If we vote for Brexit what happens

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

What you have seen instead is the EU coming to us demanding a huge exit fee instead. It's the only way they can get the money, if we let them.

And it's not speculation. Here's an idiots' guide produced by the Jacques Delors Institute which takes you through the different scenarios.

http://www.delorsinstitut.de/en/publications/brexit-and-the-eu-budget-threat-or-opportunity/

There is no exit bill but pre-agreed financial arrangements.

As your link says: "Overall, the paper concludes that Brexit could have a quite significant, although not devastating, impact on the EU budget and would likely deepen the existing cleavage between ‘net contributors’ and ‘net recipients’. "

Could have but could not. Significant but not devastating.
These are the same people predicting the EU would collapse after Brexit, a year later and no one in the EU seems to care (of course they care but not with the same passion as you do in the UK) similar to the Greek bailout dramas.

There seems to be this ongoing argument that Brexit it's duel between two parties and there must be a winner and you seem to believe that only Britain can be in that place.
Maybe there's no duel as such, maybe the EU is happy to cut Britain lose and move on.

Yah_Boo_Sux

always_sunny wrote: »

There is no exit bill but pre-agreed financial arrangements.

As your link says: "Overall, the paper concludes that Brexit could have a quite significant, although not devastating, impact on the EU budget and would likely deepen the existing cleavage between ‘net contributors’ and ‘net recipients’. "

Could have but could not. Significant but not devastating.
These are the same people predicting the EU would collapse after Brexit, a year later and no one in the EU seems to care (of course they care but not with the same passion as you do in the UK) similar to the Greek bailout dramas.

There seems to be this ongoing argument that Brexit it's duel between two parties and there must be a winner and you seem to believe that only Britain can be in that place.
Maybe there's no duel as such, maybe the EU is happy to cut Britain lose and move on.

Most of these arrangements end as the EU's current seven-year budget framework ends in 2020 - and since Brexit has been planned since 2016 it cannot be said that arrangements of any kind should apply since then and most certainly not since Article 50 was invoked. I note that you also seem to ignore the share of any assets accrued by the EU since the beginning of our membership.

Now I have seen a few saying the EU might collapse in these threads but never that this was a certainty. If the EU survives longer-term I, like others, believe that it will be a very different EU to that which we see now.
Why?
Because almost all the problems facing the EU which could lead to collapse (or change) are still there, they haven't gone away.

Populism - elections soon in Austria and looking like Italy too where the far right are popular in both countries & I see today that some in Italy want out of the Euro.
Greece - still struggling on and the EU continue being obstinate about bailouts whilst continuing demands.
Migrants - where to start? The Med. and Italy's thousands per week? Or Turkey who are still holding millions from Syria at the request of the EU who have paid billions for them to do so. And who continue to press the EU for concessions with threats regarding these refugees. Leading to illegal border fences within the EU and tensions with the Visegrad nations over "redistribution" of refugees.
Banking problems, not just with Deutsche Bank or the Italian banks but almost one trillion Euros worth of nonperforming loans across Europe. Even the Euro and the monetary union has been said by the ECB itself to be "in critical position" and in dire need of reform

These are just some of the things facing the EU right now.
As for the "duel" between two sides over Brexit, is it surprising given the combative tone of senior politicians across Europe?
Such language was hardly going to provoke a calm response now was it? In fact personally I think that what rebukes the EU has had so far have mostly shown typical British reserve. If the EU continue their belligerent stance that will change, I'm sure.

Think of how different things could have been if instead these EU politicians had taken a friendlier "Oh well, let's get on and see what we can work out" stance rather than threatening.
In fact Brexit itself may never have been on the cards had so many not been so vocally disparaging, and this at a time when TBH they should all have been quiet observers and no more.
But they weren't, so Brexit is happening and is likely to go forward under the guidance of May & team as we will see next week.

Thrugelmir

always_sunny wrote: »

But will others accept cuts?

Cuts, or increases less than inflation? What are going to do if they don't agree? The UK has to improve productivity to compete globally. There's no right to anything. Has to be earnt.

cogito

always_sunny wrote: »

There is no exit bill but pre-agreed financial arrangements.

As your link says: "Overall, the paper concludes that Brexit could have a quite significant, although not devastating, impact on the EU budget and would likely deepen the existing cleavage between ‘net contributors’ and ‘net recipients’. "

Could have but could not. Significant but not devastating.
These are the same people predicting the EU would collapse after Brexit, a year later and no one in the EU seems to care (of course they care but not with the same passion as you do in the UK) similar to the Greek bailout dramas.

There seems to be this ongoing argument that Brexit it's duel between two parties and there must be a winner and you seem to believe that only Britain can be in that place.
Maybe there's no duel as such, maybe the EU is happy to cut Britain lose and move on.

If there are pre-agreed financial arrangements, why is it that the UK has rejected the EU's demands? We must of course honour any commitments that we have entered up to the point when we actually leave the EU but it would appear that the EU are looking for ongoing payments and offering nothing in return.

It shouldn't be a duel but the EU's belligerent attitude displayed by Juncker's leaked phone call to Merkel after the Downing Street dinner seems to indicate that the EU are looking for a fight. It is at least a display of the kind of arrogance that we have come to expect from members of the European Commission.

It was amusing that the Irish government asked Juncker why he didn't also call the other 26 government leaders. Pretty clear who pulls the strings.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Proven?
Well since the annual amount borrowed as a share of GDP has reduced from 9.9% in 2010 after Labour being in control to 2.6% in 2016, it is a pretty big clue as to whether or not it will be proven.

Corbyn's factoid was that governments since 2010 have borrowed more money than every previous Labour government combined. Tim Harford (undercover economist R4) investigated the truth of this and calculated this was true in both nominal and real terms.

The new government of 2010 promised to cut the deficit to zero by 2010. The new government of 2015 promised to cut the deficit to zero by 2020. This didn't and won't happen.

Even the most partisan will agree that 9.9% deficit/ gdp is an eye watering figure but not all of that can be contributed to Labour overspending as some of that is attributable to the GFC.

There's some argument that Osborne's failure to meet his promises helped the economy recover more quickly but, IMO, the Tories have been profligate. A monkey could significantly reduce the deficit from 10% of GDP in an improving world economy.

cogito

wotsthat wrote: »

A monkey could significantly reduce the deficit from 10% of GDP in an improving world economy.

. Go on then. Tell us how you would do it if it's so easy.

wotsthat

cogito wrote: »

. Go on then. Tell us how you would do it if it's so easy.

In 2010 I could've actually got away with tinkering around the edges, sat back, ate a few bananas, and let the improving world economy float UK GDP and have still have seen a reduction in deficit to GDP ratio. That's pretty much what Osborne did.

You have to remember that the 2010 election was the one where both Labour and the Tories were arguing about who could cut the deficit quickest. There was a mandate to make 'tough choices' but it didn't happen.

In nominal terms I could donate an afternoon off work and sort the deficit but I don't have to worry about people voting for me.

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

If there are pre-agreed financial arrangements, why is it that the UK has rejected the EU's demands? We must of course honour any commitments that we have entered up to the point when we actually leave the EU but it would appear that the EU are looking for ongoing payments and offering nothing in return.

It shouldn't be a duel but the EU's belligerent attitude displayed by Juncker's leaked phone call to Merkel after the Downing Street dinner seems to indicate that the EU are looking for a fight. It is at least a display of the kind of arrogance that we have come to expect from members of the European Commission.

It was amusing that the Irish government asked Juncker why he didn't also call the other 26 government leaders. Pretty clear who pulls the strings.

Show me an official document from the British government rejecting 'the' official bill from the European Union.

The only thing released at this stage is the cadence of negotiations and how the EU wants to proceed.
I do suspect there will be some pre-agreed commitments as there might be some assets but right now we have no details of these.

The EU is not looking for a fight (I understand that is the image on many British tabloids), the EU is looking to cut the UK lose as wished in the unrealistic timeframe proposed.

Even the leaked phone call you bring up, I am not sure where you see the EU wanting a fight.
If the demands from Britain seem unrealistic to the EU (as it has been expressed from the EU over and over) that is a statement of that.

The demands may appear very realistic from the British side and fair enough, it doesn't mean they must be met.

mayonnaise

UK now the worst-performing advanced economy in the world.

Now Britain is languishing alongside Italy, whose economy also grew at 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of the year.

Oh dear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-worst-performing-advanced-economy-world-post-brexit-slump-election-pound-sterling-a7766286.html

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

What you have seen instead is the EU coming to us demanding a huge exit fee instead. It's the only way they can get the money, if we let them.

And it's not speculation. Here's an idiots' guide produced by the Jacques Delors Institute which takes you through the different scenarios.

http://www.delorsinstitut.de/en/publications/brexit-and-the-eu-budget-threat-or-opportunity/

Isn't it more relevant to look at the positioning paper issued THIS week.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/draft-eu-position-papers-article-50-negotiations_en

I haven't seen you commenting on this ACTUAL list from the EU.