Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Nabavi says EU leaders should remember European histor
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Nabavi says EU leaders should remember European history
Angela Merkel might not, just at the moment, be giving Brexit her full attention, given the difficulty of converting the results of Germany’s September election into a viable coalition government. Nonetheless, Brexit is a big problem for her and for the other EU27 leaders, and one which cannot simply be ignored. European, and especially German, history has important lessons which they should heed.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Not sure it's useful referring to them as 'reparations'. Money will be due, and it will be our duty to pay money for ongoing obligations that we subscribed to, or pay to get out.
Tell that to the Remainers who only see wisdom and creativity on the EU side and folly and short-sightedness in the U.K...
And excellent thread - thank you Mr Navabi.
Boris, God bless him, is right in what he said back in September: we should pay what we owe; nothing more, noting less. Sadly, due to the unpreparedness of the people campaigning to leave, we have no idea what that would be.
But more importantly than the money, we need to remain on good terms with the EU. It's important for both sides. And we, not they, are the ones making it hard to remain friends.
The EU had also had problems in coping with this new reality. But we're the active party in this; we're the ones wanting to leave, to make the change. And we're utterly disorganised and chaotic.
Some maturity is required on all sides. Sadly, there is none to be had on ours, and precious little on theirs. Brexit is consuming us, whilst it is just one of several big issues on their plate.
I've been saying since well before the referendum that it isn't a zero-sum game, and that both sides can come out of this richer and more prosperous in the long-term.
Then again, also look at some of the stuff we've been saying about them. One of the things that needs to happen urgently is for both (or, more accurately all) sides to be a bit cool-headed in what they say. Develop a line and stick to it, and negotiate from there. I think some are attempting this on both sides, but idiots shouting in from the sidelines are not helping. And some of our idiots doing the shouting are in power ...
Which passages struck you as particularly immature?
The Irish Border issue seems much more difficult.
My problem is with our politicians. As far as I can tell, no one on either side of the debate has come to terms with the reality of the referendum result. I think the biggest criticism that can be levelled at the Leave campaign is that some suggested that doing a trade deal would be easy. Its one thing for voters to believe something like that when voting in a referendum. It's quite another for politicians to keep believing it once it becomes obvious that it's not the case.
My biggest concern about voting to leave was how our politicians would react. Unfortunately, they've been pretty rubbish. So far. Yes, they were right to pursue a negotiation with a view to getting some sort of trade deal. But at the same time, they absolutely needed a Plan B. Unfortunately, whilst Remain politicians are very good at trotting out lines like "I accept the result and Brexit will happen" they have adapted to the new political reality. They continue to behave as though everything is in the government's gift when, of course, it isn't.
We hear a lot about how this is the biggest thing that's happened in this country since WW2. Yet, our politicians have continued with business as normal, seeking only to gain political advantage. At some point, something will have to give.
“As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”
Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.
Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/
One part of it strikes me as particularly obtuse on the part of the EU:
Irish sources closely involved are also incensed that David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, reacted to the Task Force paper by suggesting it undermined the constitution of the UK.
"We never, ever brought into this discussion the constitutional issue," says one source. "That was brought in by David Davis. That’s not where we want to go. There are ways of touching upon this without touching on any constitutional issues.
"It is possible to have a separate customs space within a state, also all island regulatory arrangements are possible too.
No - a border in the Irish sea between parts of the UK and different regulations in one part of the UK (over which it has no say) is not a 'constitutional issue'.....
Wheeling out this dead argument just obscures the reality, which is that the Brexit Bill is a commercial demand, not a legal one.
Has anyone seen a legal analysis of the claim from the EU itself? No? That is because there isn't one.
Right now it feels like one of those divorces where the two sides are both happy to spend their entire wealth on lawyers, so long as the other side don’t get to see a penny.
Because some Brexiteers don’t think we should pay anything.
The challenge is May has to sell that to a sceptical Tory party and a sceptical public to whom even £1bn seems a lot of money.
We have said we will police it with technology, but they say simultaneously that there can’t be a ‘hard’ border yet there must be one if the U.K. leaves the customs union. As someone put it very well on here the other day, it’s Schrödinger’s Border.
However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf
But I do think the leaving bill is separate to future trade arrangements which will take years to finalise.
We should offer to pay our obligations- that’s what responsible countries do.
Of course we will have trade talks with the EU - they don’t want to stop trading with us.
But the efforts to link these issues I think have been unhelpful and delayed things.
On the other side the EU appear to have presented a bill for £60bn, then changed it to €100bn, haven’t explained the basis of it and don’t understand that, having pissed off their second biggest contributor, they’ll have to cut the cloth of their own budget according to their future means.
They’re like the divorcing wife now living on benefits, eagerly eyeing up next year’s Disneyland brochure in the expectation that ex-hubby will pay for it.
By all accounts the actual divorce bill , the UK's share of accrued liabilities , is really quite small. The reason we are talking anything like €60bn is because as well leaving we are instantly wanting to establish a ' deep and special ' relationship which delivers a new security Treaty and mimics many of the aspects of membership. On top of this we're asking for a 27 month ' status quo ' transition where we'll enjoy almost full benefits of membership.Put simply the ' Divorce Bill ' isn't a bill for Divorce. It's a bill for Divorce, then 27 months of cohabitation then a new agreement where we continue to be f*ck buddies. And a divorce which we triggered with no plan which will in the short term leave us living in the Garage if our request for the Divorce/Cohabitation/F*ck Buddy agreement isn't met.
Put simply we've put ourselves in a weak bargaining position then decided to seek a Grand Bargain. In response our bemused neighbours are quite reasonably trying to screw a few extra billion out of us for the hassle, the laughs and because they can. And suppose they succeed and get say £15bn extra out of us over a multi year agreement ? It's a rounding error is UK government expenditure generally much less state waste, error and bad policy.
And you compare the trifling and minor cost of our incompetence to the Treaty of Versailles ?
Did you actually write this article Richard or was your account hacked ?
Cash is right that if you look at the numbers on a trade deal in goods but not in services (the “Canada” deal) the EU should inded be paying us for their £120bn trade surplus.
We’ve already offered something of a transition, but they keep saying it isn’t enough while being unable to justify their own figure.
- Membership dues until our membership expires
- Small residual liabilities related to pensions etc.
The issue is that the EU is claiming unfunded promises made for some time in the future without proving evidence to support their claim.
Money for unspecified damages is "reparations" unless you can think of a better term?
A FORMER Scottish Labour MP has been accused of sexually assaulting a female councillor at a social event while his wife sat across the table.
The UK will pay for a trade deal.
We won't pay "to get round the table" for trade talks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5096569/David-Davis-brink-resigning.html
Don't see why Davis would resign over it - its more about 'getting Britain ready'.....
Though we see ourselves variously as the plucky little country who saved the world from savages to the centre and an empire so great the sun never set on us their view of our history is more recent. They see a country whose arrogance and uncooperativeness has made their lives hell for the last 42 years.......
A country now so gross 52% chose to embrace the vision of Nigel Farage. The same Nigel Farage who had shown his contempt for the EU in his tirade to the European President " Who are you? You have the appearance of a damp rag and the charisma of a second rate bank clerk......".
To the Europeans we are all Faragists now. Our history might give 'The Sun' a permanent erection but it counts for diddly squat with our ex EU partners. And it's not as though our grossness ended with farage. Just when it seemed we couldn't wave them a bigger V sign we appointed Boris Johnson to Foreign Secretary.
Sorry but it's time to pay up and slink out before our reputation is trashed any further.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4945696/millionaires-cost-treasury-8-6-billion/
And who was 'the study' by?
Doesn't say......but it does extensively quote Union leaders.....
Until you read chilling stuff like that you forget that Gove was the original British neo-con in the mould of Paul Wolfowitz,
I can easily see why Davis might resign over it!
But would be interested to see the methodology. I'm guessing it is not a dynamic analysis.
Carol Hughes, who stood down as a councillor in 2007, said the senior party figure put his hand up her dress and caressed her thigh for five minutes at a dinner"
....After four and a half minutes she must have realised the hors d'oeuvres had arrived and she was hungry
This is separate from any residual bills already agreed. Blackmail is the correct word.
I wish those advocating this the best of luck in selling that to the British Public. Especially if the trade talks are totally unproductive ... "No problem, folks, there's never any guarantee in these sort of talks. Just put that 100 billion or whatever down to loose cash. After all, it only amounts to over £2,000 flushed down the toilet for every one currently working."
Yes, that will go well.
"Who is advocating paying it?"
Mr Roger for one. And there are several who want us to pay whatever it is without a guarantee.
It cannot be sold to the electorate, not to any with functioning brain cells, but I'm no expert on politics.
A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.
There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.
ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.
We are past the halfway point inbetween the referendum date and Brexit date, and still no progress on the three issues that we agreed needed to be resolved before trade talks started. The three stooges of Brexit really have taken incompetence to a new level.
The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.
Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
It's why they insist on not using it in their submissions to the government.
I only wish we had a Crabtree driving.
The fault is not entirely on one side.
Being able to fly planes in and out of your own country is not a "special relationship". And yes the EU are threatening to prevent this if we don't pay up to their demands.
Neither side should get hung up on money. In practice both sides will. The public will rightly see it as setting the tone of the fairness of the settlement. @RichardNabavi's point has even more force there: what kind of relationship with its neighbour does the EU want?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/931647594341728256
£60 billion may be small change to some but it's the principle. You're not just buying a pig in a poke, you're only buying the poke and there may well be nothing in it.
I have said all along that No Deal is the most likely outcome as it is the default. It would be a good idea to prepare for it. Indeed Gove's letter seems to indicate that the penny has finally dropped...
Amphibious Marine capability will be very handy for raiding the continent.
I also believe that No Deal is likely. The EU are also constrained. They cannot see us get a good deal without risking more walk-outs. That's why blaming the UK side for the breakdown is illogical. I'm sure a trade talks would start tomorrow if we offered an eye-wateringly large sum to begin with. Even then, they'd be reluctant to concede anything.
What do the EU want?
Firstly to discourage others. If they receive a king's ransom to begin talks, they will hold out for a massively advantageous result. If that ends in us crawling back to beg forgiveness, even better.
Blaming UK negotiators and claiming they (whoever they are) could do better is a little optimistic, surely?
UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.
We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.
What's that France, you want to join? Non...
Most EU countries are chained to the single currency. They're mostly a lot smaller than us too, and would have greater difficulty weathering economic turbulence.
Mr. Mark, a nice idea, but the current political leaders have neither the gumption nor the wits to make it work. Maybe down the line.
The reason that the negotiations are going nowhere is that mutual incomprehension is the order of the day, as David Davis's speech last week showed:
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/17/putting-politics-above-prosperity-brexiteers-germany-eu
You amaze me, Mr Dancer.
(Inserts obligatory reminder that I still despite this voted Remain.)
Nostalgia is the wet dream of EU-philes who think they're recreating the Roman Empire and Pax Romana, forgetting that the Empire came at the point of the sword. (It also had minimal bureaucracy and didn't care much about regional differences provided you paid the low tax rates).
But it's the rats we need to be careful of
Not least the problem exists that nearly all our export earning businesses voted Remain.
Though tarriff reduction on Australian iron ore will no doubt be a great boon to the Leave voting steel workers of South Wales.
I shall go and do some practice. The final hymn is Love Divine and to achieve a proper climax I'm going to need some work on the eight foot horn to achieve full swell.
I do hope everyone is feeling more amiable by the time I return.
JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/18/philip-hammond-announce-pay-boost-nurses-budget-amid-pressure/
Time for me to be off too.
https://twitter.com/alistaircoleman/status/931959055362527232
Mr. Recidivist, I was thinking more of eurocrats in Brussels than the vast majority of Remain voters. But there is a drive by some influential people across the continent to try and make the EU into a new Rome.
Which we are going to need in abundance when we Leave.
http://labourhame.com
The pretence that the EU is just a trading bloc has been laid bare both by the difficulties of leaving the 'club' and its drive to continually harmonise and centralise power. Why does the EU need its own army?