Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Herzlos

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

If my wife and I agree as a couple to give £5,000 to charity, and then we get divorced, no reasonable divorce settlement will require my wife donate her £2,500 share of that £5,000 to charity.

If you, as a business, made an agreement with a supplier to fund £5000 of a charity project, and then you decided you didn't want to work for the supplier again, they'd still expect you to pay the £2500 you'd agreed to.

This isn't a divorce, despite the nomenclature. It's the unraveling of 2 nations. Closest equivalent is a large multinational deciding to sell off one of it's divisions.

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

Remind us which government it was that did this.

New Labour. Another right wing administration which isn't coming back any time soon.

System

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

If my wife and I agree as a couple to give £5,000 to charity, and then we get divorced, no reasonable divorce settlement will require my wife donate her £2,500 share of that £5,000 to charity.

*slaps forehead*

If people think it's as simple as this it's no wonder we're in this mess.

This is a golden example of why a referendum was silly.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

New Labour. Another right wing administration which isn't coming back any time soon.

I made a bet with myself that you would come back with this answer.

CKhalvashi

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

They also show an overall total of assets minus liabilities of around €70bn, our share of that is less than €10bn. Instead the EU has asked us for ten times that, €100bn.

The EU describes the remaining €90bn as liabilities. They are not. They are aspirations for future spending that the EU is unwilling to moderate in a post-Brexit world, and wants our help in funding. Well sorry, but partnerships don't work like that.

Is that current assets and liabilities, or does it include long-term (and possibly therefore unknown, especially if there's a pension deficit) assets and liabilities?

If it doesn't include longer term payments then likely €100bn could be about right, it's also likely that €10bn could be about right as there could be longer term assets that won't be included in the accounts too.

The EU likely won't account in the same way as I do, so while I haven't seen the full accounts and would be willing to have a look to see if I can add up the totals I'm not going to be doing it tonight.

If for example there is an average of 15 years of service in EU staff at 15% of salary in pension liabilities, this could easily add up to a figure in the tens of billions for the UK, that's why I need a lot of figures in front of me so I can see what has been funded and what hasn't been yet.

fewgroats wrote: »

Depends on how you define an older voter. Under 30 year olds seem quite pro-remain.

And many a lot older than that too.

LHW99

Depends on how you define an older voter. Under 30 year olds seem quite pro-remain.

And many a lot older than that too.

It seems the Warwick study concluded "Only the very young, particularly those under the age of 25, were substantially pro-remain." so it would seem that 'younger voters' correspond in this case to 'under 25'.
It also appears that women were more likely to vote to remain than men - so perhaps we should blame the men for the Brexit result, it seems no less logical than blaming the "old" if that's everyone over 25!

mrginge

Old toxic toastie two has hit the proverbial nail on the head there. All these remoaners desperately hoping for deliverance from brexit to protect their beloved single market are just going to have to put up with it or bite the bullet and join rick the people's poet in converting to Marxism.

Enterprise_1701C

Ballard wrote: »

I suspect that had you signed a legal document with the charity that as a couple you would donate the money then you would remain liable.

I am not a lawyer, though, and don't know the ins and outs of the agreements that the UK has signed with the EU. Surprisingly, most other posters on this board appear to be fully aware.

When we entered the eu we were required to take upon our shoulders all the agreements and commitments made before we joined, including pensions etc. So why should we continue to do so after we leave, it seems to insinuate that it is a requirement only for current members.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

The EU has been consistent on two points:

a) the four freedoms are indivisible, we cannot pick and choose between them
b) if we agree to pay the large sum of money that we owe, negotiations can progress onto trade arrangements

I'm struggling to understand how satisfying (b) benefits us, if (a) is true? Since we are not going to continue with freedom of movement (as even Labour confirms), there is no prospect of a free trade agreement.

Or perhaps we are negotiating with untrustworthy people?

System

The trade arrangements in (b) aren't "free" hence your confusion.