Orsenkhat...

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by Tekkytyke, May 7, 2017.

  1. Tek

    Tekkytyke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,369
    Likes Received:
    4,609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Italy
    Style:
    Barnsley Dark
    Specifically for you as I know we disagree on Brexit but at least I know I can get a objective opinion ....

    It has been reported that the EU lawyers advised the EU commission that enforcing a leave bill of any amount is not legally possible and advised against it. However leaders of EU members pushed for it.
    Given this, does this not give us some 'wiggle room' at the negotiations in that we can make a goodwill payment of an amount after haggling over Brexit benefits.
    Personally I disagree with some posters on here that 100bn is a realistic figure which we must pay for the simple reasons that we will pay out contributions to 2019 anyway, the current agreed budget was only 2014 -2020 and if it is an additional amount it equates to a further 10 years of net EU contributions with no return and against a budget that therefore has not been agreed or signed off.
    Proposed 'agreed' projects beyond 2020 have not been formally signed off so could be deferred in which case we would be paying for something that may not actually happen if they cancel them.
    Furthermore the argument put forward by Barnier that UK is not entitled to any share of the assets to offset that amount because "the EU is an entity and the assets belong to the entity not individual members" is nonsensical.
    Should the EU fold what happens to the assets. Is it a 'Last man standing' scenario. Surely as one of the only two net contributors of the EU budget over recent years that must be a consideration. Yes we joined when the EU was up and running but many of the assets have grown and infrastructure (headquarters etc) during the time we have been members.
    Don't get me wrong. I think we should pay a mutually acceptable amount to meet our share of the commitments like pensions for UK EU administrators etc and all those saying stick two fingers up to the EU are being unrealistic but, IMO, 100bn is equally unrealistic. I am not even sure it originally came from the EU, rather someone from the UK quoted in the Financial Times. As they keep upping the amount it also calls into question the legitimacy of the accounting system although it is a myth that accounts are unaudited. It is true though that many years they are signed off with caveats due to unaccounted for amounts (often in excess of 1 billion)
    What are your views?
     
  2. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    40,155
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
  3. orsenkaht

    orsenkaht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    11,240
    Likes Received:
    10,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I replied to one of yours the other night, Tekktyke. This was/is my broad view:

    To call the settlement terms a divorce bill or a punishment is counter-productive. If we have freely entered into financial obligations during our EU membership then we should honour that part of the commitment which involves costs which the EU cannot avoid following our departure. So the assessment of those costs on a fair and rational basis is what this part of the negotiations should be about. But any threat of our walking away altogether from those liabilities would surely call into question our reliability as a trading nation, and would surely affect our credit rating, and hence our ability to secure future funds against government bonds. The notion that we could demand 'our share' of the value of the EU buildings and infrastructure is quite silly. These assets (unlike a matrimonial home) cannot simply be sold and their value realised. The remaining 27 states need them to conduct the ongoing EU business. Our partial ownership could be recognised - for what good it would do us!

    There is a pressing need to take down the temperature of the debate around our exit costs. We need to agree a fair assessment method for determining their amount, and to not resort to feigned outrage at some arbitrary amount beyond which we should not go. And we need to remember that we want something from Europe (i.e. favourable trading terms) which is largely within their gift as a result of our exit. To make the argument that the EU will not 'cut it's nose off to spite it's face' on trading terms may well underestimate the extent to which the EU places a greater priority on preserving the integrity of the union (with or without reform).

    As I said there, the amount is not really the issue, so much as arriving at a fair method to determine it. My worry is that Maggie May's bull in a china shop approach will end up scuppering any hopes of us achieving a mutually satisfactory relationship with the EU going forward.
     

Share This Page