So what's the difference then?
Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have all this. And pay fully for it. Without the rebate the UK used to get. And without any say in EU policy.

So the UK just gave up a deal in which they were part of the EU leadership* and got a rebate for one where they have no voice in the UK anymore and have to negotiate to get free trade, free movement and other access for potentially more money than they spent before.

*forget faceless bureaucrats, the countries run the show. If the leaders of the 28 countries decide something.
(Bosch balls, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 11:40, 2 replies)

The UK rebate doesn't mean it's overall in profit
it just contributed 13bn instead of 18bn. Eu spending in the UK was under 5bn, so there's still 8bn that the UK pays in that it doesn't get back. So the question will be, how much of that 8bn will the UK still have to contribute to gain access to the EEC. So far, no-one knows.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 11:44, closed)

Small beer
To be honest any payment to EU is far less than the potential up or downsides on trade (and therefore tax income) and fiscal impact (value of sterling = impact on national debt = interest payments = deficit). It's much more important to maintain access. The true price will be accepting free movement (if you believe that's a negative) and lack of influence on trade laws.
(Smale is stuffed, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 12:03, closed)

I fully agree, and I don't think the EU will be daft enough to jeopardise trade in either direction
as it's not in their interests. I don't have any problem with the free movement of people either (I'd be an outright hypocrite if I did), and as for voting rights; when the UK votes against something it never wins anyway, so it's not like that seat at the table is really worth much.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 12:16, closed)

Voting maybe
But the fact that Britain is on the winning side of votes so often indicates that it is influencing the creation of laws. Lost that influence now.
(Smale is stuffed, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 12:40, closed)

Not overall in profit....
... but paying proportionally less than Norway or Switzerland would have to pay I would think? I don't actually know this, I'm going to see if I can find it out.

PS: this is officially the first time this year a statement on the EU was followed by a disclaimer of ignorance.
(Bosch balls, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 13:20, closed)

I can't find a straight answer on this
some chancing Eurocrat said "you'll pay as much per capita as Norway", and since norway pays 119GBP per capita, the total bill for the UK would be 7.7bn GBP for 65m people... so what it pays now, but keeping the regional development funds that it currently pays in and claims back. Depending on how you count it, the UK looks at being 1bn a year better off.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 13:39, closed)

1bn a year is peanuts compared to the potential downside
Britain's annual GBP = GBP453 billion (Q1 2016 estimate)
1bn = 0.2% of GDP
Annual GDP growth forecast = was 2.1%, recently downgraded to 0.4% following Brexit
So that's around 8 year's worth of net benefits lost already.

Debt repayment is more interesting. Current national debt = around GBP1.6 trillion. Annual cost to service debt = GBP43 billion.
1bn = 2.3% of 43bn.
So a tiny change in the interest rate will affect debt repayments far more than then scale of potential net benefits from reduced EU payments. And interest rates depend on credit ratings, and exchange rates...
(Smale is stuffed, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 14:23, closed)

sure, but that's the impact of Brexit itself, not Britain's economy outside the EU
Uk's exports to the EU dropped by 7% last year, and have grown by a meagre 3.6% over the past 15 years, compared to double that for non-EU exports. So the freedom to trade with non-EU countries on its own terms rather than the bloc's makes more sense for the economic future.

As for interest rates; they've been fucked for a long time either way. They can't stay at or near zero forever.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 14:40, closed)

Hopefully we won't be subject to bailout contributions
when the Italian and French banks implode they'll be another demand for cash. Since the EU have plans for a EU-wide tax code to avoid arguing over budget contributions, they may just sidestep the banks in future and come direct to citizen savings accounts.

I desperately wanted remain, but I'm not ignorant of the fact that there is a shit storm heading the way of the EU. We may find ourselves sighing with relief that we're not IN in a few years time.
(plankton, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 13:13, closed)

i know a couple of accountants and economists who think exactly this
that the south of Europe is full of people who are suffering greatly because of the EU and that there will be a backlash and a black hole of cash.

whilst I am gutted by the result, I think you need a crystal ball to see who will be proven right.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 13:15, closed)

But but but
GB already had agreement NOT to be part of any Euro-zone bailouts. And I cannot believe any country will agree to direct EU tax any time soon.

Also the story going round London in the last few days is that EU will withdraw 'passporting' from London, meaning they can no longer deliver financial services within EU, and will move these services to Paris and Frankfurt, rewarding those countries for staying in EU.
(Smale is stuffed, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 13:26, closed)

UK already failed on its legal challenge of the Financial Transaction Tax, which is due to come in next year
The original plan of that was to generate 40bn straight from the city of london, sent straight to the EU's coffers for redistribution (ie negating italy, spain, portugal and greece's debts by transferring it straight to France and Germany).

Fuck that for a game of soldiers if that's what counts as EU solidarity.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 13:41, closed)

how can the eu vote impartially on this?
Germany and france would benefit enormously if they could get a big chunk of what the city does. why would they vote for the uk keeping it?

on the other hand, it's not as simple as swapping London for Frankfurt. the language, the infrastructure, the size of the city, the local laws, the speed of transactions, the fact that people would rather live in London all make London much more attractive.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 14:15, closed)

No votes are impartial, it's all politics
And Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, all lovely places to live and work...
(Smale is stuffed, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 14:24, closed)

all lovely cities
but people who are settled here aren't all that keen to move. some of them, sure, lots of them not so much.

still, people will follow the money, as a rule.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 14:30, closed)

I lived in London for 6 years...
.. and worked with and partied with hundreds of people who did menial office work, middle management, senior management, academic work. Only a fraction of them are still in the UK. This is Brits as well as expats. People move to London because there are jobs and there is a cool vibe. But a cool vibe doesn't cut it for more than a few years when the quality of life is better elsewhere and the cost of living is so high.
(Bosch balls, Tue 5 Jul 2016, 8:18, closed)

Hollande has already said he wants the EU part of the city transactions
he needs ammunition to stave off Le Pen for the vote next year. Getting some big bank in Paris might help, but then again most of Le Pen's supports comes from the regions where workers aren't doing so well.

Apart from that, hiring people, and more importantly firing them, in France isn't easy. You can transfer them if you can persuade the unions not to hire locals, but then they get French contracts, which are much, much tougher to break than UK ones. Then of course high fliers are subject to much higher taxes, which is why there are 600K French people in London right now.

So whilst it all sounds easy on the surface "we'll just move everyone to France" you can bet that companies will be weighing up what is best for them. If they can't transfer their star traders then it might all fail at the first hurdle.

I think it is all moot though, it looks increasingly like government will kick the can down the road and never invoke article 50. After a few weeks it'll be obvious that no-one dares pull the trigger and it'll be business as usual.

In the meantime the rest of us can scream unfair and demand that stupid people don't get to vote, or we can think about what normally happens in UK politics, i.e. no one screws up their chances of a job in the EU after their Westminster career is over.
(plankton, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 15:00, closed)

You're right, they'd be fools to relocate to France...
Which is why they're setting up in Dublin and Frankfurt. Amsterdam has even had a number of Asian companies enquiring after relocation options within 24 hours of the result.

Which British politicians get jobs in the EU? You usually get a commissioner, but the cushy jobs go to the small unthreatening nations. Denmark, Luxemburg, Belgium, the Netherlands. You can't have a French or German or Brit in a leading role since it would at the very least appear biased towards one country.
(Bosch balls, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 16:23, closed)

Hmm, do you know how it works?
You do realise that there is always 1 commissioner per member state (including president and vice president)? So UK has just as many commissioners in EU as every other EU nation (even Hill who just resigned will be replaced by a Brit).

Commissioners are proposed by (elected) national governments. The EC president allocates roles based on their experience and capability. The (elected) Parliament has to agree to the list of commissioners and their roles.

Other roles in the Commission, and the non-political roles in Parliament, are effectively open for application by any citizen of a member state, except for seconded national experts, who are put forward by national governments. For any of these roles you need a decent knowledge of a 2nd EU language. I have many friends who work for the Commission, and their take is that UK is under-represented there because there is a lack of civil servants and others who have good enough knowledge of a 2nd European language.
(Smale is stuffed, Thu 30 Jun 2016, 9:06, closed)

The UK not being part of bail outs was partly why the EU wanted direct access to accounts
Don't forget what happened in Cyprus a couple of years back. The EU nicked deposits from citizens (and non-EU citizens) in a bailout, so they have form on this.

The European Tax ID is only an idea at the moment, but will be sold to everyone as a way to combat tax avoidance and to simplify contributions to EU coffers by countries, but once in place it'll be used for extra taxes to bail out banks again.
(plankton, Wed 29 Jun 2016, 15:06, closed)

Bailing out banks. Exactly like our government did WITHOUT any EU interference you mean?
Given that the EU has actually TRIED to regulate the banks. Something that successive UK governments since 2008 have pointedly REFUSED to do.
( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Fri 1 Jul 2016, 21:59, closed)