Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36013050)

Only Germany is a higher net payer than us.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36013053)

What are us lot playing at?

How rude.

I'd have told everyone who asked that stupid question in that meeting you had, exactly what I thought of them, I would not have given a shit who they were and what grade of pay they were on or whether they were CEO's.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36013056)

I was careful to say as a proportion of GNI rather than absolute amount. Yes, only Germany is a larger net contributor in absolute amounts but other countries pay a larger proportion of their GNI. If you measured as a proportion of GDP, then Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands are higher than us.

---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------



Yeah, I kinda like my job but also these conversations were informal chats at break times rather than an official company policy and, let's be honest, does anyone, regardless of their Brexit persuasion, think the process is going well and exactly as planned?

I also subscribe to Carl Sagan's quote - "There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question"

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36013049)

Last week, I had the nice opportunity to be in another EU country for a global meeting and Brexit came up a few times, I can tell you! Here's what I learned from the 'other side';

From a business point of view, the company I work for is regarded as a critical material supplier to our customers so we need to show that we are prepared for any interruptions in manufacturing up to and including complete destruction of our manufacturing plant. Because of this,we store a huge reserve of finished goods off site that isn't touched in case of a disaster.

However, we also need to assess our critical raw material suppliers to ensure our continuity of supply. If raw materials are currently sourced from countries and/or areas that are at risk of interruption of supply, they are closely looked at. We hold large stocks of critical raw materials, especially from countries at risk. Depending on the country, we are also looking at second suppliers from other regions as a fall back position.

Since 2016, the UK is classed as a risk country. Our company sources a number of chemicals from the UK and second suppliers have been found for all of the critical chemicals sourced from the UK to cover any interruption in supply. In the risk management table, we are about equal with Chile right now which I thought was interesting.

Away from the business implications, the main theme from people I met was 'what are you lot playing at?'. This wasn't just from colleagues from other EU countries but people from the US, India, Australia and China. They couldn't understand why we would voluntarily make trade with our closest neighbours harder.

Of course, the people in my meeting are the 'intellectual elite' with many letters after names and high paying jobs. What was illuminating was the same conversation with my taxi driver back to the airport. After confirming which terminal I wanted, the next thing he said was 'so, Brexit then?'! He was asking a lot about what I thought was going to happen and what I thought in general. In return, I asked what he thought about the EU. His feedback was a few years ago, he wasn't in favour of being in the EU but he has softened since our decision to leave. He said the EU wasn't perfect but it was a 'cold world out there' (his words, not mine)

The country I was in was one of the 5 countries that pay a larger proportion of their GNI than the UK does by the way

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36013065)

“What are we playing at?” Has an aggressive tone to it, as if there is no right to hold a view of self determination and leaving the EU.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36013068)

List by country
France(0.70%) and even Romania(0.67%) may pay more as % of their GNI than the UK(0.46%), but they get more back. The net difference being France 0.12%. Germany 0.26%, the UK 0.18%, Ireland -0.01%, Poland a massive -1.99%(That's €9bn:shocked: net they get). Remember the UK gets a 66% rebate, which the EU is itching to remove, if it hasn't done so already. Does that bump up our expected(future?) contribution to a whopping 1.38% of GNI?

Even with the rebate, the UK had been forecast(by the OBR in 2017) to have net contribution of £17.405 billion (£335 million per week) in 2022.
Link to pdf
It's on page 19.


Any money we get back is taken off the rebate, therefore at least 66% of the money has come from the UK in the first place, ie for every £3 of funding, £2 is knocked off the rebate and added to what we pay in. Factor that in and we actually get an even lower rate of EU funding, nearer 0.10%, ie €2bn, not €6bn.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36013084)

That is the danger of a text only medium. It certainly didn't come over as aggressive when face to face. It was a wry amusement and certainly no malice was intended as, rightly, there nothing that I and the one other Brit there could influence as individuals.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------



Yeah, I have double checking my figures and it does depend on how you measure things I guess.

I have been using this report from September 2019 covering the 2017 budget - http://researchbriefings.files.parli...55/SN06455.pdf

According to table 3, we are the second highest net contributors. However, according to table 4 where we look at contribution per head, we are fifth. My initial numbers came from the second table on this site - https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-one-b...ors-eu-budget/ which covers the 2014-16 budget round

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36013061)

Campaigners' bid to get courts to order no-deal Brexit delay fails


https://news.sky.com/story/campaigne...fails-11829971


campaigners - led by businessman Vince Dale, SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC and Jolyon Maugham QC - launched legal action at the Outer House of the Court of Session.

They wanted a judge to order that Mr Johnson had to send a letter to Brussels asking for the delay.

They also wanted to try and stop the prime minister finding a way around the law, including getting the judge to ban Mr Johnson from asking EU leaders to veto the request.

Their case was dismissed on Monday afternoon.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36013103)

What a defeat - the judge said BJ/HMG will comply fully with the Law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-49959167

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36013107)

Yes but which one ?

As we know, Benn Act requires Johnson to seek an extension to Brexit if parliament has not approved either a deal or leaving without a deal by October 19, however, Primary legislation still exists in the form of a different law, the European Union Withdrawal Act, states Britain will leave the EU on October 31. Which of these laws takes precedence, matters a lot.

The government has repeatedly said only that it will comply with "the law", without actually specifying which one. It may try and argue that it is following the law by taking Britain out on October 31st. ;)

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36013107)

Yes but which one ?

As we know, Benn Act requires Johnson to seek an extension to Brexit if parliament has not approved either a deal or leaving without a deal by October 19, however, Primary legislation still exists in the form of a different law, the European Union Withdrawal Act, states Britain will leave the EU on October 31. Which of these laws takes precedence, matters a lot.

The government has repeatedly said only that it will comply with "the law", without actually specifying which one. It may try and argue that it is following the law by taking Britain out on October 31st. ;)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36013119)

As I've pointed before the principal behind the law and this case, is completely ludicrous. It is designed to be unachievable. UK Parliament won't say or even indicate what they would agree to, and the only thing the EU has said it would agree to, has been turned down 3 times. According to EU law, Article 50(2), the legal onus is on the EU to "negotiate and conclude an agreement". They seem to be the ones that legally have to give way. If so, that also seems unreasonable as there is no obligation on the withdrawing state to agree to anything. In those circumstances an agreement couldn't be "concluded".

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36013122)

I think the EU would argue they have done that. They negotiated a deal with the “U.K. Government” and which the government concluded an agreement.

There is nothing there that says the EU must conclude an agreement with the nations Parliament.

This where the whole thing is off the rails, we have Gina Miller to thank for it.

There is no way a deal can be done now with the UK Parliament in its current state. The only form of Brexit available at the moment is to leave without a withdrawal agreement and negotiate a deal from outside the EU.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36013125)

There are 2 "deals" in the arena. The first is the withdrawal agreement, the 2nd future agreement has always been from the position of being outside the EU. The 1st agreement is only meant to be a temporary, transitional one. Negotiations on the 2nd can't even start until we have left the EU. Far too much inherent ambiguity and misunderstanding over what people are meaning when they talk about "the deal". There is the sense that people seem to think that "the deal" is an ongoing one, and the only one that will ever be needed. Far from it, whatever happens, we will have to go through this all again in the near future.