Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.
I was quoting the headline.
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....
I never, ever use them in London.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.
I was quoting the headline.
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....
I never, ever use them in London.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
Uber are brilliant. You can see where your taxi is while you're waiting for it, you and the driver can call each other without giving out your number and no need to deal with cash.
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.
I was quoting the headline.
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....
I never, ever use them in London.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
Uber are brilliant. You can see where your taxi is while you're waiting for it, you and the driver can call each other without giving out your number and no need to deal with cash.
Still can’t use them if you’re a wheelchair user though. That’s our friends point.
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.
I was quoting the headline.
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....
I never, ever use them in London.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
The Russian efforts in the 1812 Campaign and the alliance that defeated the French at Leipzig were clearly of no importance.
It's also accepted that even if Napoleon had beaten Wellington at Waterloo, significant Prussian and Russian forces would have been on the French in a few days.
We shouldn't also forget the role of Blucher at Waterloo who undoubtedly ensured French victory whereas a bloody draw looked the most likely outcome had the Prussians not arrived.
As a historian, I'm happy to acknowledge the influential role Britain has played - in WW2 the period 1940-41 was pivotal to the outcome but it can't be forgotten that ultimate victory was mainly down to the Russians and the sheer logistical superiority of the Americans which overcame the superiority, in my view, of the Germans in technology in many areas. Yes, we played a significant role but ours wasn't the only role and in the end probably not the most significant except from keeping the struggle going alone after the fall of France.
Bletchley Park, the Royal Navy and aviation technology made a notable contribution, and the Allies wouldn't have had the same level of global reach without imperial forces.
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.
I was quoting the headline.
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....
I never, ever use them in London.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
Uber does do wheelchair accessible cars with appropriately trained drivers.
(That said it is a matter of putting the wheelchair in the boot and you in the car "manually".)
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.
I was quoting the headline.
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....
I never, ever use them in London.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
Uber does do wheelchair accessible cars with appropriately trained drivers.
(That said it is a matter of putting the wheelchair in the boot and you in the car "manually".)
I didn't see that they also have UBERWAV as mentioned above.
OK That explains it, the Belgians were shocking colonists.
The worst period was when Leopold ran the Congo Free State as a private colony. When the Belgian government took over in 1908 things began to improve. It was a fairly well developed place, albeit heavily racist, by the time it gained independence in the 1960's and turned into a kleptocracy.
A process aided by the Belgians/CIA conspiring to have its democratically elected leader assassinated. (Along with possible British collusion - the late, and rather unpleasant, Daphne Park allegedly claimed to have organised the killing.)
Any bye election for this government would have to go on the list of mistakes made by May since her appointment (assuming that there is still room on the charge sheet). It would be a chance to kick this government out. It should be avoided at all costs.
Mr. Eagles, Pyrrhus won two out of the three battles he fought against the Romans.
Pyrrhus' victories weren't actually Pyrrhic victories - In the understood sense of an apparent victory that was really a defeat. They were stalemates that failed to achieve their strategic purpose.
Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
Mr. 43, been a while since I read the bio, but not sure I entirely agree. The victories were Pyrrhus' but the disproportionate resources of Rome (nor helped by the fact Pyrrhus had lost many men to storms) meant the city could absorb losses far more easily than Pyrrhus could.
Apologies but I must be off to perambulate in the precipitation (irksome to walk off halfway through a historical discussion, but there we are). F1 markets starting to go up on Ladbrokes, so I'll look at them properly later.
Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
Yes that's the same in Gib. In theory a licence costs £5 from the Govt. In practice they are the equivalent of a pension pot and are worth £200k
The taxi "association" here is a cartel Mafia-like in its influence, political sway and outright intimidation.
I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.
One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.
IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.
The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.
History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.
The history of India, China, Korea, Thailand etc would seem to contradict that. The history of Anglophone vs Francophone or Lusophone Africa isn't exactly a triumph either!
We. As a rule Anglophone countries in Africa have come out of the Imperial age in a far better state than those of other former imperial holdings.
Some have done well. Botswana is perhaps the most successful. Democracy from day one and 50 years of uninterrupted growth. Ghana is doing well now.
But there is also Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sudan, Somaliland, Sierra Leone etc as a few examples of where things did not go well.
Belgian decolonisation was catastrophically done, and the Portuguese collapse in 1975 too, though destabilisation by Anglophone countries didn't help these.
The Francophone countries generally decolonised well initially, in part because of a Francophone elite and French continuing support, but more recently the rot has set in.
The francophone countries have never really decolonised and also rank amongst the worst in Africa.
Apologies but I must be off to perambulate in the precipitation (irksome to walk off halfway through a historical discussion, but there we are). F1 markets starting to go up on Ladbrokes, so I'll look at them properly later.
Brilliantly sunny here in Portugal once again today. Any precipitation is likely to be from mucking about in the pool.
Mr. 43, been a while since I read the bio, but not sure I entirely agree. The victories were Pyrrhus' but the disproportionate resources of Rome (nor helped by the fact Pyrrhus had lost many men to storms) meant the city could absorb losses far more easily than Pyrrhus could.
My understanding is that Rome had captured a hill town from which they could control the Tarantum plain. Pyrrhus' aim was to recapture the town so Tarantum could reassert control over their hinterland . He won the battles but failed to shift the Romans from the town.
Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
Yes that's the same in Gib. In theory a licence costs £5 from the Govt. In practice they are the equivalent of a pension pot and are worth £200k
The taxi "association" here is a cartel Mafia-like in its influence, political sway and outright intimidation.
The money laundering opportunities really should be getting closer attention too. I am not sure if the Edinburgh system is corrupt or just totally incompetent. I suspect the latter but it certainly attracts some interesting characters.
I heard the news reader having a fit of hysteria about "the worst possible word that can be used." Oh, I thought, she's called Corbyn a c*nt ( * for the snowflakes). She deserves what she's getting, I thought..
Turns out it was 'n*gger' . Stupid, I thought, again she deserves what she's getting. Now I find it was an unscripted and old-fashioned figure of speech. What a let-down. Serves me right for taking notice of hysterics. Unwise, but a million miles away from being what I thought
I'd always been curious of the derivation. Now, I suppose, with our modern censorship rules, I'll never know. You can listen to sexual expressions feely banded about on daytime TV, but non-sexual words cause the matrons to hold up their skirts and run for the hills.
I'm still OK for religious naughty words? OK, then .... Jehovah, Jehovah. Jehovah!
'n*gger' = 'old fashioned figure of speech'
Right
You're like a toddler pointing and saying "she said a bad word, Mommy" without any nuanced understanding of the context
It doesnt really become less racist in context
It does.
It's outmoded, archaic and inappropriate. But not racist
Rich old white man as gatekeeper of what's racist. You couldn't make it up.
Less of the old please!!
(Certainly if she had applied the phrase to an individual it would have been racist. But she didn't: she used it to describe an event that is completely unconnected to race.)
Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
I think this is the case in many Italian cities as well. It's very difficult to become a taxi driver unless you know somebody who has a taxi permit (or whatever they call it).
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Anything can happen in by elections. Neil Kinnock regularly won huge swings in by elections 1983-92, as have the Liberals for decades. No reason why Corbyn Labour could not win this seat in a by election, and then lose it again in a general election. The Tories have to lose 7 seats to lose their majority. It took John Major more than three years to lose 7 seats after 1992. So no general election before 2020.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
It will be very interesting to see what figure they arrive at, I would honour the pensions of British MEP's and that's it.
It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.
Have you checked all 625 MP's to gauge their reaction?
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.
I thought you meant on here. The fact May is not in a position to completely ignore those you have mentioned is one of the most distressing things about the current situation.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.
Have you checked all 625 MP's to gauge their reaction?
Failure to unequivocally condemn in trenchant terms is definitive proof of racism. Unless you're Labour and it's Jews, in which case it's critique of Israeli oppression.....
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
I would. It would be worth it just to cunt off Farage et al.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
I would. It would be worth it just to cunt off Farage et al.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
I would. It would be worth it just to cunt off Farage et al.
You will be in a substantial minority and it is nothing to do with Farage who I dislike with a passion
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
It's now looking all but definite that Boris will become Tory leader and win his general election by a landslide. Think of all the political goodies he's been personally associated with: 350 million extra for the NHS, a trade deal with the EU that has all of benefits but none of the costs. And now this - a gargantuan saving running into literary hundreds of millions. I can't see any British party leader - not Churchill, not Thatcher, not Blair, certainly not Corbyn - being able to compete with this level of political capital. Boris is invincible!
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.
Good observation - everyone needs a long summer recess - Corbyn will no doubt be doing his messiah appearances through the summer but there is plenty of sport and the start of football to ensure he is ignored
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.
One thing that is going to be funny is when the more extreme elements of Remain say the exit bill is xx billion and it's the Brexiteers who are explaining how it's not that much because you should look at the 'net' amount since some of the money going to the EU will come back...
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.
One thing that is going to be funny is when the more extreme elements of Remain say the exit bill is xx billion and it's the Brexiteers who are explaining how it's not that much because you should look at the 'net' amount since some of the money going to the EU will come back...
Afternoon all. Is it summer holiday time yet? Sounds like all the politicians and commentators could really do with a few weeks off with their families.
Afternoon all. Is it summer holiday time yet? Sounds like all the politicians and commentators could really do with a few weeks off with their families.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.
One thing that is going to be funny is when the more extreme elements of Remain say the exit bill is xx billion and it's the Brexiteers who are explaining how it's not that much because you should look at the 'net' amount since some of the money going to the EU will come back...
Even as a leaver I can see the irony and humour in that.
But at the moment apples are being compared to guava fruit and literally meaningless figures are being thrown around by both sides. It's like the referendum never finished and it gets frankly tedious.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
Even as a leaver I can see the irony and humour in that.
But at the moment apples are being compared to guava fruit and literally meaningless figures are being thrown around by both sides. It's like the referendum never finished and it gets frankly tedious.
Completely agree. I feel on a kind of common sense level - most can agree we should pay for stuff we said we would pay for, and for pensions to British civil servants working for EU. We should only pay for things agreed after we leave if we want to - and I suspect we won't.
Some kind of fee to get better access/cover our share of the costs of EU institutions regulating trade which I suspect we will still be using in some way seems reasonable - and the debate should hopefully focus on that.
We aren't going to carry on paying into the CAP for 5 years after we've left I hope!
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
As remainer's they would hardly accept an open cheque divorce bill
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point) (b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB and (c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?
Following my buy of Everton points at 59 I am also considering a more speculative buy of Swansea points at 39.5, but I will wait to see what happens to Gylfi Siggurdson first.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments. That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
I have no problem with 16 billion net
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point) (b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB and (c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.
For me, the main problem with what this MP said is not even that she used the "n-word". It's that she was treating a horrible and shameful period of history as something to make light of.
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point) (b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB and (c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.
EU citizen rights were supposed to be the easy one. But yes I agree. The money is a haggle. Actually the UK Government is likely to WANT to pay out large sums of money to the EU, to buy influence. It's a partial substitute for having a vote.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments. That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
I have no problem with 16 billion net
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.
I understand but surely if things get nasty then we are entitled to see where the billions we have paid in over the years has been spent?
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments. That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
I have no problem with 16 billion net
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.
I understand but surely if things get nasty then we are entitled to see where the billions we have paid in over the years has been spent?
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.
If it gets nasty we'll walk away without a deal. Of course, that will have its own serious complications for the UK economy, especially given Dr Fox's current failures to replicate any of the EU's existing trade relationships.
For me, the main problem with what this MP said is not even that she used the "n-word". It's that she was treating a horrible and shameful period of history as something to make light of.
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion. That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at present
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point) (b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB and (c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?
You think a) will be resolved as us just paying for the British EU employees? I imagine the EU are pushing for it to be a percentage of the total EU pension costs related to how much liability has been built up during our time in the EU.
If it gets nasty the UK government will crater and a new government will to to Brussels with a new approach. The idea that the UK government would have the strength to walk away is laughable.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments. That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
I have no problem with 16 billion net
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.
I understand but surely if things get nasty then we are entitled to see where the billions we have paid in over the years has been spent?
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.
If it gets nasty we'll walk away without a deal. Of course, that will have its own serious complications for the UK economy, especially given Dr Fox's current failures to replicate any of the EU's existing trade relationships.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.
Can that be right though? Boris was wholeheartedly agreeing with the following remark from Philip Hollobone MP:
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)
You think a) will be resolved as us just paying for the British EU employees? I imagine the EU are pushing for it to be a percentage of the total EU pension costs related to how much liability has been built up during our time in the EU.
Isn't it a little more complicated than that?
Britain has been a member of the EU since 1973. We will argue that we have no responsibility for the pension liabilities accrued before its membership. They will argue that when we joined we implicitly took on those liabilities. There is also the issue that lots of countries have joined recently, but liabilities associated with their MEPs and Eurocrats will currently be small.
Add it all together, and the desire that we limit ongoing payments, it makes much more sense for us to simply take responsibility for our MPs and Eurocrats. (Especially as the UK government's cost of capital is lower than the EU's.)
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.
Can that be right though? Boris was wholeheartedly agreeing with the following remark from Philip Hollobone MP:
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)
I would be very surprised if we can walk away from our share of pension liabilities.
Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
Comments
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/884720686878556160
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/884433545187536896
https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/ldnwav/
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/884726199683092483
(That said it is a matter of putting the wheelchair in the boot and you in the car "manually".)
(Along with possible British collusion - the late, and rather unpleasant, Daphne Park allegedly claimed to have organised the killing.)
It would be a chance to kick this government out. It should be avoided at all costs.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
The taxi "association" here is a cartel Mafia-like in its influence, political sway and outright intimidation.
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
(Certainly if she had applied the phrase to an individual it would have been racist. But she didn't: she used it to describe an event that is completely unconnected to race.)
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Talk is cheap; deals are expensive.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
Edit:
Maybe throw in a bit extra to smooth market access?
But at the moment apples are being compared to guava fruit and literally meaningless figures are being thrown around by both sides. It's like the referendum never finished and it gets frankly tedious.
Not that I recall.
I feel on a kind of common sense level - most can agree we should pay for stuff we said we would pay for, and for pensions to British civil servants working for EU. We should only pay for things agreed after we leave if we want to - and I suspect we won't.
Some kind of fee to get better access/cover our share of the costs of EU institutions regulating trade which I suspect we will still be using in some way seems reasonable - and the debate should hopefully focus on that.
We aren't going to carry on paying into the CAP for 5 years after we've left I hope!
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point)
(b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB
and
(c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.
Do you mean being behind Labour?
Or actually "being Labour" (i.e. a bit Ed Milibandy) ;-)
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.
It should be 'behind' not 'being'
Well done for shoehorning that irrelevant piece of unpleasantness into the thread. You may still be in time to delete it
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)
The thread header is about Anne Marie Morris (implicitly at least).
Boris's "it'll be alright on the night" amateurism does not inspire confidence.
Britain has been a member of the EU since 1973. We will argue that we have no responsibility for the pension liabilities accrued before its membership. They will argue that when we joined we implicitly took on those liabilities. There is also the issue that lots of countries have joined recently, but liabilities associated with their MEPs and Eurocrats will currently be small.
Add it all together, and the desire that we limit ongoing payments, it makes much more sense for us to simply take responsibility for our MPs and Eurocrats. (Especially as the UK government's cost of capital is lower than the EU's.)
Could you clarify - who are being ripped off ? Do you mean the taxi drivers by the Council?
If so, then they are together monopolists running a dying business model, and we should not pander to them.