Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Belgian thought]

Re: health costs.
Fully a third of UK nationals residing in Europe are retired. They have far more expensive health costs than the EU nationals residing in the UK, who are almost entirely working families.

You can see this in the disparity of charges, whereby some £580 million was handed over to cover pensioner health costs in the EU, whereas we only claimed some £12 million to cover pensioners residing in the UK.

Put simply, ceptimus' health costs are a nonsense.

Edit: Linky.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/141216w0001.htm

Plus Ireland (or minus ) - same source last paragraph of the answer to this parliamentary question.

"The UK’s pensioner payments to Ireland for 2013 were €211 million. This represents a payment on account, which is 80% of the estimated total payment due and settled that will be finalised following publication of Ireland’s average costs for that year. The pensioner payments from Ireland to the UK for 2013 were £5.9 million."

 

[Belgian thought]

Delete above

I misread chart

My apologies

 

[Castro]

Re: health costs.
Fully a third of UK nationals residing in Europe are retired. They have far more expensive health costs than the EU nationals residing in the UK, who are almost entirely working families.

You can see this in the disparity of charges, whereby some £580 million was handed over to cover pensioner health costs in the EU, whereas we only claimed some £12 million to cover pensioners residing in the UK.

Put simply, ceptimus' health costs are a nonsense.

Edit: Linky.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/141216w0001.htm

Thanks for the link. I had no idea about how many retired UK citizens were living in foreign european countries. Almost 185000...quite a lot of people actually.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You first. What regulation or agreement were the EU referring to when they came up with their €60 billion figure?

The 60bn is an upper estimate based on a number of things but it is calculated based on a view of actual liabilities not pie in the sky speculation and making **** up.

The UK has made commitments to fund EU projects which continue beyond our leaving and will not be able to walk away from those

There are financial commitments made in terms of loan guarantees etc

Money spent on recent U.K. Projects may need to be returned if the terms stipulate that.

Now what have you got?

 

[Aber]

The 60bn is an upper estimate based on a number of things but it is calculated based on a view of actual liabilities not pie in the sky speculation and making **** up.

Do you have a source for how the number is calculated?

 

[ceptimus]

The 60bn is an upper estimate based on a number of things but it is calculated based on a view of actual liabilities not pie in the sky speculation and making **** up.

The UK has made commitments to fund EU projects which continue beyond our leaving and will not be able to walk away from those

There are financial commitments made in terms of loan guarantees etc

Money spent on recent U.K. Projects may need to be returned if the terms stipulate that.

Now what have you got?

You haven't cited any regulations or agreements yet.

 

[Aepervius]

Thanks for the link. I had no idea about how many retired UK citizens were living in foreign european countries. Almost 185000...quite a lot of people actually.

Now imagine the strain of those coming back to the UK on the NHS. The UK should pay us to keep them in .

 

[Castro]

Now imagine the strain of those coming back to the UK on the NHS. The UK should pay us to keep them in .

My bet is that there will be a deal for the continuation of the current agreement but the situation must be a little stressful for the people concerned.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You haven't cited any regulations or agreements yet.

I cited the agreements to fund projects. Stop being a clown and make your case.

 

[ceptimus]

I cited the agreements to fund projects. Stop being a clown and make your case.

No you didn't. By 'cite' I mean a link to the EU regulation or a link to a reputable website that explains that regulation. Your post contained zero links.

No need for the clown insult - especially when you're the one who's wrong.

 

[abaddon]

No you didn't. By 'cite' I mean a link to the EU regulation or a link to a reputable website that explains that regulation. Your post contained zero links.

No need for the clown insult - especially when you're the one who's wrong.

Red herring. It is not a matter of EU regulation.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No you didn't. By 'cite' I mean a link to the EU regulation or a link to a reputable website that explains that regulation. Your post contained zero links.

No need for the clown insult - especially when you're the one who's wrong.

I'm not going to make a list of individual projects so you can deny reality once again and make up imaginary tales about health care costs. Did you come up with that example of banana traders who have given up because of eu regs yet?

 

[ceptimus]

I didn't think you'd be able to cite the EU regulation. I don't think there is one.

Why you remain enthusiasts believe stuff that EU officials just make up I will never understand. It goes further than that when you believe that they must have agreements and regulations to back up their nonsense.

If they did have any such watertight regulations you can be certain that we'd all be hearing about them ad nauseam - instead you just get this vague, 'maybe €40 billion, maybe €60 billion' stuff.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I didn't think you'd be able to cite the EU regulation. I don't think there is one.

Why you remain enthusiasts believe stuff that EU officials just make up I will never understand. It goes further than that when you believe that they must have agreements and regulations to back up their nonsense.

If they did have any such watertight regulations you can be certain that we'd all be hearing about them ad nauseam - instead you just get this vague, 'maybe €40 billion, maybe €60 billion' stuff.

Banana traders. Still waiting. You forgot again

 

[ceptimus]

I did post the link to the EU banana regulations.

 

[abaddon]

I didn't think you'd be able to cite the EU regulation. I don't think there is one.

Why you remain enthusiasts believe stuff that EU officials just make up I will never understand. It goes further than that when you believe that they must have agreements and regulations to back up their nonsense.

If they did have any such watertight regulations you can be certain that we'd all be hearing about them ad nauseam - instead you just get this vague, 'maybe €40 billion, maybe €60 billion' stuff.

Still not a matter of regulation. It is a matter of commitments.

 

[ceptimus]

If we made a commitment to pay billions of euros, you can be certain that there are official documents to prove that. Show me the documents or I shall continue in my belief that there is no such commitment.

 

[Tolls]

Those documents are the EU budgets that stretch back to the 70s.
We have budgetary commitments as part of the EU. Those commitments don't just vanish when we leave. Even May knows this.

The arguments will come as to what exactly they are. Note that this is not one-sided. The EU has project commitments here that apply as well.

ETA: Though I expect you to ignore me, as you seem to be in the habit of.

 

[Darat]

I did post the link to the EU banana regulations.

Which no matter how you split it did not support what Boris had said. You can in the EU sell bananas in as single bananas.

 

[Lothian]

I doubt very much that there is explicit provision that a country triggering article 50 has to pay X euros.

I suspect the rationale from the EU is that; the UK, as members, committed to a number of long term initiatives that have on going year on year financial commitments. Those initiatives were agreed on the assumption that the UK would be contributing over the life of the projects.

Imagine you entered a horse racing syndicate where you bought a horse with a few other mates. If one of you pulls out half way through it means that the others have a higher bill until the horse dies.

You can understand that the remaining members will be annoyed that they have to cough up extra. Similarly you can see how the person leaving would object to continuing to pay. However, with the signed syndicate agreement giving no explicit instructions on leaving you would think that in a legal dispute the leaving member would have the strongest hand.

What would complicate things is if the leaving member was leaving because they were no longer in interested in horses but instead were keen to enter a dog racing syndicate with the exact same people he had just bailed on. You can imagine that the remaining horse racing syndicate would be very reluctant to enter into a new agreement with someone who had stitched them up previously.

In that scenario you would expect some kind of compensation to be paid by the leaving horse syndicate member before any new dog racing syndicate is formed.

I think that scenario is similar to the one the UK faces. If they want a good deal going forward from Europe they need to ease the pain of the remaining EU members who are left to fund projects the UK said they would fund.

As to how it will be agreed. Article 310 to 324 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union covers the budget of the EU. While in practice I suspect that the funding and rebates are agreed through friendly negotiation, ultimately the amounts to be paid appear to be voted on by the EU parliament. I dare say that once article 50 is triggered the EU parliament could simply vote to amend the UK rebate or contribution for the period until we leave. While the Uk MEPs could vote against I dare say that we are outnumbered.

As members of the EU we have a commitment to abide by the decisions of the EU Parliament.