The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Enda]

12 hours ago, Awol said:

The EU also says Spain will have a veto on whether any deal applies to the territory of Gibraltar. Do you think the UK will simply roll over and accept that too?! 

Yes.

6 hours ago, Awol said:

I don't dispute that, but if we dig in our heels on this point (which I've no doubt will happen) then the remainder of the EU won't see a deal lost over the issue of Gib and the donkey wallopers.

Don't be so Glib.

What are the odds, Awol, that in a couple of years you're going to be upset at the deal you lot end up with?

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, hippo said:

Broadly speaking, how is our exit bill calculated ? - is it legal costs ? - or recouping grants that we have already had ?  compensation ? 

It's predominately commitments we had agreed to we are now walking away from.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Yes.

Well, I think you'll be surprised in that case.

Quote

Don't be so Glib.

What are the odds, Awol, that in a couple of years you're going to be upset at the deal you lot end up with?

I'll be as glib as I want, the point still stands.  As to the last part I'm not personally going to be disappointed as long as we're out of the EU, but I can't speak for anyone else. As neither you, I nor anybody else knows what the outcome will be then giving odds on unknowable is impossible. Edited April 6, 2017 by blandy
quoting fixed

[Awol]

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's predominately commitments we had agreed to we are now walking away from.

Really, got a source on what commitments David Davis has said we're walking away from? 

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, Awol said:

Really, got a source on what commitments David Davis has said we're walking away from? 

Will the FT do?

Quote

The bill comprises UK financial commitments made but not yet paid up to various EU infrastructure projects and programmes, as well as the UK share of pension liabilities of EU staff

Link

[tonyh29]

47 minutes ago, hippo said:

Broadly speaking, how is our exit bill calculated ?

think of a number , double it , add a bit for luck and then leak it to any media outlet that will listen

[TrentVilla]

19 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Will the FT do?

Link

Only if you want to pay for a subscription for us all.

 

[Awol]

18 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Will the FT do?

Link

Sadly I can't see behind the FT paywall (though I'm impressed you subscribe) does it quote Davis' as saying we are now walking away from our commitments? 

If so that's quite surprising and a great scoop, considering negotiations haven't even started yet. 

[Enda]

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

Well, I think you'll be surprised in that case.

Too right, seeing as Spain -- and every other member state -- already have a veto on whatever they want.

So yes, I'd be very surprised if Spain forego their veto.

[Awol]

Just now, Enda said:

Too right, seeing as Spain -- and every other member state -- already have a veto on whatever they want.

So yes, I'd be very surprised if Spain forego their veto.

I'm not going around the Wrekin on this again, the actual text is posted a few pages back. 

[Enda]

2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Only if you want to pay for a subscription for us all.

Accessible if you click via Google - https://www.google.com/search?q=Juncker%3A+UK’s+Brexit+bill+will+be+‘scientifically+calculated’

[Davkaus]

Search for the extract and it's the top result, you can click through from Google without a subscription.

[Enda]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

I'm not going around the Wrekin on this again, the actual text is posted a few pages back. 

Your suggestion was that the UK don't engage in negotiations until the EU removes reference to a veto that Spain will retain anyway... cool, let's not get into that again.

[TrentVilla]

3 minutes ago, Enda said:

Accessible if you click via Google - https://www.google.com/search?q=Juncker%3A+UK’s+Brexit+bill+will+be+‘scientifically+calculated’

Thanks.

It certainly doesn't say what it was proported to have said.

[ml1dch]

59 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's predominately commitments we had agreed to we are now walking away from.

This from Ian Dunt on politics.co.uk seems to put it all in an easy-to-read framework (with apologies for any formatting SNAFUs)

So whether it's in a marriage or a continent, divorce is always the same - it all comes down to money.

Exactly. Except that in this case they want about 60 billion euros.

That's a lot of money. Did they just pluck that number out the air or what?

They put it together from the seven-year financial framework liability and pensions.

Well that sounds gripping. Let me just sort out this whisky and inject it directly into my bloodstream and I'll be right with you.

The framework is basically how the EU organises its finances. They don't do an annual system, like we're used to in the UK. They use a seven year period. The current one was agreed in 2013 and lasts until 2020. The agreement meetings are famously bad tempered, but when they’re done shouting they decide what needs to be done and how much money they're allocating to it. It might include a bridge in Poland, nuclear power plant being decommissioned in France, budgets for academic research – the lot. Those are all called 'commitments'. Payments come later, when the work is actually carried out. But for now, Britain has commitments for, say, a road building project in Romania in November 2019, even though the payment hasn't happened yet.

And how much does all this add up to?

About 15 billion euros a year, although we get about six billion euros a year of it back in structural funds for the regions, research budgets for universities and farming subsidies. Everyone accepts we'd be paying that until March 2019, when we leave. But the EU is likely to argue that we are under contract to pay it until the end of the framework period – so that's another three quarters in 2019 and another four in 2020. This part gets us up to nearly half the expected 60 billion euro bill.

OK I'm with you so far.

The thing is, that seven-year period has a three-year add-on attached to it.

Of course, because nothing can be simple.

Imagine there's a British professor who gets an EU research grant lasting five years. It might be agreed in 2016, but the bill only arrives in 2021, a year after the funding period ends. So Britain might be liable for future payments for three years after 2020. At some point the Commission will present a gross figure and we'll be on the hook for our share, which is around 12% to 15%.

So in reality the current funding period lasts until 2023 and we're on the hook throughout.

That's pretty much the EU's opening position. But at least these demands go away relatively soon. The pensions aspect lasts forever. Or at least until a lot of EU employees pass away.

Charming. This is our pensions liability for the people working in the European Commission and Council and all that I take it?

Exactly. We have to contribute to the payments towards current and previous staff. The capitalised value of EU pensions commitments are currently around 62 billion euros, so we’d need to work out our share of it to establish our gross future liability.

How do you do that?

There'll probably be a disagreement there. Analysts estimate that about four per cent of current EU employees and eight per cent of its pensioners are Brits. The UK might argue that it should pay according to those figures. The EU argument is likely to be that once someone starts working for an EU institution they become a non-national and their precise citizenship is irrelevant. So Britain's liability should be the same as elsewhere: 12% to 15%. That gets us about another nine billion euros and into the ballpark area of the expected 60 billion euro figure.

They're going to have a massive barney about this aren't they?

They are. Both sides are already testing the legal waters to see if that gives them any leverage. But realistically, where would that end up? The ECJ? That doesn't sound tenable. Maybe the International Criminal Court? Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. By the time it came to that, Britain would have stormed out. The talks would have fallen apart before they even got to trade negotiations.

Could it really come to that?

It's possible. The Europeans are making some seriously hardline noises about the budget and it's not just posturing - there is real anger there.  Britain is a net contributor to the EU budget. Brexit means there's a really quite significant chunk of missing funding to deal with. To put it in crude terms: either countries like Poland get less or countries like Germany pay more. Or probably a bit of both.

Not good.

It gets worse. The way European negotiations work is that everyone has a massive barney and then at the eleventh hour they kiss and make up and sign something. Well the first skirmishes for the next funding period usually start a couple of years before a new deal is signed. And that’s…

Oh God.

Next year. 2018. Just after the German elections. Right when we're getting into the meat of the negotiation. That's when the anger over the funding consequences of Brexit will be most acute. Whether you're a German paying more in or a Pole taking less out, you're going to blame the Brits. That means they may refuse to budge on the budget. And back home, May might find that the hardcore Brexit coalition of backbench Tory MPs, Ukip and the tabloids makes it politically impossible for her to accept the EU bill.

It is a big number, to be fair.

Sure, but look at it in context. In 2014, the government relieved Royal Mail of £38 billion of pensions liabilities plus a £10 billion deficit in preparation for privatisation and barely anyone even remembers that happened anymore. The difference here is that Brexit is an ideological battlefield which everyone feels personally invested in. But yes, there is an incentive for May to walk away here, say 'to hell with them', and present herself to the eurosceptic press like some sort of Boudica fighting valiantly against a foreign tyrant. It’s unlikely, but it is possible. There are many in her party, like John Redwood and other die-hard Brexiters, who would encourage her to do this. Or, more likely, it's possible that the budget issue is sorted, but that the anger over it goes on to poison the other parts of the negotiation.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-article-50-in-five-minutes

Edited April 6, 2017 by ml1dch
Link added

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Thanks.

It certainly doesn't say what it was proported to have said.

I quoted relevant section of it.

If you demand David Davies saying it..I can't help. Given he is on record having a less than stellar understanding of the EU i suspect he wouldn't have the faintest what we're committed to.

Is the FT making things up? How are we not walking away from commitments when we go? Did we sit down x number of years ago in Brussels and say 'look fellas. Great ideas and everything. But we might leave so we aren't agreeing to any of these budgets for next x years'. Are we a special case that can just walk away from things we've agreed to without recourse?

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

This from Ian Dunt on politics.co.uk seems to put it all in an easy-to-read framework (with apologies for any formatting SNAFUs)

So whether it's in a marriage or a continent, divorce is always the same - it all comes down to money.

Exactly. Except that in this case they want about 60 billion euros.

That's a lot of money. Did they just pluck that number out the air or what?

They put it together from the seven-year financial framework liability and pensions.

Well that sounds gripping. Let me just sort out this whisky and inject it directly into my bloodstream and I'll be right with you.

The framework is basically how the EU organises its finances. They don't do an annual system, like we're used to in the UK. They use a seven year period. The current one was agreed in 2013 and lasts until 2020. The agreement meetings are famously bad tempered, but when they’re done shouting they decide what needs to be done and how much money they're allocating to it. It might include a bridge in Poland, nuclear power plant being decommissioned in France, budgets for academic research – the lot. Those are all called 'commitments'. Payments come later, when the work is actually carried out. But for now, Britain has commitments for, say, a road building project in Romania in November 2019, even though the payment hasn't happened yet.

And how much does all this add up to?

About 15 billion euros a year, although we get about six billion euros a year of it back in structural funds for the regions, research budgets for universities and farming subsidies. Everyone accepts we'd be paying that until March 2019, when we leave. But the EU is likely to argue that we are under contract to pay it until the end of the framework period – so that's another three quarters in 2019 and another four in 2020. This part gets us up to nearly half the expected 60 billion euro bill.

OK I'm with you so far.

The thing is, that seven-year period has a three-year add-on attached to it.

Of course, because nothing can be simple.

Imagine there's a British professor who gets an EU research grant lasting five years. It might be agreed in 2016, but the bill only arrives in 2021, a year after the funding period ends. So Britain might be liable for future payments for three years after 2020. At some point the Commission will present a gross figure and we'll be on the hook for our share, which is around 12% to 15%.

So in reality the current funding period lasts until 2023 and we're on the hook throughout.

That's pretty much the EU's opening position. But at least these demands go away relatively soon. The pensions aspect lasts forever. Or at least until a lot of EU employees pass away.

Charming. This is our pensions liability for the people working in the European Commission and Council and all that I take it?

Exactly. We have to contribute to the payments towards current and previous staff. The capitalised value of EU pensions commitments are currently around 62 billion euros, so we’d need to work out our share of it to establish our gross future liability.

How do you do that?

There'll probably be a disagreement there. Analysts estimate that about four per cent of current EU employees and eight per cent of its pensioners are Brits. The UK might argue that it should pay according to those figures. The EU argument is likely to be that once someone starts working for an EU institution they become a non-national and their precise citizenship is irrelevant. So Britain's liability should be the same as elsewhere: 12% to 15%. That gets us about another nine billion euros and into the ballpark area of the expected 60 billion euro figure.

They're going to have a massive barney about this aren't they?

They are. Both sides are already testing the legal waters to see if that gives them any leverage. But realistically, where would that end up? The ECJ? That doesn't sound tenable. Maybe the International Criminal Court? Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. By the time it came to that, Britain would have stormed out. The talks would have fallen apart before they even got to trade negotiations.

Could it really come to that?

It's possible. The Europeans are making some seriously hardline noises about the budget and it's not just posturing - there is real anger there.  Britain is a net contributor to the EU budget. Brexit means there's a really quite significant chunk of missing funding to deal with. To put it in crude terms: either countries like Poland get less or countries like Germany pay more. Or probably a bit of both.

Not good.

It gets worse. The way European negotiations work is that everyone has a massive barney and then at the eleventh hour they kiss and make up and sign something. Well the first skirmishes for the next funding period usually start a couple of years before a new deal is signed. And that’s…

Oh God.

Next year. 2018. Just after the German elections. Right when we're getting into the meat of the negotiation. That's when the anger over the funding consequences of Brexit will be most acute. Whether you're a German paying more in or a Pole taking less out, you're going to blame the Brits. That means they may refuse to budge on the budget. And back home, May might find that the hardcore Brexit coalition of backbench Tory MPs, Ukip and the tabloids makes it politically impossible for her to accept the EU bill.

It is a big number, to be fair.

Sure, but look at it in context. In 2014, the government relieved Royal Mail of £38 billion of pensions liabilities plus a £10 billion deficit in preparation for privatisation and barely anyone even remembers that happened anymore. The difference here is that Brexit is an ideological battlefield which everyone feels personally invested in. But yes, there is an incentive for May to walk away here, say 'to hell with them', and present herself to the eurosceptic press like some sort of Boudica fighting valiantly against a foreign tyrant. It’s unlikely, but it is possible. There are many in her party, like John Redwood and other die-hard Brexiters, who would encourage her to do this. Or, more likely, it's possible that the budget issue is sorted, but that the anger over it goes on to poison the other parts of the negotiation.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-article-50-in-five-minutes

All well and good but David Davies didn't say so it's inadmissable. Sorry. Very enlightening I'm sure but a boring near incompetent Conservative didn't say it so off you go.

[TrentVilla]

12 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I quoted relevant section of it.

If you demand David Davies saying it..I can't help. Given he is on record having a less than stellar understanding of the EU i suspect he wouldn't have the faintest what we're committed to.

Is the FT making things up? How are we not walking away from commitments when we go? Did we sit down x number of years ago in Brussels and say 'look fellas. Great ideas and everything. But we might leave so we aren't agreeing to any of these budgets for next x years'. Are we a special case that can just walk away from things we've agreed to without recourse?

I didn't say it didn't say what you quoted, it did. I said it doesn't say what it was proported it said and it doesn't.

I'm not demanding anything, I'm simply pointing out the article you've quoted/linked in no way says we are walking away from any commitment.

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

All well and good but David Davies didn't say so it's inadmissable. Sorry. Very enlightening I'm sure but a boring near incompetent Conservative didn't say it so off you go.

You wrote that we (UK) are walking away from our commitments.

Conjecture in the press aside no such decision has been made and discussions about it haven't even begun, so although we may at some future point decide to resile on those commitments  we clearly haven't done it yet.

What it does demonstrate is why our negotiators hold much better cards than loads of people want to admit. The EU need the UK's money and we won't be afraid of playing hardball when they start doing the same.

It's going to be ugly and bad tempered but there is no reason to think we can't get a decent result in the end. 

 

[ml1dch]

... incidentally, somebody (I forget who, but he sounded like he knew what he was talking about) being interviewed on a recent Spectator podcast predicted that the end result will likely be the UK agreeing to something pretty close to the big, up-front payment that the EU wants but insignificant or non-existent ongoing payments for any ongoing liabilities such as pensions.

Everyone gets to walk away saying they've won and got what they wanted. Then the trade nonsense gets to start.