Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Eric_the_half_a_bee

BobQ wrote: »

- a share of the costs of projects (such as road building) that the EU has agreed to build prior to serving Article 50.

This generally refers to projects which the EU has agreed in principle to undertake, but has not yet agreed to fund through member state contributions (the so-called Reste A Liquider). The nature and extent of these projects is subject to change and is dependent on member states agreeing to fund them through the budgetting process.

Each individual member state can veto future budgets, and so can change the expenditure on these projects. The fact that we will not be part of future budgets is tantamount to a veto. So, insisting that the UK pays removes the UK's veto while retaining everyone else's and is unfairly discriminating against the UK's broader rights compared with member states. We should not pay.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

We should not have to pay the EU to relocate their agencies based in the UK. It is their decision to go.

It's not really. We've changed their agencies locations from "within the EU" to "outside the EU", and we can't expect them to run EU agencies from outside the EU.

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

Brexit: stop the 'games' over the bill and get on with EU deal, says Denmark

Danish finance minister boosts UK’s hopes of securing a Brexit trade deal, saying a swift political compromise is required.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/08/denmark-dismisses-eu-wrangling-brexit-divorce-bill-game

Perhaps it depends how much Mayhem is prepared to beg?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/22/theresa-may-described-despondent-rings-eyes-leaked-account-brexit/

Enterprise_1701C

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

FWIW, I think we should pay towards pensions accrued to date but this should be paid as a lump sum rather than in smaller sums as the pensions become payable. I clean break is needed when we leave.

Other than that, I do not consider a divorce bill as being necessary. We have paid plenty already as net contributors to the EU.

GG

BUT when we joined we had to agree to take on the pensions from way back when, so why should we have to continue to pay them when we leave. If everyone that joins has to take on previous commitments, then they really cant have it both ways.

BobQ

Herzlos wrote: »

It's not really. We've changed their agencies locations from "within the EU" to "outside the EU", and we can't expect them to run EU agencies from outside the EU.

We could take the view that they are free to continue to operate in the UK until there are other reasons for their re-location, accepting that means EU nationals will have the rights to visit UK and live in UK in order to conduct the business of that agency.

Equally they can reasonably argue that it was a policy of the EU (that we endorsed) to spread EU agencies across member nations and we would have "fought" to have our share of them in UK as they were created, That implies an obligation to fund their relocation to remain in an EU country.

mayonnaise

cogito wrote: »

Also, the ANO manifesto foresees the V4 collectively agreeing an EU exit.

mayonnaise wrote: »

Cogito, can you please post a link to that ANO manifesto?

cogito wrote: »

I can post it in Czech if that would help you

Hello cogito. Still patiently waiting for a link to that ANO manifesto foreseeing the V4 collectively agreeing an EU exit.

BobQ

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

This generally refers to projects which the EU has agreed in principle to undertake, but has not yet agreed to fund through member state contributions (the so-called Reste A Liquider). The nature and extent of these projects is subject to change and is dependent on member states agreeing to fund them through the budgetting process.

.

I am struggling to understand why we should pay a share of the costs of funding something the EU believes is worthwhile but has not actually funded. If it were (say) something that helped UK trade with Europe, or improved our security, maybe we should contribute. But if it is largely of benefit to other EU27 nations and no commitment has been made......

cogito

mayonnaise wrote: »

Hello cogito. Still patiently waiting for a link to that ANO manifesto foreseeing the V4 collectively agreeing an EU exit.

If I thought you could read it, I might even be bothered. If you can read it, you are presumably capable of googling it yourself.

mayonnaise

cogito wrote: »

If I thought you could read it, I might even be bothered. If you can read it, you are presumably capable of googling it yourself.

In other words: there is no such thing as a ANO manifesto foreseeing the V4 collectively agreeing an EU exit.

mayonnaise

tracey3596 wrote: »

Should we even mention the Czech Republic and the anti-EU Andrej Babis expected to become their next PM?

No we shouldn't, because Babis is not anti EU. Why are you people peddling fake news?

But Babis played down his euroskeptic views after his victory.
"We're oriented on Europe," he said. "We're not a threat for democracy. I'm ready to fight for our interests in Brussels. We're a firm part of the European Union. We're a firm part of NATO."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-czech-republic-election-20171021-story.html

Mr Babis himself opposes more EU integration and the adoption of the euro – but he has also spoken positively of the benefits of membership, and would rather prefer the Czech Republic play a bigger role in a reformed bloc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/czech-republic-elections-2017-andrej-babis-win-us-president-donald-trump-a8011596.html

Czech election winner Babis says his party pro-Europe

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-czech-election-babis/czech-election-winner-babis-says-his-party-pro-europe-idUKKBN1CQ0Q5?il=0