Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May agrees €100 billion Brexit divorce bill with the E

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited November 28 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May agrees €100 billion Brexit divorce bill with the EU

The Leave campaign was keen to use the gross figure to describe how much Brexit could save us to spend on the NHS.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,899
    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    edited November 28
    TGOHF said:
    Two Words - Royal Mail

    Vince Cable reminds we of that really annoying Harry Enfield character, that whatever anybody did, he would go No No No, now what you should have done is...but when he then has a go, he is totally crap.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806
    Second! Like Remain.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    I think I can see a flaw......
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494
    Is this exactly as @rcs1000 predicted? A bill that the EU can dress up as a win, but actually consists of little money up front and lots of liabaility funding that is unlikely to need covering...?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Mortimer said:

    Is this exactly as @rcs1000 predicted? A bill that the EU can dress up as a win, but actually consists of little money up front and lots of liabaility funding that is unlikely to need covering...?

    And that the UK can claim as a win too. We know that net/gross jiggery-pokery can work a treat: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/07/uk-pays-full-eu-rebate-despite-osborne-claim-he-halved-it
  • re: polling about the Brexit bill:

    We used a split sample – one half of the respondents got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £5bn, £10bn and £20bn. The other half of the sample got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £25bn, £50bn and £75bn.

    On the first bank of questions 38% thought £5bn would be acceptable, 18% thought £10bn would be acceptable, 11% thought that £20bn would be acceptable. Looking at the other half of the sample, 29% thought that £25bn was acceptable, 9% thought that £50bn was acceptable, 6% thought that £75bn would be acceptable (full tabs are here.)

    Taken as a whole we get the rather perverse finding that while support generally falls as the size of the settlement increases, £25 billion is far more acceptable to the public than £20 billion. This is nonsense of course, and the reason is simple enough – people take their cues from the question itself. In the first half of the sample, £5bn was the lowest amount asked about, £20bn the largest amount, and many respondents presumably took this as an implication that £5bn was a low settlement, £20bn a high one. For the second half of the sample £25bn was the lowest figure asked about, so many respondents presumably took the implication that this was a low settlement. Whether people said a sum was acceptable or not was less about the actual number, more about whether the question implied that it was a low or high figure.

    The point is that questions about what level of “divorce bill” will be acceptable to the public don’t really tell us much. People don’t have any good way of telling what is a good or bad deal and are really just expressing their unsurprising preference for a smaller settlement. When (or if) Britain and the EU do finally agree on a sum, it won’t be so much the particular figure that determines whether the public see it as a victory or a sell-out, but whether the media and political class present it to them as a good or bad deal.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    edited November 28

    re: polling about the Brexit bill:

    We used a split sample – one half of the respondents got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £5bn, £10bn and £20bn. The other half of the sample got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £25bn, £50bn and £75bn.

    On the first bank of questions 38% thought £5bn would be acceptable, 18% thought £10bn would be acceptable, 11% thought that £20bn would be acceptable. Looking at the other half of the sample, 29% thought that £25bn was acceptable, 9% thought that £50bn was acceptable, 6% thought that £75bn would be acceptable (full tabs are here.)

    Taken as a whole we get the rather perverse finding that while support generally falls as the size of the settlement increases, £25 billion is far more acceptable to the public than £20 billion. This is nonsense of course, and the reason is simple enough – people take their cues from the question itself. In the first half of the sample, £5bn was the lowest amount asked about, £20bn the largest amount, and many respondents presumably took this as an implication that £5bn was a low settlement, £20bn a high one. For the second half of the sample £25bn was the lowest figure asked about, so many respondents presumably took the implication that this was a low settlement. Whether people said a sum was acceptable or not was less about the actual number, more about whether the question implied that it was a low or high figure.

    The point is that questions about what level of “divorce bill” will be acceptable to the public don’t really tell us much. People don’t have any good way of telling what is a good or bad deal and are really just expressing their unsurprising preference for a smaller settlement. When (or if) Britain and the EU do finally agree on a sum, it won’t be so much the particular figure that determines whether the public see it as a victory or a sell-out, but whether the media and political class present it to them as a good or bad deal.

    It appears that polling companies haven't read the work of Daniel Kahneman. If they had, they would never run such a test nor be confused by the "perverse" result.
  • If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    I think I can see a flaw......
    Yes, me too. But what about Leadsom? She has nothing to lose.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    "We're happy to help them present it" (EU official in the FT)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    Remainers worrying about sending “vast sums” to the EU...
  • tim80tim80 Posts: 89
    For as long as we are members we are paying €20-25bn every year
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,776
    edited November 28
    Express has a mischievous front page layout.



    Some might jump to a conclusion about resignations on health grounds. Others may not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407

    re: polling about the Brexit bill:

    We used a split sample – one half of the respondents got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £5bn, £10bn and £20bn. The other half of the sample got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £25bn, £50bn and £75bn.

    On the first bank of questions 38% thought £5bn would be acceptable, 18% thought £10bn would be acceptable, 11% thought that £20bn would be acceptable. Looking at the other half of the sample, 29% thought that £25bn was acceptable, 9% thought that £50bn was acceptable, 6% thought that £75bn would be acceptable (full tabs are here.)

    Taken as a whole we get the rather perverse finding that while support generally falls as the size of the settlement increases, £25 billion is far more acceptable to the public than £20 billion. This is nonsense of course, and the reason is simple enough – people take their cues from the question itself. In the first half of the sample, £5bn was the lowest amount asked about, £20bn the largest amount, and many respondents presumably took this as an implication that £5bn was a low settlement, £20bn a high one. For the second half of the sample £25bn was the lowest figure asked about, so many respondents presumably took the implication that this was a low settlement. Whether people said a sum was acceptable or not was less about the actual number, more about whether the question implied that it was a low or high figure.

    The point is that questions about what level of “divorce bill” will be acceptable to the public don’t really tell us much. People don’t have any good way of telling what is a good or bad deal and are really just expressing their unsurprising preference for a smaller settlement. When (or if) Britain and the EU do finally agree on a sum, it won’t be so much the particular figure that determines whether the public see it as a victory or a sell-out, but whether the media and political class present it to them as a good or bad deal.

    Hard to argue with the last line, and there are major players of leave and remain who woukd be very happy to call any number agreed on as terrible. Given fear of the angry hard brexit crowd seems to be the most influential factor for government, no amount woukd ever be easym
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    I am surprised Boris has yet to congratulate Harry on his engagement to a mulatto, and point out that their little piccaninnies will all be quadroons.
  • I am going to guess that the Treasury haven't got any BitCoin stuffed down the back of the sofa that could help us pay for this..
  • kle4 said:

    re: polling about the Brexit bill:

    We used a split sample – one half of the respondents got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £5bn, £10bn and £20bn. The other half of the sample got a grid of three questions asking about settlements of £25bn, £50bn and £75bn.

    On the first bank of questions 38% thought £5bn would be acceptable, 18% thought £10bn would be acceptable, 11% thought that £20bn would be acceptable. Looking at the other half of the sample, 29% thought that £25bn was acceptable, 9% thought that £50bn was acceptable, 6% thought that £75bn would be acceptable (full tabs are here.)

    Taken as a whole we get the rather perverse finding that while support generally falls as the size of the settlement increases, £25 billion is far more acceptable to the public than £20 billion. This is nonsense of course, and the reason is simple enough – people take their cues from the question itself. In the first half of the sample, £5bn was the lowest amount asked about, £20bn the largest amount, and many respondents presumably took this as an implication that £5bn was a low settlement, £20bn a high one. For the second half of the sample £25bn was the lowest figure asked about, so many respondents presumably took the implication that this was a low settlement. Whether people said a sum was acceptable or not was less about the actual number, more about whether the question implied that it was a low or high figure.

    The point is that questions about what level of “divorce bill” will be acceptable to the public don’t really tell us much. People don’t have any good way of telling what is a good or bad deal and are really just expressing their unsurprising preference for a smaller settlement. When (or if) Britain and the EU do finally agree on a sum, it won’t be so much the particular figure that determines whether the public see it as a victory or a sell-out, but whether the media and political class present it to them as a good or bad deal.

    Hard to argue with the last line, and there are major players of leave and remain who woukd be very happy to call any number agreed on as terrible. Given fear of the angry hard brexit crowd seems to be the most influential factor for government, no amount woukd ever be easym
    The issue was never going to be what the bill figure was, it is what we got in return. The answer is nothing. There appears to be no link between the payment and the delivery of a trade deal and we have achieved nothing in the negotiation because, mostly thanks to the efforts of the remainers, the Government was too scared to walk away. So, the outcome will be totally unacceptable to the UK public.

    The upcoming climbdown on ECJ jurisdiction should be the final nail in the coffin.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896

    kle4 said:

    re: polling about the Brexit bill:

    Taken as a whole we get the rather perverse finding that while support generally falls as the size of the settlement increases, £25 billion is far more acceptable to the public than £20 billion. This is nonsense of course, and the reason is simple enough – people take their cues from the question itself. In the first half of the sample, £5bn was the lowest amount asked about, £20bn the largest amount, and many respondents presumably took this as an implication that £5bn was a low settlement, £20bn a high one. For the second half of the sample £25bn was the lowest figure asked about, so many respondents presumably took the implication that this was a low settlement. Whether people said a sum was acceptable or not was less about the actual number, more about whether the question implied that it was a low or high figure.

    The point is that questions about what level of “divorce bill” will be acceptable to the public don’t really tell us much. People don’t have any good way of telling what is a good or bad deal and are really just expressing their unsurprising preference for a smaller settlement. When (or if) Britain and the EU do finally agree on a sum, it won’t be so much the particular figure that determines whether the public see it as a victory or a sell-out, but whether the media and political class present it to them as a good or bad deal.

    Hard to argue with the last line, and there are major players of leave and remain who woukd be very happy to call any number agreed on as terrible. Given fear of the angry hard brexit crowd seems to be the most influential factor for government, no amount woukd ever be easym
    The issue was never going to be what the bill figure was, it is what we got in return. The answer is nothing. There appears to be no link between the payment and the delivery of a trade deal and we have achieved nothing in the negotiation because, mostly thanks to the efforts of the remainers, the Government was too scared to walk away. So, the outcome will be totally unacceptable to the UK public.

    The upcoming climbdown on ECJ jurisdiction should be the final nail in the coffin.
    A trade deal will take years to progress and will have to go through an extensive EU ratification process where every government - and in some cases regional governments - will have a veto. This extends well beyond the A50 period and probably beyond the transition. This was the case from the beginning and, as some have been warning all along, makes impossible any direct conditionality between the divorce payment and the € (except in as much that if, as the FT suggests, the actual payments are staged, we always have the - nuclear - option of stopping paying).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    TGOHF said:

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    Remainers worrying about sending “vast sums” to the EU...
    40 years lead time.....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    TGOHF said:

    Remainers worrying about sending “vast sums” to the EU...

    Brexiteers cheering sending money to the EU is my new jam...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485
    edited November 28
    Ishmael_Z said:

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    I am surprised Boris has yet to congratulate Harry on his engagement to a mulatto, and point out that their little piccaninnies will all be quadroons.
    That's funny as was your Casablanca post yesterday. I lined you up but someone had to put the ball into the empty net.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    re: polling about the Brexit bill:

    Taken as a whole we get the rather perverse finding that while support generally falls as the size of the settlement increases, £25 billion is far more acceptable to the public than £20 billion. This is nonsense of course, and the reason is simple enough – people take their cues from the question itself. In the first half of the sample, £5bn was the lowest amount asked about, £20bn the largest amount, and many respondents presumably took this as an implication that £5bn was a low settlement, £20bn a high one. For the second half of the

    The point is that questions about what level of “divorce bill” will be acceptable to the public don’t really tell us much. People don’t have any good way of telling what is a good or bad deal and are really just expressing their unsurprising preference for a smaller settlement. When (or if) Britain and the EU do finally agree on a sum, it won’t be so much the particular figure that determines whether the public see it as a victory or a sell-out, but whether the media and political class present it to them as a good or bad deal.

    Hard to argue with the last line, and there are major players of leave and remain who woukd be very happy to call any number agreed on as terrible. Given fear of the angry hard brexit crowd seems to be the most influential factor for government, no amount woukd ever be easym
    The issue was never going to be what the bill figure was, it is what we got in return. The answer is nothing. There appears to be no link between the payment and the delivery of a trade deal and we have achieved nothing in the negotiation because, mostly thanks to the efforts of the remainers, the Government was too scared to walk away. So, the outcome will be totally unacceptable to the UK public.

    The upcoming climbdown on ECJ jurisdiction should be the final nail in the coffin.
    A trade deal will take years to progress and will have to go through an extensive EU ratification process where every government - and in some cases regional governments - will have a veto. This extends well beyond the A50 period and probably beyond the transition. This was the case from the beginning and, as some have been warning all along, makes impossible any direct conditionality between the divorce payment and the € (except in as much that if, as the FT suggests, the actual payments are staged, we always have the - nuclear - option of stopping paying).
    The relentless negativity of remainer world is what makes it so unappealing.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    Remainers worrying about sending “vast sums” to the EU...

    Brexiteers cheering sending money to the EU is my new jam...
    Sad.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,290
    Complete and utter madness from Theresa May.
  • Sky saying deal is between 45 and 55 billion euros and David Davis sounded confident and said the announcement will take place on the 15th December.

    If true great news that will be acceptable to the majority, though not the extremes on both sides
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    TGOHF said:

    Sad.

    Why are you sad?

    Brexiteers are supposed to be happy right now...
  • GIN1138 said:

    Complete and utter madness from Theresa May.

    Absolutely correct thing to do for the Country if it is true
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sad.

    Why are you sad?

    Brexiteers are supposed to be happy right now...
    Ye ragin’ mate ?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,899
    TGOHF said:

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    Remainers worrying about sending “vast sums” to the EU...
    No, I'm rejoicing! I've been saying we should cough up the dosh and move on. Boris, on the other hand, has rather painted himself in a corner with his macho posturing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    edited November 28

    Sky saying deal is between 45 and 55 billion euros and David Davis sounded confident and said the announcement will take place on the 15th December.

    If true great news that will be acceptable to the majority, though not the extremes on both sides

    We know the EU have spent the money already. So we'll have them by the balls in the rest of the negotiations.... "Getting that cheque was dependent on us getting an acceptable outcome on x y z guys...."

    Sorry Ireland.
  • Did Apple replace all their software developers with monkeys. iOS11 is as buggy as hell and now...

    You can log into macOS High Sierra as root with no password. Apple, this is bad – like Windows 95 bad.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/28/root_access_bypass_macos_high_sierra/
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339

    So we'll have them by the balls in the rest of the negotiations....

    Brexiteers still peddling this shite...

    Yeah, we had them by the balls, that's why we gave them 100bn, first installment...
  • Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339

    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds

    That's the gross figure. Brexiteers' preferred metric...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    Even The Times is only "up to 50bn Euros...."
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,190
    Rather a rapid change of position from those who thought no sane UK politician would sign up to a €50 billion exit fee. But explicable. Extortionate Brexit is better than no Brexit.

    Hmm. Anyway. It was always going to happen. With payments and citizen rights now apparently sorted, the Irish will come under intense pressure not to gum up the move to phase II. They will demand a quid pro quo.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,290

    Sky saying deal is between 45 and 55 billion euros and David Davis sounded confident and said the announcement will take place on the 15th December.

    If true great news that will be acceptable to the majority, though not the extremes on both sides

    We know the EU have spent the money already. So we'll have them by the balls in the rest of the negotiations.... "Getting that cheque was dependent on us getting an acceptable outcome on x y z guys...."

    Sorry Ireland.
    You actually think Theresa Maybe has it in her to get anyone by the balls?

    The woman is a complete and total disaster. She'll probably decide to double this latest offer by Christmas... I don't think there is any amount of money she wouldn't pay.
  • Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    Even The Times is only "up to 50bn Euros...."
    Over years
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,963
    Scott_P said:
    The line will be 'Theresa May managed to halve the EU divorce bill. #battlingforbritain'

    You read it first here.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339

    The line will be 'Theresa May managed to halve the EU divorce bill. #battlingforbritain'

    You read it first here.

    None of the people who disputed Osborne halving the EU bill will fall for that, surely...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,963
    Tulip Siddiq seems to be a very unpleasant woman. She'll go far in today's Labour Party.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,899
    Scott_P said:
    Fair to assume that it will be closer to €100bn than €50bn. With the euro-sceptic Right likely to implode, the government wouldn't be leaking the bigger figure if it genuinely thought it would be only half that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,312
    Mortimer said:

    Is this exactly as @rcs1000 predicted? A bill that the EU can dress up as a win, but actually consists of little money up front and lots of liabaility funding that is unlikely to need covering...?

    Yes.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,190
    Scott_P said:
    I feel a fool. I never realised Daniel Hannan is stark, raving mad. I always saw him as disingenuous with an annoying and completely unjustified sense of intellectual superiority.But this is another dimension entirely.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,290
    So I guess all those people foriced to live under Tory Austerity for years and years are now wondering how come Theresa May can suddenly conjure up seemingly unlimited tens of billions for the euro-elite?

    Our hard-working nurses are forced to use foodbanks to eat but don't worry Juncker here's another £50bn. And there's more to come...

    #ToryMeltdownIncoming
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 1,979
    Headline article: the 40 to 50 billion figure seems remarkably consistent from way out. The question is what exactly is the UK getting in return. Yes it is part of the bargain.

    Trumpton:

    The Mike Flynn story is becoming ever more deadly, for him, by the day.. Bear in mind apart from the corruption what you have to bear in mind is that Flynn was still head of the Defense Intelligence Agency when he had some very odd links to Russian figures. Trump is in that web. Start from the point of view that judges that what matters is appearances and the appearance of being very rich & therefore powerful and you get the idea of the guy's motivations and therefore his weaknesses. As ever, there is more bad news for him to come.

    Forget about the old traditional idea of governments spying on governments and stealing state & commercial secrets, the extent of the Russian effort to undermine and destabilise Western democracies is breathtaking. Whilst I voted for Brexit and I believe in the genuine will of the people, the Russian effort to interfere with the democratic process is now best described as concerted. The question then is whether it could be described as decisive. There isn't a rock solid case that it was but the analysts are varied in their assessment, some believe that Russian front work and cash notably influential, others are not so convinced. What you see in the press focusses on online activity through social media but thats not the half of it.

    Notable UK figures, some of which you'd expect, have already been flagged, others you'd maybe not think of are in the frame for making poor decisions in who and what they associated with in the support of their particular cause. They are both your typical leftists in Labour & UKIP and figures on the right in the Conservatives.

  • Scott_P said:
    Fair to assume that it will be closer to €100bn than €50bn. With the euro-sceptic Right likely to implode, the government wouldn't be leaking the bigger figure if it genuinely thought it would be only half that.
    You mean you want people to think the bill is 100 billion so as to stop Brexit

    Looks as if we will be well on our way by Xmas. Then April and May will be a huge royal celebration with a new baby and a wedding in between the Commonwealth Heads of State conference in London with lots of trade deals to discuss

    And of course lots of Union Jacks on display
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,312

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's because it's a gross, undiscounted number that includes contingent liabilities.

    Take contingent liabilities. There is a risk that Ireland does not pay back its bailout. Should Ireland not pay a single Euro of its bailout back, we are on the hook for a theoretical €5bn as our share. But it's (a) completely theoretical, (b) should be netted off against us getting €5bn of Irish debt, and (c) we could hedge our exposure with a CDS for about €150m anyway. That's us assuming €5bn of gross contingent liabilities.

    We also need to look at "net" numbers. We sell our share of the EIB and get something between €7 and €14bn. (And to maximise the degree of fudge, they'll probably overpay us for our share in the EIB, and we'll pretend to be paying a higher gross liabilities figure.)

    And let's look at pensions. If you have to pay a former MEP €20,000 in 2060 (making up numbers) then that isn't worth €20,000 today. It's perhaps worth €8,000 today. They will quote the undiscounted number, but the real price is a fraction of the headline.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,963
    Scott_P said:

    None of the people who disputed Osborne halving the EU bill will fall for that, surely...

    I've somewhat lost track of the logical contortions. The people who were criticising the PM for not agreeing the exit bill now seem to be criticising her for agreeing it, and the people who were saying we shouldn't pay a bean have now manoeuvred her into a position where she is too weak to resist paying the reparations. Meanwhile the Irish are threatening to derail things because they don't want things derailed, the LibDems want a referendum on an option which doesn't exist, and Labour (whose policy is to leave the Single Market and Customs Union) are complaining that the government hasn't thought through the problems of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Only the SNP are being consistent, but since they are consistently obstructive that doesn't help much.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    @PaulBrandITV: Now PM’s Middle East trip is public knowledge we can report that Damian Green will be taking #PMQs tomorrow in her absence. First question? “Did you or didn’t you?” #awkward
  • Scott_P said:

    None of the people who disputed Osborne halving the EU bill will fall for that, surely...

    I've somewhat lost track of the logical contortions. The people who were criticising the PM for not agreeing the exit bill now seem to be criticising her for agreeing it, and the people who were saying we shouldn't pay a bean have now manoeuvred her into a position where she is too weak to resist paying the reparations. Meanwhile the Irish are threatening to derail things because they don't want things derailed, the LibDems want a referendum on an option which doesn't exist, and Labour (whose policy is to leave the Single Market and Customs Union) are complaining that the government hasn't thought through the problems of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Only the SNP are being consistent, but since they are consistently obstructive that doesn't help much.
    +1
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    GIN1138 said:

    So I guess all those people foriced to live under Tory Austerity for years and years are now wondering how come Theresa May can suddenly conjure up seemingly unlimited tens of billions for the euro-elite?

    Our hard-working nurses are forced to use foodbanks to eat but don't worry Juncker here's another £50bn. And there's more to come...

    #ToryMeltdownIncoming

    I don't think all £50bn goes to juncker personally, nor to the euro-elite, there has been no sudden conjuring up - we have known since the vote that a large amount would be owing, and the arithmetic is easier than you suggest - 50bn is not 'seemingly unlimited tens of billions', it is precisely 5 of them. Not the most compelling rant ever.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,190

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's a €100 billion gross commitment that is paid down according to a schedule to be agreed. The actual amount paid will be at a discount, so the total actual amount is around €50 billion. So far just as the EU has always demanded.

    The new feature is that the discount will be applied as each amount becomes due rather calculated in advance. This ambiguity allows the UK government to predict a very large discount and a relatively smaller final figure. By the time it all gets paid off everyone will have lost interest, even if the actual discounts aren't as high as the UK government initially predicted.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,428
    edited November 28
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's because it's a gross, undiscounted number that includes contingent liabilities.

    Take contingent liabilities. There is a risk that Ireland does not pay back its bailout. Should Ireland not pay a single Euro of its bailout back, we are on the hook for a theoretical €5bn as our share. But it's (a) completely theoretical, (b) should be netted off against us getting €5bn of Irish debt, and (c) we could hedge our exposure with a CDS for about €150m anyway. That's us assuming €5bn of gross contingent liabilities.

    We also need to look at "net" numbers. We sell our share of the EIB and get something between €7 and €14bn. (And to maximise the degree of fudge, they'll probably overpay us for our share in the EIB, and we'll pretend to be paying a higher gross liabilities figure.)

    And let's look at pensions. If you have to pay a former MEP €20,000 in 2060 (making up numbers) then that isn't worth €20,000 today. It's perhaps worth €8,000 today. They will quote the undiscounted number, but the real price is a fraction of the headline.
    Surely all our UK Eurocrats can take a bit of a haircut on their pensions, like the rest of us public sector workers have?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    GIN1138 said:

    So I guess all those people foriced to live under Tory Austerity for years and years are now wondering how come Theresa May can suddenly conjure up seemingly unlimited tens of billions for the euro-elite?

    Our hard-working nurses are forced to use foodbanks to eat but don't worry Juncker here's another £50bn. And there's more to come...

    #ToryMeltdownIncoming

    How's it different from the tens of billions being spent on the EU over the last decade?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    He has the integrity of a Praying Mantis so don't hold your breath
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    GIN1138 said:

    So I guess all those people foriced to live under Tory Austerity for years and years are now wondering how come Theresa May can suddenly conjure up seemingly unlimited tens of billions for the euro-elite?

    Our hard-working nurses are forced to use foodbanks to eat but don't worry Juncker here's another £50bn. And there's more to come...

    #ToryMeltdownIncoming

    @_bela_lugosi_: My 19 yr old living in constant pain with congenital brain malformation & other serious illness & confined in hospital for months is having to go to a tribunal for disability benefits.
    Today there's a magic £57 billion to get us out of Europe?
    Tells me everything I need to know.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    Cracking goals by Vardy and Mahrez tonight. Foxy is a happy fella.



  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,312

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's because it's a gross, undiscounted number that includes contingent liabilities.

    Take contingent liabilities. There is a risk that Ireland does not pay back its bailout. Should Ireland not pay a single Euro of its bailout back, we are on the hook for a theoretical €5bn as our share. But it's (a) completely theoretical, (b) should be netted off against us getting €5bn of Irish debt, and (c) we could hedge our exposure with a CDS for about €150m anyway. That's us assuming €5bn of gross contingent liabilities.

    We also need to look at "net" numbers. We sell our share of the EIB and get something between €7 and €14bn. (And to maximise the degree of fudge, they'll probably overpay us for our share in the EIB, and we'll pretend to be paying a higher gross liabilities figure.)

    And let's look at pensions. If you have to pay a former MEP €20,000 in 2060 (making up numbers) then that isn't worth €20,000 today. It's perhaps worth €8,000 today. They will quote the undiscounted number, but the real price is a fraction of the headline.
    Surely all our UK Eurocrats can take a bit of a haircut on their pensions, like the rest of us public sector workers have?
    My assumption was that the UK would simply take on the liabilities of all British Eurocrats and MEPs, which would enable some... errr... optimisation down the line. But it appears we'll just help fund them in the future. Hopefully my initial assumption will turn out to be correct, but we'll see.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,312

    Scott_P said:

    None of the people who disputed Osborne halving the EU bill will fall for that, surely...

    I've somewhat lost track of the logical contortions. The people who were criticising the PM for not agreeing the exit bill now seem to be criticising her for agreeing it, and the people who were saying we shouldn't pay a bean have now manoeuvred her into a position where she is too weak to resist paying the reparations. Meanwhile the Irish are threatening to derail things because they don't want things derailed, the LibDems want a referendum on an option which doesn't exist, and Labour (whose policy is to leave the Single Market and Customs Union) are complaining that the government hasn't thought through the problems of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Only the SNP are being consistent, but since they are consistently obstructive that doesn't help much.
    +1
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,422
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's because it's a gross, undiscounted number that includes contingent liabilities.

    Take contingent liabilities. There is a risk that Ireland does not pay back its bailout. Should Ireland not pay a single Euro of its bailout back, we are on the hook for a theoretical €5bn as our share. But it's (a) completely theoretical, (b) should be netted off against us getting €5bn of Irish debt, and (c) we could hedge our exposure with a CDS for about €150m anyway. That's us assuming €5bn of gross contingent liabilities.

    We also need to look at "net" numbers. We sell our share of the EIB and get something between €7 and €14bn. (And to maximise the degree of fudge, they'll probably overpay us for our share in the EIB, and we'll pretend to be paying a higher gross liabilities figure.)

    And let's look at pensions. If you have to pay a former MEP €20,000 in 2060 (making up numbers) then that isn't worth €20,000 today. It's perhaps worth €8,000 today. They will quote the undiscounted number, but the real price is a fraction of the headline.
    Surely all our UK Eurocrats can take a bit of a haircut on their pensions, like the rest of us public sector workers have?
    My assumption was that the UK would simply take on the liabilities of all British Eurocrats and MEPs, which would enable some... errr... optimisation down the line. But it appears we'll just help fund them in the future. Hopefully my initial assumption will turn out to be correct, but we'll see.
    I doubt it. Even if there were no British Eurocrats, we were still benefiting proportionately from those who were employed. Why is their nationality relevant?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    @JamesMelville: Theresa May previously told a nurse that "there is no magic money tree" to end their 7 year pay freeze. Yet, she has miraculously found £1 billion for the DUP and £57 billion for a Brexit divorce payment.
    Apparently, the magic money tree only grows money for bribes and stupidity.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105

    Scott_P said:

    None of the people who disputed Osborne halving the EU bill will fall for that, surely...

    I've somewhat lost track of the logical contortions. The people who were criticising the PM for not agreeing the exit bill now seem to be criticising her for agreeing it, and the people who were saying we shouldn't pay a bean have now manoeuvred her into a position where she is too weak to resist paying the reparations. Meanwhile the Irish are threatening to derail things because they don't want things derailed, the LibDems want a referendum on an option which doesn't exist, and Labour (whose policy is to leave the Single Market and Customs Union) are complaining that the government hasn't thought through the problems of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Only the SNP are being consistent, but since they are consistently obstructive that doesn't help much.
    That's quite amusing. I'm not sure if eurosceptics are being condemned for being too hardline, or for not being sufficiently hardline.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    Roger said:

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    He has the integrity of a Praying Mantis so don't hold your breath
    It's the female Praying Mantis you have to worry about.... They are the ones that bite off the heads of their former lovers.

    Are you worried yet, Jezza?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,312
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's a €100 billion gross commitment that is paid down according to a schedule to be agreed. The actual amount paid will be at a discount, so the total actual amount is around €50 billion. So far just as the EU has always demanded.

    The new feature is that the discount will be applied as each amount becomes due rather calculated in advance. This ambiguity allows the UK government to predict a very large discount and a relatively smaller final figure. By the time it all gets paid off everyone will have lost interest, even if the actual discounts aren't as high as the UK government initially predicted.
    I don't think that's true.

    It's the time value of money that's the issue. Paying €1 in 2017 is very different to paying €1 in 2067.
  • Roger said:

    If this vast sum turns out to be remotely accurate and Boris has a shred of integrity then he will resign forthwith.

    He has the integrity of a Praying Mantis so don't hold your breath
    I was bitten by one of those in Dubrovnik this year. It jumped out of nowhere and grabbed a finger and would not let go.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,312

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's because it's a gross, undiscounted number that includes contingent liabilities.

    Take contingent liabilities. There is a risk that Ireland does not pay back its bailout. Should Ireland not pay a single Euro of its bailout back, we are on the hook for a theoretical €5bn as our share. But it's (a) completely theoretical, (b) should be netted off against us getting €5bn of Irish debt, and (c) we could hedge our exposure with a CDS for about €150m anyway. That's us assuming €5bn of gross contingent liabilities.

    We also need to look at "net" numbers. We sell our share of the EIB and get something between €7 and €14bn. (And to maximise the degree of fudge, they'll probably overpay us for our share in the EIB, and we'll pretend to be paying a higher gross liabilities figure.)

    And let's look at pensions. If you have to pay a former MEP €20,000 in 2060 (making up numbers) then that isn't worth €20,000 today. It's perhaps worth €8,000 today. They will quote the undiscounted number, but the real price is a fraction of the headline.
    Surely all our UK Eurocrats can take a bit of a haircut on their pensions, like the rest of us public sector workers have?
    My assumption was that the UK would simply take on the liabilities of all British Eurocrats and MEPs, which would enable some... errr... optimisation down the line. But it appears we'll just help fund them in the future. Hopefully my initial assumption will turn out to be correct, but we'll see.
    I doubt it. Even if there were no British Eurocrats, we were still benefiting proportionately from those who were employed. Why is their nationality relevant?
    Errr, because it's an easy way to split the bill in a way that minimises up front payments.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 107

    Scott_P said:

    None of the people who disputed Osborne halving the EU bill will fall for that, surely...

    I've somewhat lost track of the logical contortions. The people who were criticising the PM for not agreeing the exit bill now seem to be criticising her for agreeing it, and the people who were saying we shouldn't pay a bean have now manoeuvred her into a position where she is too weak to resist paying the reparations. Meanwhile the Irish are threatening to derail things because they don't want things derailed, the LibDems want a referendum on an option which doesn't exist, and Labour (whose policy is to leave the Single Market and Customs Union) are complaining that the government hasn't thought through the problems of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Only the SNP are being consistent, but since they are consistently obstructive that doesn't help much.
    Post of the day.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,523
    Scott_P said:

    GIN1138 said:

    So I guess all those people foriced to live under Tory Austerity for years and years are now wondering how come Theresa May can suddenly conjure up seemingly unlimited tens of billions for the euro-elite?

    Our hard-working nurses are forced to use foodbanks to eat but don't worry Juncker here's another £50bn. And there's more to come...

    #ToryMeltdownIncoming

    @_bela_lugosi_: My 19 yr old living in constant pain with congenital brain malformation & other serious illness & confined in hospital for months is having to go to a tribunal for disability benefits.
    Today there's a magic £57 billion to get us out of Europe?
    Tells me everything I need to know.
    We're getting out of the EU not Europe and the alternative is £20bn/year (at least) in perpuity in exchange for getting bossed around by incompetents and drunks.

    I'd rather not pay the £57bn but one has to put it in context.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,428
    edited November 28

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's because it's a gross, undiscounted number that includes contingent liabilities.

    Take contingent liabilities. There is a risk that Ireland does not pay back its bailout. Should Ireland not pay a single Euro of its bailout back, we are on the hook for a theoretical €5bn as our share. But it's (a) completely theoretical, (b) should be netted off against us getting €5bn of Irish debt, and (c) we could hedge our exposure with a CDS for about €150m anyway. That's us assuming €5bn of gross contingent liabilities.

    We also need to look at "net" numbers. We sell our share of the EIB and get something between €7 and €14bn. (And to maximise the degree of fudge, they'll probably overpay us for our share in the EIB, and we'll pretend to be paying a higher gross liabilities figure.)

    And let's look at pensions. If you have to pay a former MEP €20,000 in 2060 (making up numbers) then that isn't worth €20,000 today. It's perhaps worth €8,000 today. They will quote the undiscounted number, but the real price is a fraction of the headline.
    Surely all our UK Eurocrats can take a bit of a haircut on their pensions, like the rest of us public sector workers have?
    My assumption was that the UK would simply take on the liabilities of all British Eurocrats and MEPs, which would enable some... errr... optimisation down the line. But it appears we'll just help fund them in the future. Hopefully my initial assumption will turn out to be correct, but we'll see.
    I doubt it. Even if there were no British Eurocrats, we were still benefiting proportionately from those who were employed. Why is their nationality relevant?
    Because they are British public sector workers, and the folks at the coalface have all had a bit of a number one down the back of our heads. I'm sure the likes of the Kinnocks and Clegg can do their bit for the good of the country, like the rest of us.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    edited November 28
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/suits_usa/status/935631416506961928

    "After 7 amazing seasons" - FAKE NEWS...Season 1 was decent, downhill since then.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,451
    OK, I'm trying to find a laptop, under 11inch screen, clamshell form factor, expandable up to 4 or 8GB Ram, with an external battery. Can anybody recommend one?

  • Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/suits_usa/status/935631416506961928

    "After 7 amazing seasons" - FAKE NEWS...Season 1 was decent, downhill since then.
    Bloody foreigners, coming over here and marrying our Royals!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    Y0kel said:

    Trumpton:

    The Mike Flynn story is becoming ever more deadly, for him, by the day..

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,190
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's a €100 billion gross commitment that is paid down according to a schedule to be agreed. The actual amount paid will be at a discount, so the total actual amount is around €50 billion. So far just as the EU has always demanded.

    The new feature is that the discount will be applied as each amount becomes due rather calculated in advance. This ambiguity allows the UK government to predict a very large discount and a relatively smaller final figure. By the time it all gets paid off everyone will have lost interest, even if the actual discounts aren't as high as the UK government initially predicted.
    I don't think that's true.

    It's the time value of money that's the issue. Paying €1 in 2017 is very different to paying €1 in 2067.
    For example the Reste a Liquider, which is the big part of this has commitments for future funding, not all which will actually happen. So rather than coming up with a concrete net figure, they are saying, it's gross but we will calculate the discount for cancelled commitments later. Pension liabilities are calculated on a very conservative actuarial policy, so the UK can hope to pay less when the pension payments become due. The discounts aren't bigger after negotiation, but the deliberate lack of clarity on them allows the UK government to propose they are bigger, which allows them to reduce the headline figure, which is what they care about. The EU is fine with that. They get the commitments they wanted.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 570
    edited November 28
    If the figures mentioned so far are correct (£90bn total liabilities, £50bn net longterm), that looks almost exactly like the numbers you get if:
    1) the UK signs up to 2019/2020 commitments (which the UK was always against), and .....
    2) the UK gets a 15%ish claim on all EU assets (which Germany and plenty others were dead against).
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,290
    Scott_P said:

    @JamesMelville: Theresa May previously told a nurse that "there is no magic money tree" to end their 7 year pay freeze. Yet, she has miraculously found £1 billion for the DUP and £57 billion for a Brexit divorce payment.
    Apparently, the magic money tree only grows money for bribes and stupidity.

    #ToriesOut
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    You have to be pretty financially illiterate to think that £10-£20 Bn pa annum in perpetuity is better than a one off £50Bn bill spread over decades..
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Is this exactly as @rcs1000 predicted? A bill that the EU can dress up as a win, but actually consists of little money up front and lots of liabaility funding that is unlikely to need covering...?

    Yes.
    Glad to know you're still on the money!
  • TGOHF said:

    You have to be pretty financially illiterate to think that £10-£20 Bn pa annum in perpetuity is better than a one off £50Bn bill spread over decades..

    Step forward Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell ...
  • Very good news that the sane wing of the Cabinet has faced down the loons. Hopefully, this will continue. Time for Boris to be fired?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,312
    viewcode said:

    OK, I'm trying to find a laptop, under 11inch screen, clamshell form factor, expandable up to 4 or 8GB Ram, with an external battery. Can anybody recommend one?

    No.

    Sell all your other possessions and get a Pixelbook.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    No idea where 100 billion is coming from. Both Sky and BBC reporting 40 billion pounds
    It's because it's a gross, undiscounted number that includes contingent liabilities.

    Take contingent liabilities. There is a risk that Ireland does not pay back its bailout. Should Ireland not pay a single Euro of its bailout back, we are on the hook for a theoretical €5bn as our share. But it's (a) completely theoretical, (b) should be netted off against us getting €5bn of Irish debt, and (c) we could hedge our exposure with a CDS for about €150m anyway. That's us assuming €5bn of gross contingent liabilities.

    We also need to look at "net" numbers. We sell our share of the EIB and get something between €7 and €14bn. (And to maximise the degree of fudge, they'll probably overpay us for our share in the EIB, and we'll pretend to be paying a higher gross liabilities figure.)

    And let's look at pensions. If you have to pay a former MEP €20,000 in 2060 (making up numbers) then that isn't worth €20,000 today. It's perhaps worth €8,000 today. They will quote the undiscounted number, but the real price is a fraction of the headline.
    Surely all our UK Eurocrats can take a bit of a haircut on their pensions, like the rest of us public sector workers have?
    My assumption was that the UK would simply take on the liabilities of all British Eurocrats and MEPs, which would enable some... errr... optimisation down the line. But it appears we'll just help fund them in the future. Hopefully my initial assumption will turn out to be correct, but we'll see.
    I doubt it. Even if there were no British Eurocrats, we were still benefiting proportionately from those who were employed. Why is their nationality relevant?
    Errr, because it's an easy way to split the bill in a way that minimises up front payments.
    That's what I haven't quite grasped about the bigger pensions bills.

    My understanding is that Britain's contribution to the EU secretariats remain civil servants.
  • rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, I'm trying to find a laptop, under 11inch screen, clamshell form factor, expandable up to 4 or 8GB Ram, with an external battery. Can anybody recommend one?

    No.

    Sell all your other possessions and get a Pixelbook.
    The Radiohead of "laptops".
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,290
    TGOHF said:

    You have to be pretty financially illiterate to think that £10-£20 Bn pa annum in perpetuity is better than a one off £50Bn bill spread over decades..

    Don't give her any ideas... She'll be shelling out £50bn in perpetuity if she gets her way...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,422
    TGOHF said:

    You have to be pretty financially illiterate to think that £10-£20 Bn pa annum in perpetuity is better than a one off £50Bn bill spread over decades..

    We haven't even begun discussing the future relationship, and how much it will cost us.
  • Got to feel sorry for that poor woman jailed by the Iranians. Not only is there cretinous Boris selling her down the river, but the MP handling her case is Tulip Sidiq.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    edited November 28
    So it looks like:

    (i) we're leaving the EU in accordance with the Art. 50 timetable

    (ii) there will be an OK trade deal (or the EU don't get our money they have already spent)

    (iii) there has been serious shit ongoing in the background - whilst a whole lot of chaff was thrown around to obscure this

    (iv) the Remainers thought the chaff was the serious shit. It really wasn't

    (v) the price seems high - but ball-park for exiting. Those who complain about the price we'll have to pay should look to those who have silently signed up to those liabiliites to the EU for decades

    (vi) Remainers now need to rely on arch Brexiteers derailing Brexit because it is too expensive - and thereby continuing to pay the tens of billions, year after year. Good luck with that.



This discussion has been closed.