Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

but theit's inconceivable that the EU would take a hit to maintain the EU?

Back again to previously discussed topics.

23 out of 27 member states benefit from the current arrangement. The EU works on the basis of majority voting.

Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Back again to previously discussed topics.

23 out of 27 member states benefit from the current arrangement. The EU works on the basis of majority voting.

Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

That doesn't answer the question though

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

How long will we remain a United Kingdom? Every argument for Brexit is an argument for Scottish or Welsh independence.

Hardly.
One of the key arguments for Brexit was the desire as a net contributor to keep our own money here. The opposite dynamic is at work for Scotland and Wales, if they were to leave the UK there would no money coming back I would suggest.
That ignores the fact of course that separatism appears to be on the wane in these islands.

System

Liam Fox warns EU it will 'harm its own people' by failing to start post-Brexit trade talks

And he again called for Britain to crash out of the EU with “no deal” if Brussels cuts up rough, saying: “We don’t need one and we could make a very good success if we didn’t.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-trade-talks-liam-fox-eu-jean-claude-juncker-miracle-conservative-conference-a7977616.html

So, as we don't need a deal, Fox's warning to the EU is based on altruistic concern for the people of the EU?

Seems the fact that the UK agreed to timetable and agenda for negotiations is being air-brushed from history by Tory-central.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

Hardly.
One of the key arguments for Brexit was the desire as a net contributor to keep our own money here. The opposite dynamic is at work for Scotland and Wales, if they were to leave the UK there would no money coming back I would suggest.
That ignores the fact of course that separatism appears to be on the wane in these islands.

Even as a net taker (apparently), we still have a desire to keep our own money here, and have it counted as money generated from here.

Plus we want the ability to make our own laws, and the ability to make our own trade deals. We're also willing to make ourselves a little poorer to get it.

Sounds kind of familiar, no?

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

Even as a net taker (apparently), we still have a desire to keep our own money here, and have it counted as money generated from here.

Plus we want the ability to make our own laws, and the ability to make our own trade deals. We're also willing to make ourselves a little poorer to get it.

Sounds kind of familiar, no?

I've heard the arguments for Scottish (?) independence, yes.:)
Who`s "we" BTW?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

OK, I'll stick with my 2017 derived 8.5% figure then. It's more relevant than 2015.
If you want to claim otherwise then without evidence we'lljust need to agree to disagree.

ilovehouses wrote: »

Figures on fullfact should be sufficient. £8.6bn is the 'hole' they're looking to fill.

We'll be paying a 'divorce' payment of between £20bn and £80bn.

Then payments if there's a transitional period.

Then we'll be contributing ongoing to share/ pool costs where the UK and EU can work together. There are more similarities here than differences.

..and we did hear only yesterday Ireland's contribution has gone up by £2bn just like that.

I doubt it's beyond the wit of man to sort this.

Oh dear, it is as I suspected.
As has already been said, the actual amount and the percentage are largely irrelevant in the context of the original post and response.
But since you insist ............ although I suspect you will not like it:


Arithmetic must not be a strong point either.
Either that or you are deliberately attempting to deceive; which is it?

The inability to recognize the difference between net figures and gross figures is a worry; it is akin to the attempted deception of dodgy websites advertising their goods in prices excluding VAT to make them appear cheaper than they really are - which incidentally is against the law.

Since you decided to take Fullfact's 2016 figure , here's where you are going wrong:

In 2016 the UK government paid £13.1 billion to the EU budget

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-annual-budget/2016/
The EU budget for that year was 143.89 billion Euros.
*Note: both these figures are gross.
Is that clear enough?


If you really want to use the £8.6 billion figure which is a net figure you must also do the same for the entire EU budget - and they don't make that easy but heck, go for it if you're so inclined.
Remember to include all the EU spends on each member country too.



If that is not evidence enough and you insist that our payment is £8.6 billion, please can you explain why "We'll be paying a 'divorce' payment of between £20bn and £80bn." since the sums don't add up, especially given we are members until March 2019 and the EU's budgetary term ends the next year?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

Seems the fact that the UK agreed to timetable and agenda for negotiations is being air-brushed from history by Tory-central.

That's it, you ignore the little fact that Article 50 clearly says that all decisions regarding the direction of talks lay with the EU and not the UK.
Most of us knew this beforehand and that fact was widely discussed in previous incarnations of this thread; no air-brushing then, just your propagandist stance.

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

In 2016 the UK government paid £13.1 billion to the EU budget

OK. £13.1bn then.

We'll be paying a 'divorce' payment of between £20bn and £80bn.

Then payments if there's a transitional period.

Then we'll be contributing ongoing to share/ pool costs where the UK and EU can work together. There are more similarities here than differences.

..and we did hear only the other day Ireland's contribution has gone up by £2bn just like that.

I doubt it's beyond the wit of man to sort this.

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

That's it, you ignore the little fact that Article 50 clearly says that all decisions regarding the direction of talks lay with the EU and not the UK.

You should've mentioned this little fact to David Davis. It would've saved him looking a prat after he stuck his chest out and demanded parallel trade talks start on day one promising the 'row of the summer' if they didn't start.

David knew it was vital, he made it quite clear it was and he should've been willing to suspend talks until he got closer to his own way. Instead he was shaking in the corner like a frit dog by lunchtime.