on EU-UK relations.

 

[Halph n Halph]

We are negotiating with the EU and national governments though, infrastructure should just be written off or we will get nowhere fast.

Well so should the exit bill. People keep talking about divorce , paying for the kids and house etc.
Well in a divorce assets are valued and who contributed to what are taken into consideration then assets are split between the parties.
UK owns land, real estate and has investment in the EU and that can't be argued.

 

[Horsefly]

Fair enough, I will set up an independent commission to value it all, see you in a few years.

How... European of you. Just wait until the Daily Mail hears about this...




Anyway, technicalities and implementation aside, I can see this as something being looked at by both sides behind closed doors at the moment.

 

[kmag]

Well so should the exit bill. People keep talking about divorce , paying for the kids and house etc.
Well in a divorce assets are valued and who contributed to what are taken into consideration then assets are split between the parties.
UK owns land, real estate and has investment in the EU and that can't be argued.

And the EU owns land, real estate and investment in the EU and that can't be argued.

If you want to spend the next two years arguing about it then fine, but ultimately the UK loses because the EU can pretty easily survive WTO trading with the UK, while the services driven UK economy can't survive trading with it's biggest external market on those rules.

That's the thing, the UK has no control here because while the worst case scenario is bad for the EU it's fucking devastating for the UK.

 

[PJV3]

Well so should the exit bill. People keep talking about divorce , paying for the kids and house etc.
Well in a divorce assets are valued and who contributed to what are taken into consideration then assets are split between the parties.
UK owns land, real estate and has investment in the EU and that can't be argued.

There's a clock now counting down, if you think it can get done them fair enough.

 

[suedester]

And the EU owns land, real estate and investment in the EU and that can't be argued.

If you want to spend the next two years arguing about it then fine, but ultimately the UK loses because the EU can pretty easily survive WTO trading with the UK, while the services driven UK economy can't.

That's the thing, the UK has no control here because while the worst case scenario is bad for the EU it's fucking devastating for the UK.

You could make that argument about absolutely everything if you so wished. That isn't going into a negotiation in good faith with a non punitive frame of mind which is what the EU states.

If you're going to reduce everything to lolz, EU got ours, UK is fucked, this thread is only good for a UK hating circle jerk. Which is what it mostly is, but still.

 

[kmag]

You could make that argument about absolutely everything if you so wished. That isn't going into a negotiation in good faith with a non punitive frame of mind which is what the EU states.

If you're going to reduce everything to lolz, EU got ours, UK is fucked, this thread is only good for a UK hating circle jerk. Which is what it mostly is, but still.

That's the reality of the situation though. Ultimately it's why despite all the talk about "the UK's share of the assets", it's not going to happen there simply isn't the time for haggling over a line item split. It's one of the reasons no-one ever expected A50 to be used and why in the words of the Brit who wrote it you'd be mad to ever invoke it.

Sorry that doesn't really fit into your worldview but it's realpolitik of the situation.

There's certainly conceivable points where the UK will just take the hit and walk away but I doubt it'll be over EU assets. For what it's worth I don't think the final bill will be £50bn, I'd be surprised if it was over £20bn, the high asking price is simply to allow both sides to claim a win when it comes down to something reasonable. That's something the EU clearly understands, the big question is whether the UK government (who probably also understand it) can bring along the awkward squad, the Sun and the Daily Mail.

Ultimately though, the UK's position in these talks is terribly weak. Sorry, but it is.

 

[Audioboxer]

I WATCHED part of the historic debate in Holyrood regarding indyref2, and two points struck me. The first was Ruth Davidson’s disgraceful and patronising “sit down!” comment to Nicola Sturgeon (who is incidentally the First Minister of Scotland in case you’ve forgotten Ruthie, and as such deserves full respect).

Her demeanour throughout was truculent, aggressive and totally Thatcher-like. Davidson and her fellow Tories stood out in the chamber not for their meaningful contribution to the debate, but for their lack of common courtesy and decency towards their fellow MSPs and therefore the Scottish people.

What is plain to see is that they are just copying their Westminster masters’ style in shouting loudly at anything removed from their very narrow viewpoint. Even the Labour benches were much more subdued and respectful, and much as I have no time for Kezia Dugdale, I felt she managed to control her usual angst and outrage and debated reasonably well.

Here's some division for ye Ruth: http://www.thenational.scot/communi...____sit_down_____was_disgraceful/?ref=mr&lp=1

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well so should the exit bill. People keep talking about divorce , paying for the kids and house etc.
Well in a divorce assets are valued and who contributed to what are taken into consideration then assets are split between the parties.
UK owns land, real estate and has investment in the EU and that can't be argued.

The exit bill is for spending already agreed on (budget, pensions). Infrastructure is already built. And the EU is also not going into Wales and other regions of the UK and tear down their roads financed with EU money.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Glad to see the EU being proactive and setting the correct tone early on.

There seem to be a lot of people in the comments sections on the BBC claiming that the UK should get a share of EU assets that we've helped pay for, particularly as a counter to the EU's 50 odd million "Brexit bill". Is there any realistic basis for this or is it people taking the whole divorce analogy a step too far?

While I see some merit in arguing that the EU is keeping some of the infrastructure we've contributed to, the inverse is also true. We aren't giving those Welsh roads back to Europe.
I don't think we should be going down that route, unless we want to totally stall negotiations for 2 years while we talk about the amortised benefits of literally everything the EU has ever done.

Also, it feels a bit like asking to leave my gym and demanding that I be able to take one of the rowing machines with me since I 'funded' it with my membership fees.

I think the biggest hurdle to any deal will be the British public. I think even Boris could sort something out with Tusk and Barnier (he wanted to be in the single market and keep free movement back in June/July). But of course he'll need appease his home supporters by appearing on the front of the Mail and Sun every week quoting Churchill and being photoshopped into Corporal Jones from Dad's Army (Corbyn gets to be Godfrey and Sturgeon gets to be the "we're all dooomed!" Scottish guy).
The British [edit] tabloid press will want to spin every disagreement as "fight them on the beaches" while every reasonable compromise is equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

The British press will want to spin every disagreement as "fight them on the beaches" while every reasonable compromise is equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler.

Yeah, sure, if 'The British press' is just the Mail, Sun and other trash.

 

[Real Hero]

Yeah, sure, if 'The British press' is just the Mail, Sun and other trash.

That's what most people read and listen to

 

[Uzzy]

Glad to see the EU being proactive and setting the correct tone early on.

There seem to be a lot of people in the comments sections on the BBC claiming that the UK should get a share of EU assets that we've helped pay for, particularly as a counter to the EU's 50 odd million "Brexit bill". Is there any realistic basis for this or is it people taking the whole divorce analogy a step too far?

Of the EU's €154b in assets, there's around €41b that could be taken as 'accumulated wealth', everything from cold hard cash and property, to art pieces and wine. A portion of that would probably be assigned to the UK upon leaving. So it'd partially offset the liabilities. There's also the matter of EU borrowing and loans, which amounts to €56b, and could possibly be assigned to the UK.

A transitional arrangement beyond May 2020 would be good for anyone that wants the UK to get back into Europe quickly, fwiw.

When I saw the 'ten year transitional arrangement' thing floating around, my first thought was just that. I mean, that'd be pushing it up to 2030, and the political situation could change dramatically by then.

 

[kmag]

Of the EU's €154b in assets, there's around €41b that could be taken as 'accumulated wealth', everything from cold hard cash and property, to art pieces and wine. A portion of that would probably be assigned to the UK upon leaving. So it'd partially offset the liabilities. There's also the matter of EU borrowing and loans, which amounts to €56b, and could possibly be assigned to the UK.



When I saw the 'ten year transitional arrangement' thing floating around, my first thought was just that. I mean, that'd be pushing it up to 2030, and the political situation could change dramatically by then.

10 years is mentioned because that's the maximum the WTO allows for transitory deals, and only then if clear and unambiguous progress to a final deal is being made.

 

[Horsefly]

Also, it feels a bit like asking to leave my gym and demanding that I be able to take one of the rowing machines with me since I 'funded' it with my membership fees.

This analogy doesn't work. The UK isn't a customer of the gym. It was one of the founders and funders of the gym. In that instance you might feel you actually did have a right to a rowing machine.

Of the EU's €154b in assets, there's around €41b that could be taken as 'accumulated wealth', everything from cold hard cash and property, to art pieces and wine. A portion of that would probably be assigned to the UK upon leaving. So it'd partially offset the liabilities. There's also the matter of EU borrowing and loans, which amounts to €56b, and could possibly be assigned to the UK.

oooo some real numbers. Interesting, so it really is numbers measured in the tens of billions then? I'd definitely be bringing this to the negotiating table.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This analogy doesn't work. The UK isn't a customer of the gym. It was one of the founders and funders of the gym. In that instance you might feel you actually did have a right to a rowing machine.



oooo some real numbers. Interesting, so it really is numbers measured in the tens of billions then? I'd definitely be bringing this to the negotiating table.

Well it didn't actually help found the gym but yeah.

 

[Horsefly]

Well it didn't actually help found the gym but yeah.

Ah sorry, the analogy stretched too far

 

[ReplacementPelican]

That's what most people read and listen to

Yes but:

a) He said 'The British Press' and I dislike lumping decent newspapers in with the bullshit. Whomever listens to whatever is largely irrelevant to my point.

b) To indulge you, all numbers people band about tend to be purely of the physical sale of newspapers. The 'non-Brexiteer, fuck the EU' papers get massive increases when you add PC/Mobile usage. The Guardian, for instance, increases by 393% in terms of reach when you count those. Especially The Independent which no longer has a physical presence.

 

[operon]

The last part of that sentence has no connection with the first. How can you live in this country and be so staggeringly ignorant of its history? Have you even heard of the Troubles?

He's ignorant about everything to do with brexit don't see why this issue should be so different.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yes but:

a) He said 'The British Press' and I dislike lumping decent newspapers in with the bullshit. Whomever listens to whatever is largely irrelevant to my point.

b) To indulge you, all numbers people band about tend to be purely of the physical sale of newspapers. The 'non-Brexiteer, fuck the EU' papers get massive increases when you add PC/Mobile usage. The Guardian, for instance, increases by 393% in terms of reach when you count those. Especially The Independent which no longer has a physical presence.

There have been studies done on the primary source of news for people, and only 12% of people's main source is The Sun and the Mail (5% each). Far and away the leader is the BBC's output.

 

[kmag]

This analogy doesn't work. The UK isn't a customer of the gym. It was one of the founders and funders of the gym. In that instance you might feel you actually did have a right to a rowing machine.



oooo some real numbers. Interesting, so it really is numbers measured in the tens of billions then? I'd definitely be bringing this to the negotiating table.

How do you calculate the UK contribution to that? Total contribution? Net Contribution?

If it's total contribution it's about 10.70% (2007-2013) so best case about €15 to 16 billion (https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Financing the EU budget_Final_Colour.pdf) but there's also assets going back to the Steel and Coal board and the early years of the EEC to which the UK has not contributed.

I don't see how it could be net, and that opens up a can of worms.

 

[kmag]

There have been studies done on the primary source of news for people, and only 12% of people's main source is The Sun and the Mail (5% each). Far and away the leader is the BBC's output.

There's also studies done in regardless to how people filter the news. Basically the BBC is primary but the (mostly) neutral tone it adopts (except for Scottish Independence, the Royals and the Military) gives the more partisan secondary sources far more effect.

A good example of that was during the EU Ref, where everyone knew the £350 million a week number was utter bullshit, but the BBC could only offer a tepid both sides discussion over the arguments surrounding the accuracy of the number, while the pro-Leave press piled in with factually incorrect nonsense.

 

[Theonik]

Need a detective story here. I think Cameron pointed the gun, Farage & Johnson loaded it, the voting public pulled the trigger, all of us took the bullet and May has to pick up the pieces.

Yuk.

But you know, there's a lot of it that May can't really be blamed for. Not yet anyhow.

The public told May to pull the trigger. Pulling the trigger is still May's doing!

The exit bill is for spending already agreed on (budget, pensions). Infrastructure is already built. And the EU is also not going into Wales and other regions of the UK and tear down their roads financed with EU money.

If people can repossess astroturf I'd like to see the EU try and repossess roads.

 

[daviyoung]

The public told May to pull the trigger. Pulling the trigger is still May's doing!

The voting public are God, May is Noah, Johnson and Gove are Cain and Able and Cameron is Jesus.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The voting public are God, May is Noah, Johnson and Give are Cain and Able and Cameron is Jesus.

This implies he'll be coming back at some point, which I think is somewhat unlikely

 

[Horsefly]

How do you calculate the UK contribution to that? Total contribution? Net Contribution?

If it's total contribution it's about 10.70% (2007-2013) so best case about €15 to 16 billion (https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Financing the EU budget_Final_Colour.pdf) but there's also assets going back to the Steel and Coal board and the early years of the EEC to which the UK has not contributed.

I don't see how it could be net, and that opens up a can of worms.

See, until this last week I wasn't even aware of this as a 'thing'. Today, it's been a thought exercise about a new facet in this whole palaver. Now, it does appear to be a discussion point. It doesn't tip the balance of power in the slightest, but it is something that can be used to help lessen some impacts.

 

[daviyoung]

This implies he'll be coming back at some point, which I think is somewhat unlikely

An apparition of him will appear behind a university lecturn

 

[kmag]

See, until this last week I wasn't even aware of this as a 'thing'. Today, it's been a thought exercise about a new facet in this whole palaver. Now, it does appear to be a discussion point. It doesn't tip the balance of power in the slightest, but it is something that can be used to help lessen some impacts.

Only in very general sums, as I said the actual exercise of a line item argument especially if it centres around net contribution becomes awful problematic for actually completing a deal in the alloted time frame.

 

[d9b]

The voting public are God, May is Noah, Johnson and Gove are Cain and Able and Cameron is Jesus.

Nigel Farage is ..?

 

[Theonik]

Nigel Farage is ..?

The snek.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Nigel Farage is ..?

The serpent?

 

[danowat]

Nigel Farage is ..?

a c**t

 

[Xando]

Nigel Farage is ..?

Judas

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Nigel Farage is ..?

Abraham if he actually went and killed Isaac anyway.

 

[jelly]

Nigel Farage is ..?

The shit on someone's sandle.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

This implies he'll be coming back at some point, which I think is somewhat unlikely

Clegg would fill that role better as his career is back from the dead.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Yes but:

a) He said 'The British Press' and I dislike lumping decent newspapers in with the bullshit. Whomever listens to whatever is largely irrelevant to my point.

b) To indulge you, all numbers people band about tend to be purely of the physical sale of newspapers. The 'non-Brexiteer, fuck the EU' papers get massive increases when you add PC/Mobile usage. The Guardian, for instance, increases by 393% in terms of reach when you count those. Especially The Independent which no longer has a physical presence.

You're correct on all counts. I meant the tabloid press and have edited my post to be clear.
Though the Times and Telegraph will make more subtle variations on the right-wing tabloid claims, while I think the Mirror supported remain or was neutral

Spoiler

and the Sport doesn't care if May or Merkel wins, unless they can get upskirt photos from the negotiations

The Grauniad and FT are still respectable and influential papers, though mostly online now.

 

[titch]

A bet a few folk are wishing that prenups were less rare back in the day.....

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Clegg would fill that role better as his career is back from the dead.

And then will go away not too long later, unable to do much directly?

 

[Tacitus_]

Spoiler

and the Sport doesn't care if May or Merkel wins, unless they can get upskirt photos from the negotiations

 

[Huw_Dawson]

And then will go away not too long later, unable to do much directly?

Future remains uncertain on him.

But if you'd told me he'd get a pop from a QT audience in Birmingham back in 2014 I'd have laughed at you.

 

[Soldiussnaku]

I suppose the question is: Is the UK government smart enough to go along with that?

Well, the pressure of resistance from ukip has all but evaporated thanks to its huge implosion over the past half year and most of its voters will now switch to to the Tory party, which will likely mean a certain general election win for the party in 2020.

which means more thinking 'room' for May and co during the negotiations. The Goodwill from the crazy basr, due to the signing of A50, and all the tough talk and action so far,will last for years.

I have my doubts though. The incompetence on display so far from the Tories has been staggering.

 

[kmag]

Lol clownshoes time

lisa o'carroll‏
@lisaocarroll
BREAKING: Treasury select committee says confidence that customs will be ready for Brexit 'has collapsed' at HMRC

Kent will be a hoot in March/April of 2019.

 

[jelly]

Maybe we could save a few billion by throwing a few billion at this.

 

[Juicy Bob]

Carnivale de Stupide

 

[kmag]

Text of Sturgeon's letter to Section 30 letter to May has been released

Dear Theresa

When we met in Glasgow on Monday, I wished you well for the negotiations that lie ahead now that you have formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. I want to reiterate those good wishes now.

I very much hope that you succeed in realising your ambitions for the terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. A good deal for the UK is clearly in Scotland’s interests whatever constitutional future we choose.

It is for that reason that I intend that the Scottish Government will play a full and constructive role in securing such an outcome.

I expressed my frustration on Monday that the process leading up to the invoking of Article 50 had failed to involve the devolved administrations in any meaningful way – a view that I know is shared by the First Minister of Wales.

Far from securing a UK wide approach ahead of invoking Article 50 – as you committed to do last July – the voices of the devolved administrations were largely ignored and all attempts at compromise rejected, in most cases with no prior consultation.

As we move forward into a new phase, we need to agree a more direct role and influence for the devolved administrations, reflecting the key interests that are at stake for all of us.

However, whatever outcome is secured, it seems inevitable that it will remove the UK, not just from the EU, but also from the single market. As you are aware, that is not an outcome that the people of Scotland voted for. It is also an outcome that will have significant implications for our economy, society and place in the world.

In these very changed circumstances, the people of Scotland must have the right to choose our own future – in short, to exercise our right of self determination.

Indeed I noted the importance you attached to the principle of self determination in your letter to President Tusk.

As you are aware, the Scottish Parliament has now determined by a clear majority that there should be an independence referendum. The purpose of such a referendum is to give people in Scotland the choice of following the UK out of the EU and single market on the terms you negotiate, or becoming an independent country, able to chart our own course and build a genuine partnership of equals with the other nations of the UK. A copy of the motion passed by Parliament on 28 March 2017 is attached.

The decision of the Scottish Parliament has been made in line with the tradition of popular sovereignty in Scotland – that the people of Scotland should be able to determine the form of government most suited to their needs – and with the clear commitment in the manifesto on which my government was re-elected last May.

I am therefore writing to begin early discussions between our governments to agree an Order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 that would enable a referendum to be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament.

I have, of course, noted and carefully considered your public position. However, it seems that we are in agreement on the essential matters.

For example we agree that now is not the time for a referendum.

You confirmed to me on Monday, and repeated in your letter invoking Article 50, that you intend the terms of both the UK’s exit from the EU and of a future trade deal to be agreed before March 2019 and in time for ratification by other member states – in other words, between the autumn of next year and the spring of 2019. As you are aware, this is the timescale endorsed by the Scottish Parliament for a referendum.

As I have said previously, if the timetable you have set out changes, we will require to consider the implications for the timing of a referendum. However, it seems reasonable at this stage to work on the basis of your stated timetable.

We are also in agreement that – unlike the EU referendum – the choice must be an informed one. That means that both the terms of Brexit and the implications and opportunities of independence must be clear in advance of the referendum.

It is also worth noting that the clear precedent of the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement should make reaching agreement on this occasion a relatively straightforward process – addressing any concern you may have that discussions would be time consuming for your government when they are also preparing for EU negotiations.

In light of the above, there appears to be no rational reason for you to stand in the way of the will of the Scottish Parliament and I hope you will not do so.

However, in anticipation of your refusal to enter into discussions at this stage, it is important for me to be clear about my position.

It is my firm view that the mandate of the Scottish Parliament must be respected and progressed. The question is not if, but how.

I hope that will be by constructive discussion between our governments. However, if that is not yet possible, I will set out to the Scottish Parliament the steps I intend to take to ensure that progress is made towards a referendum.

Again, I wish you well for all that lies ahead and stand ready to discuss both a section 30 order and the Scottish Government’s role in securing the best outcome for all parts of the UK.

I am copying this letter to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament and to Bruce Crawford, Convener of the Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee.

Nicola Sturgeon

 

[Goodlife]

Nigel Farage is ..?

One of the most influential politicians in post war UK (sadly)