Current Affairs EU In or Out

[dandydan]

All angry cyclists are remainers.
Discuss.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Your point being Bruce?

 

[Barnfred 55]

All angry cyclists are remainers.
Discuss.

Think that deserves it's own thread mate.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Your point being Bruce?

That the government bung falls far short of funds regions are going to lose when Britain leaves.

 

[Barnfred 55]

That the government bung falls far short of funds regions are going to lose when Britain leaves.

But surely the bung, and I fully agree with you that is what it is, is in addition to the Euro13B that we will still receive from the EU if we leave with a deal. It's commitments like this that the divorce settlement was to pay for.

 

[Jebus_lives]

But surely the bung, and I fully agree with you that is what it is, is in addition to the Euro13B that we will still receive from the EU if we leave with a deal. It's commitments like this that the divorce settlement was to pay for.

It's not in addition to. The EU aren't going to spend that money on a country that it's in their market. Why would they?

 

[Carl O'Ancelotti]

25 days to go and everyone is still in the dark as to what is happening; fishermen still don't know where they'll be able to fish, for example. Livelihoods are at stake and the politicians continue to dance around the circle they cannot square.

It would be an absolute joke if the consequences weren't so serious. Sort it out May, one way or the other.

 

[Barnfred 55]

It's not in addition to. The EU aren't going to spend that money on a country that it's in their market. Why would they?

Aren't they?. Then why is the divorce settlement so high?. The vast majority of it is the UK's share of commitments to investment that the EU has already made. If we still have to pay our full share surely we would still be entitled to any planned investment in the UK.

 

[larrygobfiend]

25 days to go and everyone is still in the dark as to what is happening; fishermen still don't know where they'll be able to fish, for example. Livelihoods are at stake and the politicians continue to dance around the circle they cannot square.

It would be an absolute joke if the consequences weren't so serious. Sort it out May, one way or the other.

They're more concerned with keeping their own jobs.

It's seriously depressing to watch.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Aren't they?. Then why is the divorce settlement so high?. The vast majority of it is the UK's share of commitments to investment that the EU has already made. If we still have to pay our full share surely we would still be entitled to any planned investment in the UK.

The divorce bill covers the EU budget, European Investment Bank, development fund and central bank. The EU works in a 7 year budget, so it's effectively arrears for what we owe. The proposed money, that we are discussing, is for future commitments.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But surely the bung, and I fully agree with you that is what it is, is in addition to the Euro13B that we will still receive from the EU if we leave with a deal. It's commitments like this that the divorce settlement was to pay for.

I'm fairly sure that in terms of spending commitments, the 'divorce settlement' covers contributions made for the duration of the transition period. I really can't recommend the Commons library highly enough - https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8039

The agreement reached on the settlement means that the UK will:

• contribute to and participate in the 2019 and 2020 EU budgets, as part of the transition (or implementation) period;
• continue to receive EU funding from EU programmes that are part of the 2014 – 2020 budget plan;
• contribute towards the EU’s outstanding budget commitments at 31 December 2020 (these are budget commitments that have been made, but not yet paid);
• contribute towards some of the EU’s liabilities – obligations to pay for certain items – incurred before 31 December 2020. EU staff pensions are the main source of such liabilities;
• remain liable for the EU’s contingent liabilities – potential liabilities that may occur depending on the outcome of an uncertain event – which relate mainly to financial guarantees given and to legal risks;
• receive back the €3.5 billion of capital it has paid into the European Investment Bank in 12 instalments from 2019, and will receive back the relatively small amount of capital it paid into the ECB on withdrawal;
• remain liable for EIB liabilities approved before the WA comes into force, and will provide a guarantee to the EIB for its stock of outstanding loans which will decrease as EIB loans associated with it decrease;
• continue to participate in some of EU’s overseas programmes, such as the European Development Fund, until the current round ends.

So anything beyond 2020 is off the table.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Aren't they?. Then why is the divorce settlement so high?. The vast majority of it is the UK's share of commitments to investment that the EU has already made. If we still have to pay our full share surely we would still be entitled to any planned investment in the UK.

That the government bung falls far short of funds regions are going to lose when Britain leaves.

Trying to find reliable impartial info on Brexit via the web is very difficult. Almost everything seems to carry a bias one way or the other. But I think I have gotten to the bottom of it.

The EU plans financial commitments in 7 year cycles. The current one finishes at the end of 2020. So the 7 year period that Bruce's tweet referred to must have been 2014-2020. If we leave with a deal any planned investment in this country will continue until then. Given that there is so little time left in the current financial cycle I'm quite honestly staggered why our rumoured divorce bill is as high as £39b. But that's another matter.

It's possible that the UK may request and pay to be part of the EU structural funding schemes as part of it's negotiations to get a good trade deal. If not, the Govt has committed to replacing the EU funding from 2021 with a new UK fund of which no details has yet been announced. But the £1.5b bung is completely separate, so comparisons made in Bruce's posted tweet are both misleading and inaccurate.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I'm fairly sure that in terms of spending commitments, the 'divorce settlement' covers contributions made for the duration of the transition period. I really can't recommend the Commons library highly enough - https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8039



So anything beyond 2020 is off the table.

See above. Come to pretty much the same conclusion.

The divorce bill is just what we "owe" for financial commitments. From what I can find a massive chunk of it is a loan to the Ukraine that we are releasing in tranches over a period. There will actually be a separate bill for the transition period and then whatever we pay ongoing to be part of EU functions post Brexit.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Trying to find reliable impartial info on Brexit via the web is very difficult. Almost everything seems to carry a bias one way or the other. But I think I have gotten to the bottom of it.

The EU plans financial commitments in 7 year cycles. The current one finishes at the end of 2020. So the 7 year period that Bruce's tweet referred to must have been 2014-2020. If we leave with a deal any planned investment in this country will continue until then. Given that there is so little time left in the current financial cycle I'm quite honestly staggered why our rumoured divorce bill is as high as £39b. But that's another matter.

It's possible that the UK may request and pay to be part of the EU structural funding schemes as part of it's negotiations to get a good trade deal. If not, the Govt has committed to replacing the EU funding from 2021 with a new UK fund of which no details has yet been announced. But the £1.5b bung is completely separate, so comparisons made in Bruce's posted tweet are both misleading and inaccurate.

As I mentioned, the Commons library is designed to be an impartial source of information for parliament to use when forming policy. They're usually exceptional in my experience of them and can be relied upon. As you've deduced, the divorce payment pays up until 2020, but the EU budget post 2020 is already being firmed up, hence why it's fairly easy to deduce how much could have been available for those towns had we stayed in, and how much the government have committed to them.

It's already been said before that the extra money doesn't even cover the cuts to local government grants, let alone match the funding those regions would have got from the EU (and it would have been very easy to commit to that in the same announcement, but they didn't). The government have expressed an interest in contributing to various EU agencies, which will likely be for Horizon 2020 (or it's successor) rather than regional funds. After all, there is an EU fund specifically designed to help countries and regions adapt to changes in population, but the UK have historically refused to access it, whilst not providing any funds of their own. It's a stretch to suggest that the Tories suddenly care about these things as there's so little actual evidence to say they do.

 

[Barnfred 55]

The divorce bill covers the EU budget, European Investment Bank, development fund and central bank. The EU works in a 7 year budget, so it's effectively arrears for what we owe. The proposed money, that we are discussing, is for future commitments.

Ha. I answered my own post rather than yours.

Here is my post

Trying to find reliable impartial info on Brexit via the web is very difficult. Almost everything seems to carry a bias one way or the other. But I think I have gotten to the bottom of it.

The EU plans financial commitments in 7 year cycles. The current one finishes at the end of 2020. So the 7 year period that Bruce's tweet referred to must have been 2014-2020. If we leave with a deal any planned investment in this country will continue until then. Given that there is so little time left in the current financial cycle I'm quite honestly staggered why our rumoured divorce bill is as high as £39b. But that's another matter.

It's possible that the UK may request and pay to be part of the EU structural funding schemes as part of it's negotiations to get a good trade deal. If not, the Govt has committed to replacing the EU funding from 2021 with a new UK fund of which no details has yet been announced. But the £1.5b bung is completely separate, so comparisons made in Bruce's posted tweet are both misleading and inaccurate.