Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

System

Rinoa wrote: »

The EU caused the problem, I'm very happy for them to sort it out all by themselves.

Yeah because whatever happens beyond that 22 mile stretch of sea doesn't affect us.

Arklight

ilovehouses wrote: »

The City of London's Brexit Envoy?

The Telegraph have no shame when it comes to scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The City of London comprises the physical area of the financial district, which is now plopping its pants. Rather than the banks that are moving their headquarters to Europe.

It's all part of the Brexit master plan.

Arklight

ilovehouses wrote: »

Yeah because whatever happens beyond that 22 mile stretch of sea doesn't affect us.

That's the physical distance. It's the mental distance between Leave voters and the rest of the planet which is the problem.

[Deleted User]

Even a hint of another referendum from the tories would keep them out of power for 30 years opinion polls suggest that we just want them to get on with the job and get us O U T

POPPYOSCAR

Carl31 wrote: »

it depends how you measure that intelligence

What did Einstein say about that fish? Just because we generally regard academic acheivement the yard stick in this country, doesnt necessarily make it right

How many well known successes were 'thick' at school? Jamie Oliver, Gordon Ramsey, Alan Sugar to name a few, all multi millionaires and experts in their fields, are they not intelligent?

Yes I would be interested to know how intelligence is defined.

I would assume a university professor to be 'intelligent' but she was scammed out of £100,000 by someone online she had never actually met.

Not my definition of intelligence!

Rusty_Shackleton

Tory whips tell remain backing MPs they'll be supporting Corbyn if they table or back any amendments to the brexit bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/02/tory-mps-threaten-theresa-may-over-brexit-votes

Its so unlike the right wing and brexiters to want to suppress debate what with their respect for democracy and all. Ah well, fingers crossed for no confidence vote on May (few have any confidence in her anyway, time to make it official) - here's to an autumn GE with any luck! :beer:

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Rusty.. consider this.

A UK party passes a law.'............... Even your MEP can do nothing but advise and recommend, even when part of a pan-EU alliance of MEP's that would win any vote on the matter. The commission can simply say no, all that is required from the commission is a memo explaining why they said no. And I'm sure you're aware that on the commission you have just one un-elected voice amongst many representing every single person in the UK.

Where is the voice you speak of at the ballot box?

I find it a very British form of arrogance to imply the EU is undemocratic. The fact is that the EU system is different to that of the UK. Gone are the days when the British imposed their views on what is democratic on the people of other nations

The fact is that the EU system of Government is a compromise broadly agreed by the original 6 but evolved to accommodate the new members. Germany's system of Government is different to ours as it the French, Spanish and Danish systems. All could make the same claim that the EU is undemocratic because its not like their own. Butits something supremely arrogant and British to moan about a system that was collectively agreed by the EU28.

Soon we will not have this to moan about and we can focus on justifying our democratic system in which:

- the electors of about 500 constituencies have no influence on the outcome,
- power mostly rests in the hands of the leadership of a party that rarely has majority support of the electorate,,
- executive power rests in the hands a collection of appointed MPs chosen for their ability to suck up to the party leader and elected by about 5% of the electorate supported by unelected civil servants who even now are mostly privately educated and Oxbridge graduates.
- decisions are made on our laws by an unelected chamber of people most of whom are either failed politicians or chosen for their political donations or services.

No system is perfect but it is sheer arrogance to say the EU system is flawed compared with ours. We are simply in no position to lecture others.

AFF8879

I always find it amusing how people complaining about the Tories "bulldozing" Brexit plans through seem to somehow regard the European Commission as this beacon of democracy... I think if there were a second referendum then Brexit would win with an even bigger majority, I personally voted remain but having seen how bitter / childish Juncker, Barnier and co have acted since the result makes me wonder how we ever co-existed to begin with.

And let's face it, it's a sinking ship with Italy now squaring off firmly vs Merkel and Macron in addition to the Eastern European bloc standing firm together against the EU's autocracy.

The EU was formed with the most noble of intentions but it just hasn't worked out. Let it go back to what it was always intended to be; a peaceful trading/security partnership between allied sovereign states and our friends and neighbours.

BobQ

gfplux wrote: »

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.

That is a fair negotiating position for the EU27, why has the UK not submitted a counter proposal.?

Paying for running of EU institutions after 2019 seems to me to be absurd. With 27 nations and not 28 these institutions should be smaller and they have had over 2 years to plan for it. Also why should we be taxed when we do not have any representation in these institutions or the decisions they make?

I can see an argument for paying for much of these things but I fail to see why we should if the EU is unwilling to engage on a cooperative basis in an exit deal and a trade agreement.

Neither side is blameless from what has been said publicly but ithe posturing is quite juvenile in my view.

AFF8879

Arklight wrote: »

The City of London comprises the physical area of the financial district, which is now plopping its pants. Rather than the banks that are moving their headquarters to Europe.

It's all part of the Brexit master plan.

No banks are "moving their headquarters". They are just bulking up their presence in the continent and altering their legal entity structure. I should know as I work for a London based US bank. Any mass exodus you hear of in the Guardian is just fantasy (on a side note it's funny how Labour and Corbyn are now so desperate to keep the banks and all their tax revenue after years of demonising them).

HSBC have the most aggressive "exodus" plan out of any of the major banks as far as I'm aware, and they only plan on moving 1,000 jobs. Out of 43,000.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/hsbc-ceo-confirms-possible-hard-brexit-plan-to-move-1000-jobs-to-paris.html