Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
If the Tories are ignoring advice from the experts, then they should carry the can for it.
You're missing my point. Its not the Tories ignoring expert advice, its the hospitals themselves who are allegedly neglecting to notify Police of cyber attacks and breaches of their systems.
If they where not reporting attacks. Then weaknesses where not also being checked and back doors left unlocked.
If they never report it, the security patches are not known they are needed.
So that causes a problem.
If its not sent to police, then no one can track source, and track the back door they exploited.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I would like to know Jeremy Hunt's opinion of the performance of the NHS he has been in charge of for the past 7 years.
After explaining the IT security crisis, he should explain the nursing crisis, the GP crisis, the social care crisis, the waiting times crisis, and that will be enough to be going on with.
If the Tories are ignoring advice from the experts, then they should carry the can for it.
You're missing my point. Its not the Tories ignoring expert advice, its the hospitals themselves who are allegedly neglecting to notify Police of cyber attacks and breaches of their systems.
If they where not reporting attacks. Then weaknesses where not also being checked and back doors left unlocked.
If they never report it, the security patches are not known they are needed.
So that causes a problem.
If its not sent to police, then no one can track source, and track the back door they exploited.
My understanding is that a lot of the vulnerable computers were running WinXP which is no longer updated. There's no one group that are responsible.
The likelihood is that the organisations affected all were running old operating systems was because they needed to because of software compatibility. Microsoft are notorious for making new OS not completely backwards compatible. If you have a database that runs fine in XP if MS introduce a new system then you have to go through a rigorous check to make sure the program runs properly. If it doesn't then you have to go back to the software designers, but what if they have gone out of business etc? Then you have to create a new system and barring the delays procuring it you also need to ensure you can somehow export and then import all the old data securely and correctly. This is a mammoth task, that last thing you need is a database screwing up medical records and putting the wrong pills to patients (or asking for a kidney to be removed in the operating theatre instead of the appendix).
So you can blame the NHS for not implementing new software quick enough (but that's hardily something you can do instantly)
You can blame the government for not funding the upgrades properly (making the NHS choose between upgrading and patient care)
You can blame Microsoft for pushing forward the end dates for supporting old systems without really consulting as to who it impacts.
There's not really one person to blame here. It's a catalogue of issues that eventually result in a major vulnerability.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/14 20:25:55
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Future War Cultist wrote: Who suggested a detailed itemized bill from the EU that we can look over before agreeing to anything? I think that's a great idea. A demand for a cash payment without question is insulting. And we can actually see what they plan to do with it and what they've been doing.
And the other thing is that it allows the negotiators to engage in some horse-trading.
For example, if the EU are legally committed to funding a new play park in Hull for say, £2 billion
and Britain is legally committed to paying £2 billion to refurbish Juncker's office (ok, I know an extreme example )
then we can agree to cancel those things out.
Hopefully, our negotiators will see that.
Makes sense, unfortunately it would also require level headed responsible adults on at least one side of the table.
If the Tories are ignoring advice from the experts, then they should carry the can for it.
You're missing my point. Its not the Tories ignoring expert advice, its the hospitals themselves who are allegedly neglecting to notify Police of cyber attacks and breaches of their systems.
Also it has been revealed that the "Tories" warned the NHS, but NHS management did not listen. The defence secretary is a political position, the NHS managmenent is not, or at least not directly.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
For what it's worth, even if you hate the various papers referenced (I certainly do), Auntie Beeb was saying much the same.
I will admit to one thing that I don't understand about it all. Places I've worked in the past have had the whole 'ageing IT' and legacy software problem and some may have very well used Windows XP.
But, as far as I know, what happened was they negotiated various 'extended support' services, with, say, Microsoft, or oracle, or whoever it was. Sure, it was more expensive in the long run, but that was a problem for the next yearly accounts.
None of the places I have worked for have ever gone. "Welp, it's out of support now, oh well. Guess that's saved us a few bucks."
At the very worst I've seen someone senior go. "Ok then. Yes, we realise and acknowledge some IT issue is a problem we don't have a solution for at this moment. I understand and accept and carry that risk."
Even if the Tories warned the NHS and the NHS ignored it, the Tories are still responsible for following up and making sure it actually gets done.
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
Whirlwind wrote: The likelihood is that the organisations affected all were running old operating systems was because they needed to because of software compatibility. Microsoft are notorious for making new OS not completely backwards compatible. If you have a database that runs fine in XP if MS introduce a new system then you have to go through a rigorous check to make sure the program runs properly. If it doesn't then you have to go back to the software designers, but what if they have gone out of business etc? Then you have to create a new system and barring the delays procuring it you also need to ensure you can somehow export and then import all the old data securely and correctly. This is a mammoth task, that last thing you need is a database screwing up medical records and putting the wrong pills to patients (or asking for a kidney to be removed in the operating theatre instead of the appendix).
Fortunately that's not how medical records, prescriptions or referrals work.
I suspect I'm going to find out exactly how huge this whole thing was first thing tomorrow morning.
It's very good to warn the NHS while hobbling them with cuts. What they did was warn them, then wash their hands of the matter instead of facilitating actual improvements
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's very good to warn the NHS while hobbling them with cuts. What they did was warn them, then wash their hands of the matter instead of facilitating actual improvements
Because it was intended for the cuts to hit overmanagement, not security.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baragash wrote: Even if the Tories warned the NHS and the NHS ignored it, the Tories are still responsible for following up and making sure it actually gets done.
The government is not responsible for low tier work. If a farmer forgets to milk his cows, its not the fault of the MAFF.
Government ministers have other responsibilities other than making sure hospital computers get windows updates. The hospitals were warned, NHS management should have acted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/14 23:27:59
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Dail Mail reported that there were as many as 50+ breaches of NHS systems which the NHS failed to report to Police...I don't think you can pin this on the Tories, at least not 100%.
As much as people here would love a convenient scapegoat...
There are attacks and breaches all of the time. If companies started to report every attack on their systems to the police the police would not be able to cope. Most companies of any size gets attempts every day. The NHS probably gets hundreds. I am assuming, from what has happened, that the NHS processes will say that you only report it to the police or information commissioner if it is either a legal requirement (data loss) or a major incident that is the result of an external attack. No point in doing anything else. The police will get flooded, and will have no idea what to do with it. They are struggling to deal with harassment on facebook
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's very good to warn the NHS while hobbling them with cuts. What they did was warn them, then wash their hands of the matter instead of facilitating actual improvements
Because it was intended for the cuts to hit overmanagement, not security.
No, the cuts were intended to hit "non frontline staff". Which means IT, as well as many other administrative functions. The Tories believe that anyone that is not a Doctor or Nurse is not adding value and is needless bureaucracy. The government moved 1 billion a year from the NHS capital spend budget to the revenue budget because they believe that anyone not directly treating patients is a waste, and voters agree.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/15 07:32:25
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Whistle-blowers are liberty's best defence against corrupt governments, so this plan speaks volumes.
Naturally of course, it's fine for the government to spy on the public and demand passwords, but heaven forbid the public should get to know what the government is up too...
This, on top of vetted questions from the media, a camera shy Prime Minister, and a fawning press, is fast making the UK a wretched place to live...
Strong and stable government sounds like something from Nazi Germany. Should we be surprised? Anybody who has been keeping an eye on May since her days as Home Secretary, should not be surprised in the least.
The real tragedy here is the apathy of the British public who are sleepwalking into this...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: How exactly is the Government responsible when a hospital neglects to inform the Police of attempted cyber attacks?
Chain of command. Of course the person at the top is not responsible for every missing box of paper clips, but if paper clips are not being bought, losses continue, warnings issued are being ignored, then the boss at the top needs to know or find out the reasons why, and do something about it. If they don't, they carry the can. With power comes responsibility.
It's all about the leadership and the culture of leadership in this situation.
In this NHS example, if incidents are not reported to the police, then the top dog needs to ask why. Leaders can't plead ignorance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baragash wrote: Even if the Tories warned the NHS and the NHS ignored it, the Tories are still responsible for following up and making sure it actually gets done.
Exactly. Nail on the head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I would like to know Jeremy Hunt's opinion of the performance of the NHS he has been in charge of for the past 7 years.
After explaining the IT security crisis, he should explain the nursing crisis, the GP crisis, the social care crisis, the waiting times crisis, and that will be enough to be going on with.
Like Cameron before him, Hunt has abandoned ship. It's a trait amongst this party these days. Gove ran off and let somebody else clean up the mess, and famously, May was known as the submarine during the referendum.
They have no sense of duty or responsibility.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/15 10:14:18
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The government moved 1 billion a year from the NHS capital spend budget to the revenue budget because they believe that anyone not directly treating patients is a waste, and voters agree.
That is a skewed outlook.
Let me give an example of the type of reduction the Tories are achieving.
Back last decade there were moves to implant buffer managers to make 'efficiencies' that existing managment didnt want to be seen being responsible for. An example I know involved a hospital on Herttfordshire where to save money five hospital porters were laid off and not replaced. To do this a management position was created and the vacancy filled to have someone to action the reductions. When all was said and done the hospital had saved some money, which helped the existing administrators look good for promotion and the hospital had replaced five useful working staff with a junior manager without and actual portfolio who didn't really do anything beyond collecting pay.
This sort of BS happens a fair bit in government, and is rife in the NHS hospitals trusts.
The Tories wanted to sever the deadwood managment posts that are rooted in the NHS bureaucracy, most of which happened under New Labour.
I don't know where you get the idea that IT staffing is being cut. In fact I can pretty much confirm (because I know that the security hoops the database staff in the NHS have to go through are very stringent from close hand info) the opposite as the NHS has central databasing (which is the core vulnerability here) and there are layers of security to protect patient data (which ironically prevents the data from being stolen quite effectively, but doesnt prevent the hospital databases from being encrypted my stolen military hackware).
There is a lot of grandstanding going on right now, but the hard fact is that the NHS relies on computerised file systems linking patient data to all points of contact, and is finding itself vulnerable to hacking tools generated by top level intelligence agencies for the purpose of crippling government infrastructure. While asshats in basements might have these tools now that is a recent development and they were designed on a much higher level and were not in the public sphere.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Future War Cultist wrote: Who suggested a detailed itemized bill from the EU that we can look over before agreeing to anything? I think that's a great idea. A demand for a cash payment without question is insulting. And we can actually see what they plan to do with it and what they've been doing.
That was me. A detailed accountent style debt and credit account statement listing all our both owed amounts and credits against it.
Then a sum total for each section, and a end result listing how far we are in debt by.
Now this can also link to a report that has in full detail thr exit cost on brexit day, any per monthly, yearly etc owed payments we agreed to, and anything we are owed in payment from other things.
Simply put a bill that any business would respect. Not just a demand.
With that bill we can negoiate the final payment that's agreeable to UK and EU.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Whistle-blowers are liberty's best defence against corrupt governments, so this plan speaks volumes.
The real tragedy here is the apathy of the British public who are sleepwalking into this...
It's not even whistle-blowers though. This is people asking under freedom of information legislation and then being made a criminal by telling other people about it.
Of course freedoms of the populace being reduced by an authoritarian government that doesn't like to be questioned was, well, something warned about because of the illusion of taking back control.
Come on Scotland go independent then I can move north to somewhere more rational!
Honestly I think anyone earning less than approx. £60k-70k per annum and voting Tories is a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas and putting the battery farm and slaughterhouse in charge because of the impacts on them and their family.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/15 18:35:18
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Almost half of European businesses have started looking to replace British suppliers with competitors from inside the EU after concerns about higher tariffs after Brexit, according to a new survey.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/47450c12-3951-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec
More than one-quarter of European supply chain managers intend to re-shore all or part of their supply chains to Europe, with 46 per cent anticipating a greater proportion of their supply chain being removed from the UK, based on research by the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply, which surveyed over 2,000 global supply chain managers.
“Diplomats either side of the table have barely decided on their negotiating principles and already supply chain managers are deep into their preparations for Brexit,” said Duncan Brock of Cips.
“Both European and British businesses will be ready to reroute their supply chains in 2019 if trade negotiations fail and are not wasting time to see what happens,” he added.
British businesses have made less progress in replacing European suppliers. Nearly one-quarter of British firms have not done any work to prepare for Brexit, according to Cips.
While significant numbers have started planning for the impact of new tariffs on imports, which are likely to be introduced if the UK leaves the EU single market, only one-third said they were actively searching for alternative suppliers based in the UK to replace their current EU-sourced supply chain.
The institute said the reshoring of supply chains by British companies back to the UK could represent a significant opportunity for small businesses looking to pick up new contracts.
But it added that the costs of Brexit for business — whether because of the weaker pound or the introduction of tariffs on imports — were likely to be passed on to small suppliers and eventually consumers.
The effects of sterling devaluation are already being felt by both companies and consumers, with companies reducing the size of consumer products — as Mondelez did with its Toblerone bar last year — or increasing prices, as Unilever tried with its Marmite spread. Almost two-thirds of the British companies surveyed said their supply chains had become more expensive as a result of the fall in sterling since the referendum last summer, with nearly one-third being forced to renegotiate some contracts as a result.
British managers were not optimistic about the prospects for trade talks. Almost 40 per cent said they believed the UK had a weak negotiating position, with 33 per cent concerned about a lack of supply chain expertise and knowledge in Britain.
Ouch, this is gonna hurt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/15 19:13:44
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
IT is an integral part of the 'frontline' process, overmanagement isn't.
To someone who understands IT, sure, it's a frontline process. To everyone else (and that includes almost all of management), IT is a cost centre which provides no value. You slash the NHS budget, and the IT department is going to be one of the first things to get cut. This is the natural result of doing so, but there's no way you can convince the management of that at the time.
IT is an integral part of the 'frontline' process, overmanagement isn't.
To someone who understands IT, sure, it's a frontline process. To everyone else (and that includes almost all of management), IT is a cost centre which provides no value. You slash the NHS budget, and the IT department is going to be one of the first things to get cut. This is the natural result of doing so, but there's no way you can convince the management of that at the time.
A expense yes.
If you want anything modern to function in any way these days, it's a huge part of your logistics, strategy and systems
The NHS needs a inhouse dedicated software and hardware ICT team developing new software, systems security and upgrading the NHS off its ancient machines it still uses. Cheaper than paying contractors.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
No, I do get that that is the process that the EU wants. I'm just saying that is not how negotiations work.
I've been involved I numerous negotiations in my life, both with new customers and leaving customers and I have never in my year of negotiations gone into a negotiation saying 'the fee is £xxx and once you agree to pay that we'll talk about what you get for that money'
I'm just saying that isn't how negotiations work - they never have and I'm prepared to say right now that is bet everything I own that they never will be done this way. If you dont legally owe anything (which even the EU lawyers agree we dont) then you need to discuss what you are prepared to offer for the money you want, if your not going to do that then why would anyone I their right mind agree to that?
If you wanted to buy Apple's from me and I said if you pay me £1 I may discuss selling you an Apple would you agree to that?
Again, I do agree that if we do get a deal on things like the EU space program and such we should pay into the EU budget - but to pay without knowing what we are getting, and with no legal obligation to pay would just be insane.
Again: no. EU lawyers have said they don't have the means to enforce any payments. That's why there is a negotiation (or rather there will be, because the UK hasn't provided anything beyond "we don't want to pay")
But this isn't paying for anything. That's an exit bill, a form of severance pay for compromises acquired during EU membership. What the UK gets for that is, basically, getting out of the EU debt-free and with the blessing of the bloc. The UK can walk out, or apparently not even walk in in the first place, but then trade defaults to WTO rules, and likely not going any further for an extended period.
Once that's settled, the UK has to decide what's the kind of deal they want from the EU. If it's trade in goods only (like Canada or South Korea) no further payments should be needed other than whatever European institutions the UK wants to participate in (ESA, EURATOM, CERN, etc.)
If they want to look further (for example, include services) it starts to look more like a Norway or Switzerland deal... which in addition of paying into the EU budget require freedom of movement which apparently are off-limits, so realistically are not going to happen.
No, I do get that that is the process that the EU wants. I'm just saying that is not how negotiations work.
I've been involved I numerous negotiations in my life, both with new customers and leaving customers and I have never in my year of negotiations gone into a negotiation saying 'the fee is £xxx and once you agree to pay that we'll talk about what you get for that money'
I'm just saying that isn't how negotiations work - they never have and I'm prepared to say right now that is bet everything I own that they never will be done this way. If you dont legally owe anything (which even the EU lawyers agree we dont) then you need to discuss what you are prepared to offer for the money you want, if your not going to do that then why would anyone I their right mind agree to that?
If you wanted to buy Apple's from me and I said if you pay me £1 I may discuss selling you an Apple would you agree to that?
Again, I do agree that if we do get a deal on things like the EU space program and such we should pay into the EU budget - but to pay without knowing what we are getting, and with no legal obligation to pay would just be insane.
Again: no. EU lawyers have said they don't have the means to enforce any payments. That's why there is a negotiation (or rather there will be, because the UK hasn't provided anything beyond "we don't want to pay")
But this isn't paying for anything. That's an exit bill, a form of severance pay for compromises acquired during EU membership. What the UK gets for that is, basically, getting out of the EU debt-free and with the blessing of the bloc. The UK can walk out, or apparently not even walk in in the first place, but then trade defaults to WTO rules, and likely not going any further for an extended period.
Once that's settled, the UK has to decide what's the kind of deal they want from the EU. If it's trade in goods only (like Canada or South Korea) no further payments should be needed other than whatever European institutions the UK wants to participate in (ESA, EURATOM, CERN, etc.)
If they want to look further (for example, include services) it starts to look more like a Norway or Switzerland deal... which in addition of paying into the EU budget require freedom of movement which apparently are off-limits, so realistically are not going to happen.
The fact they they have no means to enforce payment means there is no debt anywhere but it their own head.
I could say right now that you owe me £40000 as my 'fee' for having this discussion with you, it doesn't actually mean that you do and since I couldn't enforce it then the debt only exists in my mind.
The EU is a partnership, if one party want a to leave they are legally responsible for a portion of the liabilities AT THE POINT OF LEAVING - not future liabilities even if they were agreed when they were partners. They are also not responsible for a severence payment, unless it was in the terms of the partnership - you can try to get one but that is simply unenforceable.
If the debt isn't enforceable under any means then it isn't actually a debt - plain and simple.
Now I agree we may well pay something to the EU to maintain good relations and keep a free trade deal - or keep membership of certain EU institutions, but this is what the negotiation is for - we shouldn't (and I don't think we actually will) pay that money without know that we are going to get something better than what we'll get if we just walk away - and that requires a negotiation to be held - something the EU so far has said will not be done.
To make it clear, what I'm saying here is that if the EU said that we don't want to do a trade deal until we've sorted out what the status of the UK is first, and that means seeing if they want to be in any part of the EU and agreeing any fee for that, then this is fine (and even makes sense as you might want to have free trade in science equipment if we want to be part of the EU science centre, and not if we arnt) but that isn't what the EU has said - they have said pay the bill (which exists nowhere but in our head) and then we'll discuss what type of relationship you want.
In my view you are getting a bit tied up in the semantics of what legally constitutes a debt.
The simple fact is, the EU has said the UK needs to settle the three points I have mentioned before, and then the negotiations about trade terms can begin.
We need those negotiations to be a success. The economic and political damage of Brexit is big enough without increasing it for a minor win in the pre-negotiations.
Kilkrazy wrote: In my view you are getting a bit tied up in the semantics of what legally constitutes a debt.
The simple fact is, the EU has said the UK needs to settle the three points I have mentioned before, and then the negotiations about trade terms can begin.
We need those negotiations to be a success. The economic and political damage of Brexit is big enough without increasing it for a minor win in the pre-negotiations.
We don't need it to be a win at any cost however. Yes I would prefer a deal with the EU (indeed I have said so multiple times), but only if it'll put us on a better footing than if we got no deal. Paying £80bn and potentially having nothing to show for it does not put us in a better position, plain and simple.
Now if they are prepared to negotiate what we get for that £80bn then fair enough, but to pay it without that negotiation is something nobody anywhere in the world would do - and the UK shouldn't either.
The notional figure of £80B has to be worked through in the first rounds of negotiation, along with the Ireland border and the status of EU citizens, and it is likely to go down rather than up.
If the final bill turned out to be £80B, though, it would be the best investment ever if it helped us get a good deal about Brexit as a whole.
I think Brexit is a bigger threat to the EU than Britain, personally. Leaving without a deal in place will be painful, it'll damage our economy, but we'll endure.
The EU on the other hand NEEDS Britains budgetary contributions. The EU is propped up by the big 3 member states - Germany, France...and the UK. Britain leaving is a huge blow to the EU, Germany will have to pick up the slack (which German taxpayers won't like), or investments and wealth transfer to the Eastern European member states will have to be cut (which eastern Europeans won't like). Which is why the EU desperately needs to obtain such a huge cash payout from us, they need it to soften the blow.
Brexit is an existential threat to the EU. If it goes well for us, and badly for the EU, the EU is at risk of breaking up.
Kilkrazy wrote: The notional figure of £80B has to be worked through in the first rounds of negotiation, along with the Ireland border and the status of EU citizens, and it is likely to go down rather than up.
If the final bill turned out to be £80B, though, it would be the best investment ever if it helped us get a good deal about Brexit as a whole.
I partly agree - if the final 'bill ' is £80bn and the UK gets everything it wants then it's a bargain, on the other hand if the 'bill' is £80bn and the UK still goes to WTO rules then it was a rip off
Which (and I hate to sound like a stuck record) brings me back to the fact that we shouldn't agree to pay for anything until we know what we are getting for that, which means we need to have a negotiation and the EU says no negotiation until we agree to pay the 'bill'
The EU has not "presented a bill". They have said there are three matters to be resolved -- the Irish border, the status of EU citizens, and the outstanding UK commitments to EU programmes -- these have not been quantified yet -- before trade negotiations can begin.
Obviously nothing is going to be done while the UK is having a general election, so the whole matter is on the back burner for at least month.
The EU has not "presented a bill". They have said there are three matters to be resolved -- the Irish border, the status of EU citizens, and the outstanding UK commitments to EU programmes -- these have not been quantified yet -- before trade negotiations can begin.
Obviously nothing is going to be done while the UK is having a general election, so the whole matter is on the back burner for at least month.
We seem to largely be arguing the same point here - which is that we should only pay the bill once we know what we are getting for it.
You believe (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that the EU intends to present us with a 'fee' (I'm going to switch from bill as it implies we have an obligation to pay) to remain I certain aspects and institutions of the EU and then sit down and talk with us about what parts we want and what parts we don't and then we'll come to an agreement over what we can stay in and what the actual fee for that is.
Now if that is the case I fully agree with this - I just don't see the EU doing this as they refer to it as a bill (implying we have to pay what the bill is) and they have stated that there can be no negotiation until the bill is paid. I've taken this to mean that they want us to pay the 'bill" and will at a future date tell us what we get for that money (which may be nothing) which I'm sure you agree we would be silly to agree to?
So really we are arguing for the same thing - the only real difference is that you seem to have a better opinion about how the EU is going to head into the negotiations than I do.
As for EU citizens, I don't see this being an issue as long as the demands are reasonable as we've been trying to sort this for some time. We are happy to give them the same rights as any English man. We cannot give them protection under the EU supreme court as that'll be EU laws and I'm not aware of any country anywhere in the world that allows immigrants to still live under the law of the country of their origin.
The Irish border might be a little more difficult, but I don't believe either side has a desire for a hard border so should be fairly easy to achieve.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I got interested in seeing what the actual Brexit bill is - i.e. 1/28th of the EU Liabilities less 1/28th of the EU assets, which is what the actual bill is and legally enforceable and what the international community would turn their backs on us if we walked away from.
Quite a long way short of 100BN. Now in fairness these are the 2015 accounts, it may be a little higher than 2.58BN, but 97.42BN higher? I highly doubt that!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/16 16:51:35
We don't need it to be a win at any cost however. Yes I would prefer a deal with the EU (indeed I have said so multiple times), but only if it'll put us on a better footing than if we got no deal. Paying £80bn and potentially having nothing to show for it does not put us in a better position, plain and simple.
It depends on how much we value our world standing. How will we get on at the international stage if we get a reputation for ignoring debts? Everyone will be wary of us cheating them out of money.
Now if they are prepared to negotiate what we get for that £80bn then fair enough, but to pay it without that negotiation is something nobody anywhere in the world would do - and the UK shouldn't either.
They are prepared to negotiate the break payment, and what our ongoing benefits/liabilities are, but this comes before we agree the trade terms. Just like any contract where one party terminates it.
The EU aren't asking for 80bn as part of a trade deal; they are asking for it to settle our current obligations, and it will have no bearing on what deal we get later (though I'd be willing to put money on us getting a worse deal if we refuse to pay what we owe, and realistically 80bn is peanuts compared to what we make from the EU).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/16 17:00:47
)
