The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (35 Viewers)

[clint van damme]

We all know the savings are not every penny that goes in. But you can't deny that we are the second largest net contributor. Most countries take out much more than they put in. This is undeniable. About half of what we put in doesn't come back. Whatever your views are this is a massive amount.

it is, but without knowing exactly what the divorce settlement entails stating that the final figure is too high or too low is nothing but idle speculation.
Of course, with DD and Boris involved in all likelihood we'll get shafted.

 

---

[Grendel]

it is, but without knowing exactly what the divorce settlement entails stating that the final figure is too high or too low is nothing but idle speculation.
Of course, with DD and Boris involved in all likelihood we'll get shafted.

There is no formula to calculate the exit price is there?

 

[clint van damme]

There is no formula to calculate the exit price is there?

formula is perhaps the wrong word but there are several variables that will affect the settlement and future payments both in and out.

 

[chiefdave]

It would have simplified things if we had agreed to leave at he end of a budget cycle. But then you'd still have issues with projects we've agreed to fund and money due from existing projects.

 

[Kingokings204]

It would have simplified things if we had agreed to leave at he end of a budget cycle. But then you'd still have issues with projects we've agreed to fund and money due from existing projects.

We did. 2020 is the cut off date as it's agreed every ten years years so yea we owe up to 2020 sure but then not a penny piece more.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

I take it that we will be receiving money back from our share of all the Eu buildings we have helped to build?

 

[clint van damme]

We did. 2020 is the cut off date as it's agreed every ten years years so yea we owe up to 2020 sure but then not a penny piece more.

but the EU want us to pay in until 2023 but we would then get a bigger share of its assets, (the Germans are against this), so it may be beneficial to carry on for the extra 3 years.
This is why I don't think it's quite as simple as setting a figure or a date. A lot to be considered.

 

[chiefdave]

This is why I don't think it's quite as simple as setting a figure or a date.

Its not simple at all and worryingly if David Davis interview on the Marr show is any indication he doesn't have a grasp on the basics of what we are committed to and what we are entitled to.

Do think lining it up with the end of a budget cycle would make things a bit easier. Now we're in a position where we've committed to paying for projects which have started that we're now saying we will no longer fund, thats making things more complicated than they need to be.

 

[Astute]

it's not as simple as we should pay A or B, it's a lot more complicated than that.
I went through it in another post but it depends how the deal is structured, we can carry on paying in and taking money out of EU projects long after we've left, the more we will take out the bigger the initial settlement.
We can also decide not to tkae future payments on finished projects we've already invested in which will bring the figure down.
No idea if it should be anywhere near 100 mil but it is going to be based on a complicated formula not just a figure plucked out of the air but the higher it is then the more we'll take out in the future.

It isn't up to 150m he wants from us. It is up to 150 billion. Try getting your head around that.

 

[Astute]

but the EU want us to pay in until 2023 but we would then get a bigger share of its assets, (the Germans are against this), so it may be beneficial to carry on for the extra 3 years.
This is why I don't think it's quite as simple as setting a figure or a date. A lot to be considered.

Assets? He said they belong to the EU. And when we leave we get nothing although we have paid for a lot of it.

Part of what he wants us to pay for is their obscene pensions. And pay for many years after leaving. He says we signed up to them when we didn't.

 

[Astute]

Its not simple at all and worryingly if David Davis interview on the Marr show is any indication he doesn't have a grasp on the basics of what we are committed to and what we are entitled to.

Do think lining it up with the end of a budget cycle would make things a bit easier. Now we're in a position where we've committed to paying for projects which have started that we're now saying we will no longer fund, thats making things more complicated than they need to be.

It isn't as simple as that. He wants us to pay for projects not even started yet. 150 billions worth?

Maybe all he is trying to do is to make us change our mind. But what he has done is strengthened the resolve of those who voted to leave. And he has opened the eyes of millions of people who were not sure.

As I have said all along I didn't vote leave. I think I would be better off staying in. But he refused us any say in who comes in. So the homeless total keeps climbing quickly. Sometimes you have to think about what is better for others and not yourself.

Most people I work with are Tory voters. I do better when they are in. But I have never forgotten my roots. My vote goes to those who are working class. That is what I am. I don't pretend to be something I am not. Labour for me. And out of the EU. It is the poorer of the working class who have suffered the most.

 

[Astute]

it is, but without knowing exactly what the divorce settlement entails stating that the final figure is too high or too low is nothing but idle speculation.
Of course, with DD and Boris involved in all likelihood we'll get shafted.

Juncker is making it up as he goes along. And now he is upsetting others who always went along with him.

 

[Astute]

It would have simplified things if we had agreed to leave at he end of a budget cycle. But then you'd still have issues with projects we've agreed to fund and money due from existing projects.

But we didn't agree with projects started or not. They just happen and we pay. Just like Junckers latest plans.

 

[Grendel]

Its not simple at all and worryingly if David Davis interview on the Marr show is any indication he doesn't have a grasp on the basics of what we are committed to and what we are entitled to.

Do think lining it up with the end of a budget cycle would make things a bit easier. Now we're in a position where we've committed to paying for projects which have started that we're now saying we will no longer fund, thats making things more complicated than they need to be.

Do you seriously think that clown Junker has a grip on anything? In the end of we can't deal we can just walk away

 

[martcov]

Do you seriously think that clown Junker has a grip on anything? In the end of we can't deal we can just walk away

Is that correct? I don't think it easy as that otherwise why bother negotiating?

 

[clint van damme]

Assets? He said they belong to the EU. And when we leave we get nothing although we have paid for a lot of it.

Part of what he wants us to pay for is their obscene pensions. And pay for many years after leaving. He says we signed up to them when we didn't.

that's not true, we are due a share of the 154 billion.

 

[clint van damme]

But we didn't agree with projects started or not. They just happen and we pay. Just like Junckers latest plans.

But we also get returns, it's further payments, further returns and our share of current assets which are the crux of negotiations with regard to the divorce settlement. That's why I think it's very difficult to say what is a realistic figure.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

we simply wouldn't pay for it. We are struggling to maintain the current public services.

Supply & demand. A dramatic shift in attitude for the better. If you want your shit cleaning up - you either DIY or pay the going rate or don't shit!

If they need border guards then the public via government will have to pay for them. Fewer people on the dole saves money for processing said people & dole all the time too don't forget.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

He, or rather the EU, wants us to pay what we have committed to.

Don't forget that the EU has commitments here too will you?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[clint van damme]

Supply & demand. A dramatic shift in attitude for the better. If you want your shit cleaning up - you either DIY or pay the going rate or don't shit!

If they need border guards then the public via government will have to pay for them. Fewer people on the dole saves money for processing said people & dole all the time too don't forget.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I don't disagree but that would require a major change in attitude towards public spending. Don't hold your breath.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

It isn't up to 150m he wants from us. It is up to 150 billion. Try getting your head around that.

I'd rather get my hands on it lol

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[martcov]

Don't forget that the EU has commitments here too will you?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

They will be deducted- apparently that is why there are different figures being quoted all the time. Depends on whether you're talking brutto or net and what is being included or excluded.

 

[Astute]

that's not true, we are due a share of the 154 billion.

We are due a share of nothing when we leave. Nothing for any of the buildings we have paid for. Nothing paid out as we get now. But Juncker wants up to 150 Billion pounds off us.

 

[Astute]

But we also get returns, it's further payments, further returns and our share of current assets which are the crux of negotiations with regard to the divorce settlement. That's why I think it's very difficult to say what is a realistic figure.

No it isn't unless you are calling Juncker a liar.

 

[Astute]

I don't disagree but that would require a major change in attitude towards public spending. Don't hold your breath.

A major change in EU spending as Mart says will happen once they can't waste our money.

 

[Astute]

They will be deducted- apparently that is why there are different figures being quoted all the time. Depends on whether you're talking brutto or net and what is being included or excluded.

Once again nothing to be deducted.

Either you don't have a clue or you are like the rest of us and can't think of a reason or excuse for it.

 

[clint van damme]

We are due a share of nothing when we leave. Nothing for any of the buildings we have paid for. Nothing paid out as we get now. But Juncker wants up to 150 Billion pounds off us.

I'm not sure where you're getting you're info from but it's not true, read this in the Telegraph:
Britain will get money back from the EU instead of paying to leave under plans being considered by ministers

I've actually read on this more recently but this was the newest article I could find.
We're due a share of 156 billion, (I've no idea how much). EU negotiators have actually agreed but the Germans are unhappy about it. I also read that the EU negotiators might look to try and reduce what they pay us in return for a better trade deal. It's out there on the internet but I can't be arsed looking for it tonight.

 

[clint van damme]

A major change in EU spending as Mart says will happen once they can't waste our money.

if you think the money we won't pay into the EU after brexit will find it's way into any public spending then you're deluded. Certainly not under this tory government.
Still the 350 mil NHS lie has surfaced again today so no doubt it will be swallowed hook line and sinker by many.

 

[Astute]

if you think the money we won't pay into the EU after brexit will find it's way into any public spending then you're deluded. Certainly not under this tory government.
Still the 350 mil NHS lie has surfaced again today so no doubt it will be swallowed hook line and sinker by many.

Have you misread what I put?

Agree with you on the bus bullshit. It proved once more that you can't trust a politician. As usual they all lied to us to get our vote. Just like Cameron when he said that he was in discussions with Juncker. Juncker said nothing was going on. He had to go after that.

 

[Astute]

I'm not sure where you're getting you're info from but it's not true, read this in the Telegraph:
Britain will get money back from the EU instead of paying to leave under plans being considered by ministers

I've actually read on this more recently but this was the newest article I could find.
We're due a share of 156 billion, (I've no idea how much). EU negotiators have actually agreed but the Germans are unhappy about it. I also read that the EU negotiators might look to try and reduce what they pay us in return for a better trade deal. It's out there on the internet but I can't be arsed looking for it tonight.

Have you read your link?

It says what we think we shouldn't pay. It is the total opposite of what Juncker has said.

 

[Astute]

I'm not sure where you're getting you're info from but it's not true, read this in the Telegraph:
Britain will get money back from the EU instead of paying to leave under plans being considered by ministers

I've actually read on this more recently but this was the newest article I could find.
We're due a share of 156 billion, (I've no idea how much). EU negotiators have actually agreed but the Germans are unhappy about it. I also read that the EU negotiators might look to try and reduce what they pay us in return for a better trade deal. It's out there on the internet but I can't be arsed looking for it tonight.

So we have paid in half a trillion pounds to the EU that we haven't taken out since joining. How many zeroes has that got? :wideyed:

 

[clint van damme]

Have you read your link?

It says what we think we shouldn't pay. It is the total opposite of what Juncker has said.

the information I am referring to has come from the negotiators.
We are entitled to a payout from EU assets, negotiations will decide how much.
As I said before, this is only one factor that will affect how much we pay on leaving.
Of course our negotiators have said we shouldn't pay and Junker has put a high figure in, both know there will have to be compromise.

 

[Astute]

the information I am referring to has come from the negotiators.
We are entitled to a payout from EU assets, negotiations will decide how much.
As I said before, this is only one factor that will affect how much we pay on leaving.
Of course our negotiators have said we shouldn't pay and Junker has put a high figure in, both know there will have to be compromise.

Read it again. That is our side of the negotiations. Juncker has already said no to it.

 

[clint van damme]

So we have paid in half a trillion pounds to the EU that we haven't taken out since joining. How many zeroes has that got? :wideyed:

it's not about what we've paid in, it's about what we're entitled to now.
And do you know how much we've taken out? I know the current government has pledged to continue funding several projects currently funded by the EU so it would be interesting to see what the net gain will be once we've left.

 

[clint van damme]

Read it again. That is our side of the negotiations. Juncker has already said no to it.

read my post again, the negotiators have agreed that we are.