5 ms·

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 p

by bArray 7y ago

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 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_custom_software_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_failed_and_overbudget_... [1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49563957 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49563957

zenlot 7y ago
UK should be now getting 350 million GBP per week for NHS.
- bArray 7y ago
  > 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.
  - Torn 7y ago
    > it should be overall beneficial to the UK once trade agreements are in place after a number of years It probably won't. I don't know why leavers think the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than a bloc of 27 countries.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      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.
    - bArray 7y ago
      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.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > 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.
        bArray 7y ago
        > 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.
- dev_north_east 7y ago
  Already factored in - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598
Torn 7y ago
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
- bArray 7y ago
  > 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. [1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
  - smcl 7y ago
    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 :-)
    - bArray 7y ago
      > You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get > into it with someone here on Brexit :-) The original intent was just to show that £3.3 billion is really nothing compared to our other expenses, but clearly I kicked the hornets nest.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
mrtksn 7y ago
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.
- aembleton 7y ago
  If a net recipient country were to leave the EU would the EU continue paying them after they had left?
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    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.

by bArray 7y ago

zenlot 7y ago

UK should be now getting 350 million GBP per week for NHS.

bArray 7y ago
> 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.
- Torn 7y ago
  > it should be overall beneficial to the UK once trade agreements are in place after a number of years It probably won't. I don't know why leavers think the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than a bloc of 27 countries.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    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.
  - bArray 7y ago
    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.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > 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.
      - bArray 7y ago
        > 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.
dev_north_east 7y ago
Already factored in - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598

Torn 7y ago

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

bArray 7y ago
> 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. [1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
- smcl 7y ago
  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 :-)
  - bArray 7y ago
    > You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get > into it with someone here on Brexit :-) The original intent was just to show that £3.3 billion is really nothing compared to our other expenses, but clearly I kicked the hornets nest.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

mrtksn 7y ago

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.

aembleton 7y ago
If a net recipient country were to leave the EU would the EU continue paying them after they had left?
- mrtksn 7y ago
  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.