Support NeoGAF

[Lime]

The British government believes there should be parallel talks on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal and the future trading relationship. The timeline is key to May’s hopes of completing a free trade agreement by the end of the two years allowed for negotiations under the Lisbon treaty.

However, political parties in the Czech parliament have joined senior figures in Rome and Berlin in backing the European commission’s line that there can be no such talks until Britain has agreed to pay its bills and has struck an agreement on the rights of EU nationals.

Britain’s bill is expected to come to about €60bn, although the exact figure will change depending on when exactly the UK leaves the EU.

In a statement, the Czech parties said: “Although an agreement on a future relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU is, from a long-term perspective, a key part of the process, it should be preceded by an agreement on the basic outline of the conditions for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, which will serve as the framework for negotiations on future relations.”

Jean Claude-Juncker, the commission president, insists the UK will have to settle its bills before significant talks about the future can begin. On Tuesday, he said the cost of Brexit to the British Treasury would be “very hefty”. Juncker met Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, on Wednesday night.

At a meeting of the EU27 and the commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, in Brussels last week, it was suggested that Britain was likely to be asked to pay about €57bn (£48bn) in instalments over the next six years.

May had been widely expected to trigger article 50 talks at a European council summit in Brussels on 9-10 March. However, on Thursday, the Irish prime minister Enda Kenny said he believed the moved would be “delayed a little”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-uk-to-pay-60bn-exit-bill-before-trade-talks

 

[Betty]

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Is this in addition to our annual contribution? Because it sounds like what we're paying already.

2015 net contribution £8.5bn

8.5*6yrs=£51bn

Seems pretty close to the £48bn quoted

 

[Hyun Sai]

 

[Mivey]

I mean, this the kind of payments that are usually done over the course of many years. It's telling how little thought went into Article 50 that this isn't even directly addressed. Assuming good will on both sides, this could be handled okay, with some form of long term payment agreement, but ... This shit is going to be a mess for everyone isn't it?

 

[Falk]

I feel like we got the order mixed up here.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Let's pay our crumbling NHS instead and stay in Europe. The UK agreed to this deal and must honor it. And that's a lot of money at a time when the country is knee deep in the red.

But no. British pride comes first.

 

[Xe4]

Man, it's a good thing Brexit happened, otherwise ya'll would've payed Europe so much, you never had enough money to pay for the NHS!

Spoiler

/heavy sarcasm

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Is this in addition to our annual contribution? Because it sounds like what we're paying already.

2015 net contribution £8.5bn

8.5*6yrs=£51bn

Seems pretty close to the £48bn quoted

Yeah but we get a lot back. With this its burning money, with no reciprocated benefits. Just a big bill followed by a worsened trade deal.

 

[DarthMasta]

How many friendly divorces have you guys ever seen? Sure, they happen, but not in this case I don't think, it's going to be a messy one, as expected by anyone not terribly optimistic...

 

[gofreak]

A conservative MP in Dublin yesterday told Irish members of parliament that the UK wouldn't make such a payment.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...-60bn-eu-bill-after-brexit-tds-told-1.2986930

Not honouring your commitments would be a great start for a country embarking on trade negotiation anew worldwide...

 

[Chichikov]

I think you guys are doing that whole Star Wars thing wrong -

 

[TatteredHat]

You could just stay in the EU and use the money for something productive instead.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

A conservative MP in Dublin yesterday told Irish members of parliament that the UK wouldn't make such a payment.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...-60bn-eu-bill-after-brexit-tds-told-1.2986930

Not honouring your commitments would be a great start for a country embarking on trade negotiation anew worldwide...

Can states get sued over stuff like that?

 

[Uzzy]

Can states get sued over stuff like that?

Who would enforce?

 

[Des0lar]

Can states get sued over stuff like that?

Sure but who enforces the law? If GB doesn't want to pay they can always refuse.
But there will be consequences.

 

[Shadowhelper]

Just like UK tore itself is tearing itself apart, I feel like the EU will do the same.

How long until Greece leaves? Greece has nowhere but to go but up, once they leave. Greece leaving would be the beginning of the end.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Who would enforce?

It basically shows the UK doesn't care to honor its financial commitments, which will be reflected in the interest they pay on the market, investments made, loans given, etc.

Just like UK tore itself is tearing itself apart, I feel like the EU will do the same.

How long until Greece leaves? Greece has nowhere but to go but up, once they leave. Greece leaving would be the beginning of the end.

Greece is an Euro issue, not an EU issue. Greece out of the EU would not be so good for them.

 

[DarthMasta]

If it comes to it, it'll depend on what story develops around the world:
UK reneges on it's obligations or EU tries to impose unjust condition on exiting Britain.

One of those two narratives will win out, assuming a failure of reaching a proper deal...

 

[Tak3n]

Never going to happen, this is just plain old posturing, when you delve down into that figure it is complete bullshit TBH

it is based on future pension commitments, and future EU projects.... the EU are losing their whale (contributor) only the biggest idiot in the world would sign off on this, the EU know it as well, expect the final figure to be nowhere near that

They are acting like double glazing sales firms....our windows were £40,000 but you can have them for £4000 if you agree now

The sum would cover the UK's share of the cost of projects and programs it previously agreed to. The contributions would help smooth the expected €10 billion-per-year (US$10.5 billion) black hole left in the EU budget by Brexit.

it is akin to your wife leaving you then presenting a bill for you to buy her a new car because you had agreed to her having a new car when you were married...

oh and let us not forget this

May plans to push for a slice of the EU's €154 billion in assets when Britain leaves, arguing that it paid in for many years and that it deserves a share.

 

[llehuty]

If UK pays it, Europe would be automatically saved, wouldn't it?

 

[DBT85]

How many friendly divorces have you guys ever seen? Sure, they happen, but not in this case I don't think, it's going to be a messy one, as expected by anyone not terribly optimistic...

Mine was ok, but then I hadn't signed up for dozen or hundreds of long term science, tech, environmental agreements over the next 10+ years, so it made the split a bit easier than this will be.

 

[Charles Brandon]

This is just a negotiating tactic. And a possible way for everyone to come out of this like winners.

I have become increasingly of the opinion that the EU is, despite overt messages to the contrary, prepared to negotiate on the single market. You can pick that up if you read some of the comments made by lower-ranking EU officials in the papers. Kicking the UK out is really not in anyone's interest but the EU still needs to be able to show that the UK has been punished. Taxing the UK by £60b is may allow the EU to spin that it has given the UK what-for, whereas the UK may think that £60b is a price worth paying for retained single-market access and controls on EU immigration (which may turn out to be a lot less stringent than people are thinking at the moment - remember, the accepted narrative is that the people want control, not, aguably, an outright ban, which gives the UK some wiggle room).

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yeah but we get a lot back. With this its burning money, with no reciprocated benefits. Just a big bill followed by a worsened trade deal.

Ok, but if it is just the maintaining of our current contribution for the next six years (and this is an honest question, I don't actually know), then that's a lot less controversial than "hefty EU leaving bill" isn't it?

 

[Joni]

it is akin to your wife leaving you then presenting a bill for you to buy her a new car because you had agreed to her having a new car when you were married...

I wanna bet that in divorce court you would still have to pay for that car if you signed the contact.

 

[liquidtmd]

Ok, but if it is just the maintaining of our current contribution for the next six years (and this is an honest question, I don't actually know), then that's a lot less controversial than "hefty EU leaving bill" isn't it?

This is how I see it, so I'd be interested to know.

A phased transitional period like this so alternate plans can be put in place in both sides doesn't sound that unreasonable to a layman like me.

 

[Tak3n]

Ok, but if it is just the maintaining of our current contribution for the next six years (and this is an honest question, I don't actually know), then that's a lot less controversial than "hefty EU leaving bill" isn't it?

it is stupid (both sides) we need to agree a trade deal, but no, all the fucking twats want to do now if argue over money....sigh. it is just like any divorce... party A wants xyz, party B does not want to give xyz...

in the end both will agree to split xyz.... but it is the time wasted on deciding over xyz that is stupid, media reports suggest until December!

 

[Uzzy]

It basically shows the UK doesn't care to honor its financial commitments, which will be reflected in the interest they pay on the market, investments made, loans given, etc.

Which would be a bad thing, for sure, and something to avoid, but it's not as if we'd be seeing EU bailiffs calling to collect.

Ok, but if it is just the maintaining of our current contribution for the next six years (and this is an honest question, I don't actually know), then that's a lot less controversial than "hefty EU leaving bill" isn't it?

Indeed. The PR of this will be very important, as you just know the Express and the Mail, along with the more vocal Brexitters on the Conservative benches will love to scream about the EU charging us for Eurocrat pensions and what have you.

 

[Tak3n]

I wanna bet that in divorce court you would still have to pay for that car if you signed the contact.

indeed you would, but then you would be entitled to a share of the assets (154 billion) so it is all about people being reasonable and level headed, but Juncker just seems like he wants to go out with a bang

 

[Frankfurter]

This is just a negotiating tactic. And a possible way for everyone to come out of this like winners.

I have become increasingly of the opinion that the EU is, despite overt messages to the contrary, prepared to negotiate on the single market. You can pick that up if you read some of the comments made by lower-ranking EU officials in the papers. Kicking the UK out is really not in anyone's interest but the EU still needs to be able to show that the UK has been punished. Taxing the UK by £60b is may allow the EU to spin that it has given the UK what-for, whereas the UK may think that £60b is a price worth paying for retained single-market access and controls on EU immigration (which may turn out to be a lot less stringent than people are thinking at the moment - remember, the accepted narrative is that the people want control, not, aguably, an outright ban, which gives the UK some wiggle room).

Just keep telling yourself that. One day it'll magically become the truth.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

indeed you would, but then you would be entitled to a share of the assets (154 billion) so it is all about people being reasonable and level headed, but Juncker just seems like he wants to go out with a bang

Good that Ms. May is so reasonable about the topic EU.

 

[DarthMasta]

I've been saying for some time now, but with the politics of the thing, both sides needing to show that they've "won", increasingly negative outlook on the other side, what was promised to the British people (having cake and eating it too), etc, etc, I'd bet the chances of crashing out and no deal are higher than not...

 

[danowat]

No "Things are looking pretty good" yet?

 

[Orniletter]

We'll send the EU 350 million pounds per week for the next 138 weeks to pay our debt, let's fund our ??? instead.

Take back control.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Just keep telling yourself that. One day it'll magically become the truth.

We shall see. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to boot Britain out. Britain loses more but it's still lose-lose. Business interests in the EU don't want to lose access to the 2nd/3rd biggest market, for all the talk of Frankfurt and Paris, neither one will be able to replace the functions of The City for a long time, because the infrastructure is not there. The entire population of Frankfurt is lower than the amount of people that work in financial services in The City. Finally, and this is not talked about much, the EU's existing trade deals are predicated on trade partners having access to the UK market. It's fun to run the UK down but it is still a huge market and losing that will weaken the EU's negotiating position in future deals, leading to worse terms.

Given all that, I think there is enough impetus on both sides for a deal to be done, particularly if freedom-of-movement remains in some form, perhaps with the addition of a cap or other controlling powers for the UK. The UK will need to be punished in some way.

I concede that this is an optimistic point of view but it is also a pragmatic one. Emotional bluster will give way to pragmatism in the end, so long as the EU can save face and look like they have given the UK a right royal kicking and the UK can say they have 'left' the EU, even though, in practice, not much as actually changed.

 

[Chinner]

You will see the EU buckle under the mighty pressure of the United Kingdom when they realise that we buy all of their cars and they import all of our jam. The EU will realise that they messed with the wrong chaps.

My one hope is that the UK will become the major world superpower it used to be, I hope my grand children see the UK reclaiming Europe as its own, cleansing what is not pure. We will call the UKU - United Kingdom Union.

 

[Uzzy]

We'll send the EU 350 million pounds per week for the next 138 weeks to pay our debt, let's fund our ??? instead.

Take back control.

£350m a week to fund Eurocrat pensions and Polish farmers. The Express would explode into a seething mass of rage.

 

[kmag]

We shall see. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to boot Britain out. Britain loses more but it's still lose-lose. Business interests in the EU don't want to lose access to the 2nd/3rd biggest market, for all the talk of Frankfurt and Paris, neither one will be able to replace the functions of The City for a long time, because the infrastructure is not there. The entire population of Frankfurt is lower than the amount of people that work in financial services in The City. Finally, and this is not talked about much, the EU's existing trade deals are predicated on trade partners having access to the UK market. It's fun to run the UK down but it is still a huge market and losing that will weaken the EU's negotiating position in future deals, leading to worse terms.

Given all that, I think there is enough impetus on both sides for a deal to be done, particularly if freedom-of-movement remains in some form, perhaps with the addition of a cap or other controlling powers for the UK. The UK will need to be punished in some way.

I concede that this is an optimistic point of view but it is also a pragmatic one. Emotional bluster will give way to pragmatism in the end, so long as the EU can save face and look like they have given the UK a right royal kicking and the UK can say they have 'left' the EU, even though, in practice, not much as actually changed.

If the EU needs the City, it can just offer equivalence at a cost to the UK. It can literally cherry pick what access it needs to give the UK to it's market on a per sector basis.

Ultimately the pragmatic view for the rest of the EU is to maintain the stability of the EU and the common market because ultimately that's worth far far far more to them than any deal with the UK. That doesn't allow the UK to get cake and to eat it or to even be able to spin it in any as a positive deal.

 

[FDC1]

You will see the EU buckle under the mighty pressure of the United Kingdom when they realise that we buy all of their cars and they import all of our jam. The EU will realise that they messed with the wrong chaps.

My one hope is that the UK will become the major world superpower it used to be, I hope my grand children see the UK reclaiming Europe as its own, cleansing what is not pure. We will call the UKU - United Kingdom Union.

Sure but then we will take back all our football players and you'll have a premiere league with the level of your national team. Do you really want that? DO YOU?

 

[Charles Brandon]

If the EU needs the City, it can just offer equivalence at a cost to the UK. It can literally cherry pick what access it needs to give the UK to it's market on a per sector basis.

Ultimately the pragmatic view for the rest of the EU is to maintain the stability of the EU and the common market because ultimately that's worth far far far more to them than any deal with the UK. That doesn't allow the UK to get cake and to eat it or to even be able to spin it in any as a positive deal.

My view is that the stability of the EU and the common market can be bought at a far cheaper cost than so called hard brexit, which will fuck the UK but which will also cost the EU billions and billions.

It's only an opinion of course. I don't expect you to agree.

 

[Frankfurter]

We shall see. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to boot Britain out. Britain loses more but it's still lose-lose. Business interests in the EU don't want to lose access to the 2nd/3rd biggest market, for all the talk of Frankfurt and Paris, neither one will be able to replace the functions of The City for a long time, because the infrastructure is not there. The entire population of Frankfurt is lower than the amount of people that work in financial services in The City. Finally, and this is not talked about much, the EU's existing trade deals are predicated on trade partners having access to the UK market. It's fun to run the UK down but it is still a huge market and losing that will weaken the EU's negotiating position in future deals, leading to worse terms.

Given all that, I think there is enough impetus on both sides for a deal to be done, particularly if freedom-of-movement remains in some form, perhaps with the addition of a cap or other controlling powers for the UK. The UK will need to be punished in some way.

I concede that this is an optimistic point of view but it is also a pragmatic one. Emotional bluster will give way to pragmatism in the end, so long as the EU can save face and look like they have given the UK a right royal kicking and the UK can say they have 'left' the EU, even though, in practice, not much as actually changed.

You are right that it is a lose-lose situation. But that whole situation is solely caused by the UK. It voted to leave the EU (which is its right to do so) and its politicians chose to make immigration a red line. The EUs principles make it impossible to allow the UK single market access without the immigration part. Now you may argue that there is still a way around, because the UK is a large economy and all that.
But giving in to the UKs demand means that the EU as a whole is in danger. Other countries might choose to leave the EU and demand the same deal, which would put the EU in jeopardy.
This is btw. exactly what businesses have talked about time and again. Businesses are against the UK getting single market access if immigration is a red line. And that actually makes sense: the UK is a large market, but the "rEU" is a much larger market, and they'd rather lose part of the business with the UK than with the rEU.

Edit: I just wanna reiterate: its not the EU that's booting out the UK. It's the UK that's booting out itself.

 

[Shadowhelper]

We shall see. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to boot Britain out. Britain loses more but it's still lose-lose. Business interests in the EU don't want to lose access to the 2nd/3rd biggest market, for all the talk of Frankfurt and Paris, neither one will be able to replace the functions of The City for a long time, because the infrastructure is not there. The entire population of Frankfurt is lower than the amount of people that work in financial services in The City. Finally, and this is not talked about much, the EU's existing trade deals are predicated on trade partners having access to the UK market. It's fun to run the UK down but it is still a huge market and losing that will weaken the EU's negotiating position in future deals, leading to worse terms.

Given all that, I think there is enough impetus on both sides for a deal to be done, particularly if freedom-of-movement remains in some form, perhaps with the addition of a cap or other controlling powers for the UK. The UK will need to be punished in some way.

I concede that this is an optimistic point of view but it is also a pragmatic one. Emotional bluster will give way to pragmatism in the end, so long as the EU can save face and look like they have given the UK a right royal kicking and the UK can say they have 'left' the EU, even though, in practice, not much as actually changed.

And bankers don't want to move to non English speaking countries. It would be Frankfurt not Paris that would win out the most. But it is expected it would be spread out among them, and even if there is a hard brexit, even then, not all the EU related jobs would be gone.

The banks don't want to leave. The language barrier is a real problem for many bankers and for America. Anyway, secret EU memos have said they might have to leave the City untouched because they don't want to crash their own economies.

ATM, they are not threatening the City, because it's become obvious the job losses in the City would equal far less EU bonds being traded in total.

If the City loses its status as the European financial capital, no city will really take over, Frankfurt would get the most, but the modest gains would be spread among other cities.

The City, once thought to be EUs biggest bargaining chip, might actually be the UKs biggest bargaining chip, as without it functioning it could cause the EU banking sector to meltdown worse than 2008.

 

[Kinyou]

Britain’s bill is expected to come to about €60bn

 

[ClosingADoor]

My view is that the stability of the EU and the common market can be bought at a far cheaper cost than so called hard brexit, which will fuck the UK but which will also cost the EU billions and billions.

It's only an opinion of course. I don't expect you to agree.

You need to take into account that the EU can't give in too much, because that would fuel the anti-EU parties of countries like France, Netherlands, Denmark, etc. Better to take a bit larger hit now, then to have to deal with more trouble in a few years again.

 

[Tak3n]

Lets be honest, apart from the pound, things have not gone nuclear since the referendum (I think that is fair?) in fact some would argue the opposite...

Now we have not officially left yet as many will argue, but I honestly feel it wont be as bad as project fear claimed, nor will it be as good as project leave claimed...

I firmly believe it will be somewhere in the middle...and I also think there has been a softening of attitudes of remainers, and the need to watch the UK burn has calmed somewhat, like any divorce we both will do and say things we regret, but the hope is thatin the future we will both be happy.

everyone just needs a group hug

 

[ittoryu]

And bankers don't want to move to non English speaking countries. It would be Frankfurt not Paris that would win out the most. But it is expected it would be spread out among them, and even if there is a hard brexit, even then, not all the EU related jobs would be gone.

The banks don't want to leave. The language barrier is a real problem for many bankers and for America. Anyway, secret EU memos have said they might have to leave the City untouched because they don't want to crash their own economies.

ATM, they are not threatening the City, because it's become obvious the job losses in the City would equal far less EU bonds being traded in total.

If the City loses its status as the European financial capital, no city will really take over, Frankfurt would get the most, but the modest gains would be spread among other cities.

The City, once thought to be EUs biggest bargaining chip, might actually be the UKs biggest bargaining chip, as without it functioning it could cause the EU banking sector to meltdown worse than 2008.

 

[Charles Brandon]

You are right that it is a lose-lose situation. But that whole situation is solely caused by the UK. It voted to leave the EU (which is its right to do so) and its politicians chose to make immigration a red line. The EUs principles make it impossible to allow the UK single market access without the immigration part. Now you may argue that there is still a way around, because the UK is a large economy and all that.
But giving in to the UKs demand means that the EU as a whole is in danger. Other countries might choose to leave the EU and demand the same deal, which would put the EU in jeopardy.
This is btw. exactly what businesses have talked about time and again. Businesses are against the UK getting single market access if immigration is a red line. And that actually makes sense: the UK is a large market, but the "rEU" is a much larger market, and they'd rather lose part of the business with the UK than with the rEU.

Edit: I just wanna reiterate: its not the EU that's booting out the UK. It's the UK that's booting out itself.

I agree with a lot of that, which is why there will need to be an element of punishment to deter other nations (although personally I'm not really sure why the EU wants to threaten nations into membership...but that's a different discussion). The UK can not be allowed to be in a position outside the EU that is superior to its position inside, that is the line that has been drawn. The UK will not be in a superior position but it may be allowed to be in position that is marginally worse. You mention freedom of movement and I agree with that as well, which is why I suggest that freedom of movement could be retained to a large degree, with powers of control of somesort to go to the UK.

The EU has to be the winner in this deal but it could be a win on points, it doesn't have to be a fight to the death with the EU standing over the mangled corpse of the UK having lost a limb, three teeth and suffered brain damage in the process.

 

[liquidtmd]

I've been saying for some time now, but with the politics of the thing, both sides needing to show that they've "won", increasingly negative outlook on the other side, what was promised to the British people (having cake and eating it too), etc, etc, I'd bet the chances of crashing out and no deal are higher than not...

True but fundamentally crashing out with no deal isnt exactly going to have no affect on the EU either. Sure it will hurt the UK more, but I as a remainer state we don't exist in a vacuum. What affects one WILL affect the other.

I dunno. I'm just tired at this point. I dearly wanted to stay in but all sides need to start growing up. It's happening. Regardless of how we got here, it's in the UKs interests to learn some goddamn humility and in the EUs interests not to be an unmovable object as it's currently dealing with multiple threats to its existence even excluding Brexit.

In a similar way to how I imagine all Americans on here are tired of the blanket 'durp U.S, you elected Trump you dickheads' I'm tired of literally every UK thread for eight months plus turning into 'fucking U.K, they deserve a thrashing for their stupidity'.

We are people. A collective. Wishing the worst of a nation as a whole irrespective of what lead here is as unproductive as me continually slating and hating the people who wanted Brexit. There are many good people here and decades of national positive projects promoting EU unity are just being swept away in this bile (I was part of an EU choir project to which I met many wonderful people across the continent)

I've heard language used like 'the EU can cherry pick, and strip the UK financial industry bare, they need to be to be told its place, it had a good deal and now the EU27 can hold out / gang up on the UK to get sweet deals because lol we can veto you' - frankly it's as bullying and bloody minded rhetoric as the shitty xenophobic bollocks I heard from the Leave Campaign.

I'm sick of both sides frankly but that's not to say the classic 'both sides are the same'. They are not. The UK goofed collectively but opening gambits like saying 'you owe us 60 billion before we even talk to you' - whatever I think of our UK chiefs, what are they supposed to say?

 

[DarthMasta]

What I find amusing is that in the wake of people choosing Brexit, something that's seen as illogical, people then proceed to assume that the sequence of events will now proceed in a logical fashion.

 

[Charles Brandon]

What I find amusing is that in the wake of people choosing Brexit, something that's seen as illogical, people then proceed to assume that the sequence of events will now proceed in a logical fashion.

What I say to that is that, this time, it will not be the people in control, it will be the sober suited politicians.