... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
Since we have been assured, not least by the EU Commission, that the administrative costs of the EU are minimal, I don't think we need to trouble ourselves very much about how much our share of the accrued pension component of that minimal cost is going to be.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
I can see us having to accept liability for payment of the pensions of UK nationals who worked in the EU, especially those who were seconded from the civil service. I suspect that indemnification of the EU's liability to them in exchange for indemnification by the EU of other national's pensions would be a sensible way to go.
I assume the argument goes that which we were members the French judges in the ECJ partly worked for us, as did the executive officer counting cows in German farm yards, so we should pay a proportion of their pensions, but this could only reasonable apply to pension rights accrued while they were employed by the EU and while we were member, and would be horrifically difficult to calculate.
Not that difficult to be honest. But there are other ways of looking at it. For example, when a partner leaves a firm which continues as a going concern continuing to employ the same staff the leaving partner is not normally asked for a contribution. As I said, I think we will look after our own and leave theirs to them.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
You said "the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future." I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power". Pretty similar. You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile. UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
Yeah if UKIP can follow the Lib Dems example, they might get a solid base of local councillors in a decade or so, from then they can get MPs to lobby for a referendum. then the skys the limit!
UKIP councillors tend to resign, defect, get thrown out, or defeated.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
That might depend if they come home. There was a suggestion by the EU that UK staff would continue to be employed by the EU after the UK left.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
You said "the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future." I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power". Pretty similar. You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile. UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
I'm not saying that it's all that matters but it is most of it. 80-90% of what councils do is determined either by necessity or by Whitehall. And success in one level will feed through to success in the other, apart from for the most local parties.
Very interesting article in Atlantic on decline in faith in democracy - involving three factors. This factoid stood out for me on the Trump win.
"The third vector, Mounk believes, is growing economic inequality between urban centers and rural hinterlands. The United States in 2016 offered a particularly vivid example: Hillary Clinton carried only 472 counties, out of more than 3,000, but those 472 were predominantly urban and accounted for nearly two-thirds of the country’s total economic output. “No election in decades has revealed as sharp a political divide between the densest economic centers and the rest of the country,” write Brookings’s Mark Muro and Sifan Liu, who reported the data."
While that may be less than a sixth of the total counties I suspect it a lot more of a share of the population than that.
It also implied that economic output is the only indicator that matters, and leaving aside lots of economically inconsequential but critical jobs that will happen in the rural areas. Values of goods from farms will be relatively small, before the various value adds of food preparers, processors and retailers, but without them the cities starve.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
My impression (which comes from knowing a number of councillors) is that many of the active members see local government success as an end in itself and not a means to a different end. MPs of course will have a different view.
Local candidates, councillors and activists are entitled to; party leaderships need to take a more strategic view.
That said, the Lib Dems' strategy does make sense in the short- to medium-term.
Not that difficult to be honest. But there are other ways of looking at it. For example, when a partner leaves a firm which continues as a going concern continuing to employ the same staff the leaving partner is not normally asked for a contribution. As I said, I think we will look after our own and leave theirs to them.
Yes but they are entitled to their pension pot.
I bet all the EU bigwigs are on Maxo maxo maxo Defined final YUUUUGEEE benefit schemes, and the underlying assets are the proverbial pisspot. The situation would be better for all concerned if they were on defined contribution, then the asset/liability structure would match precisely of course.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
You said "the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future." I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power". Pretty similar. You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile. UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
Yeah if UKIP can follow the Lib Dems example, they might get a solid base of local councillors in a decade or so, from then they can get MPs to lobby for a referendum. then the skys the limit!
UKIP councillors tend to resign, defect, get thrown out, or defeated.
Their goal has been achieved, I am surprised they still bother to put candidates up for these Thursday nighters
There's also the point that pensions right across Europe are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. When we agree whose ongoing pensions we might be liable for we should categorically refuse to offer up an actual cash lumpsum as a prefunding! We should for those few agree to offer up a an annual element on a pay-as-you-go basis. A small ongoing liability. No way we should accelerate the entire future liability into the departure year.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
As an aside, leaving the EU (like Trump's policies) can only be meaningfully judged in retrospect.
If in 20 years time, the Eurozone is flying, and we're sinking, it will be adjudged a terrible mistake. And vice-versa.
I think it it almost certain that other things will have a greater effect on the UK and EU economies over that period of time, and the further ahead we look the less significant leaving the EU will be. The whole Bregret scenario is more or less contingent of a sharp and immediate contraction, not arguing about infinitesimal economic effects decades into the future. Right now it's so far, so good.
Well quite. Any number of possible or even probable events could dwarf the effect of leaving the EU. Trump could easily make more difference with his attempts to repatriate huge piles of money to the USA. As could any significant conflict in the South China Sea or the Middle East. Or come to that the EU coming apart at the seams if 5* or MLP win over the next couple of years.
Is the pension question really any different to when the terms of a domestic public sector pension are changed?
Up until X date, certain (EU incl UK) benefits are accrued by the employee: After X date, future (EU excl UK) benefits are accrued by the employee.
We are understandably obligated for the former, but uninvolved in the latter.
I'd imagine the real problem for the EU will be if we have been on the hook for more than our fair share of the payments and they are left with a lot of public sector workers whose pensions aren't properly committed to and they need to make up the balance.
Also, what's our fair share?
By size of economy? By size of population? By number of UK nationals on the payroll? By the share of voting rights we enjoy under QMV?
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
Won't the positions be calculated according to IFRS 'corridor' method ?
Since we have been assured, not least by the EU Commission, that the administrative costs of the EU are minimal, I don't think we need to trouble ourselves very much about how much our share of the accrued pension component of that minimal cost is going to be.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
That makes it worse. The lower the gilt rate the more gilts are required to pay a particular level of pension. Robert will know better but I don't think the UK is above the average bond rate although it is above the more solvent ones.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
BP Tories going into denial - yet again.
Yet again? I don't recall us going into denial about how the LibDems would get obliterated in 2015....
But then you knew in advance that you Conservatives were going to flout the rules.
In passing, do you know how the various police enquiries are progressing?
Ignoring the point that in most of those constituencies the Lib Dems were not the ones who missed out since they were not even close to second place. I suggest, no matter how illegal the Tory actions might prove to be, you look elsewhere for the reasons for your dire performance as a party. Like your policies and your leadership.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
That makes it worse. The lower the gilt rate the more gilts are required to pay a particular level of pension. Robert will know better but I don't think the UK is above the average bond rate although it is above the more solvent ones.
What I meant was, if they are currently on the EU's books at Germany or France's rate, then bringing them onto the UK books, at gilt rates, might mean a fall in the value of the liability. That being said I am well outside my area of knowledge here, so it's likely this is all meaningless.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
BP Tories going into denial - yet again.
Yet again? I don't recall us going into denial about how the LibDems would get obliterated in 2015....
But then you knew in advance that you Conservatives were going to flout the rules.
In passing, do you know how the various police enquiries are progressing?
Ignoring the point that in most of those constituencies the Lib Dems were not the ones who missed out since they were not even close to second place. I suggest, no matter how illegal the Tory actions might prove to be, you look elsewhere for the reasons for your dire performance as a party. Like your policies and your leadership.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
That makes it worse. The lower the gilt rate the more gilts are required to pay a particular level of pension. Robert will know better but I don't think the UK is above the average bond rate although it is above the more solvent ones.
I had this argument with @Neil of this parish and I'll say it again.
Defined Benefit pension schemes are far far too generous in a world of virtually zero rates.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
BP Tories going into denial - yet again.
Yet again? I don't recall us going into denial about how the LibDems would get obliterated in 2015....
But then you knew in advance that you Conservatives were going to flout the rules.
In passing, do you know how the various police enquiries are progressing?
Ignoring the point that in most of those constituencies the Lib Dems were not the ones who missed out since they were not even close to second place. I suggest, no matter how illegal the Tory actions might prove to be, you look elsewhere for the reasons for your dire performance as a party. Like your policies and your leadership.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I suspect that is because some people are attracted to simplistic solutions however impractical they may be. Others understand the reality is somewhat more complex
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
You said "the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future." I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power". Pretty similar. You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile. UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
Yeah if UKIP can follow the Lib Dems example, they might get a solid base of local councillors in a decade or so, from then they can get MPs to lobby for a referendum. then the skys the limit!
UKIP councillors tend to resign, defect, get thrown out, or defeated.
Their goal has been achieved, I am surprised they still bother to put candidates up for these Thursday nighters
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
Won't the positions be calculated according to IFRS 'corridor' method ?
Which are discounted by A rated corporate bonds aren't they?
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I suspect that is because some people are attracted to simplistic solutions however impractical they may be. Others understand the reality is somewhat more complex
The ones that want simplistic solutions are called voters, they will be the ones largely blaming the EU... there are going to be two years of headlines shouting about intransigence and trying to take the piss between now and the failure of any deal. In no small part because with claims like 60bn liabilities, they are trying to take the piss.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
Won't the positions be calculated according to IFRS 'corridor' method ?
Which are discounted by A rated corporate bonds aren't they?
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
BP Tories going into denial - yet again.
Yet again? I don't recall us going into denial about how the LibDems would get obliterated in 2015....
But then you knew in advance that you Conservatives were going to flout the rules.
In passing, do you know how the various police enquiries are progressing?
Ignoring the point that in most of those constituencies the Lib Dems were not the ones who missed out since they were not even close to second place. I suggest, no matter how illegal the Tory actions might prove to be, you look elsewhere for the reasons for your dire performance as a party. Like your policies and your leadership.
And their choice in footwear.
Kitten heels?
I was thinking more of sandals. With socks in many cases.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
You said "the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future." I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power". Pretty similar. You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile. UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
Yeah if UKIP can follow the Lib Dems example, they might get a solid base of local councillors in a decade or so, from then they can get MPs to lobby for a referendum. then the skys the limit!
UKIP councillors tend to resign, defect, get thrown out, or defeated.
Their goal has been achieved, I am surprised they still bother to put candidates up for these Thursday nighters
Agreed - or Stoke?
Well if they had just turned it in after the referendum I wouldn't have complained. I guess they think there might still be voters who don't want to vote for the old big three and want them around. I don't know, we shall see.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
That makes it worse. The lower the gilt rate the more gilts are required to pay a particular level of pension. Robert will know better but I don't think the UK is above the average bond rate although it is above the more solvent ones.
I had this argument with @Neil of this parish and I'll say it again.
Defined Benefit pension schemes are far far too generous in a world of virtually zero rates.
You won't have any argument on that topic from me. I find "early retirement" packages in the public sector where pension rights are often topped up particularly egregious. It is simply remarkable how few of the more senior staff just retire with their gold plated pensions. Those at the bottom of the food chain are treated rather differently.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
When it comes to the serious business of electing a national government - not irrelevant local by-elections with miniscule turnouts - we will see where this so-called Liberal surge is. If they are confident of tapping the 48%, we ought to be seeing PM Farron at the next election, right? Right.
I suspect that is because some people are attracted to simplistic solutions however impractical they may be. Others understand the reality is somewhat more complex
The ones that want simplistic solutions are called voters, they will be the ones largely blaming the EU... there are going to be two years of headlines shouting about intransigence and trying to take the piss between now and the failure of any deal. In no small part because with claims like 60bn liabilities, they are trying to take the piss.
I think you are entirely underestimating the ability of the electorate to turn on those who visited Brexit upon us if it doesn't deliver the "stuff" that was promised.
One of the interesting things about this was that this 'gentleman' managed to get into Cambridge. I can understand Oxford admitting him, but Cambridge?
Seriously though, I did some silly things as a youth (and might still be making some). However I doubt I was ever so stupid as to do something quite as idiotic as that. To make matters worse, allowing it to be recorded and put online.
We really need to start educating young people (and seemingly even the already intelligent) that if you put anything on t'Internet, you're broadcasting it to the world. It ain't secret. (*)
(*) Unless you are very careful and use encryption. Which can be difficult to do, and relies on the person at the other end not to broadcast it unencrypted.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
Ah, the cocktail hour a cometh...
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it started a good while ago.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
Won't the positions be calculated according to IFRS 'corridor' method ?
Which are discounted by A rated corporate bonds aren't they?
Unless you are very careful and use encryption. Which can be difficult to do, and relies on the person at the other end not to broadcast it unencrypted.
No matter what you do, if you put it on the net it is public. Any other belief/approach is wishful thinking.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
That makes it worse. The lower the gilt rate the more gilts are required to pay a particular level of pension. Robert will know better but I don't think the UK is above the average bond rate although it is above the more solvent ones.
I had this argument with @Neil of this parish and I'll say it again.
Defined Benefit pension schemes are far far too generous in a world of virtually zero rates.
You won't have any argument on that topic from me. I find "early retirement" packages in the public sector where pension rights are often topped up particularly egregious. It is simply remarkable how few of the more senior staff just retire with their gold plated pensions. Those at the bottom of the food chain are treated rather differently.
One of my clients many years ago told me: "the ones with the fattest files are the ones with the fattest pensions". Making a nuisance of yourself and using pester power is sadly highly effective.
So, the EU didn't cost us very much but upon leaving our liabilities on pensions alone exceed 60 billion?
That's more than a million for every current EU employee (assuming the 45,000 stat below is right), and that's just the British share, never mind the other 27 countries.
It's probably a negotiating figure, but it's still pure bullshit. It will also play into blaming the EU for any bad deal, if their opening is "You owe us €300-400bn for leaving".
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, accordg commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
Ah, the cocktail hour a cometh...
Way way way beyond that. It's my penultimate night in Bangkok. I've had one of those nights in Bangkok where you just think..... OHMYGOD this is the best city in the universe.
I've drunk a bottle of wine, five million gins, swived my way through soi 4, had a delicious roast sea bass, and come back to the news that my German publishers want to offer me a THREE book deal.
When a serious German publisher says THREE book deal it means that are about to offer MEGA MEGA MEGA FUCK OFF MONEY (indeed I believe this phrase is originally German).
I am feeling drunk, happy, rich, alpha and belligerent. If the Europeans want war, let us rearm and give them war (but we just need to hold off until I get that cash from Berlin, ta v much)
Just the little matter of coming up with three more titles.
It's probably a negotiating figure, but it's still pure bullshit. It will also play into blaming the EU for any bad deal, if their opening is "You owe us €300-400bn for leaving".
On freedom of movement, my starting position would be that any EU citizen on the day of the entry into force of the exit agreement maintains the right to settle in the UK or EU indefinitely. How would that go down with the Kippers?
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, accordg commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
Ah, the cocktail hour a cometh...
Way way way beyond that. It's my penultimate night in Bangkok. I've had one of those nights in Bangkok where you just think..... OHMYGOD this is the best city in the universe.
I've drunk a bottle of wine, five million gins, swived my way through soi 4, had a delicious roast sea bass, and come back to the news that my German publishers want to offer me a THREE book deal.
When a serious German publisher says THREE book deal it means that are about to offer MEGA MEGA MEGA FUCK OFF MONEY (indeed I believe this phrase is originally German).
I am feeling drunk, happy, rich, alpha and belligerent. If the Europeans want war, let us rearm and give them war (but we just need to hold off until I get that cash from Berlin, ta v much)
Absolutely. How else would we fund the rearmament?
We really need to start educating young people (and seemingly even the already intelligent) that if you put anything on t'Internet, you're broadcasting it to the world. It ain't secret. (*)
(*) Unless you are very careful and use encryption. Which can be difficult to do, and relies on the person at the other end not to broadcast it unencrypted.
I have been trying to tell young Master Indigo for years that anything put on the internet, and especially anything put on social media should be treated as a) public and b) permanent. So far it hasn't cut much ice, I mean what do I know, I just used to do IT Security for a living
Even encryption is no use unless you trust the person at the other end of the communication completely, and the number of people that belong on that list is usually extremely small, and certainly doesn't include current girlfriends and school mates! (Most modern encryption can make things worse, because it gives authentication and non-repudiability, means you can't deny it was your dick picture )
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
That makes it worse. The lower the gilt rate the more gilts are required to pay a particular level of pension. Robert will know better but I don't think the UK is above the average bond rate although it is above the more solvent ones.
I had this argument with @Neil of this parish and I'll say it again.
Defined Benefit pension schemes are far far too generous in a world of virtually zero rates.
You won't have any argument on that topic from me. I find "early retirement" packages in the public sector where pension rights are often topped up particularly egregious. It is simply remarkable how few of the more senior staff just retire with their gold plated pensions. Those at the bottom of the food chain are treated rather differently.
One of my clients many years ago told me: "the ones with the fattest files are the ones with the fattest pensions". Making a nuisance of yourself and using pester power is sadly highly effective.
Yes my wife works in tertiary education and my daughter for the NHS. Being a bloody nuisance is the best way of getting promoted to a position where you might do less damage (and even find yourself "redundant" in due course).
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, accordg commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
Ah, the cocktail hour a cometh...
Way way way beyond that. It's my penultimate night in Bangkok. I've had one of those nights in Bangkok where you just think..... OHMYGOD this is the best city in the universe.
I've drunk a bottle of wine, five million gins, swived my way through soi 4, had a delicious roast sea bass, and come back to the news that my German publishers want to offer me a THREE book deal.
When a serious German publisher says THREE book deal it means that are about to offer MEGA MEGA MEGA FUCK OFF MONEY (indeed I believe this phrase is originally German).
I am feeling drunk, happy, rich, alpha and belligerent. If the Europeans want war, let us rearm and give them war (but we just need to hold off until I get that cash from Berlin, ta v much)
Just the little matter of coming up with three more titles.
I've got the first title
WHEN SHE'S ALONE
It's spooooooooooky
Good, but you need to try it in the German presumably.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
What does that bit mean?
Does that mean that they are saying "we've only set up Body X because you agreed to pay for a percentage of it, therefore you are on the hook for future costs even after you leave?"
I have been trying to tell young Master Indigo for years that anything put on the internet, and especially anything put on social media should be treated as a) public and b) permanent. So far it hasn't cut much ice, I mean what do I know, I just used to do IT Security for a living
Even encryption is no use unless you trust the person at the other end of the communication completely, and the number of people that belong on that list is usually extremely small, and certainly doesn't include current girlfriends and school mates! (Most modern encryption can make things worse, because it gives authentication and non-repudiability, means you can't deny it was your dick picture )
Yep, the analog hole exists, rendering the encryption a moot point.
It's probably a negotiating figure, but it's still pure bullshit. It will also play into blaming the EU for any bad deal, if their opening is "You owe us €300-400bn for leaving".
On freedom of movement, my starting position would be that any EU citizen on the day of the entry into force of the exit agreement maintains the right to settle in the UK or EU indefinitely. How would that go down with the Kippers?
It's probably a negotiating figure, but it's still pure bullshit. It will also play into blaming the EU for any bad deal, if their opening is "You owe us €300-400bn for leaving".
On freedom of movement, my starting position would be that any EU citizen on the day of the entry into force of the exit agreement maintains the right to settle in the UK or EU indefinitely. How would that go down with the Kippers?
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, accordg commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
This gives US leverage. We can just walk away. We will survive. We are Britain. They are a bunch of semi-evolved Fascists and frog eating barbarians.
Ah, the cocktail hour a cometh...
Way way way beyond that. It's my penultimate night in Bangkok. I've had one of those nights in Bangkok where you just think..... OHMYGOD this is the best city in the universe.
I've drunk a bottle of wine, five million gins, swived my way through soi 4, had a delicious roast sea bass, and come back to the news that my German publishers want to offer me a THREE book deal.
When a serious German publisher says THREE book deal it means that are about to offer MEGA MEGA MEGA FUCK OFF MONEY (indeed I believe this phrase is originally German).
I am feeling drunk, happy, rich, alpha and belligerent. If the Europeans want war, let us rearm and give them war (but we just need to hold off until I get that cash from Berlin, ta v much)
Just the little matter of coming up with three more titles.
I've got the first title
WHEN SHE'S ALONE
It's spooooooooooky
Now just come up with two more fantastic titles - and the write the novel around that title!
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
What are they gonna do? Nuke West Hampstead?
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Many were still on British payrolls, so I think this would keep the total down. I don't think pension liabilities for all British nationals accrued whilst working for the EU Commission can possibly be €60bn unless the method of valuation is unduly cautious.
It's also entirely possible that some people are throwing around undiscounted numbers, and the present value of liabilities is substantially less than headline figures.
You'll know better than me but aren't private sector pensions discounted by reference to the bond markets? Not sure if that holds for public sector pensions, but the bond rates for the remaining EU are quite a lot lower than the UK.
That makes it worse. The lower the gilt rate the more gilts are required to pay a particular level of pension. Robert will know better but I don't think the UK is above the average bond rate although it is above the more solvent ones.
I had this argument with @Neil of this parish and I'll say it again.
Defined Benefit pension schemes are far far too generous in a world of virtually zero rates.
You won't have any argument on that topic from me. I find "early retirement" packages in the public sector where pension rights are often topped up particularly egregious. It is simply remarkable how few of the more senior staff just retire with their gold plated pensions. Those at the bottom of the food chain are treated rather differently.
One of my clients many years ago told me: "the ones with the fattest files are the ones with the fattest pensions". Making a nuisance of yourself and using pester power is sadly highly effective.
I'd have thought having a 'file' wouldn't be a particularly good thing...
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
What are they gonna do? Nuke West Hampstead?
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Seriously hard? - On the day Corbyn recruited four new faces to the shadow FB, didn’t a Labour MP tweet he had to google two of them, because he hadn’t a clue who they were?
Oh dear the news from German and independence support surging in Scotland - your world is starting to fall apart and all of your old certaintiesand prejudices with it.
Never mind have a drink put a bet of the Lib/Dems to win something.
So SindyRef2 nailed on then?
Should Scotland leave the UK and set up its own currency?
For sure, after a suitable period using our existing currency that we have a share in. Nice transition period to allow our money to be repatriated.
You've got a fortnight. Time to change the cash machines over.
Anyone can use the pound and as we are joint owners we can even more easily use it as long as we wish.
Comfort yourself with that delusion Malc. All UK parties (except the Nats) have said unequivocally 'No Way'. The Pound is a UK institution. You leave the UK, you leave the Pound. You don't get to dictate here. Currency is THE issue to get resolved before Scotland has a hope of independence.
Guernsey isn't in the UK and it uses Sterling.
No it doesn't. It uses the Guernsey pound which is at parity to the UK pound, but it is not legal tender in the UK...
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
Good luck to the first UK politician who claims it will be "too expensive" to leave the EU. They'll enjoy explaining to the voters how they got us to that point....
And unless these are penalty payments which would not be payable if we stayed in (which is not a claim anyone is making) it becomes very very difficult to simultaneously rubbish 350m a week claims and endorse 60bn ones.
So a reasonably likely and perfectly acceptable outcome is for us to leave with no deal, revert to WTO tariffs - and no money from us to them.
Welch on your debts you mean, that old chestnut that you keep saying would be bad for Scotland.
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Just use 4 aircraft on 5 return trips a day for a year and we are done. Deduct the fuel costs from the final payment ("transaction costs" as Ryanair calls them).
Any EU citizen who has been here five years can claim UK citizenship irrespective of any negotiation.
The EU is not a nation either. Freedom of movement within the EU does not equal a common immigration and asylum policy with the rest of the world, including us.
We can effectively aim for differing bi-lateral relationships with each of the 27 nations if we choose, and they are not obligated to take a euro-line either.
Mr. G, a deal would be best. However, you must admit that more than a million pounds as the UK contribution alone for every single employee does seem a shade... large.
I do agree with your implied suggestion that the pensions result would have implications for a future second Scottish vote.
However, the same answer should apply to both. The UK pays the pensions of UK nationals who worked for the EU up till now, Scotland pays the pensions of Scottish nationals (if Scotland were to vote for separation) who worked for the UK.
It would be clearly unfair if the UK tried to force an independent Scotland to pay for new and ongoing UK pensions, as it would be for the EU to try and force the UK to pay for EU pensions after we left.
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
I think a fair division of assets and liabilities is reasonable for both Brexit and a putative Scexit. Most UK liaibilities in the EU are contingent (loan guarantees etc) - not requiring cash now, and minimally at risk unless the EU actually comes apart. On the assets side however we have paid a very significant % of the EU's net positive funding over recent decades and have a very reasonable claim to the same % of the value of eg buildings that we have paid for but won't in future gain benefit from. An accountant or a lawyer would very likely conclude that they owe us cash now for our share of assets whilst we owe them a continued exposure but no cash for potential future claims. (unless, of course, the said accountant or lawyer is from one of the 27...)
All valid points imo, and certainly adds a little context to the liabilities claim that up till now, has looked decidedly bleak. After all is said and done I doubt we’ll get a rebate, but the astronomical figures being banded around may not be quite as high as suggested. – How odd that this only becomes an issue now, but not mentioned at all when tallying up the true £cost to the UK for EU membership.
Amazing how it is valid for rUK but absolutely a NO NO for Scotland, double standards on here are breathtaking
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Assuming we buy 7600 new planes for the job!
We could use just one and do 7,600 flights but I think it would diminish the effect. They would have time to move the coins out of the way and Brussels would not be buried in a pile of gleaming coins.
May be we could mint a special batch of 1p coins and fly a couple of planes over Brussels...
Ummm... no. We would need 7,600 aircraft for £60bn in pennies (assuming we use the 747 cargo option with the 278kg payload). The aircraft would cost about £1.5tn - about 25 times the debt.
Assuming we buy 7600 new planes for the job!
We could use just one and do 7,600 flights but I think it would diminish the effect. They would have time to move the coins out of the way and Brussels would not be buried in a pile of gleaming coins.
What would be worse, aone time carpet bombing of pennies or a sustained year long campaign? I think the latter would be far more demoralising.
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
I think a fair division of assets and liabilities is reasonable for both Brexit and a putative Scexit. Most UK liaibilities in the EU are contingent (loan guarantees etc) - not requiring cash now, and minimally at risk unless the EU actually comes apart. On the assets side however we have paid a very significant % of the EU's net positive funding over recent decades and have a very reasonable claim to the same % of the value of eg buildings that we have paid for but won't in future gain benefit from. An accountant or a lawyer would very likely conclude that they owe us cash now for our share of assets whilst we owe them a continued exposure but no cash for potential future claims. (unless, of course, the said accountant or lawyer is from one of the 27...)
Be careful, you're using the Alex Salmond argument....
It is precisely the same argument. But with the caveat that when I talk about assets I am talking about hard paid for actual accountable assets - whereas Salmond is citing notions. The Pound is NOT an asset. A share of a building worth X Pounds IS an asset. Same argument. Very different applicability. Scotland should get all the physical assets in Scotland and its share of UK wide assets such as submarines. Institutions are not Assets, they are assets. See?
When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
I think a fair division of assets and liabilities is reasonable for both Brexit and a putative Scexit. Most UK liaibilities in the EU are contingent (loan guarantees etc) - not requiring cash now, and minimally at risk unless the EU actually comes apart. On the assets side however we have paid a very significant % of the EU's net positive funding over recent decades and have a very reasonable claim to the same % of the value of eg buildings that we have paid for but won't in future gain benefit from. An accountant or a lawyer would very likely conclude that they owe us cash now for our share of assets whilst we owe them a continued exposure but no cash for potential future claims. (unless, of course, the said accountant or lawyer is from one of the 27...)
All valid points imo, and certainly adds a little context to the liabilities claim that up till now, has looked decidedly bleak. After all is said and done I doubt we’ll get a rebate, but the astronomical figures being banded around may not be quite as high as suggested. – How odd that this only becomes an issue now, but not mentioned at all when tallying up the true £cost to the UK for EU membership.
Amazing how it is valid for rUK but absolutely a NO NO for Scotland, double standards on here are breathtaking
I don't think anyone has questioned that iScotland would have a share of the UK's physical assets, although for practical purposes the starting point would be those assets located in iScotland. It was when people started claiming that iScotland owned 8% of "the pound" because that was an "asset" that it became silly.
Going to Stoke myself tomorrow (short train ride from Nottingham). I think it's the more important of the two in any case - a loss to the Tories would be embarrassing but essentially a one-day wonder linked to the nuclear power issue, but a loss to UKIP would be a serious nuisance (which is why the Tories aren't really bothering in Stoke).
It's probably a negotiating figure, but it's still pure bullshit. It will also play into blaming the EU for any bad deal, if their opening is "You owe us €300-400bn for leaving".
On freedom of movement, my starting position would be that any EU citizen on the day of the entry into force of the exit agreement maintains the right to settle in the UK or EU indefinitely. How would that go down with the Kippers?
Like a sack of shit?
Its the same as we have now, right?
"Freedom of movement" needs to be disaggregated. There's freedom to enter the country, freedom to remain indefinitely, freedom to settle permanently, freedom to work, freedom to claim benefits, freedom to beg, freedom to establish a tax benefit supported enterprise selling The Big Issue (for example), and freedom from deportation after criminal conviction (among others).
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Who cares a jot , I am of the "there are only men and women" all the rest is just flim flam.
It's probably a negotiating figure, but it's still pure bullshit. It will also play into blaming the EU for any bad deal, if their opening is "You owe us €300-400bn for leaving".
On freedom of movement, my starting position would be that any EU citizen on the day of the entry into force of the exit agreement maintains the right to settle in the UK or EU indefinitely. How would that go down with the Kippers?
Like a sack of shit?
Its the same as we have now, right?
"Freedom of movement" needs to be disaggregated. There's freedom to enter the country, freedom to remain indefinitely, freedom to settle permanently, freedom to work, freedom to claim benefits, freedom to beg, freedom to establish a tax benefit supported enterprise selling The Big Issue (for example), and freedom from deportation after criminal conviction (among others).
Comments
Poll: Views on media treatment of Trump Administration. https://t.co/u7jBUMA2rD
That said, the Lib Dems' strategy does make sense in the short- to medium-term.
I bet all the EU bigwigs are on Maxo maxo maxo Defined final YUUUUGEEE benefit schemes, and the underlying assets are the proverbial pisspot.
The situation would be better for all concerned if they were on defined contribution, then the asset/liability structure would match precisely of course.
In passing, do you know how the various police enquiries are progressing?
http://gotnews.com/twitter-suspended-account-dared-defend-liberal-reporters-smear-campaign/
"Cambridge University Conservatives have expelled their communications officer over claims he taunted a homeless man by burning a £20 note."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-38931710
Up until X date, certain (EU incl UK) benefits are accrued by the employee:
After X date, future (EU excl UK) benefits are accrued by the employee.
We are understandably obligated for the former, but uninvolved in the latter.
I'd imagine the real problem for the EU will be if we have been on the hook for more than our fair share of the payments and they are left with a lot of public sector workers whose pensions aren't properly committed to and they need to make up the balance.
Also, what's our fair share?
By size of economy? By size of population? By number of UK nationals on the payroll? By the share of voting rights we enjoy under QMV?
Well said.
Defined Benefit pension schemes are far far too generous in a world of virtually zero rates.
https://carpool.peoplesmomentum.com/
Seriously though, I did some silly things as a youth (and might still be making some). However I doubt I was ever so stupid as to do something quite as idiotic as that. To make matters worse, allowing it to be recorded and put online.
We really need to start educating young people (and seemingly even the already intelligent) that if you put anything on t'Internet, you're broadcasting it to the world. It ain't secret. (*)
(*) Unless you are very careful and use encryption. Which can be difficult to do, and relies on the person at the other end not to broadcast it unencrypted.
Quite a generous measure on the government. However it stands to reason that the discount rate on the EU's books must be different.
Maybe he will be lucky and it will be the right type of snow rather than the wrong type. Maybe
That's more than a million for every current EU employee (assuming the 45,000 stat below is right), and that's just the British share, never mind the other 27 countries.
It's probably a negotiating figure, but it's still pure bullshit. It will also play into blaming the EU for any bad deal, if their opening is "You owe us €300-400bn for leaving".
Just the little matter of coming up with three more titles.
Even encryption is no use unless you trust the person at the other end of the communication completely, and the number of people that belong on that list is usually extremely small, and certainly doesn't include current girlfriends and school mates! (Most modern encryption can make things worse, because it gives authentication and non-repudiability, means you can't deny it was your dick picture
http://freebeacon.com/columns/nobody-knows-anything/
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
What does that bit mean?
Does that mean that they are saying "we've only set up Body X because you agreed to pay for a percentage of it, therefore you are on the hook for future costs even after you leave?"
Wenn can mean both 'when' and 'if' in German (I think).
And certainly pls tell me that the Dems will find someone in their ranks who isn't Warren or Clinton to run by 2020.
Its the same as we have now, right?
Give 'em farthings instead.
We could fire it at Brussels, using the space cannon.
The EU is not a nation either. Freedom of movement within the EU does not equal a common immigration and asylum policy with the rest of the world, including us.
We can effectively aim for differing bi-lateral relationships with each of the 27 nations if we choose, and they are not obligated to take a euro-line either.
I do agree with your implied suggestion that the pensions result would have implications for a future second Scottish vote.
However, the same answer should apply to both. The UK pays the pensions of UK nationals who worked for the EU up till now, Scotland pays the pensions of Scottish nationals (if Scotland were to vote for separation) who worked for the UK.
It would be clearly unfair if the UK tried to force an independent Scotland to pay for new and ongoing UK pensions, as it would be for the EU to try and force the UK to pay for EU pensions after we left.
EDIT: Yes they are!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOijf_HXVAY
Are we, or have we been, on the hook for those pensions paid to pre-1973 employees?
To what extent are later arrivals - for example, the A8 and A2 - on the hook seeing as they only joined in the 21st century?
England keeps the Bank of England and everything that goes with it.
Scotland keeps the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland.
"That's unfair, Scotland gets two banks and England just one" I hear you call.
England will just have to take it on the chin.