• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM

Status
Not open for further replies.
Technically it is nationalism (or perhaps just isolationism), but there were far fewer outright attacks on human dignity in the lead-up the referendum than what happened in the US. You might not like a sign or two and yes there was a worrying spike in hate crimes afterwards, but despite parallels it was still really different. The basic idea of leaving the EU might not be everyone's favourite decision, but despite immigration being the main issue, check out some of the other words on that bubble.

It's unfortunate that leavers are ignoring that the judiciary upholding parliamentary sovereignty IS British (not EU) law, but it's actually pretty scary that the case could theoretically find itself in the European Court of Justice...that's how much the European Union is basically sovereign. It's not the European Economic Community anymore.

If people actually wanted to go back to an EEC with only economic links they wouldn't be asking for a hard Brexit in the first place. Single market membership is pretty much the closest thing to being in the EEC in the modern era. Sadly loads of people just hate immigrants.
 
Trump will kill TTIP so euro is dropping. Dollar is uncertain, since trump will kill environment protection and corporation tax, which offsets the negative business prospects of having a madman in charge who scares off foreign investors.

We might get a trade deal now, since we don't compete with rust belt manufacturing (unlike Mexico or Central Europe). It'll be a shit deal though because the USA won't give us good services access. They know May is desperate for any deal, because Brexiteers won't give a shit about the details while they yell "See, we got a USA Trade Deal and you Reminders said we couldn't" and wave it in our faces like Chamberlain's deal with Germany.
 

sammex

Member
Pound raises cost of Britain’s EU budget contribution


Brussels bill complicates sums for chancellor’s first Autumn Statement
YESTERDAY by: Chris Giles in London and Alex Barker in Brussels

Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget next year is set to rise by hundreds of millions of pounds due to the drop in sterling, increasing tensions with European partners already having to make up a €1.7bn gap from the UK this year alone.


But even though the British bill will rise in 2017, its contributions will decline in euro terms because a weaker pound means Britain’s economy appears smaller, further souring the atmosphere across the English Channel.

Britain’s additional EU bills will complicate the arithmetic facing chancellor Philip Hammond as he puts the finishing touches to his first Autumn Statement. Public finances are already under pressure and could be stressed further by Brexiters demanding the earliest possible exit from the EU.

The result that both Britain and other large European countries are out of pocket from a drop in sterling stems from the complexities of the EU budgeting process. For most aspects of the budget, the exchange rate is set on the final day of each year in December and held steady for the following year.


This ensures that Britain’s contributions in 2016 have remained stable in pounds despite sterling’s 15 per cent fall from €1.37 a year ago to €1.16 on Friday. But when calculated in euros, the pound’s fall has reduced Britain’s net contributions, leaving a €1.7bn hole in budget contributions in 2016.

The European Commission is seeking to fill the gap by dipping into a pot for accumulated competition fines, which the EU would usually redistribute to member states as a bonus at the end of the year. The shortfall has generated some anger, particularly among MEPs.

While Britain did not lose out in 2016, that luck does not last in future years because it will need to use more sterling to pay its remaining EU contributions, which are initially set in euros.

When the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated the effects of a 9 per cent reduction in sterling at the time of the March Budget, it estimated Britain’s new EU contributions would rise £400m a year after 2018. The larger fall since the referendum suggests the additional costs of a weaker pound would be up to £700m, although a senior Treasury official cautioned that these calculations were not directly proportionate.

Jean Arthuis, the chair of the European Parliament budget committee, said: “The UK is not the only one bearing the brunt of Brexit. The outcome of the British referendum and its consequences make us poorer collectively. Brexit is a lose-lose situation.”

Should sterling further depreciate through the year — after the payment conversion rate is set — further budget top-ups will be required from other EU states, much like in 2016.

The fluctuations in UK payments are a taster of the far bigger challenges facing the EU budget in a post-Brexit union.

The loss of Britain’s net contribution of about £8bn a year confronts Germany, Italy, France and other net contributors with a political dilemma. The gap can either be filled through bigger contributions, or spending plans can be pared back by scrapping programmes, which eastern and central European countries have in particular relied on. Berlin is signalling that it will not be willing to dip into its pockets after Brexit to cover Britain’s lost contribution

source

See ya later imaginary NHS money.
 
By whom? Also, how was that ever in doubt? Anyway, how do you feel about the fact that we'll be contributing more now?

Memories...like the corners of my mind....

Actually that whole page is a riot, check this out:

That's even more boring than our politics, though - Trump has already lost and Clinton has already won and it's just playing the waiting game for however many months. At least we are living in interesting times!

Time to eat some humble pie Crab!

To answer your question, I thought we were actually going to be contributing less once you factor in exchange rate changes? If it is more, I'd be a bit miffed by that obviously.
 

sammex

Member
Memories...like the corners of my mind....

Actually that whole page is a riot, check this out:



Time to eat some humble pie Crab!

To answer your question, I thought we were actually going to be contributing less once you factor in exchange rate changes? If it is more, I'd be a bit miffed by that obviously.

I can't see anything on that page, unless I'm missing something? (I did just skim read it)

As they say in the article it's a lose lose situation. So we're not paying any extra for 2016 contributions, we pay a fixed amount, but as the pound is now worth less this means the EU has a budget shortfall (they set the exchange rate on Dec 31st of the previous year).

However, in 2017 when we have to pay our contribution we'll have to make up the extra cost of the weak pound (even if the pound recovers during 2017).
 

Zaph

Member

That response clearly explains that if you only take into account direct rebates and return investment, then we are a net contributor, but once you factor in what those contributions do for the government (e.g, increased tax revenue from businesses with tarriff-free single market access, or money saved by departments we don't need like trade negotiators, etc) we are not a net contributor. Did you read the reply?

I still can't wait for that magical Brexiter to appear who posts and responds in good faith. But I suppose the unwillingness to scratch beneath the surface is why we're in this mess to begin with...
 
I read a Facebook post earlier that demanded to know why we had to pay a contribution for 'free trade'. Apparently 'free trade' actually means 'costless trade'. Which is an interesting idea.
 
That response clearly explains that if you only take into account direct rebates and return investment, then we are a net contributor, but once you factor in what those contributions do for the government (e.g, increased tax revenue from businesses with tarriff-free single market access, or money saved by departments we don't need like trade negotiators, etc) we are not a net contributor. Did you read the reply?

I still can't wait for that magical Brexiter to appear who posts and responds in good faith. But I suppose the unwillingness to scratch beneath the surface is why we're in this mess to begin with...

Sure I did, but it's all hogwash. We are net contributors, and all the "factoring in" in the world doesn't change that.

Why count money "saved"? There's no reason to, except if you want to downplay our contribution. And of course, all the other member states get the same benefits, but also get more money out than they put in.

I read a Facebook post earlier that demanded to know why we had to pay a contribution for 'free trade'. Apparently 'free trade' actually means 'costless trade'. Which is an interesting idea.

I think it's a question worth asking. Mexico has free trade with the single market. So does South Korea. Are they paying in?
 

Kabouter

Member
Sure I did, but it's all hogwash. We are net contributors, and all the "factoring in" in the world doesn't change that.

Why count money "saved"? There's no reason to, except if you want to downplay our contribution. And of course, all the other member states get the same benefits, but also get more money out than they put in.

All the other member states? Is the UK the only net contributor to the EU budget now? :D
 
I think it's a question worth asking. Mexico has free trade with the single market. So does South Korea. Are they paying in?

My point was that the author of said post understood 'free' to relate to the actual costs of trade, not what 'free trade' actually means: no tariffs or restrictions. They even said 'no such thing as a free lunch', which suggests they haven't understood that the 'free' does not refer to costs of paying into a central budget of a polity... The 'free trade' aspect is part of the benefits of EU membership, not the only reason for it, and thus 'paying for free trade' isn't the whole story. Mexico doesn't get investment into its poorer regions from Brussels.
 
From my perspective that membership 'fee' is well worth it, from how much the EU reinvests into poorer regions as well as funding research, education, and barrierless trade between countries etc. For the citizen the EU is undoubtedly more good than bad.
 

Irminsul

Member
Sure I did, but it's all hogwash. We are net contributors, and all the "factoring in" in the world doesn't change that.

Why count money "saved"? There's no reason to, except if you want to downplay our contribution. And of course, all the other member states get the same benefits, but also get more money out than they put in.
As a citizen of another (well, for the time being) EU member state, I have to say it's really rich to hear Brits whining about contributions to the EU budget, with all their rebates and exemptions.

But then I guess it's no wonder regions that got money for projects from the EU because your government couldn't be arsed to think about anything except London still voted to leave.

The only thing that could top that would be complaints about how "unfair" the EU is in Brexit negotiations for not giving away all its assets for free.
 

TimmmV

Member
Sure I did, but it's all hogwash. We are net contributors, and all the "factoring in" in the world doesn't change that.

Why count money "saved"? There's no reason to, except if you want to downplay our contribution. And of course, all the other member states get the same benefits, but also get more money out than they put in.

Because the argument should obviously be about whether the membership costs of the EU are worth the benefits they provide, not whether the EU directly gives us back more than we directly put in.

And that bolded bit is absolute bollocks btw, loads of countries (particularly Germany, did you actually think they directly receive more back than they put in??) pay in more than is directly given out
 
Because the argument should obviously be about whether the membership costs of the EU are worth the benefits they provide, not whether the EU directly gives us back more than we directly put in.

And that bolded bit is absolute bollocks btw, loads of countries (particularly Germany, did you actually think they directly receive more back than they put in??) pay in more than is directly given out

No, I meant net beneficiary states (or whatever the opposite of net contributor is), not all other member states. Kabouter already beat you to it.

No take backsies!

Why you...

Actually it would be a bit like someone bringing food / booze to a house party and then trying to take it with them when they leave if it's not been consumed. A practice I've always been vehemently against tbh.
 
No, I meant net beneficiary states (or whatever the opposite of net contributor is), not all other member states. Kabouter already beat you to it.



Why you...

Actually it would be a bit like someone bringing food / booze to a house party and then trying to take it with them when they leave if it's not been consumed. A practice I've always been vehemently against tbh.

Don't know what all the fuss is about regarding paying into the EU. It's what you get out of it that matters. And UK citizens have benefited from being an EU member.
 

Moosichu

Member
No, I meant net beneficiary states (or whatever the opposite of net contributor is), not all other member states. Kabouter already beat you to it.



Why you...

Actually it would be a bit like someone bringing food / booze to a house party and then trying to take it with them when they leave if it's not been consumed. A practice I've always been vehemently against tbh.

But those states are poorer. Furthermore, by investing in them you increase productivity, education and infrastructure which leads to a growing EU economy which ultimately, arguably, benefits the UK more than if it had just held on to that money. Economics isn't a zero-sum game.
 
Don't know what all the fuss is about regarding paying into the EU. It's what you get out of it that matters. And UK citizens have benefited from being an EU member.

Some have, no doubt. But more haven't, or at least don't feel like they have.

But those states are poorer. Furthermore, by investing in them you increase productivity, education and infrastructure which leads to a growing EU economy which ultimately, arguably, benefits the UK more than if it had just held on to that money. Economics isn't a zero-sum game.

Well, I'd be lying if I said I understood economics!
 

RedShift

Member
Just watched a bit of May's speech.

She just said something like 'we'll work for a deal that works for the whole worl- UK'

Kind of a weird slip up.
 

illusionary

Member
Just watched a bit of May's speech.

She just said something like 'we'll work for a deal that works for the whole worl- UK'

Kind of a weird slip up.

The Telegraph's video seems to have been promptly edited to remove this. I don'#t suppose that anyone's seen an unedited full video?
 

Uzzy

Member
'There is no plan' for Brexit, and there may not be one for six months.

The government has no overall Brexit plan and a negotiating strategy may not be agreed by the cabinet for six months, a leaked memo has suggested.
The memo - obtained by the Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff.
However, there is still no common exit strategy "because of divisions within the cabinet", the leaked document adds.
The leaked Cabinet Office memo - written by an un-named consultant and entitled "Brexit Update" of 7 November - suggests it will take another six months before the government decides precisely what it wants to achieve from Brexit or agrees on its priorities.

Shocked. Shocked I tell you.
 

Joni

Member
But I was assured in the earlier Brexit thread that the UK is not a net contributor the the EU??

That is not a statement about the net contribution in the first place... It is about the gross contribution, considering the actual paybacks and the economic benefits, it is an investment.
 

sammex

Member
Yeah, but in typical Tory fashion they aren't going to pay for the needed jobs.

We can use that money we're saving from EU contributions! Things are going pretty well! Brexit means Brexit!

Edit:

In addition, it said major players in industry are expected to “point a gun to the government’s head” to get what they want after the carmaker Nissan was given assurances that it would not lose out from investing in Britain after Brexit.

Leaked Brexit memo: no single plan and Whitehall is struggling to cope
 

Maledict

Member
Lol May is never getting parliamentary approval

John McDonnel today said that Labour would not block article 50 in parliament. Why?

When asked about opposing Brexit: "To do so would put Labour against the majority will of the British people and on the side of certain corporate elites"

Oops, seems like John is letting his and Corbyn true feelings about Europe slip though there! Since when did labour suddenly join the ranks of being anti-EU because of corporate interests?

Unreconstructed 70s communist throwback that he - really annoys me how Corbyn extremely pro-EU base completely ignore his attitude and actions on Europe.
 

BGBW

Maturity, bitches.
I wonder if the first question when applying for one of those new civil servant jobs is whether you voted leave or remain.
 

nekkid

It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
The efficiency of May government is astounding. Almost 1 year in total to come up with a plan? This rivals with the famous efficiency of the late Ottoman empire.

To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if it took that long. My concern is her "everything's rosy" attitude, when it's quite clearly a fucking mess.

But also, what exactly are they planning? They could spend a year on these plans only for her to activate a50 and the EU saying "lol nope".
 

SteveWD40

Member
To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if it took that long. My concern is her "everything's rosy" attitude, when it's quite clearly a fucking mess.

But also, what exactly are they planning? They could spend a year on these plans only for her to activate a50 and the EU saying "lol nope".

I still can't get a bead on her, early on she sounded almost centralist (equality, Scotland need to agree etc..), then she went all hard right "fuck the single market / rule of law"

It's like she got taken aside by their back bench and told she would be out if she didn't tow the line. What fucks me off is the lack of challenging her "overwhelming mandate" soundbites. 16M brits are going to be pissed off if you keep acting like they don't matter. The fact she is on tape saying leaving the EU is bad is also reason enough to drag her over the coals.
 
If May and her government were even slightly competent, they would either think up a workable plan for brexit (and not spout meaningless soundbites, and wanting impossible things) or abandon the idea completely.
 

nekkid

It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
I still can't get a bead on her, early on she sounded almost centralist (equality, Scotland need to agree etc..), then she went all hard right "fuck the single market / rule of law"

It's like she got taken aside by their back bench and told she would be out if she didn't tow the line. What fucks me off is the lack of challenging her "overwhelming mandate" soundbites. 16M brits are going to be pissed off if you keep acting like they don't matter. The fact she is on tape saying leaving the EU is bad is also reason enough to drag her over the coals.

It really is this, isn't it? Complete and utter pandering to the 52% and utterly no regard for nearly half of the population that cared enough to vote. That's what riles me up so much - when was the last genuine acknowledgement by May or her government that we exist?

It's like "this is happening, and happening hard. Don't like it? Whatevs, I'm not really listening. For the rest of us, let's go down the pub and chat about how awesome it's going to be over a warm, non-imported pint - just don't ask me for details".

I think it's absolutely fair enough that they now pay attention and talk to those who voted to leave who did feel isolated and ignored by the establishment, but this is a complete swing in the other direction.
 

SteveWD40

Member
Google chucking £1B into UK, creating thousands of jobs and saying very nice things about the talent pool.

CEO even cites he feels post Brexit UK is good bet but hints he feels freedom of movement could continue...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom