Brexit

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:If w
What I am not convinced of is the talk of us continuing to pay towards pension contributions for EU staff after we leave.

Why wouldn't you?

Photek wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:If w
What I am not convinced of is the talk of us continuing to pay towards pension contributions for EU staff after we leave.

Why wouldn't you?

Because we are no longer part of the organisation. Why should we pay towards future pension contributions after we've left? Would a new member of the EU be expected to pay a lump sum when they join to cover pension contributions from before they joined? If we are no longer part of the organisation why should we contribute towards the future pension contributions of staff that no longer work for us?

The fairest arrangement i can see is that we fund the pensions of British MEP's and British EU staff.

Besides i'm not entirely surely how much of a stumbling block the pension thing is and what the EU are actually asking for as no one has ever come out and explained it. Maybe some media are just over exaggerating it.

It's really quite simple

If 10 friends go out to an agreed dinner, all order food and drink and the before the main course 1 decides to leave - they still need to leave money to pay the bill. (Let's just say 1/10th and not get into that debate about how to split.)

You had your drinks and starter, your main course is coming and can't be stopped. Yeah you're not gonna enjoy/eat it - but that's your choice. Just because you've decided to go to the new club down the road and find some sexy new partners - the other 9 aren't going to accept to pay for your dinner.


The problem also is - this "divorce" bill is part of the break up. It's an exit term. It's part of the separation process.

Trade deals etc are completely distinct. That's the new relationship. The new engagement that only comes once separation is complete. There's no link between the two. It's not "pay for trade".

That's why the EU wanted (and got agreed from the UK) a two step process. Yes the nature of the break up will inform trust/good will later on - but that's it.

Brexit Bullshitters though are playing to the their audience that the two are linked - and unsurprisingly they buy it hook line and sinker. That's in part why May/Davis are desperate for concurrent talks - so they can say "Yep. We paid £X billion but look what we got" rather than "Our outstanding obligations were £X billion. Not our fault your thick as pig gooseberry fool people didn't understand that"

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Photek wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:If w
What I am not convinced of is the talk of us continuing to pay towards pension contributions for EU staff after we leave.

Why wouldn't you?

Because we are no longer part of the organisation. Why should we pay towards future pension contributions after we've left? Would a new member of the EU be expected to pay a lump sum when they join to cover pension contributions from before they joined? If we are no longer part of the organisation why should we contribute towards the future pension contributions of staff that no longer work for us?.

Easy - because their years service (and future financial obligations to them) were during our time.

A better (or at least equally valid) solution would be to say we'll contribute for any entitlements (period of service etc) during our membership

But then we have a brain dead negotiations team pandering to a hostile press and brain dead audience....so

Hexx wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Photek wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:If w
What I am not convinced of is the talk of us continuing to pay towards pension contributions for EU staff after we leave.

Why wouldn't you?

Because we are no longer part of the organisation. Why should we pay towards future pension contributions after we've left? Would a new member of the EU be expected to pay a lump sum when they join to cover pension contributions from before they joined? If we are no longer part of the organisation why should we contribute towards the future pension contributions of staff that no longer work for us?.

Easy - because their years service (and future financial obligations to them) were during our time.

A better (or at least equally valid) solution would be to say we'll contribute for any entitlements (period of service etc) during our membership

But then we have a brain dead negotiations team pandering to a hostile press and brain dead audience....so

Well yeah i have no issue with paying for any entitlements built up from service during our membership. Obviously it should work the other way as well with British employees of the EU. But this is the problem, various sections of the media are portraying it as a requirement to pay towards their future contributions after we leave. Which would be like me leaving a company to work for someone else and then still expecting my former company to make pension contributions on my behalf. What the EU want i still haven't seen explained.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Which would be like me leaving a company to work for someone else and then still expecting my former company to make pension contributions on my behalf. What the EU want i still haven't seen explained.

I have no idea what sort of pension arrangement the EU has for MEPs/staff.

Assuming it is a money purchase scheme, then there should be no need for any further contributions from the UK. Everyone would have their own little pot, no need for anybody else to pay.

If (and I suspect it is!) it is a final salary scheme, then the contributions already paid will not cover the benefits at retirement. A FS scheme will rely on future contributions from employees to pay the pensions of those that have retired. In which case there will be a need for the UK to continue paying, especially because there will be lots of UK based people claiming the pensions.

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Which would be like me leaving a company to work for someone else and then still expecting my former company to make pension contributions on my behalf. What the EU want i still haven't seen explained.

I have no idea what sort of pension arrangement the EU has for MEPs/staff.

Assuming it is a money purchase scheme, then there should be no need for any further contributions from the UK. Everyone would have their own little pot, no need for anybody else to pay.

If (and I suspect it is!) it is a final salary scheme, then the contributions already paid will not cover the benefits at retirement. A FS scheme will rely on future contributions from employees to pay the pensions of those that have retired. In which case there will be a need for the UK to continue paying, especially because there will be lots of UK based people claiming the pensions.

Yeah my fear would be that it's likely a final salary scheme however as usual that will probably never be explained.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Which would be like me leaving a company to work for someone else and then still expecting my former company to make pension contributions on my behalf. What the EU want i still haven't seen explained.

I have no idea what sort of pension arrangement the EU has for MEPs/staff.

Assuming it is a money purchase scheme, then there should be no need for any further contributions from the UK. Everyone would have their own little pot, no need for anybody else to pay.

If (and I suspect it is!) it is a final salary scheme, then the contributions already paid will not cover the benefits at retirement. A FS scheme will rely on future contributions from employees to pay the pensions of those that have retired. In which case there will be a need for the UK to continue paying, especially because there will be lots of UK based people claiming the pensions.

Yeah my fear would be that it's likely a final salary scheme however as usual that will probably never be explained.

I guess they could demerge the UK pensions from the EU ones and the UK government could take over responsibility for the pensions of UK based people. That would be horribly complicated and expensive though.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Photek wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:If w
What I am not convinced of is the talk of us continuing to pay towards pension contributions for EU staff after we leave.

Why wouldn't you?

Because we are no longer part of the organisation. Why should we pay towards future pension contributions after we've left? Would a new member of the EU be expected to pay a lump sum when they join to cover pension contributions from before they joined? If we are no longer part of the organisation why should we contribute towards the future pension contributions of staff that no longer work for us?.

Easy - because their years service (and future financial obligations to them) were during our time.

A better (or at least equally valid) solution would be to say we'll contribute for any entitlements (period of service etc) during our membership

But then we have a brain dead negotiations team pandering to a hostile press and brain dead audience....so

Well yeah i have no issue with paying for any entitlements built up from service during our membership. Obviously it should work the other way as well with British employees of the EU. But this is the problem, various sections of the media are portraying it as a requirement to pay towards their future contributions after we leave. Which would be like me leaving a company to work for someone else and then still expecting my former company to make pension contributions on my behalf. What the EU want i still haven't seen explained.

Neither side has explained public ally what they mean I think - had a quick look for position or working papaers (from either side) and all I got were frothing at the mouth Express pieces

You're thinking of a "DC/Money Purchase" scheme (i.e. a pot of money that you save into, and then spend in retirement)

The EU scheme is DB scheme (e.g. You get 1/60th of your final salary at the company for each year you worked at the company) which is very different. And it why it's difficult to calculate. [I've no idea of the actual terms/numbers btw! These a re illsutrative]
e.g. We have no idea how long your service will be (if still employed there). We have no idea of you final salary will be (and if you move companies, they'll know at that point but your salary will then likely be revalued at, say inflation +1%, so it's sill hard to predict) or how long you live for meaning how much money is ultimately needed.
.

EU officials in service before 1 January 2014 shall be retired at 65, EU officials recruited after 1 January 2014 shall be retired at 66 but it is possible to take early retirement with a reduced pension from the age of 58, or to work up until the age of 67 or exceptionally, until the age of 70.

Pensions are paid as a percentage of the final basic salary. Officials accumulate 1.8% pension rights every year and are entitled to a maximum pension of 70% of their final basic salary. For more details, see the Staff Regulations (Articles 77 to 84 and Annex VIII).

http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/job/o ... x_en.htm#4

I wonder if they're hiring

Hexx wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Photek wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:If w
What I am not convinced of is the talk of us continuing to pay towards pension contributions for EU staff after we leave.

Why wouldn't you?

Because we are no longer part of the organisation. Why should we pay towards future pension contributions after we've left? Would a new member of the EU be expected to pay a lump sum when they join to cover pension contributions from before they joined? If we are no longer part of the organisation why should we contribute towards the future pension contributions of staff that no longer work for us?.

Easy - because their years service (and future financial obligations to them) were during our time.

A better (or at least equally valid) solution would be to say we'll contribute for any entitlements (period of service etc) during our membership

But then we have a brain dead negotiations team pandering to a hostile press and brain dead audience....so

Well yeah i have no issue with paying for any entitlements built up from service during our membership. Obviously it should work the other way as well with British employees of the EU. But this is the problem, various sections of the media are portraying it as a requirement to pay towards their future contributions after we leave. Which would be like me leaving a company to work for someone else and then still expecting my former company to make pension contributions on my behalf. What the EU want i still haven't seen explained.

Neither side has explained public ally what they mean I think - had a quick look for position or working papaers (from either side) and all I got were frothing at the mouth Express pieces

You're thinking of a "DC/Money Purchase" scheme (i.e. a pot of money that you save into, and then spend in retirement)

The EU scheme is DB scheme (e.g. You get 1/60th of your final salary at the company for each year you worked at the company) which is very different. And it why it's difficult to calculate. [I've no idea of the actual terms/numbers btw! These a re illsutrative]
e.g. We have no idea how long your service will be (if still employed there). We have no idea of you final salary will be (and if you move companies, they'll know at that point but your salary will then likely be revalued at, say inflation +1%, so it's sill hard to predict) or how long you live for meaning how much money is ultimately needed.
.

This is the problem. I really think that the EU and UK government really need to be more open and honest about what the discussions are as the right wing media are fueling hatred and anger amongst their readership. My hope is that when a deal is made, the UK government set out clearly and explain to the people what we are paying for and why. It will not please everyone but it will help a lot.

Photek wrote:Macron.

Maybe you should send some of that love to the people of France; he's only been in the job a few months and he's already hated beyond belief.

DML wrote:The important difference with May and a second term president is that she could be removed by rebels at anytime within her own party. She is absolutely treading on eggshells, theres nothing cavalier about what she can do right now.

Actually that just isn’t true. They tried only a couple of weeks ago after the conference and they didn’t have the support. She has since started to make headway.
This myth that they are kingmakers abd king breakers really needs to be debunked.

They are a small group of malcontents.
The only time they have any real sway is In times of real upheaval and threat. when the majority of the party are ripe for rebellion.
Like immediately after the election.

This and the Tories will tear themselves apart notion really is wishful thinking.

They’ll piss and moan and cause some upheaval and delay - as they already have done but that is all.

The big hitters, Gove and Johnson will make their remarks but will have to accept the deal we get and any concessions we make.

I’ve watched this party of wolves for years. They never change.

Sorry - We never change!

Denster wrote:

DML wrote:The important difference with May and a second term president is that she could be removed by rebels at anytime within her own party. She is absolutely treading on eggshells, theres nothing cavalier about what she can do right now.

Actually that just isn’t true. They tried only a couple of weeks ago after the conference and they didn’t have the support. She has since started to make headway.
This myth that they are kingmakers abd king breakers really needs to be debunked.

They are a small group of malcontents.
The only time they have any real sway is In times of real upheaval and threat. when the majority of the party are ripe for rebellion.
Like immediately after the election.

This and the Tories will tear themselves apart notion really is wishful thinking.

They’ll piss and moan and cause some upheaval and delay - as they already have done but that is all.

The big hitters, Gove and Johnson will make their remarks but will have to accept the deal we get and any concessions we make.

I’ve watched this party of wolves for years. They never change.

Well that damage is done whether they sack May or not...

The fact remains that May is not as comfortable as Obama coasting his second term, to say otherwise is lunacy.

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:Well is it?

They are saying thats how much they want for the deal. We are not willing to pay it. Why would they decrease that offer?

It is. Some don't want to pay money for a trade deal that benefits both sides, and they see the demand as wrong or insulting.

The EU has a similar approach, as they say they don't want a trade deal (which would benefit them) if they don't get the demand, and maybe they feel insulted.

But the money is for what they owe as well. If they don't pay that at least, why on earth would you get a deal?

That's where some people would disagree, as they say the UK doesn't owe anything. If you don't think you owe anything then you're not going to want to pay it.

But May has said she'll honour "UK commitments" so we're paying something anyway. I imagine it's a bit like the Theme Park game right now, where you have the two hands going forward and pulling back before making a deal.

I don't think thats happening at all. We will end up paying in full, or not paying at all.

DML wrote:

Denster wrote:

DML wrote:The important difference with May and a second term president is that she could be removed by rebels at anytime within her own party. She is absolutely treading on eggshells, theres nothing cavalier about what she can do right now.

Actually that just isn’t true. They tried only a couple of weeks ago after the conference and they didn’t have the support. She has since started to make headway.
This myth that they are kingmakers abd king breakers really needs to be debunked.

They are a small group of malcontents.
The only time they have any real sway is In times of real upheaval and threat. when the majority of the party are ripe for rebellion.
Like immediately after the election.

This and the Tories will tear themselves apart notion really is wishful thinking.

They’ll piss and moan and cause some upheaval and delay - as they already have done but that is all.

The big hitters, Gove and Johnson will make their remarks but will have to accept the deal we get and any concessions we make.

I’ve watched this party of wolves for years. They never change.

Well that damage is done whether they sack May or not...

The fact remains that May is not as comfortable as Obama coasting his second term, to say otherwise is lunacy.

That’s not what I said. I said like a second term president. I specifically didn’t mention a particular president to avoid ludicrous comparisons. Nice selective reply though to make a point.
There isn’t any damage done. There sjways been infighting in the Tory party. We’ve always done it.

Yes wishful thinking and optimism on your part - so we ‘get what’s coming to us’ to paraphrase your rhetoric - but is simply isn’t true. They fight but unite under a strong leader eventually.
May has actually shown a bit of strength and leadership. Even if it’s a little too late for herself.
The Party will carry on in the same way. I know you disagree and fervently hope not but hope is a dangerous business in politics.

Denster wrote:

DML wrote:

Denster wrote:

DML wrote:The important difference with May and a second term president is that she could be removed by rebels at anytime within her own party. She is absolutely treading on eggshells, theres nothing cavalier about what she can do right now.

Actually that just isn’t true. They tried only a couple of weeks ago after the conference and they didn’t have the support. She has since started to make headway.
This myth that they are kingmakers abd king breakers really needs to be debunked.

They are a small group of malcontents.
The only time they have any real sway is In times of real upheaval and threat. when the majority of the party are ripe for rebellion.
Like immediately after the election.

This and the Tories will tear themselves apart notion really is wishful thinking.

They’ll piss and moan and cause some upheaval and delay - as they already have done but that is all.

The big hitters, Gove and Johnson will make their remarks but will have to accept the deal we get and any concessions we make.

I’ve watched this party of wolves for years. They never change.

Well that damage is done whether they sack May or not...

The fact remains that May is not as comfortable as Obama coasting his second term, to say otherwise is lunacy.

That’s not what I said. I said like a second term president. I specifically didn’t mention a particular president to avoid ludicrous comparisons. Nice selective reply though to make a point.
There isn’t any damage done. There sjways been infighting in the Tory party. We’ve always done it.

Yes wishful thinking and optimism on your part - so we ‘get what’s coming to us’ to paraphrase your rhetoric - but is simply isn’t true. They fight but unite under a strong leader eventually.
May has actually shown a bit of strength and leadership. Even if it’s a little too late for herself.
The Party will carry on in the same way. I know you disagree and fervently hope not but hope is a dangerous business in politics.

Well see if she survives her term hmm? Didn't mean to be selective of Obama, could be any second term president.

Lucien wrote:

KK wrote:

Photek wrote:Macron.

Maybe you should send some of that love to the people of France; he's only been in the job a few months and he's already hated beyond belief.

What for?

For being leader of France.

I get the impression that no matter who they elect, it doesn't take long for France to dislike them.

DML wrote:

Denster wrote:

DML wrote:

Denster wrote:

DML wrote:The important difference with May and a second term president is that she could be removed by rebels at anytime within her own party. She is absolutely treading on eggshells, theres nothing cavalier about what she can do right now.

Actually that just isn’t true. They tried only a couple of weeks ago after the conference and they didn’t have the support. She has since started to make headway.
This myth that they are kingmakers abd king breakers really needs to be debunked.

They are a small group of malcontents.
The only time they have any real sway is In times of real upheaval and threat. when the majority of the party are ripe for rebellion.
Like immediately after the election.

This and the Tories will tear themselves apart notion really is wishful thinking.

They’ll piss and moan and cause some upheaval and delay - as they already have done but that is all.

The big hitters, Gove and Johnson will make their remarks but will have to accept the deal we get and any concessions we make.

I’ve watched this party of wolves for years. They never change.

Well that damage is done whether they sack May or not...

The fact remains that May is not as comfortable as Obama coasting his second term, to say otherwise is lunacy.

That’s not what I said. I said like a second term president. I specifically didn’t mention a particular president to avoid ludicrous comparisons. Nice selective reply though to make a point.
There isn’t any damage done. There sjways been infighting in the Tory party. We’ve always done it.

Yes wishful thinking and optimism on your part - so we ‘get what’s coming to us’ to paraphrase your rhetoric - but is simply isn’t true. They fight but unite under a strong leader eventually.
May has actually shown a bit of strength and leadership. Even if it’s a little too late for herself.
The Party will carry on in the same way. I know you disagree and fervently hope not but hope is a dangerous business in politics.

Well see if she survives her term hmm? Didn't mean to be selective of Obama, could be any second term president.

That’s my whole point. She won’t survive the whole term. She won’t contest the next GE. Like a second term president won’t contest the next presidential election. That’s where the comparison begins and ends.