Skip to main content

It looks like we are going to have play our part in bailing out Eurozone countries even though we are not signed up to the Euro.  This is from thisismoney

British taxpayers could face a bill of up to £43bn to bail out the European single currency through the IMF after a Brussels 'stitch up'.



Chancellor Alistair Darling was left powerless as EU finance chiefs led by France and Germany cobbled together a plan that will leave Britain liable for the debts of failed economies that are tied to the euro.

Details of the deal were initially thrashed out at a meeting of EU leaders on Saturday in which Britain played no part. Last night at a meeting of EU finance ministers, the Chancellor was due to sign up to plans for the European Commission to give 'balance of payments' loans worth £52bn to failing economies.

This would leave the UK saddled with a £5.2bn bill if they default.

That fund already offers tens of billions of euros to non-eurozone countries but will now be widened so all 27 EU countries can grab the funds - making the total British liability £9.5bn.

Ministers from the 16 eurozone countries have already approved a £95billion bail-out for Greece. But economists estimate that if Portugal, Ireland and Spain eventually require similar three-year bail-outs, the total cost would add up to £430bn.

Britain pays 10% of the Commission's bill and if the loan fund had to take the strain, Britain's share of the liability would be £43bn.

EU finance ministers were rushing to do a deal last night before the financial markets opened overnight in Asia.

The Chancellor denied that Britain was involved in propping up the euro after he signalled that he would block a second initiative to create an EU-wide version of the International Monetary Fund. The idea being advocated by France and Germany would give government-backed loan guarantees to the euro's failing economies, leaving taxpayers liable for all their debts.

As he arrived in Brussels, Mr Darling made clear that the UK would not sanction such a move - which required unanimous support - but said the eurozone countries could take that step on their own if they wanted.

He said Britain would 'play our part' in helping to 'stabilise the situation', but added: 'When it comes to supporting the euro, obviously that is for the eurozone countries.'

But he was effectively forced to support the separate balance of payments loan fund after other EU leaders made clear that under the Lisbon Treaty Mr Darling was powerless to stop it being passed.

Fears of a 'stitch up' were fuelled after President Nicolas Sarkozy's office released a statement saying France and Germany had agreed measures to deal with the financial crisis.

Critics warned that EU leaders were taking advantage of the confusion over the status of the UK government. Mats Persson, director of Open Europe, a Brussels reform think tank, said: 'What we're were told would never happen has now occurred.

'British taxpayers have become directly liable for the mess created by the failed euro experiment. While it's in everyone's interest for Europe's economy to stabilise, this deal could easily spiral out of control.'

Treasury officials stressed that the fund Britain is signed up for will not involve putting in any money up front. The UK would only be landed with a multi-billion pound bill if there were defaults.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

According to Alistair Darling on Radio 4 said this morning was that the £43 billion figure was not the amount put at risk by the UK, but a lower amount - I think he said the UK exposure was £8 billion.

The Financial Times breaks down the agreed package as:
The stabilisation scheme agreed by EU finance ministers and top officials after 12 hours of talks in Brussels consists of government-backed loan guarantees and bilateral loans worth up to €440bn ($568bn) provided by eurozone members; a further €60bn supported by all EU members through expansion of an existing balance of payments facility; and up to €220bn provided by the IMF. This totals the €720bn.

However Alistair Darling has said that the UK will not be party to the bilateral loans facility.

As a result, the Telegraph has quantified the risk as between £9.6 billion and £13 billion. Those are the worst case scenarios. Still big figures but well below the reported £43 billion widely being circulated.

Although GM and AD are still in office, AD did say that he had kept his counterparts at the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats informed as to what he was agreeing to.
El Loro
Referenceirate
you'd think greece would be rolling in it with all that money the brit piss heads spend in kavos
 I was going to say something about the 'convergence criterion'.....but that is brilliant
suzybean
Trouble is there is a terrible lesson for us from the Greeks, but are we going to pay heed to it?  Enormous dependence on welfare, sudden attempt to 'whip away the rug'  =  riots in the streets.
squiggle
Reference:squiggle
Trouble is there is a terrible lesson for us from the Greeks, but are we going to pay heed to it?  Enormous dependence on welfare, sudden attempt to 'whip away the rug'  =  riots in the streets.
In some matters I have a 'one world' view, but on this specific matter I don't think that would happen in a British context. The last time I remember riots in the UK was when Thatcher snatched away from the Welfare State, and introduced a 'poll tax'. I was a kid then, but I do remember. Today's mob would be foolish to whip away any rugs. I've said it before on here, target the non-dom tax evaders and avoiders.
suzybean
Reference:
'poll tax'.
Suzy I was older than you when the poll tax was introduced.  It was to replace the rates, now called the Council Tax.  Instead of householders alone paying the tax, assessed on rateable value of their property, it was an attempt for everyone to pay.  I can understand why it was unpopular but believe me so was the rates, and so now is the Council Tax, which has more than doubled in the last 13 years.
squiggle
Yeah squiggle, my older brothers had to pay it too when they were (relatively) impoverished Uni students. Neither of them qualified for a maintenance grant (because my parents were bang in the middle-income). It was a huge financial strain for the whole family, and my eldest brother almost gave up medical school because he was on call and working in a super-market. He just about made it to the end, and now he is a Consultant, who only does about 10% of private work and refuses to work full-time abroad. That's how the poll tax affected my family, so I remember empathising with the riots. I thought it was extremely unfair.
suzybean
I remember the poll tax - I was in my first job after college, living in the south east of England and paying 'London' prices for everything, without getting London-weighted wages.
When the poll tax came in, I was expected to pay slightly more than half my monthly wage for it - the same as my landlord who owned the huge house I rented a tiny room in.
Needless to say, I didn't pay it.
Demantoid
Reference:
Suzy I was older than you when the poll tax was introduced.  It was to replace the rates, now called the Council Tax.  Instead of householders alone paying the tax, assessed on rateable value of their property, it was an attempt for everyone to pay.  I can understand why it was unpopular but believe me so was the rates, and so now is the Council Tax, which has more than doubled in the last 13 years.
IMHYCO The rates were a much fairer way of doing things. Anyone buying a huge property paid more rates, the same principle as Income Tax. Next thing they'll be wanting Rupert Murdoch to pay as much Income Tax as I do.
Garage Joe
Reference:
When the poll tax came in, I was expected to pay slightly more than half my monthly wage for it - the same as my landlord who owned the huge house I rented a tiny room in.
I agree Deman totally unfair under those circumstances, ill-thought through.  Council Tax though is still an awful burden for many people, especially those who live in property which may have increased in value but their income is still tiny, many pensioners I know are caught in this situation where they have a small amount of savings, enough to disqualify them from help.  Hopefully the plans that were allegedly in the pipeline for taxing people even more if they have a nice garden or a view etc. will now disappear along with the really daft ID card scheme which, in my opinion, was unaffordable and unwanted by the majority.
squiggle
Reference:
those who live in property which may have increased in value but their income is still tiny,
Isn't it the same country wide?  Where I am it's based on the value of your property when the council tax came in - unless you appeal and they can reassess the value down OR up.  I think.
Kaffs
Reference:
yes it is based on the price of the property when The council tax was first introduced, I was in a band c property value 55,000-70,000. Still in band c.now property is probably worth 150,000
Yes but what were you paying in Council Tax in 1997 and what are you paying now?
squiggle
On the subject of council tax, it had been intended for all properties in the UK to be revalued for the purposes of council tax. However the government ministers decided not to proceed with the revluation during that parliament. That parliament is of course coming to an end, so who knows what will happen now.
El Loro
My household (4 of us) are paying £1,110 per year, now if I can remember rightly the poll tax was between £700-1000 EACH. That was every person in the household paying it regardless of income, wealth, property value etc etc, how on earth was that a fair system? No wonder they were rioting in the streets
Lockes
Reference:
According to Alistair Darling on Radio 4 said this morning was that the £43 billion figure was not the amount put at risk by the UK, but a lower amount - I think he said the UK exposure was £8 billion.
If you read my initial post again El Loro you will see that the bottom line at the moment is £5.2bn, I think the £43bn is the worst case scenario if some of the other countries also develop problems. Admittedly there is no immediate 'bill to pay' but the whole thing is a bit of a timebomb.  The thing I found deeply upsetting is the way the deal seems to have been agreed by France and Germany and Alastair Darling seems to have been presented with a fait accompli.
squiggle
Reference:
My household (4 of us) are paying £1,110 per year, now if I can remember rightly the poll tax was between £700-1000 EACH. That was every person in the household paying it regardless of income, wealth, property value etc etc, how on earth was that a fair system? No wonder they were rioting in the streets
Then again... I live on my own and I pay £800 year for only me (that's after sole occupancy discount)  Oh.. and it's a 2 bed ex council flat.    I'm not whinging btw... well, not any more than I'd normally whinge about the council... which is a lot.
Kaffs
yes Kaffy and when my children move out I will be in the same position, but I still say its a much fairer system than the Poll tax. because you could still be paying your 800 quid for your little 2 bedroom flat under the old system BUT a multi millionaire in a ten bedroom house would have been paying exactly the same!
Lockes
Reference:
well obviosly that goes on the area where you live and the banding of your property when the CT was first introduced, TBH I cant really see your point
My only point is that whichever way you slice it its still an unfair system for many.  I am not suggesting that Poll Tax was fair, as I said it was ill-thought through.
squiggle
I saw that story in the Torygraph, yesterday.

More Tory lies.

http://business.timesonline.co...s/article7121468.ece

'Britain's involvement in the bailout could cost taxpayers £15 billion. The country was already exposed to a potential £7 billion cost under the original scheme and its ultimate liability under the enhanced plan will be a further £8 billion, Treasury officials say.'
Blizz'ard
Reference:
I saw that story in the Torygraph, yesterday. More Tory lies.
That's why my OP quoted thisismoney and not the Daily Telegraph or The Mail - any idea why this country (which is not in the Euro) should have to bail out any country that has joined up to the Euro? The figure of £8bn that you quote is also higher than the one I quoted of £5.2bn.
squiggle
Reference:
yes Kaffy and when my children move out I will be in the same position, but I still say its a much fairer system than the Poll tax. because you could still be paying your 800 quid for your little 2 bedroom flat under the old system BUT a multi millionaire in a ten bedroom house would have been paying exactly the same!
I know Lockes - that's why I don't really moan about it.
Kaffs
Reference: squiggle
That's why my OP quoted thisismoney and not the Daily Telegraph or The Mail - any idea why this country (which is not in the Euro) should have to bail out any country that has joined up to the Euro? The figure of £8bn that you quote is also higher than the one I quoted of £5.2bn.
Interestingly, it is actually a Daily Mail article on the thisismoney website, but more to the point, it starts with the figure £43bn, not the £5.2bn figure.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/n...186&in_page_id=2
Blizz'ard
Reference:
Interestingly, it is actually a Daily Mail article on the thisismoney website, but more to the point, it starts with the figure £43bn, not the £5.2bn figure.
Blizzie  the figure of £43bn is a potential 'worst case scenario'.
squiggle
Reference:
hee hee
The Guardian a good enough source?

Despite the political limbo in Britain, the chancellor, Alistair Darling, travelled to Brussels, anxious to forestall any attempt to manoeuvre the UK into footing part of the bill for shoring up the euro.

But he agreed with the other 26 ministers to more than double a European commission-administered fund for balance of payments support from €50bn (£43bn) to €110bn.

 

I just had a look at The Mirror though and you won't find any hint of it on there.  I wonder why not? If my daily newspaper wasn't keeping me informed of what is happening in the world I would be concerned.  The following is from the Times Online

 

Alistair Darling has denied that Britain is helping to prop up the euro after he agreed to a €750 billion (£650 billion) EU and International Monetary Fund rescue fund to shore up troubled eurozone economies.

After a marathon 11-hour session of talks ministers settled on the package that they hoped would be big enough to prevent Greece's debt crisis from spreading.

Under the three-year aid plan the EU Commission will make €60 billion available while countries from the 16-nation eurozone would promise backing for €440 billion. The IMF would contribute an additional sum of at least half of the EU's total contribution, or €250 billion.

Britain's involvement in the bailout could cost taxpayers £15 billion. The country was already exposed to a potential £7 billion cost under the original scheme and its ultimate liability under the enhanced plan will be a further £8 billion, Treasury officials say.

squiggle
Reference:
I just had a look at The Mirror though and you won't find any hint of it on there. I wonder why not?
They are probably still coming out with utter utter spurious bolleaux about Cameron being a toff and never having had a job in his life. If they had actually attacked him for his masters' policies ...............
Garage Joe
Reference:
They are probably still coming out with utter utter spurious bolleaux about Cameron being a toff and never having had a job in his life. If they had actually attacked him for his masters' policies ...............
No to be quite honest GJ they have retreated into a world of football and celebs.  Still I don't suppose they read The Mirror to be informed do they?
squiggle

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×