So, apparently we’re going to be paying somewhere between £39 and 49 billion to leave the EU. That’s between 39 and 49 billion quid less to spend on the NHS. It’s more than the entire Scottish Government budget for a year.
It’s not exactly £350 million a week for the NHS, is it?
Vince Cable had this to say about it:
If these numbers are correct, it means we’re paying a heavy price to leave an institution that has benefitted the country for decades.
The Brexiters said we’d get £350m a week for the NHS, instead we face a financially damaging divorce settlement.
The true cost of Brexit is becoming clearer by the day.
This underlines why people should have a referendum on the final deal with the option of an Exit from Brexit
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Away day
The Keir Starmer we never got
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Simon McGrath
Julian Ingram
Slamdac
Tom Reeve
Mick Taylor
53 Comments
Remember for a vocal brave Brexiteer no price is too high if it enables them to say “We won”. Lose of influence in the world, price worth paying, heavy divorce bill, price worth paying, economic growth down, price worth paying, no 350 million extra for the NHS, price worth paying.
Any price to them is now worth paying, rather than look in the mirror and accept what they claimed is quite frankly wrong and everything they sneered at as Project Fear is actually Project Fact; their self-worth could never handle that and taking a hit to their self-worth is a price that is far too high to pay.
you only comment on the bill for leaving .what about the billions of pounds it will cost to remain in the future years .35 billion for leave or 150 billion for the next 10 years or more. do the maths as the bill will only get bigger if we stay
I do feel that this should all be a lot more transparent. The bill should be itemised, so that we know exactly why we are paying this amount, and what it is all for. Most people would accept that we ought to pay for some things that we had already committed to. But it is not really at all clear whether this really is an amount that we need to pay to cover specific obligations.
I want to stay in but this is only five years net contribution to the EU, a large part of that will be the two years to the end of the EU fiscal period so I don’t think it is a game changer re overall voting.
The interesting bit will be when we get to the free trade and the EU turns around and says, yes you can have free trade but only if you allow freedom of movement…
Which, of course, William, everyone should know by now! Pretty stupid, isn’t it, that we leave now, losing massive influence, and some democratic control in Europe, mainly because some people were a bit iffy about some EU immigration. Gobsmacking!
This kills off the call for a referendum on the deal. In short it’s the first sign of the off the peg Norway solution which was always the easiest and most sensible way to go given the closeness of the referendum result. Sure. the hard Remainers and their Hard Brexit counterparts will huff and puff, but basically it’s smoothing things over.
Is it a high price, Yes far more than the EU deserves, is it to higher price to pay to get us out of the EU, No, not at all, considering the astronomical amount we would pay to the EU in NET contributions over a decade or so.
Do people in enough numbers who voted leave regret their vote, No, I do not believe they do and they would do so again.
Quite what condescending people like Frankie think they will achieve by constantly calling people “brave brexiters” is beyond me, you talk of sneering and yet nearly every post i see from you on this forum is full of sneering.
If you even got another shot at a 2nd referendum do you think you would have even the slightest chance of changing peoples opinions with an approach like that.
The UK currently pays a net £8.1 bn annually to the EU.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886
Three years’ net payments, since we are committed to paying into the EU budget until the end of the current financial cycle in 2020 is £24.3 bn. All of a sudden, that £40 bn is reduced to £15.7 bn. No doubt the payments for EU civil servants’ pensions will be paid over a period of years and there are presumably some payments for future programmes already agreed, but not yet started which will also be paid at the same time as the other EU countries. It is not obvious that the Brexit bill will be a significant drain on our economy, but then continuing to pay £8.1 bn/year plus inflation to remain a member isn’t either. I don’t know where Terry gets his £150 bn from; I only deal in figures that have some validity, not those that are only written on the side of a bus.
“If these numbers are correct, it means we’re paying a heavy price to leave an institution that has benefitted the country for decades.”
I do think that many are fixated on the wrong thing here, probably aided and abetted by strident Brexiteers. As Laurence Cox points out, these monies simply represent the monies we would have paid if we had remained members of the EU, with the £15.7bn Laurence identifies being lost in future year contributions, which are no longer going to happen.
So the price of leave (with respect to the financial settlement) isn’t that we are having to pay out more money than we expected, just that we will be paying out monies that we will derive little tangible benefit from, other than potentially a trade agreement better than WTO but not as good as EU/single market membership. It is this lack of benefit (to the UK) is the price.
In some respects it is a bit like the early cancellation (or upgrade) of a mobile phone contract, you have to pay an amount that covers your remaining term, with the only benefit being the early termination of the contract and you may get to keep the phone.
This payment is fair and was to be expected. It is related purely to the past, and does not buy any future deal (another lie, repated just this morning by IDS, but soon exposed).
It amounts to about 150 Johnson/Gove weekly NHS contibutions. Again, nothing surprising here.
It will, increase substantially when this dreaming Government incrementally wakes up to the next slice of reality: many more years will be required for negotiations and transitioning.
Quite a change from the promised fast, easy, friendly, cost-free, cash-generative, exact-same-benefit, single-market-access, no hard border, bespoke, special, deep-relationship, non-disruptive, trade continues as today, open, global, glorious, sovereign, take-back-control, etc. etc. EU-separation that was sold.
But the people have spoken. Have they really? We shall see.
Next up NI border, I wonder how the Brexiteers will back track on that. The trade talks, I wonder how they will justify the cost of that. All these U turns and gymnastics too justify a bad decision. Lord they’ll be emulating the Oozlum bird (people of a certain age will know what happened to that poor unfortunate avian) if they carry on.
I think Laurence Cox has assessed the position accurately.
The British Government’s ‘principle’ has always been that members of the Colonial Service (HMOCS since 1954) were employees of the Government of the colony in which they served and that the colony was responsible for their pay and pensions.
This position was maintained insofar as foreign aid payments from the UK significantly exceeded the former colonies pension obligations. It broke down, however, when colonies simply derogated their obligations to pay the pensions of former colonial governors and their staff.. As inflation and a devalued sterling in the post-war period eroded the purchasing power of pre-war pensions, former colonial staff were among the worst affected.
The non-payment by the Government of Zimbabwe of pensions for officials who served in Southern Rhodesia remains an outstanding issue.
It is as well that the pension obligations of former EU Civil Servants is resolved now, so that the future pension rights of the current and former staff of the EU are protected.
IDS was on the TV just now, winding up the interviewer by pointing out that the money would be paid out over 40 years (when we would not have to pay 400billion over that period) and that nothing would be paid unless there was a good trade deal on the table… it does seem that there was a much higher gross figure mentioned but this has actually been adjusted down by the EU giving us back whatever assets we have contributed to in the past)… hmmm, I do not think small countries that have been net beneficiaries from the EU will want to leave any time soon as they would probably be expected to pay all the money back. The Conservatives generally seem very bad at explaining things on the fiscal front as far as the EU goes and let newspapers and even our Vince run away with tall tales.
If you are taking IDS seriously William I have some Narnian Tin Mine shares you’d be foolish not to purchase off me.
@matt “If you even got another shot at a 2nd referendum do you think you would have even the slightest chance of changing peoples opinions with an approach like that.”
I think that is a very important point.
Too much of the argument looks like sniping from the sidelines by those who would prefer to be proved right by a disastrous Brexit rather than actually prevent it. Almost 18 months after the referendum, lessons still don’t seem to have been learnt from a hopeless and negative Remain campaign which ceded victory to Brexit. Rather than heap abuse on Brexiters (many of whom might be perfectly nice people who simply have not experienced or appreciated the benefits of life in the EU 😉 ), it may not be too late to win people over with a positive message about EU membership rather than continue to imply that remaining in the EU is simply a less sh*t alternative to leaving it.
Peter,
All you have to do is ask the leavers to justify the mess they have got us into. Now committed leavers will grab at any straws to justify the mess and if a majority of the population vote to believe them, then only one thing will cure them, the school of experience. To be blunt I don’t want Brexit but if it happens I will take some satisfaction in the pain it brings with the hope after being that stupid the UK as a country starts to take a more realistic attitude to the world and not one wedded to a glorious past; I’d much rather have a glorious future, but a believe in Unicorns, Tinkerbell and Admiral Wee Moggs Gunboats Squadrons won’t achieve that, just irrelevance and a poorer meaner county.
Just a point as the mess develops I watch in wonder the contradictions, U turns and reinvention of history carried out by so many brave Brexiteers, all in a desperate attempt to prove they are not wrong. As the facts continue to rain down on them I expect more of the above, but my dear Brexiteers you’ll just end up like the “Know Nothings” a sad note in history.
The Native American Party, renamed the American Party in 1855 and commonly known as the “Know Nothing” movement, was an American nativist political party that operated nationally in the mid-1850s. It was primarily anti-Catholic and hostile to immigration, starting originally as a secret society. The movement briefly emerged as a major political party in the form of the American Party. Adherents to the movement were to reply “I know nothing” when asked about its specifics by outsiders, thus providing the group with its common appellation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
@Frankie.
Why so condescending?
You imply that “brave brexiters” know that they are wrong but are to ignorant to admit it and so they soldier on regardless. What gives you this divine insight into peoples thoughts and feelings. You have no idea how people feel about their choice in voting brexit.
You have a one track blinkered view on what is right and how you believe things should be and thus totally fail to comprehend others who have an opposing view.
Your just as bad as the likes of Michel Barnier who today suggested Britain ran away from the fight against ISIS by voting for Brexit. It was the People of the united Kingdom who voted for Brexit and those 12 million people who voted did not do so to run away from Isis or terrorism.
You failed to make the arguments for remaining in the EU and so you resort to being offensive and derogatory towards those who wish to leave.
What a lovely club you are a part of
Frankie.
The country and the people are what they’ve always been. The only thing dying is the farcical attempt to reinvent Britain as a mid Atlantic hub. Gone are the days of presidential PMs and global posturing. The spell has been broken and I for one like it.
Matt,
Because I believe that Brexiteers represent that which is worst in this country. I think we all have a bit of Brexiteer in us, the fear of others, an unjustified high opinion of ourselves, a love of blind ignorance. I try to fight against my inner Brexiteer but I see no reason not to point out the failings of being a Brexiteer. Studies point a less than flattering picture of large numbers of Brexiteers, pretending it isn’t so doesn’t help even if it would make you feel better.
Results of the two studies presented in the same paper suggest that psychological predictors of xenophobia were strongly linked with voting to leave the EU and support for the outcome of the referendum…..
“There are three groups that we can differentiate that are supportive of those sorts of views,” said Dr Agnieszka Golec de Zavala, a social psychologist at Goldsmiths, University of London, and the lead author of the Frontiers in Psychology paper.
Two of these personality traits are commonly used as predictors of prejudice, and have previously been implicated in voting for radical right-wing parties.
These were right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation – the idea that one’s group needs to fight for superiority in the world.
The third is a particular focus of Dr Golec de Zavala’s research, a trait known as “collective narcissism” – a belief in the unparalleled greatness of one’s country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brexit-prejudice-scientists-link-foreigners-immigrants-racism-xenophobia-leave-eu-a8078586.html
Now not all Brexiteers are like this, but I would say a large number fall into this category; and as the old saying goes “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas” .
Brexit makes us a meaner, poorer society and pretending it doesn’t to protect the feelings of people who voted for it has no appeal. So yes I will point out the contradictions of Brexiteers, the falsehoods, the U turns and their faith in Tinkerbell and Unicorns. Brexit is a stupid policy to pretend that people who voted for it are not when it comes to Brexit stupid and misguided (I’ll exempt those that want to live in splendid isolation no matter what the cost, a strange believe but we all have some believes that are strange, but not those that pretend there would be no cost, or not much would change).
There have in fact been many comments on this site detailing the advantages of staying in the EU, Peter W. and Matt, as well as plenty exploring the varied reasons of people who voted to leave, leading to coming to understand many of them.
It seems reasonable though to object to the most rabid Brexiteers, and doubt their statements and some of their motives. Denouncing them (and not the mass of leavers, which would be ridiculous) in colourful imagery is surely better than being openly angry and abusive to them, and though I am sorry it upsets you, Matt, I do quietly enjoy frankie’s rhetorical gift, and the pleasant incursion of Tinkerbell and unicorns into our debates. He is, besides, very well informed, giving us many facts and important links. So is Arnold, of course, who can also be very eloquent – I laughed at his lovely list of leaver imbecilities, posted at 1.38 pm today. Being myself upset at the approach of Brexit, and anxious to prevent it, I am glad to find a bit of humorous commentary to lighten the days, but I don’t equate these colleagues with the mass of Lib Dems working quietly for an Exit from Brexit
Why did people vote leave? For many it was a lack of investment and opportunity in their area while those just coming into the country were seemingly getting far more support. I don’t think that feeling has changed and I don’t think anyone believed that the UK would be wealthier after Brexit. It wasn’t an economic decision so the economic argument didn’t work then and won’t work now.
For the rest of us it’s proof that it was an awful decision and will leave us a much weaker country. Those poorer in the UK will end up being poorer and those able to transport their business to a low tax country will either do so or will take advantage of looser workers rights and keep it in the UK.
But Glenn that is what your Brexiteer leaders are trying to do, reinvent us as a mid Atlantic hub. Didn’t you get the memo of them telling you that was their deepest desire?
SEIZE THE MOMENT: Johnson and Gove urge May to turn UK into ‘Singapore of Europe’
BREXITEERS Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have urged Theresa May to seize tmomentum and turn Britain into the Singapore of Europe by slashing burdensome taxes and regulation.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/881544/Brexit-news-UK-singapore-EU-latest-Theresa-May-Boris-Johnson-Michael-Gove-letter
Now they might fail and you might rejoice, but the failure will come at a hell of a price.
Frankie
Speak for yourself.
To me a lot of the Remain Arguments were and are like the ones that produced tower blocks. It’s the wave of the future, it’s gonna bring communities together and look over there, I see a plaza where people can meet and discuss world events over an Hawaiian style grilled herring. Those old terraced houses need to be pulled down. It will be so cosmopolitan and modern. The result ugly monstrosities that ended up smelling of wee.
All these studies and statistics constantly spouted out to try and give weight to an argument is quite amusing.
Ironically though, the most credible studies have shows that Politicians and members of political parties have the highest percentage of narcissists than any other demographics and yet somehow, were supposed to trust their judgement above all others.
Matt,
Shock,horror,probe, poltics attracts the wrong sort of people. I don’t think it comes as a shock that the lure of power attracts the self obbsessed, you find them in senior management in every sector. It’s a tragedy but an inevitability it seems. One reason I orginally joinned the Lib Dems was at that time the lure of power seemed to attract that type more to Labour or the Tories, as we became more successful we started to attract more of that type (the cost of success ), as an aside I suspect the SNP are experiencing a similar problem.
As to trust a politician, I’ll follow the advice of one “Trust then verify”.
Glenn is right in one way – discussion about EU membership shouldn’t become focused on talk about money. £350m a week is a meaningless concept to most ordinary people, and so, frankly, is a lump sum of £50 billion (or £40 bn, or whatever). What seems to matter are thing like the replacement of houses with tower blocks. Unfortunately, we built most of them before we joined the EU, so the truth doesn’t quite fit the aspiration of the leave supporter. The trouble is that for both sides the truth is too complicated to embrace, so we substitute a few ‘headlines’ in order to make our decision, and as in the case Glenn chose, we sometimes get it wrong. But for both Remainers and Leavers, getting a few of the facts wrong isn’t really a problem, because objectively evaluating all the facts wasn’t the process we went through. Parading evidence that Brexit will be bad not only doesn’t change minds, it very often hardens the resolve of the Leaver.
It is the 12 million undecided in June last year who would be most open to persuasion – they have no cognitive dissonance or damaged pride issues to wrestle with. Our strategy needs to be more focused on those people, and I rather agree with those above who counsel treating Leavers with guarded respect (even if showing respect is a trifle disingenuous). We need to occupy a position of absolute authority about the benefits of EU membership, because that is the best way to get the 12 million to follow our lead. By rising above the level of spats with the leavers, we (notably Vince and our MPs) will look statesmanlike. If we can do that, the undecided will see us as the rightful winners of this debate, and a decent chunk of those 12 million votes is all we need.
Andy,
Pointing out how foolish the leavers are discourages people from following them. Granting them respect only empowers them. People don’t hang about with fools but if they can say even their opponents say they have a point you legitimise them. So I’d rather the world and his wife think of Brexiteers as rouges and fools to discourage the uncommitted and half hearted. Harsh on them, perhaps but we have no time to molly coddle, just because the hard truth about the box they opened might upset them.
The leave camp will have lost when the perceived perception of them is “bless” and scuttle to the other-side of the road to avoid them.
It would have been much better if the EU had given us an itemised bill for what they considered was owed. That’s what usually happens when there is any dispute over money. Then we could have negotiated from there and arrived at a mutually agreeable figure much more quickly.
But it doesn’t really matter that much if the bill is £10 bn or £100 bn. Which no doubt will be spread over several years. The UK has a GDP of of around £2.2 trillion pa. That means every year! That should be our priority.
Many of us on the left are reluctant leavers. It’s not really about a set sum of money. Either £50 bn or £350 million every week. Emotionally we’re pro-EU, or at least pro Europe, but our economic understanding of the structure of the EU leads us to believe that what is being attempted cannot possibly work. UKIP are just a symptom of the problem not a cause of it. Supposedly pro-EU German voters are more the real cause. They’ll never wear the idea of the EU becoming a transfer union but that’s what needs to happen. That wouldn’t be a problem if there was enough genuine democracy in the EU for conservative Germans to be outvoted but there’s Buckley’s chance of that happening.
I’d like to be proved wrong. But its hard finding pro EU types who even understand why there is a problem and just about impossible to find anyone who can offer a solution. But maybe one day……
Peter Martin,
do you really believe the thousands of undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats could not come up with an itemized bill? It was handed over months ago, and the resulting sum is absolutely indisputable. It has been kept out of the public to allow the Conservatives to approve it without an official number being in the public domain. It still took them months to face up to the inevitable and they are still denying it being due irrespective of any future deal. The EU is fighting much harder to save May’s face than her cabinet, because they need somebody to negotiate with.
I am also concluding with interest that you would have advocated remaining in an EU where big countries can be outvoted. Did I miss something in your many previous comments? Who would legislate on taxation then? The federal Government of the U.S.E.?
frankie
You constantly accuse leavers of being wrong, knowing that they are wrong but being to ignorant and stubborn to admit, so will carry on regardless.
Personally i think that is rubbish, because I do not believe leavers have been proven wrong.
What I am wondering is, If remainers end up be proving wrong, If Brexit turns into a huge success, if the UK manages to strike up free trade deals with other countries OUTSIDE the EU that offsets any loses from the EU.
We see employment levels remain steady as they are at full employment levels
If we see the price of goods falling in the shops, putting real money back in the pockets of those that need it which in turn gets spent back into the local economy, especially the local economy that many small businesses rely upon.
We still see cooperation in intelligence sharing as we do with the 5 eyes anyway
Workers rights stay the same as they are…. etc etc etc
Would people like yourself put your hands up and say, actually we got this wrong, Brexit has been good for the UK, or would your stubborn blinkered rose tinted view still find a way to say this is all wrong and a disaster????
@Matt
Peter Martin makes an important point when he says that the most important factor is the £2.2 trillion (that’s £2200 billion) of the UK economy. What he doesn’t go on to point out is the consequence of a lowered growth rate in the economy. The OBR has just cut 0.5% off the UK’s growth rate going forward:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42082119
0.5% of £2.2 trillion is £11 billion this year. Next year it will be £22 billion because the growth is measured from a lower base. The year after that it will be £33 billion. So in just three years, the UK economy will have lost more (£66 bn) than the entire divorce payment to the EU. If that lower growth forecast by the OBR remains 0.5% below what it was expected to be during the next decade, we are looking at a loss in 2026 alone of £110 billion and a cumulative loss of £605 billion. This should put any divorce bill in perspective.
As for your ‘if’s, I suggest you remember the old saying “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”.
@Laurence Cox
Firstly with all due respect my question was aimed at frankie 🙂
Secondly with regards to the OBR and forecasts, considering they have not got a single year right since their inception I put very little weight in what they have to say, along with all the other forecasters who have got it wrong year after year and failed to spot the banking crisis.
Thirdly, all these forecasts talk about loss trade with the EU, they do not take into account increased trade and trade deals with the 80% of the rest of the world outside of the EU and how that will benefit the UK economy, Considering the EU’s share of the global economy is on a ever decreasing trajectory and the EU’s answer to that is ever closer union and protectionism for its member states, pushing up prices, you would have thought that was an important factor to take into consideration, but for some bizarre reason remainers chose to ignore those facts
Frankie
No it’s what happened under Tony Blair. It’s why you ended up with nonsense about the British Dream, “presidential” politics and the war on terror.
Andy Daer.
I wasn’t saying the EU is exactly like tower blocks and certainly did not base my vote on headlines. However. I will point out that both Britain’s push to become more “European” and tower blocks used similar self conscious claims to be the way of the forward and offered a bright vision of a modernist future that failed to materialise. Both also tended to belittle critics and the people who had to live in them as old fashioned and to uneducated to know what was good for them.
To me the EU is a 20th Century modernist concept being pushed through despite abundant evidence that the political ideology behind it doesn’t really work. This is why the argument settle on economics. Of course leaving a big economic block can be scary. But other wise the EU is basically lacking in appeal. The majority of remain voters didn’t actually embrace things like free movement, most wanted to see reforms and so on. As I’ve said multiple times I voted leave because I think the EU is not a good organisation and to reassert domestic politics. This is because politics is organised nationally and needs to be responsive to the electorate and not visa versa. In short a kind of localism. The problem with the EU is that it is technocratic. Now, the response to this line usually involves stating that none of this kind of thing is impossible within the EU. But I would counter by pointing out that supporters and political movers who want to keep us in the EU have had ample opportunity to address the democratic deficit and social fall out, but did not. Metaphorically speaking, Its like dealing with a teenagers party. It’s all very jolly to start with, but when repeated calls to turn the noise down are met with blank stares or abuse eventually you have be the grumpy old meanie pants and shut it down.
@Matt
I would still give the OBR more credence than what Brexiteers write on the side of a bus! And LDV isn’t a private conversation, anyone is entitled to join in when people like you are pushing out alt-facts.
@Laurence Cox “I would still give the OBR more credence …”
This gives me another opportunity to demonstrate my economic ignorance but hopefully to learn …
The article to which you link states “The OBR says in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook report that the impact of lower productivity means that GDP will grow by 5.7% over the next five years rather than by the 7.5% as it estimated in March. … However, it said that the revisions to productivity had nothing to do with Brexit, or with the latest economic figures, but simply because of what it called a “repeated tendency throughout the post-crisis period for productivity growth to disappoint”.”
So is this really evidence of the impact of Brexit?
Equally, during the Coalition government, the OBR reduced forecasts of future growth, e.g. in March 2011: “GDP in 2011 revised down to 1.7% from 2.1%” and 6 months later in November 2011, “Economy expected to be 3½% smaller by 2016 than thought in March”. Was this evidence that the Lib Dem role in Coalition government was just as much an economic disaster as the party believes Brexit to be?
There is an infinitesimally higher cost for British youth over their future lives and that of their children.
Brexit per se bodes ill for all users of NHS and State Education as this massive unwitting bill- to be paid for by the hard working generation of British taxpayers. will surely diminish and erode service provision in local hospitals : that is costed at £4B to even stand still.
There is also a wave of elderly vulnerable victims and chronically social care people -this `cold snap’ winter-living at home in the community to consider first and invest in and this initially pledged astronomically high cost of leaving the EU estimated at £4) B that is bound to escalate with EU pensions .
Some EU pensioners to be costed into the equation are beginning pensions at age 26 years of age and this additional knock on costing will eventually shoot through the roof and be burdensome and unparalleled on the State coffers.
The human cost of Brexit will also be weighted, on the tenuous hold on primary community care and help of the dependent elderly dependent based on a caring Liberal Beveridge model welfare state.
In short,Britain is being led by the hard uncaring minority of elitist driven `Brexiteers’, whom do not count human cost at all and caring liberal principles in their cost analysis is thereby defenestrated.
For this group of ideologically driven Brexiteers, monetary high cost rising to £90 B in the full term -in a few years time, is not and has never been an issue.
@ Laurence Cox,
I often make the point that you’d be better off studying Old Moore’s Almanac than reading OBR forecasts. They are a just dreadful. The OBR not OMA 🙂 There’s not been much growth since the 2008 GFC in either the UK or the wider EU so the simple argument might be that we can hardly do any worse.
@ Arnold,
So the EU have itemised the bill but have chosen to keep it secret? This is the sort of “let’s keep it from the children” approach that many of us don’t like about the EU. We are still in the EU for a year or so yet. So if the EU are preparing a bill for the UK taxpayer to settle, why shouldn’t we know just what we are settling?
“would have advocated remaining in an EU where big countries can be outvoted”
I didn’t quite say that. If there was enough support for a “federal Government of the U.S.E” who would indeed “legislate on taxation” then I could be persuaded to go along with the idea. That, unlike the present arrangement, would be a perfectly workable model. We have a blueprint for all that in the USA.
It’s just a pipe dream though. Even those who are supposedly in favour of the EU don’t want it. Germany will never voluntarily share its income, wealth and political influence with those outside its own borders. It’s never going to put itself in a position where its own decisions can be overuled by a USE Federal Govt.
That has to happen for the EU to survive though.
Peter,
I don’t think it’s just Germany that wouldn’t do that. I don’t think any of the other countries would either. Certainly, not France. This is the absurdity at the heart of the ever closer union idea. The EU is nothing like the US, which is a single country. It’s more like a soft-powered quasi-empire.
Peter Martin:
You are being intentionally disingenuous, with your:
“So the EU have itemised the bill but have chosen to keep it secret? This is the sort of “let’s keep it from the children” approach that many of us don’t like about the EU. We are still in the EU for a year or so yet. So if the EU are preparing a bill for the UK taxpayer to settle, why shouldn’t we know just what we are settling?”
Others have provided links that show how false your claims are, yet still you persist. Ironically your criticism is more appropriately levelled at the UK government.
You are rumbled.
It would have been much better if the EU had given us an itemised bill for what they considered was owed. That’s what usually happens when there is any dispute over money. Then we could have negotiated from there and arrived at a mutually agreeable figure much more quickly.
This is the sort of “let’s keep it from the children” approach that many of us don’t like about the EU.
Funny how blind people are.
I don’t remember seeing any breakdown as to how that £20bn UK offer to the EU was arrived at and I doubt any breakdown was given to the EU.
My understanding is that T.May’s executive have adopted a “let’s keep it from the children” approach, by not sharing information with either the British public or even Parliament itself. You can give all the reasons you want as to why this is totally correct and proper, however, if it is okay for T.May et al to do it, it is also okay for the other party, ie. the EU27, to do similar.
The EU knows that only encrypted bill-language can be approved and survived by May. They do her the favor in order not to have the negotiations derailed by the usual suspects and Murdoch et. al. It’s called diplomacy, Boris (to quote John Kerry). I am sure the real total will never be published, not even the annual installments. But relax: it will also never be paid in full. The UK will haggle every year over the amount due, mix it up with other current agreements around the trade-deal or security-cooperation, and the EU will lose its resolve in light of arriving ex-UK businesses and the brisk pace of UK private and public empoverishment.
Martin, You say in response to Peter Martin:
You are being intentionally disingenuous, with your:
“So the EU have itemised the bill but have chosen to keep it secret? This is the sort of “let’s keep it from the children” approach that many of us don’t like about the EU. We are still in the EU for a year or so yet. So if the EU are preparing a bill for the UK taxpayer to settle, why shouldn’t we know just what we are settling?”
Others have provided links that show how false your claims are, yet still you persist. Ironically your criticism is more appropriately levelled at the UK government.
However, looking at the link you provided, it is simply a policy document saying how a bill should be produced. It certainly isn’t a bill from the EU to the UK.
Glenn,
I believe you fall into the “Stop the world” I want to get off group of Brexit supporters. You just seem to want to live in your little village and forget about the rest of the world. A nice dream i’m sure but as I’ve told you before much as we all might want this, the world won’t stop. we either deal with reality or escape into fantasy.
For many Brexiteers the world is a place where elephants fly, lead balloons bounce and Tinkerbell reigns supreme. The problem is the world keeps intruding into that reality. Fifty plus billion for the EU outrageous they splutter before agreeing amongst themselves it’s a price worth having for a trade agreement and sinking back into Tinkerbell land. When eventually they find out it’s the sum for settling the bill and not the cost of a trade agreement they will splutter some more but the lure of Tinkerbell will drag most of the back. Some eventfully will escape Tinkerbells embrace but most I fear are destined to dance around in fairy costumes singing “We believe we can fly” for alas for them reality is just too hard and Tinkerbell too alluring astride her Unicorn.
frankie,
I am impressed; thought you had maxxed out already, but you are still getting better. Try to keep it up.
David Evans:
From the start it was made clear that there needed to be agreement on what items had to be settled rather than the cost of each item. The EU team published their paper on what it considered were the obligations and asked the UK to respond in kind, but nothing was produced. Instead May offered a sum of money without indicating what it was for. This is rather like someone leaving early from a group meal, who simply offers £20 without any regard for what he had ordered and had consumed.
The discussion of the amounts involved are for the second phase, once it is established what items have to be paid for. To agree on what has to be paid for, and then sort out what the costs are, seems reasonable to me and certainly more reasonable than trying to do it the other way round.
Such estimates of costs that have been seen in the media are certainly not official, as this is up for negotiation (though often I guess the accounts would not leave much to discuss).
David,
As if by magic a crises announces itself
NHS bosses have warned ministers they will have to tear up guarantees on waiting times and deny patients new drugs next year because they have been given too little money.
The government’s refusal to give the NHS the extra funds it said it needed in last week’s budget mean that key waiting time targets – on A&E treatment, cancer care, non-urgent hospital operations and ambulance arrival times – can no longer be met from April, NHS England made clear.
In an escalation of its public dispute with ministers over what the NHS can afford to do, it also said it would ignore recommendations to improve patient care made by the National Institute for health and Care Excellence (Nice), because it does not have the money or staff to implement them.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/30/nhs-bosses-waiting-time-targets-abandoned-next-year
As I said Brexit is the biggest disaster, but Lord if you don’t like that one we have others (O so many others).
@frankie
What on earth does any of that have to do with Brexit?
The NHS has been underfunded for years and suffered massive cuts, even during the coalition years for which your party bares equal responsibility, way way before the brexit referendum.
@ Martin,
Look, it was Arnold, and not myself, who said “It has been kept out of the public” in his comment of 30th Nov, 9.30 am.
I’m asking why, as taxpayers, we should be kept in the dark about what is claimed we owe to the EU. We’ll all be doing the paying and not just the negotiators. It is down to the EU to say what it is. If this information exists and I’ve just missed it, maybe you could provide a link?
I don’t know about you, but in my business life if customers owe me money I always start off with a statement, accurate to the penny, of my version any payment arrears. If necessary I back that up with copies of delivery dockets, invoices and purchase orders. We then take it from there and nearly always there’s a straightforward resolution.
Frankie I’m getting a little worried about you. You seem to have an unusual obsession with Tinkerbell and Unicorns.
Frankie
I could say something witty, but I’m not going to.
Here’s the reality. Britain will leave the EU. Probably with a deal similar to Norway. There will be no last minute reprieve. It’s a dead issue. I do not live in a world of fantasy. I’m afraid you do. I live in a world where nation states exist and political systems are based on their existence. There is no global community, no mechanism for one and no political will to create one. In the last election I regularly pointed out to people on LDV that concentrating on the EU would not work. I was right. There was no flood back to the Lib Dems. When it came right down to it, even the young opted for a Eurosceptic who offered to alleviate their financial burden above the pro EU party aiming to win their vote. I was also right about Americans voting as Americans not based on the feelings of the rest of the world. Personally, I would have voted for Clinton, but I’m not American so I didn’t get a say. This is political reality. And the political reality of the EU is that parliament voted to pass the Brexit bill and even half of the Lib Dem MPs chose to abstain rather than vote against that bill. It was passed with ease. We live a country with FPTP and that means a few seats and indignation cuts no mustard. A lot of people on here do not want to hear it, but the Lib Dems will eventually have to adapt to a Britain outside the EU or the party will die. So, Frankie. you can keep goading me with moderately amusing missives, but really I think the person seeing floating white elephants and who wants the world to stop is you.
Remaining in the EEA and retaining a UK/Ireland customs union is the pragmatic thing to do .We should then negotiate a UK EFTA agreement like Norway ect .This would stop the UK turning its back on its largest trading partner .Trade partnerships happen all over the globe with neighbouring countries and economic zones.You do not have to be a Brexit privateer of the Elizabethan age to realize a European free trade area and co-operation can go hand in hand.
Brexit at any price seems the mantra that uses the referendum as justification for this act of self-harm that requires a serious review.
>Remaining in the EEA and retaining a UK/Ireland customs union is the pragmatic thing to do
It is also consistent with the UK’s historical position of wanting a two-tier Europe, whilst within the EU. But then it would seem rabid Brexiteers really want a three-tier Europe: those in the EU, those in the EEA/EFTA and those in neither.