Planet Rugby Forum

SamShark wrote:

Santa wrote:

SamShark wrote:

Santa wrote:Reputation risk for countries is not a real thing. Its only occasionally a thing for businesses.

For countries, you "politics" could be used in the same way as "reputation".

There would likely be legal and political consequences.

Politics and reputation aren't synonyms in any sphere of human behaviour. And governments and financial organisations tend to take a far more pragmatic view of things than relying on reputation.

I didn't intend for them to be synonyms.

If you think Britain is not prone to reputational damage as this is not relevant for countries (debatable) then I suggest there are political consequences which may have been a better word to use in the first place.

Comment on the substance of that if you like, but I'm not that interested in playing semantics games.

One big Brexiteer mistake was that pragmatism would trump politics and people would just let Britain win because BMW etc.

Well of course there will be political consequences. They tend to weaken as economic interests come to the fore though.

Mick Mannock wrote:

PornDog wrote:In a time of political instability and economic uncertainty, it would seem the solution is to not pay your debts and thus put the fear of God into any potential lenders.

Prepare to see UK bond rates go through the roof, right when you may just (will certainly) have to rely heavily on them.

I was unaware that the 39 bn was a loan.

It's telling that smart arsed comments and challenges to the wording people have used are pretty much exclusively used, rather than refuting the actual argument made.

Very revealing.

SamShark wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

PornDog wrote:In a time of political instability and economic uncertainty, it would seem the solution is to not pay your debts and thus put the fear of God into any potential lenders.

Prepare to see UK bond rates go through the roof, right when you may just (will certainly) have to rely heavily on them.

I was unaware that the 39 bn was a loan.

It's telling that smart arsed comments and challenges to the wording people have used are pretty much exclusively used, rather than refuting the actual argument made.

Very revealing.

Make an argument for actually paying for a transition period even they’re isn’t one.

I bet that if the UK holds back payments to the EU that there will be little to no effect on rates attached to loans to other parties for which the UK has an excellent record of honouring.

The 39 billion relates to existing commitments, pensions and wages for UK staff etc. Refuse to pay it and you get no deal. It will become a pre requisite to talks starting. Guy Verhofstad is already stating this openly to the media, through twitter, facebook etc

Fine.

Mick Mannock wrote:

PornDog wrote:In a time of political instability and economic uncertainty, it would seem the solution is to not pay your debts and thus put the fear of God into any potential lenders.

Prepare to see UK bond rates go through the roof, right when you may just (will certainly) have to rely heavily on them.

I was unaware that the 39 bn was a loan.

How do you think the UK would fund it even over a 7/8 year period ?

Make an argument for actually paying for a transition period even they’re isn’t one.

This is like saying

"Make an argument for Ben Youngs being the world's top loose head prop". What's the point?

a) The divorvce bill is not a payment for a transition period.
b) We are discussing the wider implications of not paying anyway. Aka this "nuance" that greatly troubles you.

Shall we call it a day? If it helps you to think you won that's fine.

Is it a wilful misunderstanding of what that €39B is actually for?

It is moneys owed (that's called 'debt' Mick) for commitments already made (see Sewa's list and add more)

If you don't pay what you owe then people are going to think very long and hard about lending to you again.

This is not a controversial principle.

PornDog wrote:Is it a wilful misunderstanding of what that €39B is actually for?

It is moneys owed (that's called 'debt' Mick) for commitments already made (see Sewa's list and add more)

If you don't pay what you owe then people are going to think very long and hard about lending to you again.

This is not a controversial principle.

Patronising little spunk-bubble

sewa wrote:The 39 billion relates to existing commitments, pensions and wages for UK staff etc. Refuse to pay it and you get no deal. It will become a pre requisite to talks starting. Guy Verhofstad is already stating this openly to the media, through twitter, facebook etc

Some of the 39 billion relates to existing commitments etc. Some.

This isn’t difficult.

Every time Verhofstad opens his mouth Boris will get support from the electorate.

Mick Mannock wrote:

PornDog wrote:Is it a wilful misunderstanding of what that €39B is actually for?

It is moneys owed (that's called 'debt' Mick) for commitments already made (see Sewa's list and add more)

If you don't pay what you owe then people are going to think very long and hard about lending to you again.

This is not a controversial principle.

Patronising little spunk-bubble

Physician - heal thyself!!

Mick Mannock wrote: I was unaware that the 39 bn was a loan.

PornDog wrote:In a time of political instability and economic uncertainty, it would seem the solution is to not pay your debts and thus put the fear of God into any potential lenders.

Prepare to see UK bond rates go through the roof, right when you may just (will certainly) have to rely heavily on them.

You mean we could see 30Y yields nudging 1.5%?!?! Where could one find an infrastructure project with an IRR of >1.5%?

Of all the things that potentially could happen under no deal, I am happy to confidently say that UK yields will barely rise- in fact, they will most likely fall as people leave risky assets and pile into the long end of the curve. Bond holders no longer care about real return, that much is obvious, just somewhere safe to crystallize nominal or real losses. Further, the ECB's failing crusade to de-Japan much of the Eurozone means that European yields are probably going to go lower.

SamShark wrote:

Make an argument for actually paying for a transition period even they’re isn’t one.

This is like saying

"Make an argument for Ben Youngs being the world's top loose head prop". What's the point?

a) The divorvce bill is not a payment for a transition period.
b) We are discussing the wider implications of not paying anyway. Aka this "nuance" that greatly troubles you.

Shall we call it a day? If it helps you to think you won that's fine.

You calling something a “divorce payment” doesn’t actually make the components of the payment become irrelevant...

I’m still looking for any nuance on paying for a component that isn’t being delivered because you’ve decided to ignore the actual agreements.

Yes let’s call it a day, you’re determined to ignore the most simple of premise once again.

PornDog wrote:Is it a wilful misunderstanding of what that €39B is actually for?

It is moneys owed (that's called 'debt' Mick) for commitments already made (see Sewa's list and add more)

If you don't pay what you owe then people are going to think very long and hard about lending to you again.

This is not a controversial principle.

It’s certainly wilful to ignore that 20 of the 39 is a payment for two years of transition And continued membership benefits through that time certainly.

More amusingly though who are these “people” thinking long and hard? Name some to demonstrate your own understanding.

A component!

See, you can do nuance, even if just a little bit.

SamShark wrote:A component!

See, you can do nuance, even if just a little bit.

I thought we were letting it go, I was unaware that you hadn’t grasped the most basic details of the monies owed.

As the current MMF ends at end of 2020, our "debt" has been reducing every day since 29th March.

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:A component!

See, you can do nuance, even if just a little bit.

I thought we were letting it go, I was unaware that you hadn’t grasped the most basic details of the monies owed.

We're getting somewhere as I was also unaware you had grasped the most basic details of the monies owed

Caley_Red wrote:

PornDog wrote:In a time of political instability and economic uncertainty, it would seem the solution is to not pay your debts and thus put the fear of God into any potential lenders.

Prepare to see UK bond rates go through the roof, right when you may just (will certainly) have to rely heavily on them.

You mean we could see 30Y yields nudging 1.5%?!?! Where could one find an infrastructure project with an IRR of >1.5%?

Of all the things that potentially could happen under no deal, I am happy to confidently say that UK yields will barely rise- in fact, they will most likely fall as people leave risky assets and pile into the long end of the curve. Bond holders no longer care about real return, that much is obvious, just somewhere safe to crystallize nominal or real losses. Further, the ECB's failing crusade to de-Japan much of the Eurozone means that European yields are probably going to go lower.

Currently investors pay Germany for the privilege of them taking your money and giving an implicit credit default to other EU countries.... that’s the madness

SamShark wrote:

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:A component!

See, you can do nuance, even if just a little bit.

I thought we were letting it go, I was unaware that you hadn’t grasped the most basic details of the monies owed.

We're getting somewhere as I was also unaware you had grasped the most basic details of the monies owed

Oh, I thought by mentioning from the very start the payments for transition periods my understanding of at least some of the 39 billion was obvious. Clearly not.

Riddle me this Bimbo..... do you think the remaining 27 should have to cover the cost of pension commitments for British MEP's (including Farage), while you guys repudiate your financial obligations?

you're a fvcking imbecile

Caley_Red wrote:

PornDog wrote:In a time of political instability and economic uncertainty, it would seem the solution is to not pay your debts and thus put the fear of God into any potential lenders.

Prepare to see UK bond rates go through the roof, right when you may just (will certainly) have to rely heavily on them.

You mean we could see 30Y yields nudging 1.5%?!?! Where could one find an infrastructure project with an IRR of >1.5%?

Of all the things that potentially could happen under no deal, I am happy to confidently say that UK yields will barely rise- in fact, they will most likely fall as people leave risky assets and pile into the long end of the curve. Bond holders no longer care about real return, that much is obvious, just somewhere safe to crystallize nominal or real losses. Further, the ECB's failing crusade to de-Japan much of the Eurozone means that European yields are probably going to go lower.

1. The danger is that you wont be using these funds to invest in infrastructure, but to keep the bloody lights on.

2. even just 1.5% on long term debt is not something to be dismissed as irrelevant. Shorter term borrowings are likely to see much more meaningful hits and seeing as we are probably looking to cover budgetary shortfalls is this not the more likely form debt will take? (Genuine question that)

3. You may have a mitigating point there, but is a country that has just welched on a debt really where you are going to be parking your capital? There will be safer havens.


The point I am making though is that in a time of economic uncertainty you want to be putting your best foot forward, not throwing more fuel onto the uncertainty pyre. Doing so is likely to cost a great deal more than €39B, especially seeing as any future post crash out deal will have it as a prerequisite anyway!!!!!

rfurlong wrote:Riddle me this Bimbo..... do you think the remaining 27 should have to cover the cost of pension commitments for British MEP's (including Farage), while you guys repudiate your financial commitments?

you're a fvcking imbecile

I don’t, and I’ve clearly said nothing of the sort.

bimboman wrote:

rfurlong wrote:Riddle me this Bimbo..... do you think the remaining 27 should have to cover the cost of pension commitments for British MEP's (including Farage), while you guys repudiate your financial commitments?

you're a fvcking imbecile

I don’t, and I’ve clearly said nothing of the sort.

heres what you said you liar

should we pay for membership “benefits” within a transitional period if there isn’t a transitional period?

that wasn't a question from you btw. Your opening position on the (whole of) the €39bn issue was "go whistle" ...... there was zero nuance to it

And now that you've been shown up, you're trying to say that you were only talking about that magical portion of the €39bn that is linked specifically to the transition period ..... when you don't even know what that amount is

you're a fvcking imbecile alright ..... and a liar to boot

rfurlong wrote:

bimboman wrote:

rfurlong wrote:Riddle me this Bimbo..... do you think the remaining 27 should have to cover the cost of pension commitments for British MEP's (including Farage), while you guys repudiate your financial commitments?

you're a fvcking imbecile

I don’t, and I’ve clearly said nothing of the sort.

heres what you said you liar

should we pay for membership “benefits” within a transitional period if there isn’t a transitional period?

that wasn't a question from you btw. Your opening position on the (whole of) the €39bn issue was "go whistle" ...... there was zero nuance to it

And now that you've been shown up, you're trying to say that you were only talking about that magical portion of the €39bn that is linked specifically to the transition period ..... when you don't even know what that amount is

you're a fvcking imbecile alright ..... and a liar to boot

I know it’s about 2 years membership.

I mentioned nothing about pensions etc, I’ve been clear. You’d also have to point out how Farages pension is a membership benefit?

Shouting you’re a liar (when clearly not) doesn’t really help you.


You do this regularly now. It’s probably time to address your posting of nonsense and insults.

I wonder if the EU would pay their pensions. Seems reasonable .

If not they should change them to a similar pension to MP's so no transfers are needed.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

sorCrer wrote:

bimboman wrote:

sorCrer wrote:I just hope the wider British public aren't sucked into this complete piffle about not paying the 39 billion means more money for Brexit.

It will mean less money?

Using fictitious money as the basis of a selling point is one of the oldest tricks in the financial con-mans books. Apologies but I can't recall if you were in financing or warehousing but surely you would know this.

Fictitious money you say...

Yes. Money that doesn't exist...yet.

bimboman wrote:

rfurlong wrote:

bimboman wrote:

rfurlong wrote:Riddle me this Bimbo..... do you think the remaining 27 should have to cover the cost of pension commitments for British MEP's (including Farage), while you guys repudiate your financial commitments?

you're a fvcking imbecile

I don’t, and I’ve clearly said nothing of the sort.

heres what you said you liar

should we pay for membership “benefits” within a transitional period if there isn’t a transitional period?

that wasn't a question from you btw. Your opening position on the (whole of) the €39bn issue was "go whistle" ...... there was zero nuance to it

And now that you've been shown up, you're trying to say that you were only talking about that magical portion of the €39bn that is linked specifically to the transition period ..... when you don't even know what that amount is

you're a fvcking imbecile alright ..... and a liar to boot

I know it’s about 2 years membership.

I mentioned nothing about pensions etc, I’ve been clear. You’d also have to point out how Farages pension is a membership benefit?

Shouting you’re a liar (when clearly not) doesn’t really help you.


You do this regularly now. It’s probably time to address your posting of nonsense and insults.

or maybe you could stop lying

PornDog wrote:

Caley_Red wrote:

PornDog wrote:In a time of political instability and economic uncertainty, it would seem the solution is to not pay your debts and thus put the fear of God into any potential lenders.

Prepare to see UK bond rates go through the roof, right when you may just (will certainly) have to rely heavily on them.

You mean we could see 30Y yields nudging 1.5%?!?! Where could one find an infrastructure project with an IRR of >1.5%?

Of all the things that potentially could happen under no deal, I am happy to confidently say that UK yields will barely rise- in fact, they will most likely fall as people leave risky assets and pile into the long end of the curve. Bond holders no longer care about real return, that much is obvious, just somewhere safe to crystallize nominal or real losses. Further, the ECB's failing crusade to de-Japan much of the Eurozone means that European yields are probably going to go lower.

1. The danger is that you wont be using these funds to invest in infrastructure, but to keep the bloody lights on.

2. even just 1.5% on long term debt is not something to be dismissed as irrelevant. Shorter term borrowings are likely to see much more meaningful hits and seeing as we are probably looking to cover budgetary shortfalls is this not the more likely form debt will take? (Genuine question that)

3. You may have a mitigating point there, but is a country that has just welched on a debt really where you are going to be parking your capital? There will be safer havens.


The point I am making though is that in a time of economic uncertainty you want to be putting your best foot forward, not throwing more fuel onto the uncertainty pyre. Doing so is likely to cost a great deal more than €39B, especially seeing as any future post crash out deal will have it as a prerequisite anyway!!!!!

1. Even if that was the case, average rates across the curve are tiny, in real terms the debt would be shrinking.

2. UK fiscal budget is pretty near balanced and in much better shape than most of the developed world; similarly, UK debt to GDP is in relatively decent shape by developed world standards (though not good by developed historical world standards). As I've said in one, even if it is used for whatever reason, in real terms, it will be being inflated away and fiscal stimulus would only be used as a short term stabilizer: we're not talking about a Corbyn government here.
Yields are quoted as annualized amounts so the spread between 2 and 10 and 2 and 30 is small; irrespective, people will move into gilts in a risk off scenarios like a no deal Brexit.

3. The UK is not 'welching' on a debt as the 39bn figure is not a legally obligated sum and is totally unconnected to the UK's gilt issuance (as it has no tie to any covenant, it is unlikely to be ordered by a court and is just a contestable sum, not a contractual one). Specifically, this would not be considered a sovereign selective default. The world is awash with liquidity and developed sovereign bonds are the safest assets- particularly the core global markets of Treasuries, Bunds, and Gilts. The only worry one should have about current or near term UK yields are that investors money is being eroded by poor nominal returns, lenders need have no worries.

or maybe you could stop lying

Anyone with a modicum of sense can see I haven’t lied. You tried and failed again this morning. And everyone can see that.

Question answered......https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... rexit-bill .......next please.

The Sun God wrote:Question answered......https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... rexit-bill .......next please.

So it isn’t 39 billion. Super stuff.

Also I’m not 100% sure “we will stop selling you things unless you give in to our demands “ is affective post the initial shock of our departure, replacements will eventually hit the supply chain.

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:

bimboman wrote:No answer again Sam, you claimed there was nuance , what’s the nuance on paying for a non existent transition period , remember this is tax payer funds.

I've answered above Bimbo, before you posted this. Wasn't aware there was a 5 minute time-limit to reply to your posts.

There isn't any, ANY, objective observer that thinks that refusal to pay the so called "divorce bill" is a simple decision which will make Britain £39bn better off, with no other implications to be considered.

Stop insulting everyone and get a grip.

Implications indeed, irrelevant to the very simple question which you can’t or won’t answer , should we pay for membership “benefits” within a transitional period if there isn’t a transitional period? This is not science.

lets follow your 'logic' for the craic.....

UK gets a discount on the €39bn due to a crash out on 31st October
2 years transition at €8bn net UK contribution pa = €16bn discount
Therefore remaining €23bn immediately payable upon the event of a crash out

Are you accepting that the UK will owe the EU €23bn on foot of a no-deal exit?

Can you be clear with the bored that you accept that this €23bn debt/financial commitment remains in the event of no deal? Do you accept that its payment will be a condition (alongside Irish border and EU citizens rights) of any future trade agreement between UK and EU?

Would be great if you could clear this up for everyone....

haunch wrote:I wonder if the EU would pay their pensions. Seems reasonable .

If not they should change them to a similar pension to MP's so no transfers are needed.

They were hired to work on your behalf in Brussels, you think its an honorable position to take to abandon them and not pay your former employees pensions? Just hope someone else takes care of it and if not fook them?

rfurlong wrote:

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:

bimboman wrote:No answer again Sam, you claimed there was nuance , what’s the nuance on paying for a non existent transition period , remember this is tax payer funds.

I've answered above Bimbo, before you posted this. Wasn't aware there was a 5 minute time-limit to reply to your posts.

There isn't any, ANY, objective observer that thinks that refusal to pay the so called "divorce bill" is a simple decision which will make Britain £39bn better off, with no other implications to be considered.

Stop insulting everyone and get a grip.

Implications indeed, irrelevant to the very simple question which you can’t or won’t answer , should we pay for membership “benefits” within a transitional period if there isn’t a transitional period? This is not science.

lets follow your 'logic' for the craic.....

UK gets a discount on the €39bn due to a crash out on 31st October
2 years transition at €8bn net UK contribution pa = €16bn discount
Therefore remaining €23bn immediately payable upon the event of a crash out

Are you accepting that the UK will owe the EU €23bn on foot of a no-deal exit?

Can you be clear with the bored that you accept that this €23bn debt/financial commitment remains in the event of no deal? Do you accept that its payment will be a condition (alongside Irish border and EU citizens rights) of any future trade agreement between UK and EU?

Would be great if you could clear this up for everyone....

I’ve little interest in discussing a minutiae with you just so you can eventually pick up on a maths mistake etc. The 39 included 2.5 years payments from March so I think about 20 to be discussed.

If you’re stating that the payment will be a “condition” for any further agreements, then good for you. I’ve said not commented on nothing of the sort.

If we are now attaching the payment of 20 billion to the future relationship btw, I’d say job done Boris.

sewa wrote:

haunch wrote:I wonder if the EU would pay their pensions. Seems reasonable .

If not they should change them to a similar pension to MP's so no transfers are needed.

They were hired to work on your behalf in Brussels, you think its an honorable position to take to abandon them and not pay your former employees pensions? Just hope someone else takes care of it and if not fook them?

UK could simply pay the pensions directly instead of sending money just to be sent back again

rabble wrote:

Very good.

sewa wrote:

haunch wrote:I wonder if the EU would pay their pensions. Seems reasonable .

If not they should change them to a similar pension to MP's so no transfers are needed.

They were hired to work on your behalf in Brussels, you think its an honorable position to take to abandon them and not pay your former employees pensions? Just hope someone else takes care of it and if not fook them?

Ideally they should have been paying for their own pensions like the rest of us.
But yeah if the law said the EU should pay them their pensions I would not let honour get in the way.
We have been paying enough into the EU over the years for me not to feel too scummy.