Britain will have to pay into the EU budget up until 2020 if it wants Europe to grant the UK reasonable terms on a Brexit transition deal, senior sources in Whitehall have told The Telegraph.
The idea, which is being actively discussed by British Brexit negotiators, would require a softening of British negotiation red lines in order to buy leverage and political goodwill in talks with the EU over a future trade deal.
Britain’s departure from the EU will leave a €10bn black hole in Europe’s finances which is causing significant anxiety in chancelleries across Europe, including in Berlin, which fears it will have to pick up the bill for any shortfall.
Err, no, we wouldn’t have to. We might agree to in return for something we think worth more than £10 billion of course….
And they’re not even thinking it through. £10 billion is the net figure. So, if we’re still paying in up to 2020 then they must still be paying out to us until then….
The Trashgraph on the job again eh?
In case it might be true, I again suggest that everybody voting Tory write to Dress Up telling her that this sort of sell out bollocks won’t be tolerated. As an insurance policy.
Millions of letters will put pressure on the dozy BluLab cow.
Britain’s departure from the EU will leave a €10bn black hole in Europe’s finances which is causing significant anxiety in chancelleries across Europe
From all the way over here in Aussie land, this sounds like a problem which is theirs not yours. In which case, getting favourable trade terms should be pretty easy.
Seems to be the same mob who wanted £90 trillion so we would be allowed to leave the EU.
Might be worth it as a direct access, but not as “political goodwill” ; was it Blair who handed back Maggie’s rebate as political goodwill for reforming the CAP and then was given the Cameron reply (f**k off)
@LTW is right. “Fine. Bu**er off then”.
No deal = no money. Amusing to see that the negotiating position of the EU is presented as a fait accompli. If the EU sticks to the no final deal without the money, then they should be told no money in 2020 – and if this causes problems for the EU, it’s their tough luck.
‘Up until 2020’ is not a surprise. It’s possible we’ll still be members as the negotiations can be extended by mutual agreement. And I wouldn’t put it past senior Conservatives to be quite happy to drag the negotiations out a bit to make this happen. It would be too much for them to be honest about it though.
Beyond that, the most I would want is for the UK to temporarily be replicating the Norway grants. As part of the EEA agreement the EFTA nations (but mostly Norway) pay foreign aid to eastern EU members. If the UK was doing the same it would take a big chunk out of the arbitrarily inflated DfID budget and be supporting UK trade in the process.
So, organisation desperate for money is the one in the strong position? Eh?
We need a hard Brexit. The harder the better. To the point of exchanging gun fire.
Go and tell them to f**k their mothers back six generations.
“in order to buy leverage and political goodwill”: Jesus, that’s the sort of crap we used to get from the dolts who thought they could reform the EU.
Bollocks: if we need to we can just flounce out, telling them we will recognise no foreign court that thinks it can interfere.
Nope. That’s the way the French or the Italians might play it but it is not the British way (or even the Manx way come to that).
Nope, what we should do is go to the meetings, clearly and unequivocally explain “These are our terms, which we think are reasonable. Happy to discuss the details, but basically this is what is on the table.”.
Sure, let the dago negotiators pitch a fit and kick up a fuss about “Muh €60 billion”, but our negotiators should simply let them blow of steam and then say “Have you QUITE finished?”. It’s a matter of style as much as anything else.
I doubt very much that we will come to an agreement that is mutually acceptable within the 2 year timeframe and even if we do, I doubt that the EU Parliament would ratify it, so it comes down to presentation.
We need to appear open, but resolute, so that when the negotiations or the ratification fails we can at least say “Well we tried our best, but they were simply unreasonable and unrealistic.”.
Remember Munich!
You are not seriously suggesting that we weaken our hand by publicly denying ourselves the flounce out option, are you? Balls to that. Keep the buggers on the back foot.
Violet Elizabeth Bott is not one of the British negotiators.
It comes down to what does “flouncing out” achieve? I would argue it is more impressive to let your opponents moan and wail while you sit there and read a newspaper and wait for them to finish.
There might be an excuse for “high drama” if we were in the wrong or playing a weak hand, but neither of these things are true. BRExit will happen regardless of the outcome of negotiations.
The Europeans might not get it, but the concept of “Fair Play” still means a great deal to the average British chap on the Clapham Omnibus. Indeed by playing by our own rules and letting the dago’s bitch and moan we are showing the Remoaners that we were right to vote to leave.
First we take Brussels, then we take Berlin…
Why on earth would you want either?
They’ve made their bed, let them lie in it.
We need to do what we are obligated to do through treaty and contract, nothing more nothing less, for one simple reason – over the next few years we are aiming to put a lot of trade deals in place and we want our Interlocutors to take us seriously and know we will hold up our side of any deal.
Why on earth would you want either?
They’ve made their bed, let them lie in it.
I was referring to ‘First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin’ by Leonard Cohen. Some seeds fall on stony ground, I suppose.
“AVRO, START BUILDING LANCASTERS AGAIN !!!