Brexit: Now What? Part III

[MCel58]

The 60 billion figure was an early estimate floated by high EU officials. The EU has not floated any other figures.

The 100 billion figure is an estimate by the financial times based on their own work.

There is no basis for saying that EU demands have gone up or changed.

ETA: @Aepervius I could have quoted a number of posts to which to reply with this and picked yours basically at random.

However, the reality is the figure is changing as tranches of EU money get spent. A couple of simple example 10 universities in the U.K. get approved for Horizon 2020 funding at the next round who's deadline is 1st June, and will provide a minimum of 22.5 million until 2020. 3000 students get Erasmus funding that costs approx 1 million, farmers get money already agreed and contracted for until 2020 as do fisherman, the NI peace agreement funds already agreed and contracted, Nigel Farage et al pensions, ex UK commission staff redundancy payments and pensions etc. There is certainly a bill to be paid and it will continue to grow as each month passes.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No.

I'm not taking the summary of the current EU demands from the UK press but from the EU negotiating guidelines, and yes the EU positions look extreme. The problem is that the EU has to move a long way before they get to a position that the UK could accept. It doesn't matter to me who wins or loses the negotiations but whether both sides can get to a sensible compromise.

The EU position only makes sense if you frame the discussions as the UK having been part of a EU state, but now declaring independence. In that case then the EU focus on defending rights that EU citizens have had like residence rights in the UK, UK Pension rights, recognition of professional qualification etc makes more sense. However the UK (and international law) sees it as the UK leaving a supranational body, and it is very difficult to reconcile the 2 views.

Either that or the EU does not want an agreement at all to penalise the UK for leaving.

I don't see anything extreme in what you put forward there. It's merely protecting their citizens. Perhaps anathema for Brits to deal with an organisation that puts people before economic interests in some matters?

Put yourself in the shoes of a Spanish doctor living here with your family for twenty Years. Your residency shouldn't be taken away. Nor should your pension. Nor should your ability to work.

 

[McHrozni]

No.

I'm not taking the summary of the current EU demands from the UK press but from the EU negotiating guidelines, and yes the EU positions look extreme. The problem is that the EU has to move a long way before they get to a position that the UK could accept. It doesn't matter to me who wins or loses the negotiations but whether both sides can get to a sensible compromise.

Extreme? UK demands to be given the same key benefits as if it were a member of the EU without any obligations. EU demands that UK pays what it agreed to pay as a member of the EU.

One of those two positions sure is extreme, but it isn't the position of the EU, I'll tell you that.

The EU position only makes sense if you frame the discussions as the UK having been part of a EU state, but now declaring independence. In that case then the EU focus on defending rights that EU citizens have had like residence rights in the UK, UK Pension rights, recognition of professional qualification etc makes more sense. However the UK (and international law) sees it as the UK leaving a supranational body, and it is very difficult to reconcile the 2 views.

Either that or the EU does not want an agreement at all to penalise the UK for leaving.

EU knows that UK needs a deal or else faces a desperate economic scenario. Stagnation could be achieved with superb stewardship, but the only thing that will grow will be the national debt. There is little indication UK has the talent needed to pull it off and likely faces a nasty and prolonged recession.

In light of that there is no reason for EU to compromise or adjust to the needs of UK. It's a coin flip, really: heads and EU wins, tails and UK loses.

McHrozni

 

[Aber]

Extreme? UK demands to be given the same key benefits as if it were a member of the EU without any obligations.

Please provide some evidence.

EU knows that UK needs a deal or else faces a desperate economic scenario

The estimates bandied about during the referendum were not desperate, just not as good as they would have been. IIRC c5% lower GDP by 2030 than it would have been otherwise. And 100bn for a deal is not negligible.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Please provide some evidence.



The estimates bandied about during the referendum were not desperate, just not as good as they would have been. IIRC c5% lower GDP by 2030 than it would have been otherwise. And 100bn for a deal is not negligible.

By your own figures it is one years loss of GDP from not paying it. That's negligible in the big scheme of things

 

[Aber]

Put yourself in the shoes of a Spanish doctor living here with your family for twenty Years. Your residency shouldn't be taken away. Nor should your pension. Nor should your ability to work.

Generally accepted rule is that you can gain residency rights after 5 years, and the UK has not even hinted that would change.

The current EU position is that if he worked here 20 years ago, and has never been here since, he would have full current EU citizen rights in the UK for life. And the ECJ would decide exactly what rights they were.

 

[McHrozni]

Please provide some evidence.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...rtnership-with-the-european-union-white-paper

The estimates bandied about during the referendum were not desperate, just not as good as they would have been. IIRC c5% lower GDP by 2030 than it would have been otherwise. And 100bn for a deal is not negligible.

The 5% lower GDP assumes a solid deal with the EU. Without one all bets are off. Like in Russia expect agriculture to recover somewhat, but everything else will suffer. It looks like the new British government will be composed of clowns and assorted circus animals exclusively. You can be sure EU will be better able to protect its' interests than the British government will - especially since the latter has no idea where its' interests even are.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The current EU position is that if he worked here 20 years ago, and has never been here since, he would have full current EU citizen rights in the UK for life. And the ECJ would decide exactly what rights they were.

How many cases like that are there?

McHrozni

 

[Aber]

By your own figures it is one years loss of GDP from not paying it. That's negligible in the big scheme of things

If that's negligible then so is the economic loss from not paying it.

Politically the bill is not negligible. It's roughly equivalent to 6 years worth of the UK's membership contribution to the EU.

Would that be worth paying to get a full free trade agreement. Possibly.

Would it be politically possible to agree to pay it without knowing the trade deal on offer. Unlikely.

 

[Aber]

How many cases like that are there?

McHrozni

No idea. And probably nobody else does either.

And the ECJ is the judge of how long they will have had to be in the UK to acquire the rights. Potentially the extreme case is that any EU citizen who has ever visited the UK would get those rights.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Generally accepted rule is that you can gain residency rights after 5 years, and the UK has not even hinted that would change.

The current EU position is that if he worked here 20 years ago, and has never been here since, he would have full current EU citizen rights in the UK for life. And the ECJ would decide exactly what rights they were.

If the uk hasn't hinted it would change then they can agree to it then. Of course permanent residence can be lost or denied or taken away so it's a poor substitute for current rights

Can you provide a link to what you mean in the second paragraph?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If that's negligible then so is the economic loss from not paying it.

Politically the bill is not negligible. It's roughly equivalent to 6 years worth of the UK's membership contribution to the EU.

Would that be worth paying to get a full free trade agreement. Possibly.

Would it be politically possible to agree to pay it without knowing the trade deal on offer. Unlikely.

Negligible in the big scheme meaning compared to the cost of not doing it. 6 years worth of contributions? At 350m a week?

What do you think the right number of incidentally? 50? 30? 0?

 

[Aber]

The 5% lower GDP assumes a solid deal with the EU. Without one all bets are off.

Treasury estimates were after 15 years:

EEA deal -3.8%
Canada deal -6.2%
WTO -7.5%

Even the worst case is not catastrophic.

 

[Aber]

If the uk hasn't hinted it would change then they can agree to it then. Of course permanent residence can be lost or denied or taken away so it's a poor substitute for current rights

Can you provide a link to what you mean in the second paragraph?

Extract from EU negotiating guidelines:

Citizens' rights

20. The Agreement should safeguard the status and rights derived from Union law at the withdrawal date, including those the enjoyment of which will intervene at a later date (e.g. rights related to old age pensions) both for EU27 citizens residing (or having resided) and/or working (or having worked) in the United Kingdom and for United Kingdom citizens residing (or having resided) and/or working (or having worked) in one of the Member States of the EU27. Guarantees to that effect in the Agreement should be reciprocal and should be based on the principle of equal treatment amongst EU27 citizens and equal treatment of EU27 citizens as compared to United Kingdom citizens, as set out in the relevant Union acquis. Those rights should be protected as directly enforceable vested rights for the life time of those concerned.

21. The Agreement should cover at least the following elements:
(a) Definition of the persons to be covered: the personal scope should be the same as that of Directive 2004/38 (both economically active, i.e. workers and selfemployed, and inactive persons, who have resided in the UK or EU27 before the withdrawal date, and their family members who accompany or join them at any point in time before or after the withdrawal date). In addition, the personal scope should include persons covered by Regulation 883/2004 (e.g. frontier workers).
(b) Definition of the rights to be protected: this definition should include at least the following rights: (i) the residence rights derived from Articles 21, 45 and 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and set out in Directive 2004/38 (same material scope, covering inter alia the right of permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence) and the rules relating to those rights; any document to be issued in relation to the residence rights (for example, registration certificates, residence cards or certifying documents) should have a declaratory nature and be issued under a simple and swift procedure either free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents; (ii) the rights and obligations set out in Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and in Regulation 987/2009 implementing Regulation 883/2004 (including future amendments of both Regulations) covering inter alia, rights to aggregation, export of benefits, and principle of single applicable law; (iii) the rights set out in Regulation 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (e.g. access to the labour market, to pursue an activity, social and tax advantages, training, housing, collective rights); (iv) the right to take up and pursue self-employment derived from Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Bolding is mine.

Feel free to develop examples of how far these rights would extend.

 

[McHrozni]

Extract from EU negotiating guidelines:

Bolding is mine.

Feel free to develop examples of how far these rights would extend.

Let's start with some bolding of what you ignored:

20. The Agreement should safeguard the status and rights derived from Union law at the withdrawal date, including those the enjoyment of which will intervene at a later date (e.g. rights related to old age pensions) both for EU27 citizens residing (or having resided) and/or working (or having worked) in the United Kingdom and for United Kingdom citizens residing (or having resided) and/or working (or having worked) in one of the Member States of the EU27. Guarantees to that effect in the Agreement should be reciprocal and should be based on the principle of equal treatment amongst EU27 citizens and equal treatment of EU27 citizens as compared to United Kingdom citizens, as set out in the relevant Union acquis. Those rights should be protected as directly enforceable vested rights for the life time of those concerned.

In other words, your concerns are blown way out of proportions to the point of ridicule.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Treasury estimates were after 15 years:

EEA deal -3.8%
Canada deal -6.2%
WTO -7.5%

Even the worst case is not catastrophic.

The worst case scenario assumes brilliant economic leadership and no countermeasures by the EU. Good luck with either.

In the meantime it is telling that UK can't do better economically outside of EU than inside. I wonder if telling that to the electorate before the referendum could alter the results.

McHrozni

 

[Aber]

Negligible in the big scheme meaning compared to the cost of not doing it. 6 years worth of contributions? At 350m a week?

What do you think the right number of incidentally? 50? 30? 0?

Last year's UK budget deficit was £52bn, so the EU bill is non negligible as it will come out of government spending (and in an upfront payment).

I don't think there is a right number, just one up for negotiation.

Politically in the UK I don't think Theresa May can go beyond 20-30bn without a noticeable backbench revolt calling it a bad deal, and arguing the UK should walk away. However there is scope for spinning the presentation and hiding some bits eg in the foreign aid budget.

On the EU side the problem is the hole in the EU budget which will either result in some countries paying more, or others getting less. I also can't see how the EU negotiators will be able to easily justify moving away from 60-100bn as the exit bill has been presented as hard liability.

 

[Aber]

In other words, your concerns are blown way out of proportions to the point of ridicule.

I'm not arguing that the EU is being hypocritical and denying rights to UK citizens, just they have a very wide definition of rights.

 

[McHrozni]

Last year's UK budget deficit was £52bn, so the EU bill is non negligible as it will come out of government spending (and in an upfront payment).

The amount is contained within the £350 million a week EU funding, not a one time lump sum payment. Paying that amount of money in a lump sum is difficult for any country.

Politically in the UK I don't think Theresa May can go beyond 20-30bn without a noticeable backbench revolt calling it a bad deal, and arguing the UK should walk away. However there is scope for spinning the presentation and hiding some bits eg in the foreign aid budget.

The problem with backbench retards, coupled with the snap election, is that these people can't tell a good deal from a bad one and are unwilling to consider the consequences of a bad deal. By the estimates you posted no deal is about 4% of GDP worse than an EEA deal. 4% of GDP over 15 years is about 50 billion pounds a year lost from government coffers, plus an equal amount out of private pockets. This is a yearly loss, not a one time lump sum.

On the EU side the problem is the hole in the EU budget which will either result in some countries paying more, or others getting less. I also can't see how the EU negotiators will be able to easily justify moving away from 60-100bn as the exit bill has been presented as hard liability.

EU is quite flexible in this regard. They can present it as a take it or leave it deal, take as much as possible and claim it was either this or nothing. It won't win them any prizes, but since it's UK doing the Brexiting, EU can't be held responsible for some things going less than optimal.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not arguing that the EU is being hypocritical and denying rights to UK citizens, just they have a very wide definition of rights.

Another assessment would be that the British definition of rights is rather narrow.

McHrozni