Thursday, 30 November 2017

Brexit payments; my head says yes, my heart says no.

I suspect that I am not the only EUphobic who is conflicted by the scale of the Brexit settlement. On the one hand, common sense suggests that the scale of the sum mooted is within reason, probably just half the eventual cost of the white elephant HS2, that it is worth it just to get out of their clutches, and that once we're out we can cull and purge and flush every trace of their odious Federasty from our realm. If we pay it at £10bn a year or less, it gives us the option of discontinuing payment at any time they attempt to extend their imperial grasp across the channel. Making sure we get full credit for every single thing the British past contributions have helped buy - including the contents of Herr Juncker's wine cellar - and transparent reckoning for our future shares in EIB costs (and profits) - will reduce the headline figure substantially.

On the other hand, every sinew is willing Britain to tell them to go whistle, get stuffed and pull the bones out of a wet fart. And that's because during the negotiating process the EU has revealed itself for what it really is - a bullying, vindictive, incapable cabal of crooks, fools and psychopaths using the crudest manipulation, disinformation and distortion to try to bludgeon Britain into submissive compliance. A thousand years of history revolts at being told what to do by 'lesser breeds without the Law', cavils at their impertinence. Never mind that we can take our revenge cold. That we can outgrow them, outperform them, attract international business, maintain London's financial supremacy, offer lower taxes and better returns than any one of their second and third rate economies. 

However, whether heart or head rules, one thing is certain. The EU's actions have fomented nothing but emotions from hatred to distaste amongst the British people for their Federast heart. Their greed, their stupidity, their bigoted zealotry has earned them an enemy when they could so easily have made a friend of us.    

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Either way it is not worth it Raedwald.

In the first scenario we pay this inordinate sum of money in order for us to be permitted to talk trade with the premier failing trading bloc.

Or perhaps we pay this money for another reason, so that we can have all of those benefits without being members.

The final boot in the collective British knacker, will be, the morphing of the "Great Brexit Bill" into the "Great New Way of Complying Bill".

That's the only way that may can achieve staying in and leaving simultaneously.

All I can say, is there must be some massive prize for this treacherous tory party at the end of this sorry saga.

Anonymous said...

Apols anon at 737 is right-writes.

DeeDee99 said...

Same here Raedwald.

I'm disgusted that the British PM would cave in so easily to the bullying from the Berlaymont and the pressure from Big Business, which has done so much to alienate the British people with its greed.

BUT- if this is the price we are going to have to pay to get the pro-EU Establishment to deliver w hat we voted for, then so be it. But they WILL pay a price for it - contempt for our governing class has never been lower and I doubt it will escape unscathed. The Lords will suffer a clear-out and I expect some of the Quislings in the Commons will find themselves out of Parliament at the first opportunity.

The actual figure isn't just an expose of the EU's true character. It demonstrates very clearly just how much the likes of Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron betrayed us. They (particularly Blair and Brown) signed us up to make massive contributions to the EU every single year, ad infinitum.

The bill is THEIR fault, as much as it is May's. And in that context, it doesn't look so bad.

I'm sure the EU will suffer repercussions. I'm boycotting as many EU products as I can; I won't be holidaying in EU-land any time soon. And if the comment pages on various publications is right, so are many fellow Brits.

rapscallion said...

At the risk of being labelled a pedant, I am not an EUphobe. This is because a phobia denotes an irrational fear of something, and thus I don't have a irrational fear of the EU - I just effing hate it.

Personally I wouldn't have paid them a single penny of what is actually our bloody money. I always knew the EU was and is corrupt, venal, brutish, vindictive and fascist, and the fact that they display these vile characteristics on a daily basis only serves to vindicate my voting to leave and perhaps makes other, more gullible souls actually realise what I understood for a very long time.

The EU can take a running jump for all I care, I want every root, branch and trace of their presence in these Isles to be utterly eradicated.

I can't better your last sentence Radders - absolutely bang on.

patently said...

No, Mr R, you're not the only one.

I'd rather the sum was expressed in units of time rather than money - how many months of "normal" EU contributions is it equivalent to? I understand that it's around 2-and-a-bit years. That's probably worth it, with my rational head on. It's 25 years since I realised we were better off out, what's another 2 if the main prize has been won?

But yes, in these negotiations the EU has revealed itself for what it is - a self-serving burocracy more interested in maintaining its own budget than in gaining a valuable trade deal for its members.

John Brown said...

Either the EU's Brexit bill is falsely inflated or else it is giving us the true cost of EU membership. If the former, then it explains why the EU does not want to publish a bill and if the latter it explains why the UK government does not want an itemised bill to be published.

Furthermore, if it is the latter, as the EU supporters believe (the EU can do no wrong in their eyes), then it makes sense to leave the EU as soon as we can before the EU and our governments commit to even more spending, such as is likely to be spent when the EU continues to expand to include Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldovia, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine.

Plus, if Mr. Cameron had his way all the "stan" countries as far as the Urals (Atlantic to Urals speech July 2013 in Kazakhstan)

Plus spending on EU military and the EU's forthcoming Africa programs.

Etc. etc.

Whatever the bill is it will certainly be cheaper than remaining in a spendthrift EU as a major contributor and with QMV unable to exert any control.

An additional £32bn (£50bn-£18bn) spread over a number of years is well worth it but only if it ensures we are leaving the EU completely. As you say, it pales into insignificance compared to complying with the EU directive to build HS2.

More worrying is the rumour that the EU will be wanting to trade access to our fishing grounds to EU landing rights and I think that if the government gives away for a second time our fishing grounds this will be even more unpopular than the size of almost any Brexit bill.

I even think that WTO terms are preferable to the existing “free” trade deal where we pay at least £10bn/year net and have a trading deficit of £100bm/year.

Nigel Sedgwick said...

What do we get for our money?

Do we get totally (and immediately from late March 2019) free of any jurisdiction of the ECJ and of every other EU legal or quasi-legal body?

Do we get (mutual) tariff-free trade in all goods and services, also immediately from late March 2019?

Do we get total control of all immigration of residual-EU citizens, also immediately from late March 2019, with the (mutual) exception of some fair-minded transition period (on specific points and not exceeding 3 years) for movements already committed to or otherwise entirely reasonable (eg very close family - being spouse and children of blood)?

Do we, immediately from late March 2019, get back our loans to the Euro central bank? If not, why not? And when will we?

Do we, immediately from late March 2019, get back total control of fishing and other aspects of our economic (notionally 200-mile) territorial waters.

Does the money (notionally or actually paid) paid include all ongoing regional and other subsidies (including those currently paid under the Common Agricultural Policy) that the UK will reasonably need to continue paying to its own farmers/regions/etc on a reducing basis during a specified transition period?

And how can this so-called agreement be in any way reasonable until all that we get or do not get (above WTO and other alternatively applicable agreements) is finally specified - which does not look to be happening anywhere near fast enough.

Best regards

Poisonedchalice said...

The British always pay their way, unlike a lot of European countries who have repeatedly reneged on sovereign debt over the last 100 hundred years. Spain and Portugal being the worst offenders. So if we owe it, then we owe it. What we need to make sure of is that we get back everything we are owed and get the trade deal promised by the payment of such monies. If it takes 40 years to pay €40Bn, then that is not so bad after all.

jack ketch said...

"That we can outgrow them, outperform them, attract international business, maintain London's financial supremacy, offer lower taxes and better returns than any one of their second and third rate economies."

and there will be ginger pop and cake for all. More tea , Alice?

In a week when the Government has shown it's true colours, staggering contempt for the HoC; handing the EU the negotiations on a plate, and Boris has openly tried to blackmail the EU, people are getting worked up over 'fluff'? I say 'fluff' because from the Get-Go it's been clear that the yUK will end up paying around 100Bn euros in alimony over the next few years and maybe more.

I had been hoping my libertarian blogging heroes would be tearing the yUk.gove 58 new ones by now- no matter how frothy their brexshitting beliefs..i bought in pop corn especially.

Raedwald said...

Jack -

You're very welcome to learn and practice your English idiomatic speech here, but try not to mix the vernacular. You're mixing English idioms here with at least two varieties of North American vernacular. It's not convincing.

If you want to be an effective online agent provocateur you need to hone down on an online identity that's immediately convincing. Live your character. Perhaps re-think your choice of an English nick?

Best

Radders

Peter MacFarlane said...

I wouldn't be surprised if in the end we get absolutely nothing for our £58Bn or whatever, and end up still in their clutches as well. After all, Blair surrendered quite a lot of what Mrs. Thatcher had wrung out of them, in return for something (a reform of the CAP iirc) which was never delivered, and was indeed never intended to be delivered.

Meanwhile my contempt for Theresa May passes all bounds. If we don't really properly get out, after all this, I'll probably never vote ever again, for any of these bastards. After all, what would be the point?

Sobers said...

Pay them. It'll be the cheapest bill we ever had. Look at the alternative - forever paying in to the EU, an increasing amount as well no doubt, as some traitor like Blair would undoubtedly let our rebate go at some point too.

We could even print the money to pay them. Really - whats the problem with States printing money? That it causes inflation when spent in the economy. But the EU-geld isn't going to be spent in the UK, its going to be spent abroad. OK, translating it into euro could affect the exchange rate a bit, but I doubt that much would affect an exchange rate market that turns over hundreds of billions a day. Thats it. Get the BoE to print the money, Bacs it over, here you go Fritz, sayonara!

English Pensioner said...

I still believe that it is the UK who should be demanding money from the EU for a trade deal. They have far more to lose than us if there isn’t one. It’s crazy paying the EU for something that they desperately want and which we can manage without.

Whilst those in Brussels are prepared to “punish” Britain, politicians in the various EU countries are steadily beginning to realise what it will actually mean to their countries if Brussels succeeds. Possible loss of not only the UK markets when we can buy from elsewhere, as well as the loss of tourists who might feel unwanted and go further afield at little extra cost.

We should increase our preparations for the ‘no deal’ situation making them public knowledge. This would make the EU realise we are serious.

Incidentally, I would agree with 'rapscallion', I am not a Europhobe, neither am I an Islamophobe. I have perfectly rational reasons for hating both of them.

Anonymous said...

It makes it all easier if you think of the money as what we would have paid nett if we stayed in, so it isn't a 'bill'. What's more, we derived llittle or no benefit from being in, and we'll be better off out, so no matter how long we pay, on balance we are better off.

STill better to say we're paying nowt, though.

Anonymous said...

English Pensioner said @ 13:52

'I still believe that it is the UK who should be demanding money from the EU for a trade deal.'

Because it works both ways:

I've tried to steer clear of the Brexit debacle as much as possible, largely because I don't want to bore you (or myself) but also because the (non) negotiations are too depressing for words. Anyway, my views are well known. We voted to leave, so just walk away Mrs May and spare us the ritual humiliation and the gloating of the Remoaners.

Instead, we're told that the Prime Minister wants to double the amount we must pay to the EU as a divorce bill to £40 billion - which we haven't got.

This is the only way we'll get 'access' to the single market, it's alleged. No, it isn't. I wouldn't give them a penny.

But here's the question nobody seems to be asking: if we have to pay to trade with the EU, how much are we demanding from them for access to the British market? And if not why not? Especially as they sell £80 billion more to us in goods and services a year than we sell to them.

We shouldn't squabbling about the size of the cheque we write, we should be sending them a large bill.
- Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail, 20 November 2017.

Steve

Dave_G said...


How about we actually use the money designated for HS2 (and cancelling it) to pay off the EU?

Win, win?

It shouldn't take too much convincing.

Cascadian said...

How strange that people believe a negotiation is underway, when what is clearly happening are a series of appeasing agreements to everything the EU said it needed at the very outset.

You will accept the ECJ, inshore fishing will continue, you will accept any number of immigrants from where-ever, and on top of that you will pay an onerous fee forever more (not just the 40/50/60/x00 billion presently mooted). Why? because you have no negotiators, no leadership and increasingly no support from the public, your govt are a shambles.

We knew the camoron had no plan when the referendum vote came in, there is still obviously no plan beyond appeasement at every turn. As to the great thrusting yUK economy of real estate churn, banks nickel and diming every transaction and criminally colluding on LIBOR and FX, the govt including hookers earnings and drug transactions in GDP to squeeze another percentage point, is it any wonder that the great unwashed can perceive no change in their wellbeing? In fact they are all getting poorer unless they can offload the house and downsize. Yet when Jack Ketch points that out Raedwald gets very annoyed.

Good luck with your negotiations (when you finally get around to starting them) but I fear you have already conceded everything worthwhile as a negotiating tactic.

Raedwald said...

Cascadian

You're a very experienced and capable agent provocateur and I welcome your contributions - they indicate at least the issues that most concern your principals. My comments to your apprentice are really made in amusement rather than annoyance - they are really very welcome to continue their hands-on learning here.

Cascadian said...

Raedwald, flattery will get you everywhere. Perhaps I may learn from your good manners.

You sir are a genial and indulgent host, unafraid of opposing views. That is rare in today's fevered political climate, so I thank you for the opportunity to comment here.

I do hope one day you will see fit to produce a provocative article about the current state of canaduh, then we might for a change be in perfect synchronicity.

Michael said...

I don't understand why we don't agree a sum, get out of the EU as prescribed, then tell them to piss off.

A small back-street lawyer and a few pints should do the trick. He can tell the EU to sue UK Inc in a short letter, rather on the lines of Pressdram v Arkell.

Budgie said...

So, at this point, it looks like we will: pay a bribe upwards of £100bn (adding it all up); have a non-transition transition; be still subject to the CJEU (ie the EU) for years, if not ever; allow the EU to keep most of our fish; have the same access to the Single Market as we would if we walked away; allow EU misinformation free reign; and allow the EU to break up the UK by NI and Scotland remaining in the SM and CU.

Plainly this is not what Leaves want. Our view is that walking away from deals with the EU, and continuing to trade under WTO rules is the best outcome in the circumstances (however reluctantly in some cases).

But equally plainly that list of undesirable outcomes is exactly what continuity Remain wants.

So when we get the results that Remain want we will know exactly who to blame. No Remain excuses this time.

Anonymous said...

The EU are treating us appallingly for two reasons-firstly we are letting them.
Secondly-to let the other countries know what would happen if they had the cheek to break free from their evil tentacles. It can't be allowed to happen again and they know it. Brexit has shaken the EU to the core and the Eurocrats know that this could start a domino effect.
Jaded

Anonymous said...

The untold billions should be equally shared out among all UK voters, together with the bank deposit transfer details for the EU.
Then each voter can decide by his/her actions how much they value what the EU is offering in return. Of course the keen, and it seems relatively well-off Remainers can add even more to the pot.
This would not cost government/taxpayers ('cos guvments don't have any money) any more, Also any money not transferred to the EU would boost the UK economy because the voters would spend it locally.
Doonhamer.