Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The Beeb did a good piece on the £39bn about a month ago. It can, probably, still be found on their news website. The majority of the £39bn is budget commitments during the implementation period, if May's deal had been accepted.

As a decision to go for a No Deal would not include an implementation period, that portion of the bill wouldn't need to be paid.

Beyond that, the EU has consistently said it will not start any trade negotiations until the issue of financial commitments, UK citizens rights in the EU and the Irish border is decided.

I agree. Though a fair amount was linked to projects already funded, and committed to, that run beyond the implementation period. In any case wasn't Johnson still talking about some form of transition period after leaving to sort things out?

And whatever we might think about leaving with No Deal - almost immediately we leave we have to start negotiating a Deal with the EU And they may not be in the best frame of mind if we withhold much or all of the £39Bn (I believe that it's now a good few billion less than that now as we have burned up time to the end of the current MFF due to end in 2020 and upon which some of the £39bn was calculated).

Further if we renege on some or all of what we signed up to pay - then the international Credit Reference agencies could well downgrade our rating. And one reason why that matters is that with a poorer credit worthiness rating we do not get the best rates of interest on the money we wish to borrow from markets - or indeed it impacts our ability to borrow that money - because we might renege on the repayment (just like you or I missing a loan payment impacts our Credit Scoring). And if we believe what Johnson has told us - then we will have to borrow money.

Being downgraded can have a big impact on a country’s ability to borrow money on the markets. Investors see it as a riskier bet and demand higher returns to lend to governments.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/what-is-a-credit-rating-downgrade/

 

[Hobbit]

I agree. Though a fair amount was linked to projects already funded, and committed to, that run beyond the implementation period. In any case wasn't Johnson still talking about some form of transition period after leaving to sort things out?

And whatever we might think about leaving with No Deal - almost immediately we leave we have to start negotiating a Deal with the EU And they may not be in the best frame of mind if we withhold much or all of the £39Bn (I believe that it's now a good few billion less than that now as we have burned up time to the end of the current MFF due to end in 2020 and upon which some of the £39bn was calculated).

Further if we renege on some or all of what we signed up to pay - then the international Credit Reference agencies could well downgrade our rating. And one reason why that matters is that with a poorer credit worthiness rating we do not get the best rates of interest on the money we wish to borrow from markets - or indeed it impacts our ability to borrow that money - because we might renege on the repayment (just like you or I missing a loan payment impacts our Credit Scoring). And if we believe what Johnson has told us - then we will have to borrow money.

Being downgraded can have a big impact on a country’s ability to borrow money on the markets. Investors see it as a riskier bet and demand higher returns to lend to governments.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/what-is-a-credit-rating-downgrade/

Its a moot point, the payments due on projects started(£19bn). It could be argued that the UK won't benefit from those projects. Its already been recognised by the EU, who have said they will pay the UK for its share of completed projects and those already started. Whether that equates to the money already paid on a particular project, who knows. Probably a case by case thing but in terms of monies paid 'v' monies returned, I don't expect there to be a big number either way - both sides will want it to be close to zero. The EU won't want to pay money out as it sees a 14% reduction, the UK budget contribution, in its budget.

The Law Lords ruling is very clear. There was no wording in the EU Articles that imposes ongoing costs on a country that leaves. That said, they qualified their ruling by adding that they would expect to see the EU take up a case in The Hague for arbitration.

As for the credit rating; no law, including EU law would have been broken. No financial commitment would have been reneged on. I'd argue that the EU has really screwed up the binding commitments part of Article 50, i.e. there isn't a commitment. Equally, I'd expect The Hague to rule in favour of the EU, as common sense surely dictates that if you are a signatory for a project you are liable for the costs. Dropping out of a project could be seen as a breach of contract.

As for banks not wanting to loan money to the UK - hahahaha. There's a whole lot of countries with far, far worse financial positions than the UK. And, of course, the UK will not have reneged on a bank loan. "Will have to borrow money..." It already does.

Found the Beeb article. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48586677

 

[drdel]

The EU has stuck resolutely to their 4Fs constraints in their negotiations - constraints that of course we knew all about in advance of the vote and commencing negotiations - constraints that we knew were inconsistent with May's Red Lines as soon as she set them out. But in the face of that intransigence, the UK does not have to capitulate - we can just leave; but we 'just leave' with consequences, and these consequences will be of our doing because it would be UK alone which would chose to 'just leave'.

If the EU had an 'on balance' self-interest in making it easy or beneficial for the UK to leave, then I would have thought that they would have enabled that - but clearly, at the moment, the EU considers that their balance of interests calculation is to not facilitate such an exit - that may well change in the coming months under a BJ 'belief' leadership. The EU wants us to remain - and will do what they can within their constraints to make that happen as it is in the EU27's interest for that to happen - but not when the overall balance of consequences is not in the EU's self-interest.

You're mixing up the benefits/disbenefits of/to member states and the EU/Brussels

 

[drdel]

I agree. Though a fair amount was linked to projects already funded, and committed to, that run beyond the implementation period. In any case wasn't Johnson still talking about some form of transition period after leaving to sort things out?

And whatever we might think about leaving with No Deal - almost immediately we leave we have to start negotiating a Deal with the EU And they may not be in the best frame of mind if we withhold much or all of the £39Bn (I believe that it's now a good few billion less than that now as we have burned up time to the end of the current MFF due to end in 2020 and upon which some of the £39bn was calculated).

Further if we renege on some or all of what we signed up to pay - then the international Credit Reference agencies could well downgrade our rating. And one reason why that matters is that with a poorer credit worthiness rating we do not get the best rates of interest on the money we wish to borrow from markets - or indeed it impacts our ability to borrow that money - because we might renege on the repayment (just like you or I missing a loan payment impacts our Credit Scoring). And if we believe what Johnson has told us - then we will have to borrow money.

Being downgraded can have a big impact on a country’s ability to borrow money on the markets. Investors see it as a riskier bet and demand higher returns to lend to governments.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/what-is-a-credit-rating-downgrade/

Imaginary doom and gloom. The international finance world is much more rational and will recognise the unique situation of Brexit so next to no impact or cross fertilisation.

 

[Hobbit]

Representatives from France, Holland, Germany, Belgium and Ireland have (independently) met with Boris Johnson's team to discuss Brexit and the withdrawal agreement. So much for a unified negotiating position from the commission.

To quote Steve Coveney, the Deputy Prime Minister for Ireland, "If the approach of the new British Prime Minister is that they’re going to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement, then I think we’re in trouble. We’re all in trouble, quite frankly, because it’s a little bit like saying: ‘Either give me what I want or I’m going to burn the house down for everybody’.”

He added: “The EU has made it very clear that we want to engage with a new British prime minister, we want to avoid a no-deal Brexit.”

Sounds like BoJo can tell them the ball is in their court. They've seen and heard what the UK would like to see happen. Maybe its time they actually listened and bent a little.

 

[Mudball]

Great to see how the EU is (not) reacting to oil tanker crises... This is even before we leave.

I say we leave immediately and start negotiate with Iran and get the tankers released

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Representatives from France, Holland, Germany, Belgium and Ireland have (independently) met with Boris Johnson's team to discuss Brexit and the withdrawal agreement. So much for a unified negotiating position from the commission.

To quote Steve Coveney, the Deputy Prime Minister for Ireland, "If the approach of the new British Prime Minister is that they’re going to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement, then I think we’re in trouble. We’re all in trouble, quite frankly, because it’s a little bit like saying: ‘Either give me what I want or I’m going to burn the house down for everybody’.”

He added: “The EU has made it very clear that we want to engage with a new British prime minister, we want to avoid a no-deal Brexit.”

Sounds like BoJo can tell them the ball is in their court. They've seen and heard what the UK would like to see happen. Maybe its time they actually listened and bent a little.

Coveney said that the EU has compromised to try and accommodate the UK's Red Lines - but that they will not simply do what the UK wants if that is just to satisfy UK internal political pressures. And he was very clear that if the UK leaves without a deal that is the UK choice - and not the choice of the EU. Just what he said.

 

[Hobbit]

Coveney said that the EU has compromised to try and accommodate the UK's Red Lines - but that they will not simply do what the UK wants if that is just to satisfy UK internal political pressures. And he was very clear that if the UK leaves without a deal that is the UK choice - and not the choice of the EU. Just what he said.

He may well have said that but you will note from my post I quoted him. I read the Sunday Times piece, and the piece on the Beeb’s website, and the piece in the Express. I didn’t see any mention of an EU compromise on the U.K. red lines.

We now very clearly know the EU fears a No Deal. Good! Hopefully they will now compromise.

However, I would like to see the piece in which he’s said that as that is not the language he’s used previously.

 

[Wolf]

Great to see how the EU is (not) reacting to oil tanker crises... This is even before we leave.

I say we leave immediately and start negotiate with Iran and get the tankers released

Tbh I think that's worthy of its own thread as that's a whole different debate to brexit

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You cannot rapid respond naval vessels from Europe to the Gulf, you need a permanent force in place to have a chance of making any impact.

I imagine the next step will be to convoy tankers under the protection warships, I think this has been done before. Its rather ironic the UK has found its self in the current position through implementing current EU trade embargoes on Iran, will we see other EU countries rushing out miltary support to the gulf. I think we know what countries will be left to deal with the consequences.

And meanwhile across the Pond our bestest friend's SoS (Pompeo) tells the UK that looking after our interests in the Gulf region is up to us and nothing to do with the US. Gee thanks buddy. Guessing that's what America First is all about. If we don't agree with the US on any matter (such as the Iran nuclear deal) then we can't expect any support or sympathy - well I suppose that's what friends are for then...The US will be our buddy if we align with them or do their bidding. Is that what taking back control was all about?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

He may well have said that but you will note from my post I quoted him. I read the Sunday Times piece, and the piece on the Beeb’s website, and the piece in the Express. I didn’t see any mention of an EU compromise on the U.K. red lines.

We now very clearly know the EU fears a No Deal. Good! Hopefully they will now compromise.

However, I would like to see the piece in which he’s said that as that is not the language he’s used previously.

Thing is - when Coveney talked of there having been compromise by both parties when coming to the agreement signed by May I don't know what compromises by the EU he was talking about. I might well ask him where the EU has compromised - I would dearly like to know.

And I have not heard our government tell us about where the EU compromising has been - and perhaps why would they. It suits UK politics for the UK government to paint a picture in which the EU has forced the UK - in our negotiating weakness - to compromise - with total intransigence by the EU - and that might play well with those Conservatives of a Brexit Party leaning.

 

[Hobbit]

Thing is - when Coveney talked of there having been compromise by both parties when coming to the agreement signed by May I don't know what compromises by the EU he was talking about. I might well ask him where the EU has compromised - I would dearly like to know.

And I have not heard our government tell us about where the EU compromising has been - and perhaps why would they. It suits UK politics for the UK government to paint a picture in which the EU has forced the UK - in our negotiating weakness - to compromise - with total intransigence by the EU - and that might play well with those Conservatives of a Brexit Party leaning.

Isn't May's deal yesterday's news, today's chip papers? I quoted Coveney's most recent comments, and you quoted....???

 

[drdel]

And meanwhile across the Pond our bestest friend's SoS (Pompeo) tells the UK that looking after our interests in the Gulf region is up to us and nothing to do with the US. Gee thanks buddy. Guessing that's what America First is all about. If we don't agree with the US on any matter (such as the Iran nuclear deal) then we can't expect any support or sympathy - well I suppose that's what friends are for then...The US will be our buddy if we align with them or do their bidding. Is that what taking back control was all about?

I think you need to read below the hyped headline. Cruncing the complete speech I'd say the SoS was really saying something along the lines "...in the first instance..." which as a sovereign state is what the UK should expect. Had he waded in you would have said UK is being ordered about by USA.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Isn't May's deal yesterday's news, today's chip papers? I quoted Coveney's most recent comments, and you quoted....???

I was quoting comments he made on Andrew Marr on Sunday...?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think you need to read below the hyped headline. Cruncing the complete speech I'd say the SoS was really saying something along the lines "...in the first instance..." which as a sovereign state is what the UK should expect. Had he waded in you would have said UK is being ordered about by USA.

My understanding is that we may not have asked in any case...not wanting to be seen to be too close to the US foreign policy (whatever that is today) and that is maybe not a bad thing and something I might agree with. But it does mean that we and our assets are rather exposed.

 

[spongebob59]

Meanwhile on planet LibDumb :

Speaking to BBC News this afternoon, newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson (or should that be Joanna Swanson?) revealed she would only accept the result of a second referendum if Remain won. If Leave won she would continue to work to block the result in Parliament.

“Would you vote for [the result if Leave won] in Parliament?”
“No.”​

 

[Hobbit]

I was quoting comments he made on Andrew Marr on Sunday...?

Funnily enough, the bit I quoted from the papers/BBC is the very thing Coveney said in the beginning of his interview on the Marr show.

 

[spongebob59]

Meanwhile on planet LibDumb :

Speaking to BBC News this afternoon, newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson (or should that be Joanna Swanson?) revealed she would only accept the result of a second referendum if Remain won. If Leave won she would continue to work to block the result in Parliament.

“Would you vote for [the result if Leave won] in Parliament?”​

“No.”​

Here's another (1) vote for democracy :

Caroline Lucas today joins Jo Swinson in saying she would not accept the result of a Second Referendum. The Green MP confirmed that she would vote down any Brexit deal in Parliament.

“If there were to be a referendum and Leave were to win it again, either more decisively or not, in the Commons would you then back a Brexit deal to leave?”
“Um, no I probably wouldn’t.”​

 

[drdel]

Meanwhile on planet LibDumb :

Speaking to BBC News this afternoon, newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson (or should that be Joanna Swanson?) revealed she would only accept the result of a second referendum if Remain won. If Leave won she would continue to work to block the result in Parliament.

“Would you vote for [the result if Leave won] in Parliament?”​

“No.”​

They share Juncker's/EU's version of democratic decision-making

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Funnily enough, the bit I quoted from the papers/BBC is the very thing Coveney said in the beginning of his interview on the Marr show.

I paraphrased from actually watching the interview...in fact Coveney stated clearly that if UK leaves with No Deal then that was not the EU's choice; it was not Ireland's choice - it was the UK's choice.