Forgetting the politics of George Soros (which isn't suitable for HN anyway), I don't believe he is to blame for the UK government's questionable choices.
To put the estimated £3.3 billion loss into perspective:
* The UK spends ~£9 billion a year (after calculating rebates) to be a minority voting block in the EU [1]. It's currently costing ~£0.75 billion a month to stay in the EU [2].
* The "divorce" settlement to the EU is currently set between £30 billion and £40 billion [2]. To put that itself into perspective, that is each person (including people on death's door and babies) in the UK (~70M) paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway.
I could go on all day about the UK government's awful handling of money.
The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN on shorting the pound. By mentioning only the costs of remaining in the EU, not the ongoing benefits, you're being pretty disingenuous
> The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN
> on shorting the pound.
As I stated, £3.3 billion is very small compared to its other ongoing expenses. Factually pointing out the cost of membership is neither an argument for leave or remain.
> By mentioning only the costs of remaining in the EU, not
> the ongoing benefits, you're being pretty disingenuous
Please read the Full Fact reference [1]. From the £17.4 billion membership fee I negated the rebate amounts. The only major thing not taken into consideration is the financial sector investments and the philanthropic nature of the EU.
You cannot compare a loss to a transaction. The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments, infrastructure projects. If black wednesday didn't happen you would just have an extra £3.3Bn. If we weren't members of the EU we would have £17.4Bn more, and our farmers would have lost their subsidies, rural development projects would be cancelled, we'd have no body to regulate all sorts of industries etc. etc. etc.
As well as this your other EU example is spurious too - since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's the agreed remaining financial obligations that the UK had previously committed to. In fact It's things like MEPs pensions which was agreed long before the UK decided to leave the union. So the divorce bill is essentially net 0 - the UK is paying nothing to the EU beyond the money that the UK and EU had already agreed to spend.
It's like saying losing a £50 note should be put in perspective by comparing it to my salary. My salary is much larger than £50, but that's not relevant, because for me to get £50 of disposable income I need to exclude all my living costs. It may be that my salary in fact perfectly matches my living costs - in which case whilst £50 might be tiny in that perspective, it's huge because it could be literally all of my disposable income.
> The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that
> provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments,
> infrastructure projects.
Not £17.4 billion's worth of transactions.
> As well as this your other EU example is spurious too -
> since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's
> the agreed remaining financial obligations [..]
A divorce settlement could also be called "fulfilling agreed financial obligations", but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to swallow. I also somehow don't believe it's £30+ billion in pensions. I believe it'll mostly be investment into projects we'll never see the fruits of, I hardly believe they'll say "well, seeming as you invested into this, it's only fair you eat from the tree".
You've given three examples, two of which are specifically chosen to highlight EU-related expenses and have qualified them with comments intended to provoke a reaction ("to be a minority voting block", "paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway").
You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get into it with someone here on Brexit :-)
Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in HN.
"9 billion a year for a voting right" is like saying that the average software developer in London pays 20K a year to the government for voting rights every 5 years. You obviously don't pay taxes for voting rights, you pay taxes to sustain or improve the environment you operate in and the voting is about choosing the people and the path to that.
The "divorce bill" makes it sound like it some kind of a fine or something but it's actually about the obligation that the UK committed through the years. A good analogy would be the UK participating in a birthday dinner party, promising to chip in for the present, ordering the food and the desert but leaving before the desert arrives so people expect the UK to pay for its desert as it was already cooked and pay its part for the present they bought. This is not going away no matter if the Brexit would be hard, soft, mellow or squishy. If the UK does not honour its obligations, it would be incorporated in the future trade agreements.
Please don't use propaganda catchwords and talking points here, the topic itself is divisive but this is beyond that. It is a dishonest portrayal of reality.
> Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in
> HN.
I think we have a very different definition of propaganda.
I suggest getting into the comments early when a keyword is used in the title.
> "9 billion a year for a voting right" is like saying that
> the average software developer in London pays 20K a year
> to the government for voting rights every 5 years.
It's clearly a tongue in cheek exaggeration.
> The "divorce bill" makes it sound like it some kind of a
> fine or something but it's actually about the obligation
> that the UK committed through the years.
I used "divorce settlement" - and it is very much like a divorce settlement. Both parties are expected to settle remaining costs and you end up losing the kids.
> A good analogy would be the UK participating in a birthday
> dinner party, promising to chip in for the present,
> ordering the food and the desert but leaving before the
> desert arrives so people expect the UK to pay for its
> desert as it was already cooked and pay its part for the
> present they bought.
Maybe, but then you would expect to be able to chose what to do with the desert if you've paid for it?
> If the UK does not honour its obligations, it would be
> incorporated in the future trade agreements.
Unfortunately, yes.
> Please don't use propaganda catchwords and talking points
> here, the topic itself is divisive but this is beyond
> that. It is a dishonest portrayal of reality.
I purposely put the word "divorce" in speech marks as it's what it is commonly referred to, rightly or wrongly. I wasn't aiming to paint a picture perfect version of reality, I would need several books to describe Brexit accurately (and no doubt somebody will write them). The purpose is simply to show that £3.3 billion is really not that much compared to our ongoing projects. Hell, another one to look at is the Trident project.
Sure, UK will have it's desert that paid for and can decide what to do with it. These things are settled in the withdrawal agreement. After all, it's not a fine.
Paying what exactly? These are not really money transfers, it's not like UK sending 100 bucks and the EU giving 80 of it to Bulgaria and sending 20 back to the UK. It doesn't work like that.
The money is used for infrastructure and other stuff, maybe Bulgaria gets 80 bucks for road building but the UK benefits from it by getting the engineering contract and after the project is completed they use these roads to make moving nuts from Turkey cheaper and faster so making their chocolate industry more competitive. Maybe it was UK's proposal to build that road and France supported the idea because they also want to make the rose petals imports from Bulgaria and electric hardware exports to Turkey cheaper?
It's not a charity. So yes, if a net recipient country leaves the EU chances are that they will continue receiving EU funds just like the other countries that receive EU funds despite never being the EU in the first place.
As a matter of fact, the EU is committed to continue to fund projects in the UK that had already budgeted.
From the Institute for government.
>If there is a withdrawal agreement, UK recipients will receive EU funding for projects agreed in the current funding cycle from the EU Budget.
So yes, the already committed projects would continue and so the net recipient would continue to be a net recipient until the currently committed projects were completed. That is exactly why there is a divorce bill - because the UK is paying for the obligations its already committed to, and in return the EU is going to provide the services and funding that it has committed to. There is reason to think any other country would be treated differently.
> UK should be now getting 350 million GBP per week for NHS.
It hasn't left yet and the reality is that it'll take years to leave (if it does).
You could maybe justify £350 million a week over the course of a year based on a hard Brexit, where the UK doesn't pay the £30-£40 billion divorce settlement.
It's unclear how much will be spent in replacing EU infrastructure, but it should be overall beneficial to the UK once trade agreements are in place after a number of years.
This is going largely off topic, but I'll indulge.
> I don't know why leavers think the UK will be able to
> negotiate better trade deals than a bloc of 27 countries.
Other than shear volume, what does the EU offer that the UK is not capable of? And is what the EU offers worth ~£9 billion a year?
The UK doesn't have to make better trade deals, they can even afford to be slightly worse and still be of a net benefit. The trade deals would have to be ~£9 billion worse in order for them not to be beneficial.
Playing 4D chess: I highly suspect that the UK will receive very good trade deals in a medium/long-term gamble by other super powers to destabilize the EU.
> Other than shear volume, what does the EU offer that the UK is not capable of?
Shear volume is a big part of why Communist China has better trade deals with the US than Communist Cuba, I wouldn't discount the importance of volume in trade negotiations.
> I highly suspect that the UK will receive very good trade deals in a medium/long-term gamble by other super powers to destabilize the EU.
Very few of the UK’s potential trade partners are superpowers where the actors necessary to negotiate and ratify a trade deal have consensus around destabilizing the EU as a goal. With a generous definition of “superpower”, you have China and Russia and that's it.
> Shear volume is a big part of why Communist China has
> better trade deals with the US than Communist Cuba, I
> wouldn't discount the importance of volume in trade
> negotiations.
That's not entirely true, it also has somewhat to do with their relaxed policy on human rights and their status in the WTO. Now that the US is looking to balance the books, China's economy has taken quite a serious hit.
That said, the UK is also part of a much older and relatively large trading group - the Commonwealth.
> Very few of the UK’s potential trade partners are
> superpowers where the actors necessary to negotiate and
> ratify a trade deal have consensus around destabilizing
> the EU as a goal.
What you hear publicly and what goes on behind closed doors, are too very different things. I highly suspect that the US also has a vested interest in breaking up the EU, after all, it's the EU which is putting pressure on its booming tech industry for example.
I also suspect that there are multiple other powers poised to take advantage of destabilization of the EU. I also further suspect the EU has realized this threat, which is why the UK must help safeguard the EU-based banks for a Brexit deal.
> With a generous definition of “superpower”, you have China
> and Russia and that's it.
The term "superpower" is not easily defined at the best of times, granted.
I'm no expert, but perhaps not having to comprise with 27 other nations will allow the UK to negotiate the trade deals that benefit them the most, rather than deals that are agreed upon by a majority of countries in the EU.
To put the estimated £3.3 billion loss into perspective:
* The failed NHS software update/upgrade project cost >£12 billion [0].
* The UK spends ~£9 billion a year (after calculating rebates) to be a minority voting block in the EU [1]. It's currently costing ~£0.75 billion a month to stay in the EU [2].
* The "divorce" settlement to the EU is currently set between £30 billion and £40 billion [2]. To put that itself into perspective, that is each person (including people on death's door and babies) in the UK (~70M) paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway.
I could go on all day about the UK government's awful handling of money.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_failed_and_overbudget_...
[1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49563957