Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I have just read that the EU want us to pay £20 billion before we can leave the EU. It appears someone has added up all the unpaid bills from all 27 countries ,£170 billion,our share would be £20 billion.
Not sure which way I read this,are they being spiteful because we are leaving or they want us to stay in and raising this as an obstacle to us leaving.
Would love to read Theresa May's mind at the moment....it could be ' Cameron you bastard,I could do without all this s.... you have left me with' ,....that's politics my dear!!!! Deal with it,hehe.
KudosDave
Not sure which way I read this,are they being spiteful because we are leaving or they want us to stay in and raising this as an obstacle to us leaving.
Would love to read Theresa May's mind at the moment....it could be ' Cameron you bastard,I could do without all this s.... you have left me with' ,....that's politics my dear!!!! Deal with it,hehe.
KudosDave
Is this new or related to this?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/647406/EU-burying-power-grab-laws-until-AFTER-referendum
I think it's the current UK share of EU spending commitments that will run for a few more years after brexit. It can be more than £20. Our farmers, scientists and regions should get about 40% of that money back.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/05/britain-owes-the-eu-21bn-report-claims-but-is-it-true
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/05/britain-owes-the-eu-21bn-report-claims-but-is-it-true
You see, this type of thing doesn't help the EU's cause. This is just going to stir further anti-EU sentiment, not just in the UK but in other countries too.
This arrogance born out of being unaccountable to an electorate is what rankles
I bet the witch is thinking, you can shove your £20 billion up your WFA.
"This arrogance born out of being unaccountable to an electorate is what rankles"
How do you work that out? who isn't accountable any more than our own politicians in their Quangos and committees?
The person that comes first to mind is Teresa May
Do tell what the difference is.
There is very little difference, but it doesn't make either anymore acceptable.
Tillson, you jumped to conclusion a bit. there are lots of on-going EU projects, you can't expect that unwinding the UK out of the EU will automatically cut funding to our regions and universities on D day + 2 years. So we'll carry on paying a reducing fee to the EU probably until 2025 on the current timetable. What is unfair is that we have not called Art.50 and the EU research council has already discriminated against our universities citing 'uncertainty due to brexit' to stop their candidacy to participation and grants. I think brexit is vanity over common sense but still believe that the sooner we come to term with this issue one way or another is better for all.
I believe that the government do too. What better way to control the work force than to have them enslaved to a pile of debt. The threat of losing the roof over your head if you stop working and default on the payments is a powerful tool.
So basically this great economy that BREXIT is putting in jeopardy consists of people spending money they don't have on things they don't need. Great!
And our UK government borrowing to spend money it doesn't have on things we don't need, like aircraft carriers and trident missile submarines.
.
I wonder what the reaction of the banks and government would be if a large amount of people started emptying their savings accounts. After all for what they are paying in interest there is not a great loss to be made. I know it won't happen. Just a thought. I remember many years ago when everyone used to be paid wages in cash and were then gradually forced into paying directly into bank accounts. That seemed to give a lot of power to the banks, and I suppose it also made it a lot easier for the government to keep tabs on people. I think that was also the start of people living beyond their means.
gray
Indeed, having a bank account meant the bank giving one a credit card, promoting a debt culture. That in turn led to consumers getting additional credit cards and stores issuing their own credit cards.
We've now gone a stage further into permanent rolling debt, like the deals on cars, something like £99 down plus a "gift" of a deposit contribution and moderate monthly payments to drive a car away. Then two or three years later hand the car back or pay a large lump sum to be able to keep it. Of course few have the large lump sum so have to hand the car back and enter a new rolling agreement to stay mobile.
.
that is precisely what our government (and the BoE) want people to do. The money in saving accounts serves little purpose at the moment, the banks do lend it out but the vast majority of loans are created without corresponding deposits, so money is better spent when the economy needs support like now.
That would only work if they were to spend it and not keep it in a safe or under the bed, and of course they would lose track of peoples assets
I wonder how much the average UK citizen pays over a lifetime servicing debt? The only time I've ever borrowed money was to buy my first house and I paid that off early. I've never had a loan or allowed a credit card payment to incur interests, preferring to go without until I could save up to buy the item.
Debt servicie payments seem to be part of the household budget these days with no thought eradicating it.
Same as me Tillson, I pay cash and never interest. My credit card account I clear monthly and my mortgages were cleared very early.
I think it's insane the amount people lose in interest payments, especially so those who borrow and pay back weekly. All they need do is pull their belt in for a week or so and then gain the extra income they'd previously lost in high interest payments. Daftest of all are those who pawn and then redeem continuously!
.
Last edited: