The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (37 Viewers)

[Grendel]

The Ukraine has a large credit over many years. It is paying it back. Should things go wrong „we“ won’t get our money back. That is when a loss occurs. We have to agree to cover our share of the loss. As an example.

But we will get our share of the payments back proportionate to our show of the loan every year?

 

[chiefdave]

But we will get our share of the payments back proportionate to our show of the loan every year?

Through its subscribed capital (callable and paid - in), the United Kingdom committed to guarantee the financing made by the EIB while it was a Member State. Following the withdrawal, the United Kingdom should cease being a m ember of the EIB.

As part of the financial settlement, t he United Kingdom liability resulting from the guarantee for the financing made by the EIB while the United Kingdom was a Member State should be maintained and its level decreased in line with the amortisation of the EIB portfolio outstanding at the time of United Kingdom withdrawal , at the end of which t he paid - in capital of the United Kingdom in the EIB should be reimbursed to the United Kingdom.

 

[chiefdave]

So how is it being calculated?

How many things do they want us to pay for after 2020 which is after what we have agreed to?

How many more years do they want us to keep paying into the gravy tainers pensions?

How many years are we supposed to give them money to loan out to other countries?

Take a look for yourself:
Position paper transmitted to the UK: essential principles on the financial settlement

What is it in particular you are not happy with in their position?

 

[Astute]

I was talking about the content of your post.

Which was?

 

[Astute]

We have loaned other countries money over many years - together with the EU. Our liability stays until the loans are repaid. Who is talking about making loans in the future?

Your mate Juncker.

 

[Astute]

The EU's position is not for ongoing payments, they want a single payment to cover budget commitment, termination of membership of all institutions and already committed payments to specific funds.

The basis for the calculation is

Again what specifically in the EU's published position do you believe we should not agree to?

EU demands £10bn to fund Brussels pensions in bid to squeeze cash out of British taxpayer

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s..._BeQQFggjMAI&usg=AOvVaw3ojMvhZD7eB1KBidn0SnTt

 

[skybluetony176]

So you agree but try to word it as though you don't.

So Winston Churchill would be happy with the was a common market has spiralled out of control?

Try googling Winston Churchill and the United States of Europe.

Then try not to be too disappointed when the penny drops that the EU as it is isn’t actually a million miles away from what Winston Churchill envisaged.

 

[chiefdave]

EU demands £10bn to fund Brussels pensions in bid to squeeze cash out of British taxpayer

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s..._BeQQFggjMAI&usg=AOvVaw3ojMvhZD7eB1KBidn0SnTt

So what is it you don't agree with? That the UK should fulfil the budgetary commitments its made or we should contribute our share on pensions?

 

[martcov]

But we will get our share of the payments back proportionate to our show of the loan every year?

Yes, but there is still a potential liability which has to be covered until the loan has been repaid.

 

[Astute]

So what is it you don't agree with? That the UK should fulfil the budgetary commitments its made or we should contribute our share on pensions?

The law justifying Britain’s Brexit bill is hotly contested, the variables in the calculation are legion and the negotiation has yet to start. But there can be no doubt that the EU’s €100bn demand to settle Britain’s exit dues is one of the biggest political dangers in the Brexit process. The Financial Times estimated the bill using the EU’s negotiating guidelines, the more detailed draft mandate for the bloc’s negotiator, Michel Barnier, and conversations with diplomats and officials involved in Brexit talks. At the behest of member states, the opening position is more stringent than the methodology underpinning the €60bn bill referred to by Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission president. The tougher stance amounts to a gross settlement of €91bn-€113bn, which over many years would net at about €55bn-€75bn. Barnier’s initial approach Mr Barnier’s core argument is that Britain made legally binding financial commitments that it must honour on exit. He wants the bill covered in a single “global settlement”, which the UK can then discuss paying in instalments. 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 commission headquarters), its normal budget rebate and EU spending that would have taken place in the UK. Contingent liabilities — financial hits that may occur in the future — would be paid if and when any losses were suffered. Britain’s share would be based on its historic contribution, arguably between 12 and 15 per cent, depending on how the rebate is handled. Member states’ harder line 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. Podcast Brexit talks take a turn towards the contentious Just as top negotiators in London and Brussels lay out their positions, fireworks fly Asking Britain to share in this €182bn of other planned commitments in 2019 and 2020 is hugely contentious, not least because of the post-Brexit activity it would fund: farm subsidies in France that Britain has long campaigned against, and the administration of the EU. 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. For legal reasons, Germany and France were also unconvinced that Britain deserved a share of assets of the union. This raises the UK’s net exit settlement by €3bn to €10bn, depending on whether just long-term assets such buildings are counted, or cash is included as well. 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. Adding it all up 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. There will be a lot of clever political tricks used if there is a deal on the Brexit bill. The UK may want to stagger the contributions, hide controversial liabilities (such as pensions for EU officials) in different line items and use favourable estimates of the net bill. But at present Mr Barnier is insisting on a “global settlement” that will cover all the obligations Britain agrees to cover. This the FT estimates to be €91bn-€113bn and the Bruegel think-tank puts at €82bn-€109bn. The net bill could look far lower than the headline payment. Some credits, such as the UK’s approximately €6bn rebate from 2018, would be deducted from the gross bill almost immediately. Other reimbursements would take more time. Farm subsidies would take a couple of years, EU spending on projects could take up to 2023 and some loan repayments would take a decade or more. Overall this produces a net FT figure of €55bn-€75bn and a net Bruegel figure of €42bn-€65bn. The difference primarily comes from the FT only considering receipts to the UK exchequer (not Britain’s private sector) and using the commission’s stricter view of net pension liabilities. 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.

 

[Astute]

Yes, but there is still a potential liability which has to be covered until the loan has been repaid.

You mean the loans we have already contributed to by money we have already put in?

Or do you mean about the loans that will be given out after we have left?

 

[Grendel]

Yes, but there is still a potential liability which has to be covered until the loan has been repaid.

Is that in a formal signed contract if a country leaves?

I’ve asked this before - where is the legislation that covers a market meaning as I cannot find any.

 

[martcov]

You mean the loans we have already contributed to by money we have already put in?

Or do you mean about the loans that will be given out after we have left?

I am referring to the loans mentioned in your post. Those are what we were a part of. Losses may have to be covered if and when they occur.

 

[chiefdave]

Thats great Astute but its just a copy and paste from the FT. What is it you personally don't agree with that is in the EU's position paper?

 

[martcov]

Is that in a formal signed contract if a country leaves?

I’ve asked this before - where is the legislation that covers a market meaning as I cannot find any.

No, but we were a part of the EIB making the loans and therefore share the risks.

 

[Astute]

I am referring to the loans mentioned in your post. Those are what we were a part of. Losses may have to be covered if and when they occur.

And as I said which loans?

The loans we have already contributed to by money we have put into the pot or is it the loans that will be given out after we leave the EU?

 

[Astute]

Thats great Astute but its just a copy and paste from the FT. What is it you personally don't agree with that is in the EU's position paper?

So you can't read now or is it selective reading?

 

[Astute]

No, but we were a part of the EIB making the loans and therefore share the risks.

So where did the money come from that has already been loaned out?

Where is the money going to come from for loans not given yet?

 

[chiefdave]

So you can't read now or is it selective reading?

What are you on about? I'm asking for your opinion and you've just copied and pasted an FT article thats already been posted on this thread.

 

[Astute]

What are you on about? I'm asking for your opinion and you've just copied and pasted an FT article thats already been posted on this thread.

I gave my opinion. You said I was wrong. So I showed you what they want us to pay for.

 

[chiefdave]

And as I said which loans?

The loans we have already contributed to by money we have put into the pot or is it the loans that will be given out after we leave the EU?

The UK is a guarantor to loans made by the EIB while we are members. Once we leave the EU we will also leave the EIB and won't have any further liability. The money that has already been paid out by the UK will be reimbursed once the loans are settled. If a recipient country defaults we share the loss in line with our commitment whilst an EIB member.

 

[chiefdave]

I gave my opinion. You said I was wrong. So I showed you what they want us to pay for.

Where have you given your opinion rather than paste links from others? Its a simple question. There is a published EU position paper which shows their basis for calculating what is owed by the UK and what is due to the UK.

What specific points in that do you think aren't correct?

 

[fernandopartridge]

"No deal is better than a bad deal" is utter rubbish. It's been refuted by people on the leave campaign. Try looking up Richard North and Peter North.

That's the problem with British people now, we've been spun / lied to for so long we'll take any sound bite that sounds good!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

The UK is a guarantor to loans made by the EIB while we are members. Once we leave the EU we will also leave the EIB and won't have any further liability. The money that has already been paid out by the UK will be reimbursed once the loans are settled. If a recipient country defaults we share the loss in line with our commitment whilst an EIB member.

So is there a written piece of EU legislation to that effect. If so please show me.

 

[Grendel]

Where have you given your opinion rather than paste links from others? Its a simple question. There is a published EU position paper which shows their basis for calculating what is owed by the UK and what is due to the UK.

What specific points in that do you think aren't correct?

Show me the legislation.

 

[Sick Boy]

Where have you given your opinion rather than paste links from others? Its a simple question. There is a published EU position paper which shows their basis for calculating what is owed by the UK and what is due to the UK.

What specific points in that do you think aren't correct?

No doubt if it all goes terribly wrong he will tell us he knew it was going to happen and was never for it.

 

[skybluetony176]

The UK is a guarantor to loans made by the EIB while we are members. Once we leave the EU we will also leave the EIB and won't have any further liability. The money that has already been paid out by the UK will be reimbursed once the loans are settled. If a recipient country defaults we share the loss in line with our commitment whilst an EIB member.

We also won’t have any further borrowing from the EIB. The EIB being a major investor in UK infrastructure and house building. I’m sure I read somewhere that it’s something like £16B a year that’s going to have to be found from alternative sources.

 

[skybluetony176]

So is there a written piece of EU legislation to that effect. If so please show me.

We’re currently a shareholder in the EIB. I’d imagine that we are under contract with the EIB rather than governed by EU legislation on outstanding matters with the EIB.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I'm looking forward to catching up with this thread tomorrow. In the meantime, I heard a story from a friend back in Sweden who said that anyone that wants to go running in Oskarshamn can get armed police to come with them to protect them from migrants.

I mean, it's perfectly normal for joggers in a developed western country to be accompanied by armed police for their safety isn't it... Stop being bigots!

No doubt the mainstream media won't cover this so people like Tony will be ignorant that things like this are actually happening.

I could probably post some ridiculous shit like this every day, but some people would prefer to keep their head burried in the sand, only to bring it up to shout 'racist' every now and again...

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm looking forward to catching up with this thread tomorrow. In the meantime, I heard a story from a friend back in Sweden who said that anyone that wants to go running in Oskarshamn can get armed police to come with them to protect them from migrants.

I mean, it's perfectly normal for joggers in a developed western country to be accompanied by armed police for their safety isn't it... Stop being bigots!

No doubt the mainstream media won't cover this so people like Tony will be ignorant that things like this are actually happening.

I could probably post some ridiculous shit like this every day, but some people would prefer to keep their head burried in the sand, only to bring it up to shout 'racist' every now and again...

Is this Oskarshamn in Sweden where migrant children have to have a police escort to school so they don’t get attacked by locals? Did your “friend” tell you about that at the same time?

 

[martcov]

So where did the money come from that has already been loaned out?

Where is the money going to come from for loans not given yet?

Read Dave‘s post.

 

[martcov]

I'm looking forward to catching up with this thread tomorrow. In the meantime, I heard a story from a friend back in Sweden who said that anyone that wants to go running in Oskarshamn can get armed police to come with them to protect them from migrants.

I mean, it's perfectly normal for joggers in a developed western country to be accompanied by armed police for their safety isn't it... Stop being bigots!

No doubt the mainstream media won't cover this so people like Tony will be ignorant that things like this are actually happening.

I could probably post some ridiculous shit like this every day, but some people would prefer to keep their head burried in the sand, only to bring it up to shout 'racist' every now and again...

The story ( ridiculous shit ) is spun by Breitbart. The police are forming jogging groups and the public can run with them if they feel unsafe in the park in the dark.

Karlsson ( from the police ) said that he had heard of many residents feeling insecure in the city: “It does not happen so much here, but people are influenced by events around the world and feel unsafe when it’s dark.„

The „it doesn’t happen so much here“ - meaning bad things that people hear about in the world - was actually a very relevant part of the story, but neither you nor Breitbart are interested in what the police actually said.

It gets dark early at this time of year in Sweden, so it sounds like a good idea, I think women jogging in a park in Cov would also feel safer jogging with a group of police. Regardless of whether migrants live in the area or not.

 

[Astute]

Is the Guardian good enough?

So they are not after any money for after 2019?

Brexit divorce bill: what is it and how does it affect talks?

 

[Astute]

We also won’t have any further borrowing from the EIB. The EIB being a major investor in UK infrastructure and house building. I’m sure I read somewhere that it’s something like £16B a year that’s going to have to be found from alternative sources.

Is that right?

Of course it isn't. It is a Tony fact. Do you even know what the EIB is?

 

[martcov]

Is the Guardian good enough?

So they are not after any money for after 2019?

Brexit divorce bill: what is it and how does it affect talks?

Of course they are after money after 2019. The existing commitments run to the end of the present budget, there are joint projects running longer and there are liabilities ( e.g. the loan to the Ukraine) that are still running. We also get money back after 2019.

In the article there is still scope on things like property and possibly hoot ventures which will become relevant after 2019 depending on what the future relationship is.