Vocal Voices

Well so we have details on what and why the EU wants up to €112bn from the EU for leaving.

The FT has a breakdown.

The commission initially looked at three main types of liability, which primarily come due between 2019 and 2025. The biggest were:
● EU budget items (such as road or rail projects) that had yet to be paid (a category, formally known as reste à liquider, which amounts to about €241bn).
● Other legal commitments to projects that would be initiated after Brexit takes place in 2019, such as investment projects in less developed regions, in rural areas and for fisheries (a total of up to €172bn).
● Long-term obligations and liabilities such as pension promises and contingent loan guarantees.

Mr Barnier then planned to offset this by reimbursing the UK with a share of EU assets (buildings such as the Berlaymont, the European Commission headquarters), its normal budget rebate and EU spending that would have taken place in the UK.

So very kind of him.

This position was toughened up by member states in the past few weeks. Most importantly, a group led by France and Poland demanded that Britain pay for not just longer term legal commitments that Mr Barnier identified, but normal annual budget spending in 2019 and 2020.

Although Britain signed up to the EU’s seven-year budget plan that ends in 2020, Brussels did not originally demand that London provide funding for annual budget outlays after Brexit. The new position maximises possible liabilities covered in the Brexit settlement, and effectively asks the UK to see out the full 2014-2020 long-term budget.

Juncker is right, the EU is certainly not a Golf Club. No club on the planet would have the Balls to demand that members paid dues for years after they left.

British farmers would still receive EU payments, but the net bill for Britain would be €10bn-€15bn, according to estimates of the Bruegel think-tank. Put crudely, for two years after leaving, Brexit Britain would be paying for the waiters at EU summit dinners, and probably subsidising the vegetables to boot.

Quite.

The final tweak is in the way that contingent liabilities are handled. The commission originally wanted to ask Britain to cover its share of losses on loans or guarantees at the point they arise. The new approach would ask Britain to make a lump-sum payment upfront to cover the liabilities, which would be reimbursed over coming years. This method — requesting provisions for a rainy-day fund — increases the upfront Brexit settlement by €9bn to €12bn.

A "rainy day" fund. And we're supposed to just say "oh yeah, we'll do that".

Mr Barnier insists there will be no final number for the Brexit bill until the end of the Brexit process. But the EU is insisting that Britain agree part of the methodology for it, including a definition of liabilities, before trade talks can begin.

So, we come down to brass tacks. We sign up for an undisclosed and unlimited liability and then, when we've done all the horse trading, they tell us how much it's going to be!

How very EU!

The commission is willing to stagger the payments as long as it leaves Brussels with no gap in the EU budget, which would also avoid a huge gross payment. But this is a detail for the final stages of talks; at present the UK does not even agree with the notion of an exit bill. There is a €100bn divide to bridge, and not long to do it.

Not long? Honestly unless Corbyn wins the election you might as well say "never".

Let me ask one simple question. Would you sign up for this in your own personal life???

No. You wouldn't go through two years of negotiations and agree everything without knowing what the bill is going to be. That is an integral part of the process and has to be established pdq.

Politico.eu has a good analysis of what the Bexit Directives from the commission (now approved by all 27), really means.

In short, in my business world, anyone who brought this to me as a negotiating stance would be shown the door and told to go and re-think their negotiation tactic.

As far as I can see the EU believes that all they have to do is keep saying NO until the UK bows down to the pressure. That might have worked when the UK wanted in to the common market but I doubt very much that it is going to work for the UK leaving the EU.

Let's take a realistic view of this. It took the EU 27 six months to come up with and agree this approach. Nothing is going to change that now. This approach was done in exclusion of the UK and without any discussion with the UK as to whether it was acceptable or not.

Having bound themselves into this approach, the Commission and Council have set about "brow beating" the UK into accepting it. Project Fear is alive and well and the EU doesn't seem to get it though their heads that Fear is not a constant. People rise above fear and accept the consequences and then move on. Attempting to drive people back into fear, especially in the UK, tends to lead to a backlash.

I can understand the panic going on in the EU right now. After all it's worked almost every time for nearly 46 years. They never even considered the alternative. Namely that the UK would just give them the finger and walk.

The EU is all about stick and carrot. The problem with that approach is that you have to have the upper hand. When the stick is applied and the other party gives you that "look" which says "go to hell", the façade starts to crack.

Already the press and the government are starting to highlight the cracks in the EU façade. Expect the rhetoric to escalate from the EU as the Government stands firm and tells them that they can get 127 signatures on that "directive", designed specifically to mandate, not negotiate; the UK will not put up with that kind of behaviour and if the EU wants to protect _any_ of the UK's significant investment in the EU, then they had better start beating themselves with the clue stick. HARD.

When, not if, May wins the next election, expect the EU to start hyperventilating. How much they hyperventilate will depend on how strong May's government is. Even 30 more MP's voted in on a Hard Brexit mandate and the lungs will be going pretty hard.

Ah bless. Politico eh? That well known organ of neutrality in all things EU, which has never, ever, printed anything critical about things EU. Or has it?

It has now come up with its own interpretations of what it thinks the EU meant when it produced its guidelines, but with absolutely nothing to back them up. Marvellous! They are suitably highlighted with da-glo marker to catch our attention.

Problem is they are no more nor no less valid than any other interpretation. Little Jonny Pantsdown, Yr4, St Snowflake Primary, Dulwich, has published his interpretations in the school's newsletter. His amount to "boo, don't like, I'm off to suck my thumb". They are very similar to May's interpretations.

Tough. The EU has published. Get over it.

Workingman wrote:Tough. The EU has published. Get over it.

True, it's totally critical and I would like that wouldn't I?

Honestly they've published and I believe they have created a brick wall to smash their heads against.

Positives? I think Sturgeon will get a kicking and the Tories may take as many as 8 seats in Scotland. I would like that as it would give a bit of balance back to Scottish politics, closer to what is in Holyrood. A very big change for me from the last 15 years. I've finally managed to forgive the Tories for what Major tried to do.

I sit in the camp which believes that the EU never intended to negotiate anything any more than they intended to negotiate with Cameron. I have no clear view of what their ego addled power grab aims to achieve. However I'm fairly convinced that they are going to do anything they can to frustrate the UK and damage the UK's relations with the rest of the world.

I have a cartoon in my mind. 27 Hyena worrying at a carcase of a deer with €100bn written on it whilst the maned Lion with the Union Jack on it sits watching with a pile of deer behind it with £1,300bn written on it. Looking on are the American Eagle and the Russian Bear. The Bear is hungry and looking at the smaller Hyena with beady eyes. The Lion has little issue with the Bear and the Eagle is disgusted with the Hyena. The dragon sits in the distance watching and waiting.

What the EU is doing is being done on the world stage. Canada must be looking over the CETA agreement again and thinking "what the hell did we do?", Trump will be looking on with an eye to negotiations with the EU and a barge pole in hand.

Honestly I wonder what the world is thinking? This cabal of 27 nations holding less than $13tn in GDP, puffed up with their own importance, acting like a highwayman. They just lost almost all of their long distance deployable Nuclear deterrent (UK trident carry 16 missles with up to 14MIRV warheads of up to 450kt, French subs carry 16 missiles with a max 150kt warhead). They must look like the most spiteful children alive...

I hope Theresa May is on your wavelength Suff

Noooo, she's doing a bad enough job without Suff's help.

[quote="Workingman"]Noooo, she's doing a bad enough job without Suff's help. [/qu

She playing a blinder Frank - only Nigel could do it better

Workingman wrote:Noooo, she's doing a bad enough job without Suff's help.

Depends what you want, but, yes, some will see it that way...