politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there were a Newton Abbot by election this year, the Tories
Options
Comments
-
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).nigel4england said:
I never, ever use them in London.eek said:
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....NickPalmer said:
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.AndyJS said:
I was quoting the headline.DecrepitJohnL said:
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.AndyJS said:"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
0 -
As we were discussing yesterday....looks like the Euratom rebels haven't done their homework....not misled by a Russian owned free-sheet, surely?
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/884720686878556160
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/8844335451875368960 -
So the Romans say!Pulpstar said:
The Romans tamed and civilised the savages living here I think.FF43 said:
The Norman French?Dura_Ace said:
Who were the good colonists? Let me guess...Pulpstar said:
OK That explains it, the Belgians were shocking colonists.foxinsoxuk said:then a Belgian mandate until independence
PS Or the Anglo Saxons?
0 -
Uber are brilliant. You can see where your taxi is while you're waiting for it, you and the driver can call each other without giving out your number and no need to deal with cash.Benpointer said:
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).nigel4england said:
I never, ever use them in London.eek said:
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....NickPalmer said:
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.AndyJS said:
I was quoting the headline.DecrepitJohnL said:
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.AndyJS said:"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally0 -
Still can’t use them if you’re a wheelchair user though. That’s our friends point.not_on_fire said:
Uber are brilliant. You can see where your taxi is while you're waiting for it, you and the driver can call each other without giving out your number and no need to deal with cash.Benpointer said:
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).nigel4england said:
I never, ever use them in London.eek said:
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....NickPalmer said:
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.AndyJS said:
I was quoting the headline.DecrepitJohnL said:
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.AndyJS said:"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally0 -
If you're in London, have you tried UBERWAV?Benpointer said:
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).nigel4england said:
I never, ever use them in London.eek said:
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....NickPalmer said:
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.AndyJS said:
I was quoting the headline.DecrepitJohnL said:
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.AndyJS said:"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/ldnwav/0 -
Bletchley Park, the Royal Navy and aviation technology made a notable contribution, and the Allies wouldn't have had the same level of global reach without imperial forces.stodge said:
Slightly selective historical analysis there, Mr Dancer.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Fire, those redcoats put Boney in his place
The Russian efforts in the 1812 Campaign and the alliance that defeated the French at Leipzig were clearly of no importance.
It's also accepted that even if Napoleon had beaten Wellington at Waterloo, significant Prussian and Russian forces would have been on the French in a few days.
We shouldn't also forget the role of Blucher at Waterloo who undoubtedly ensured French victory whereas a bloody draw looked the most likely outcome had the Prussians not arrived.
As a historian, I'm happy to acknowledge the influential role Britain has played - in WW2 the period 1940-41 was pivotal to the outcome but it can't be forgotten that ultimate victory was mainly down to the Russians and the sheer logistical superiority of the Americans which overcame the superiority, in my view, of the Germans in technology in many areas. Yes, we played a significant role but ours wasn't the only role and in the end probably not the most significant except from keeping the struggle going alone after the fall of France.0 -
She now knows this is the way to win majorities/make net seat gains, a pity she didn't realise before June 9th.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/8847261996830924830 -
Uber does do wheelchair accessible cars with appropriately trained drivers.Benpointer said:
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).nigel4england said:
I never, ever use them in London.eek said:
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....NickPalmer said:
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.AndyJS said:
I was quoting the headline.DecrepitJohnL said:
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.AndyJS said:"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
(That said it is a matter of putting the wheelchair in the boot and you in the car "manually".)0 -
I didn't see that they also have UBERWAV as mentioned above.TOPPING said:
Uber does do wheelchair accessible cars with appropriately trained drivers.Benpointer said:
From my perspective, as a full-time wheelchair user, Uber doesn't work for me at all. Black cabs all have to be accessible (which some will see as wasteful red-tape but which makes an enourmous difference to me and others like me).nigel4england said:
I never, ever use them in London.eek said:
I believe they are banned in Germany. I use them in Austria and Finland simply because they are more convenient than taxis - price is irrelevant as I expense it anyway....NickPalmer said:
She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.AndyJS said:
I was quoting the headline.DecrepitJohnL said:
Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.AndyJS said:"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live
I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.
Black cab drivers have spent years doing the knowledge in their own time and at their own expense, and are by far the safest cabs to take.
I can see Uber driving black cabs out of business which would be a regressive step for me personally
(That said it is a matter of putting the wheelchair in the boot and you in the car "manually".)0 -
But not to win refernda...TheScreamingEagles said:She now knows this is the way to win majorities/make net seat gains, a pity she didn't realise before June 9th.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/884726199683092483 0 -
George won 2 out of 3 plebiscites he was involved in.GIN1138 said:
But not to win refernda...TheScreamingEagles said:She now knows this is the way to win majorities/make net seat gains, a pity she didn't realise before June 9th.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/8847261996830924830 -
Problem she was trying to fake populism when she's already had been part of a government that was undertaking some pretty harsh austerity for 7 years.GIN1138 said:
But not to win refernda...TheScreamingEagles said:She now knows this is the way to win majorities/make net seat gains, a pity she didn't realise before June 9th.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/8847261996830924830 -
-
Oh, cripes!calum said:0 -
Mr. Eagles, Pyrrhus won two out of the three battles he fought against the Romans.0
-
A process aided by the Belgians/CIA conspiring to have its democratically elected leader assassinated.foxinsoxuk said:
The worst period was when Leopold ran the Congo Free State as a private colony. When the Belgian government took over in 1908 things began to improve. It was a fairly well developed place, albeit heavily racist, by the time it gained independence in the 1960's and turned into a kleptocracy.Pulpstar said:
OK That explains it, the Belgians were shocking colonists.foxinsoxuk said:then a Belgian mandate until independence
(Along with possible British collusion - the late, and rather unpleasant, Daphne Park allegedly claimed to have organised the killing.)0 -
Any bye election for this government would have to go on the list of mistakes made by May since her appointment (assuming that there is still room on the charge sheet).
It would be a chance to kick this government out. It should be avoided at all costs.0 -
Romoaners.foxinsoxuk said:
So the Romans say!Pulpstar said:
The Romans tamed and civilised the savages living here I think.FF43 said:
The Norman French?Dura_Ace said:
Who were the good colonists? Let me guess...Pulpstar said:
OK That explains it, the Belgians were shocking colonists.foxinsoxuk said:then a Belgian mandate until independence
PS Or the Anglo Saxons?0 -
Pyrrhus' victories weren't actually Pyrrhic victories - In the understood sense of an apparent victory that was really a defeat. They were stalemates that failed to achieve their strategic purpose.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, Pyrrhus won two out of the three battles he fought against the Romans.
0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
George won 2 out of 3 plebiscites he was involved in.GIN1138 said:
But not to win refernda...TheScreamingEagles said:She now knows this is the way to win majorities/make net seat gains, a pity she didn't realise before June 9th.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/884726199683092483
Was found out in the end though...TheScreamingEagles said:
George won 2 out of 3 plebiscites he was involved in.GIN1138 said:
But not to win refernda...TheScreamingEagles said:She now knows this is the way to win majorities/make net seat gains, a pity she didn't realise before June 9th.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/8847261996830924830 -
Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.0 -
Go Boris!!!!calum said:
0 -
Mr. 43, been a while since I read the bio, but not sure I entirely agree. The victories were Pyrrhus' but the disproportionate resources of Rome (nor helped by the fact Pyrrhus had lost many men to storms) meant the city could absorb losses far more easily than Pyrrhus could.0
-
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.0 -
Apologies but I must be off to perambulate in the precipitation (irksome to walk off halfway through a historical discussion, but there we are). F1 markets starting to go up on Ladbrokes, so I'll look at them properly later.0
-
On Uber - let me lose 2-3 billion dollars a year and I'll show you a disruptive business too.
0 -
Yes that's the same in Gib. In theory a licence costs £5 from the Govt. In practice they are the equivalent of a pension pot and are worth £200kDavidL said:Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
The taxi "association" here is a cartel Mafia-like in its influence, political sway and outright intimidation.0 -
The francophone countries have never really decolonised and also rank amongst the worst in Africa.foxinsoxuk said:
Some have done well. Botswana is perhaps the most successful. Democracy from day one and 50 years of uninterrupted growth. Ghana is doing well now.Richard_Tyndall said:
We. As a rule Anglophone countries in Africa have come out of the Imperial age in a far better state than those of other former imperial holdings.foxinsoxuk said:
The history of India, China, Korea, Thailand etc would seem to contradict that. The history of Anglophone vs Francophone or Lusophone Africa isn't exactly a triumph either!MonikerDiCanio said:
History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.JosiasJessop said:
IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.OldKingCole said:I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.
One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.
The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.
But there is also Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sudan, Somaliland, Sierra Leone etc as a few examples of where things did not go well.
Belgian decolonisation was catastrophically done, and the Portuguese collapse in 1975 too, though destabilisation by Anglophone countries didn't help these.
The Francophone countries generally decolonised well initially, in part because of a Francophone elite and French continuing support, but more recently the rot has set in.0 -
Splendid!calum said:0 -
Brilliantly sunny here in Portugal once again today. Any precipitation is likely to be from mucking about in the pool.Morris_Dancer said:Apologies but I must be off to perambulate in the precipitation (irksome to walk off halfway through a historical discussion, but there we are). F1 markets starting to go up on Ladbrokes, so I'll look at them properly later.
0 -
My understanding is that Rome had captured a hill town from which they could control the Tarantum plain. Pyrrhus' aim was to recapture the town so Tarantum could reassert control over their hinterland . He won the battles but failed to shift the Romans from the town.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 43, been a while since I read the bio, but not sure I entirely agree. The victories were Pyrrhus' but the disproportionate resources of Rome (nor helped by the fact Pyrrhus had lost many men to storms) meant the city could absorb losses far more easily than Pyrrhus could.
0 -
It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.0
-
The money laundering opportunities really should be getting closer attention too. I am not sure if the Edinburgh system is corrupt or just totally incompetent. I suspect the latter but it certainly attracts some interesting characters.GeoffM said:
Yes that's the same in Gib. In theory a licence costs £5 from the Govt. In practice they are the equivalent of a pension pot and are worth £200kDavidL said:Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
The taxi "association" here is a cartel Mafia-like in its influence, political sway and outright intimidation.0 -
Less of the old please!!Freggles said:
Rich old white man as gatekeeper of what's racist. You couldn't make it up.Charles said:
It does.619 said:
It doesnt really become less racist in contextCharles said:
You're like a toddler pointing and saying "she said a bad word, Mommy" without any nuanced understanding of the context619 said:
'n*gger' = 'old fashioned figure of speech'CD13 said:I heard the news reader having a fit of hysteria about "the worst possible word that can be used." Oh, I thought, she's called Corbyn a c*nt ( * for the snowflakes). She deserves what she's getting, I thought..
Turns out it was 'n*gger' . Stupid, I thought, again she deserves what she's getting. Now I find it was an unscripted and old-fashioned figure of speech. What a let-down. Serves me right for taking notice of hysterics. Unwise, but a million miles away from being what I thought
I'd always been curious of the derivation. Now, I suppose, with our modern censorship rules, I'll never know. You can listen to sexual expressions feely banded about on daytime TV, but non-sexual words cause the matrons to hold up their skirts and run for the hills.
I'm still OK for religious naughty words? OK, then .... Jehovah, Jehovah. Jehovah!
Right
It's outmoded, archaic and inappropriate. But not racist
(Certainly if she had applied the phrase to an individual it would have been racist. But she didn't: she used it to describe an event that is completely unconnected to race.)0 -
I think this is the case in many Italian cities as well. It's very difficult to become a taxi driver unless you know somebody who has a taxi permit (or whatever they call it).DavidL said:Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.0 -
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.AlastairMeeks said:It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
0 -
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.0 -
PS Mr Johnson also said the Government has not made any plans for a "no deal" Brexit because the UK will get a "great deal" in the negotiations.calum said:
Talk is cheap; deals are expensive.
0 -
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.DavidL said:
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.AlastairMeeks said:It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
0 -
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK0 -
Anything can happen in by elections. Neil Kinnock regularly won huge swings in by elections 1983-92, as have the Liberals for decades. No reason why Corbyn Labour could not win this seat in a by election, and then lose it again in a general election. The Tories have to lose 7 seats to lose their majority. It took John Major more than three years to lose 7 seats after 1992. So no general election before 2020.0
-
It will be very interesting to see what figure they arrive at, I would honour the pensions of British MEP's and that's it.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.0 -
Have you checked all 625 MP's to gauge their reaction?AlastairMeeks said:
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.DavidL said:
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.AlastairMeeks said:It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
0 -
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.0 -
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK0 -
I thought you meant on here. The fact May is not in a position to completely ignore those you have mentioned is one of the most distressing things about the current situation.AlastairMeeks said:
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.DavidL said:
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.AlastairMeeks said:It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
0 -
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
Failure to unequivocally condemn in trenchant terms is definitive proof of racism. Unless you're Labour and it's Jews, in which case it's critique of Israeli oppression.....nigel4england said:
Have you checked all 625 MP's to gauge their reaction?AlastairMeeks said:
She doesn't seem to have been condemned unequivocally by Bill Cash or John Redwood at the time. The original coterie of Leavers at which this view was aired seemed quite unfazed by it.DavidL said:
Was there anyone who did not condemn this MP unequivocally yesterday? If so I must have missed it. But a bye election now would be suicidal.AlastairMeeks said:It was no surprise to see Leavers so tone deaf to racist language. I see that in response pb has donned its collective pith helmet this morning.
0 -
Are you sure as they want to staynigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK0 -
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
I would. It would be worth it just to cunt off Farage et al.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
That's true!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Are you sure as they want to staynigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK0 -
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
Pathetic.Dura_Ace said:
I would. It would be worth it just to cunt off Farage et al.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
Edit:
Maybe throw in a bit extra to smooth market access?0 -
You will be in a substantial minority and it is nothing to do with Farage who I dislike with a passionDura_Ace said:
I would. It would be worth it just to cunt off Farage et al.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
Make him Prime Minister- immediately!calum said:0 -
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
I have no problem with 16 billion netrkrkrk said:
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtLxZiiuaXsAnorak said:
Not to mention hilarious borders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-NassauMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, Belgium also has a splendid F1 circuit.
0 -
It's now looking all but definite that Boris will become Tory leader and win his general election by a landslide. Think of all the political goodies he's been personally associated with: 350 million extra for the NHS, a trade deal with the EU that has all of benefits but none of the costs. And now this - a gargantuan saving running into literary hundreds of millions. I can't see any British party leader - not Churchill, not Thatcher, not Blair, certainly not Corbyn - being able to compete with this level of political capital. Boris is invincible!calum said:0 -
Good observation - everyone needs a long summer recess - Corbyn will no doubt be doing his messiah appearances through the summer but there is plenty of sport and the start of football to ensure he is ignoredDavidL said:
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
0 -
One thing that is going to be funny is when the more extreme elements of Remain say the exit bill is xx billion and it's the Brexiteers who are explaining how it's not that much because you should look at the 'net' amount since some of the money going to the EU will come back...DavidL said:
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
The exit bill quoted is xxx billion not xxrkrkrk said:
One thing that is going to be funny is when the more extreme elements of Remain say the exit bill is xx billion and it's the Brexiteers who are explaining how it's not that much because you should look at the 'net' amount since some of the money going to the EU will come back...DavidL said:
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave0 -
Afternoon all. Is it summer holiday time yet? Sounds like all the politicians and commentators could really do with a few weeks off with their families.0
-
Few months would be betterSandpit said:Afternoon all. Is it summer holiday time yet? Sounds like all the politicians and commentators could really do with a few weeks off with their families.
0 -
Even as a leaver I can see the irony and humour in that.rkrkrk said:
One thing that is going to be funny is when the more extreme elements of Remain say the exit bill is xx billion and it's the Brexiteers who are explaining how it's not that much because you should look at the 'net' amount since some of the money going to the EU will come back...DavidL said:
Let's face it, almost nothing is being explained at the moment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
But at the moment apples are being compared to guava fruit and literally meaningless figures are being thrown around by both sides. It's like the referendum never finished and it gets frankly tedious.0 -
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have no problem with 16 billion netrkrkrk said:
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.0 -
Have any of them said anything like that?nigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Not that I recall.0 -
I like that comment - says it all about the EUnigel4england said:
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have no problem with 16 billion netrkrkrk said:
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.0 -
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?foxinsoxuk said:
Have any of them said anything like that?nigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Not that I recall.0 -
Completely agree.DavidL said:
Even as a leaver I can see the irony and humour in that.
But at the moment apples are being compared to guava fruit and literally meaningless figures are being thrown around by both sides. It's like the referendum never finished and it gets frankly tedious.
I feel on a kind of common sense level - most can agree we should pay for stuff we said we would pay for, and for pensions to British civil servants working for EU. We should only pay for things agreed after we leave if we want to - and I suspect we won't.
Some kind of fee to get better access/cover our share of the costs of EU institutions regulating trade which I suspect we will still be using in some way seems reasonable - and the debate should hopefully focus on that.
We aren't going to carry on paying into the CAP for 5 years after we've left I hope!
0 -
As remainer's they would hardly accept an open cheque divorce billfoxinsoxuk said:
Have any of them said anything like that?nigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Not that I recall.0 -
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point)
(b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB
and
(c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?0 -
Following my buy of Everton points at 59 I am also considering a more speculative buy of Swansea points at 39.5, but I will wait to see what happens to Gylfi Siggurdson first.0
-
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.nigel4england said:
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have no problem with 16 billion netrkrkrk said:
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.0 -
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.rcs1000 said:
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point)
(b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB
and
(c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?0 -
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.nigel4england said:
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?foxinsoxuk said:
Have any of them said anything like that?nigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Not that I recall.0 -
For me, the main problem with what this MP said is not even that she used the "n-word". It's that she was treating a horrible and shameful period of history as something to make light of.
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.0 -
EU citizen rights were supposed to be the easy one. But yes I agree. The money is a haggle. Actually the UK Government is likely to WANT to pay out large sums of money to the EU, to buy influence. It's a partial substitute for having a vote.Casino_Royale said:
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.rcs1000 said:
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point)
(b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB
and
(c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?0 -
I'd liked the idea in the article that with "the Tories generally being Labour in the polls".....
Do you mean being behind Labour?
Or actually "being Labour" (i.e. a bit Ed Milibandy) ;-)0 -
I understand but surely if things get nasty then we are entitled to see where the billions we have paid in over the years has been spent?rcs1000 said:
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.nigel4england said:
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have no problem with 16 billion netrkrkrk said:
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.0 -
If it gets nasty we'll walk away without a deal. Of course, that will have its own serious complications for the UK economy, especially given Dr Fox's current failures to replicate any of the EU's existing trade relationships.nigel4england said:
I understand but surely if things get nasty then we are entitled to see where the billions we have paid in over the years has been spent?rcs1000 said:
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.nigel4england said:
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have no problem with 16 billion netrkrkrk said:
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.0 -
Showering?Danny565 said:For me, the main problem with what this MP said is not even that she used the "n-word". It's that she was treating a horrible and shameful period of history as something to make light of.
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.0 -
I'm blaming auto-correct.MarkLittlewood said:I'd liked the idea in the article that with "the Tories generally being Labour in the polls".....
Do you mean being behind Labour?
Or actually "being Labour" (i.e. a bit Ed Milibandy) ;-)
It should be 'behind' not 'being'0 -
You think a) will be resolved as us just paying for the British EU employees? I imagine the EU are pushing for it to be a percentage of the total EU pension costs related to how much liability has been built up during our time in the EU.rcs1000 said:
That's because the EU is engaged in the psychological practice of anchoring, while the UK government is really keen to be able to claim a big victory by getting the number reduced.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree with that absolutely but that is not the way it is being explained at presentDavidL said:
If that £60bn included the £40bn we are obliged to pay over the next two years and bought us the ongoing access we want, yes, absolutely.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leavelogical_song said:
Yes Boris has got the Jingoists dangling from his puppet strings.rkrkrk said:
Were we ever going to pay 100 billion!?nigel4england said:
Good for Boris.calum said:
If the EU demand 100 billion or something stupid it would serve to galvanise the Leavers, any Remainer saying we have to pay up would be laughed at.
It would kill Soubry and Chukkup's little party straight away.
Surely this is just Boris warming you up for the 'much reduced' new figure of xx billion.
That and the proposed fake storm-out to show how tough we are and how we got a good deal.
"Good for Boris" is probably the exact reaction he was looking for.
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Assuming we come to a deal, it will likely involve:
(a) us taking responsibility for the pensions of British MEPs and British Eurocrats (up until the cutoff point)
(b) an adjustment for the share of the EU assets, in particularly the stake in the EIB
and
(c) payments we make during the transition period counting against the final sum
So, let's say we pay £5bn/year during a four year transition arrangement. That's £20bn. The 'notional' on the pensions will be pegged at £15bn (although the real NPV is probably half that), and the share of EU assets will come in around £30bn.
Now, have we paid £65bn? Or have we taken on a few pension liabilities that are probably worth less than £10bn at today's prices?0 -
If it gets nasty the UK government will crater and a new government will to to Brussels with a new approach. The idea that the UK government would have the strength to walk away is laughable.rcs1000 said:If it gets nasty we'll walk away without a deal.
0 -
I agreercs1000 said:
If it gets nasty we'll walk away without a deal. Of course, that will have its own serious complications for the UK economy, especially given Dr Fox's current failures to replicate any of the EU's existing trade relationships.nigel4england said:
I understand but surely if things get nasty then we are entitled to see where the billions we have paid in over the years has been spent?rcs1000 said:
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.nigel4england said:
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have no problem with 16 billion netrkrkrk said:
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
This FT graphic is pretty good I think:
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e3
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments.
That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.0 -
Can that be right though? Boris was wholeheartedly agreeing with the following remark from Philip Hollobone MP:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.nigel4england said:
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?foxinsoxuk said:
Have any of them said anything like that?nigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Not that I recall.
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)0 -
No plans at all is doubly stupid. It may well happen, and certainly is a requirement for any threat of walkout to be vaguely plausible.FF43 said:
PS Mr Johnson also said the Government has not made any plans for a "no deal" Brexit because the UK will get a "great deal" in the negotiations.calum said:
Talk is cheap; deals are expensive.
Boris's "it'll be alright on the night" amateurism does not inspire confidence.0 -
Isn't it a little more complicated than that?JonathanD said:You think a) will be resolved as us just paying for the British EU employees? I imagine the EU are pushing for it to be a percentage of the total EU pension costs related to how much liability has been built up during our time in the EU.
Britain has been a member of the EU since 1973. We will argue that we have no responsibility for the pension liabilities accrued before its membership. They will argue that when we joined we implicitly took on those liabilities. There is also the issue that lots of countries have joined recently, but liabilities associated with their MEPs and Eurocrats will currently be small.
Add it all together, and the desire that we limit ongoing payments, it makes much more sense for us to simply take responsibility for our MPs and Eurocrats. (Especially as the UK government's cost of capital is lower than the EU's.)0 -
I would be very surprised if we can walk away from our share of pension liabilities.Stark_Dawning said:
Can that be right though? Boris was wholeheartedly agreeing with the following remark from Philip Hollobone MP:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.nigel4england said:
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?foxinsoxuk said:
Have any of them said anything like that?nigel4england said:
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Genuine question.619 said:
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Not that I recall.
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)0 -
@DavidLDavidL said:Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
Could you clarify - who are being ripped off ? Do you mean the taxi drivers by the Council?
If so, then they are together monopolists running a dying business model, and we should not pander to them.
0
This discussion has been closed.