Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

Conrad

gfplux wrote: »

I thought to myself, surely know one will alledge this is what was expected that there is no surprise.
Well I was wrong. You are now the second poster who "knew" it would be like this,
Those with second sight are blessed.
Perhaps you could name the winner tomorrow of the 3 o'clock race at Chepstow?

Once more you have your fact filter set to 11.


For example David Davis said over and again including on Question Time that there will be many occasions when it's going to get rough and tough and people will claim talks have stalled.

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

None of what you have posted is relevant to Brexit but the most interesting bit is headed Tuesday 12.30pm.

Mark Bowman expertly dissected the EU's position on the Brexit bill causing fury and disbelief. At least he did his homework properly unlike the unprepared EU.

If that was not Brexit related we should close this thread. The post was a link and selected copy and pastes of a breakdown (as reported by Politico.eu) the FOUR DAYS of Brexit negotiations. How can it not be Brexit related.
I didn't copy and paste (Mark Bowman) as it has been very widely reported.

gfplux

Here is a post by Molly Scot Cato a green MEP
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Scott_Cato
Where she attempts an analysis of the Financial settlement using figures from the FT. This was posted after the press conference in Brussels yesterday.
No one has to agree or otherwise but "I think" that it might add to everyone's "knowledge"

START
"There is so much political heat being generated about what it might cost to leave the EU that I thought I would just summarise what the argument is about. This is not original work: it's based on the figures provided by Alex Barker of the FT back in May for which he used the negotiating guidelines agreed with the remaining 27 EU members. The UK government has not yet come forward with its own figures for what we might owe or even an alternative method of calculating it. Imprecise estimates range from Boris Johnson’s whistling and John Redwood’s zilch to David Davis's acceptance that we do have a moral and financial responsibility, as yet uncosted.

Why do we owe anything at all? There are two basic answers to that question. Firstly, like most political organisations, the European Union runs a deficit budget system. If the Scots had voted for independence they would have taken their share of the UK national debt with them. The same applies to us leaving the EU. You can think of this element of the bill as being our share of the debt that has been accumulated over the years of our membership. This is estimated at €36.2bn.

Then we have the commitments we have already made before we voted to leave. Because EU budgets work on a seven year period, we have committed ourselves up to the end of this financial framework period, which is 2020. So even if we leave in 2019 we have already agreed to pay for things that go on until 2020. You may have heard the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, talking about these commitments in the press conference yesterday. We've already signed off on the infrastructure projects in various EU countries as well as aid projects two countries in Africa, Gaza, and so on. It seems reasonable to me to say that if we were part of a political organisation that agreed to the spending, we can't just leave in the lurch the people who already have these projects on the way. This cost is estimated at €27.6bn.

Barnier also insists that we continue to pay our share of the running costs of the EU until we leave, the majority of which will cover continued payments to farmers, which he estimates at €27.4bn. Some member states think we should pay for more EU projects during this phase or that our liabilities here should be extended to the period after we have left.

Then there are a number of less predictable and longer-term commitments. Many Brits have worked in the EU institutions over the forty years of our membership and once we leave we will take on the liability for their pensions from the EU (€9.6bn). We will also be responsible for a share of ‘contingent liabilities’ if projects of funding arrangements that we have agreed to go wrong and end up requiring additional funding (€11.9bn).

Balanced against these liabilities are considerable assets we have acquired during our membership, including a share of buildings that belong to the EU Commission and Council. A deduction will also be made for spending that would have been made in the UK had we continued in membership. Together these add up to around €40bn

That's all the detail we have so far. On the basis of this, and conversations with those close to the negotiations, the FT estimated a net payment of €55bn-€75bn and as much as €91bn-€113bn if the more hawkish members prevail and we continue to fund the central running costs of the EU until the end of this budget period in 2020.

Clear as mud? I hope it helps to take us away from the tabloid mud-slinging at least.
FINISH

I believe the above to be Brexit related.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Do we have a new Forum Admin - and nobody told us?
:whistle:

I notice that today's good news has gone largely unheeded too so here we go (and I can keep it in a single post rather that what looks like Spamming as done by some ):

The Pound recovers as PMI rises unexpectedly and factory production grows:
http://www.iii.co.uk/alliance-news/1504262411013762700-3/pound-recovers-as-uk-factory-activity-growth-accelerates
Davis suggests what has been said here for a while; that "This month’s federal election in Germany will help to “accelerate” discussions on post-Brexit trade arrangements between the UK and the EU".
https://www.ft.com/content/8ec38195-0bc6-3bb8-ace3-c04ef56bdc49

posh*spice wrote: »

Don't let him troll you into getting PPRed.......he's an expert.

I find it amusing how determinedly so many of the pro-EU contingent try to achieve this and on the flimsiest of pretences.
I suppose it should be considered ample confirmation of their poor debating skills and of their argument being lost.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

If the Scots had voted for independence they would have taken their share of the UK national debt with them.

Undermines the article somewhat. A single statement that has no substance. Written no doubt by a pro indy supporter.

Clear as mud? I hope it helps to take us away from the tabloid mud-slinging at least.
FINISH

The news seeping out appears to be that the EU's figures are at the very least questionable, and have in fact been increasing.That's fact not fiction.

PS quoting anybody from the Green party should take care. As they are somewhat lacking in the economic competency department. Makes Corbyn look like a Scrooge.

Conrad

Incidentally, on the pension contributions we could in fact take that cost on to UK balance sheets, it might not be necessary to hand over the cash to Brusells.

Molly Scot Cato is an ignorant doom monger, most everything she utters can be dismissed. My Uncle, a great bloke, is a life long Green, nice as pie but utterly niave and utopian.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Conrad wrote: »

Incidentally, on the pension contributions we could in fact take that cost on to UK balance sheets, it might not be necessary to hand over the cash to Brusells.

Molly Scot Cato is an ignorant doom monger, most everything she utters can be dismissed. My Uncle, a great bloke, is a life long Green, nice as pie but utterly niave and utopian.

Molly Scott Cato is also a Professor of Economics - yet she couldn't even manage to work out her salary using an exchange rate!
:rotfl:

when I tried to convert this to euros I was confused by the exchange rate

http://mollymep.org.uk/2015/10/31/error/

Seriously - after that you want to believe her figures in an area where she is already biased, being pro-remain and pro-EU?

Rusty_Shackleton

Conrad wrote: »

Incidentally, on the pension contributions we could in fact take that cost on to UK balance sheets, it might not be necessary to hand over the cash to Brusells.

Molly Scot Cato is an ignorant doom monger, most everything she utters can be dismissed. My Uncle, a great bloke, is a life long Green, nice as pie but utterly niave and utopian.

Given her education and experience, would you care to explain why you think she should be dismissed? Obviously other than the fact that you dont agree with her...

As for failing to correctly calculate her salary into euros when put on the spot in a tv interview... I mean come on, is that seriously something you think discredits someone? That they got a calculation off the top of their head wrong? Scraping the bottom of the barrel much?

kabayiri

gfplux wrote: »

...
Why do we owe anything at all? There are two basic answers to that question. Firstly, like most political organisations, the European Union runs a deficit budget system. If the Scots had voted for independence they would have taken their share of the UK national debt with them. The same applies to us leaving the EU. You can think of this element of the bill as being our share of the debt that has been accumulated over the years of our membership. This is estimated at €36.2bn.
...

I believe they haven't agreed on any plan dealing with EU overspend yet.

Surely, they don't run an overspend beyond the 7 year budgetary term? That would be a road to bust-ness.

And why, during the thousands of media hours of campaign telly, was there no mention of this figure dwarfing our annual net budget contribution?

We were led to believe that the club was remarkably good value for money. Not really eh.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

I thought to myself, surely know one will alledge this is what was expected that there is no surprise.
Well I was wrong. You are now the second poster who "knew" it would be like this,
Those with second sight are blessed.
Perhaps you could name the winner tomorrow of the 3 o'clock race at Chepstow?

Perhaps some of us don't wear blinkers. The warning signs were there for all to see a long time ago. I will repeat again. The EU is at heart a political animal. Not some charitable benevolent organisation.