Will May Pay or Hope it Fades Away? £55b exit bill...
Discussion
Jockman said:
If they are separate stages then why can't negotiations run separately, coterminous?
The EU has linked them by making one a precondition of the other.
I don't agree.The EU has linked them by making one a precondition of the other.
If the divorce bill is agreed before trade talks start there is no argument that one is paying for the other. They are completely separate issues.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 24th November 10:18
Eddie Strohacker said:
With respect, this is the thread about the bill. Focusing on it is what happens here.
Given that our legal obligation is nil then a trade deal is the only reason to pay such a bill. You cannot separate the two. In fact oh look
Businessinsider said:
Theresa May's cabinet has agreed to increase the UK's financial offer to the European Union for the Brexit divorce bill to £40 billion in an attempt to break the deadlock in negotiations.
The prime minister won the backing of key cabinet ministers at a meeting of her new Brexit sub-committee, who accepted that a bigger divorce bill was needed to see movement on trade and transition in talks with the EU.
The ministers, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Brexit Secretary David Davis, also agreed that the government should be prepared to withdraw their financial offer if they were unhappy with the final deal.
The government has no intention of paying the sums demanded by the EU without something in return. The prime minister won the backing of key cabinet ministers at a meeting of her new Brexit sub-committee, who accepted that a bigger divorce bill was needed to see movement on trade and transition in talks with the EU.
The ministers, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Brexit Secretary David Davis, also agreed that the government should be prepared to withdraw their financial offer if they were unhappy with the final deal.
JagLover said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
With respect, this is the thread about the bill. Focusing on it is what happens here.
Given that our legal obligation is nil then a trade deal is the only reason to pay such a bill. You cannot separate the two. In fact oh look
Businessinsider said:
Theresa May's cabinet has agreed to increase the UK's financial offer to the European Union for the Brexit divorce bill to £40 billion in an attempt to break the deadlock in negotiations.
The prime minister won the backing of key cabinet ministers at a meeting of her new Brexit sub-committee, who accepted that a bigger divorce bill was needed to see movement on trade and transition in talks with the EU.
The ministers, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Brexit Secretary David Davis, also agreed that the government should be prepared to withdraw their financial offer if they were unhappy with the final deal.
The government has no intention of paying the sums demanded by the EU without something in return. The prime minister won the backing of key cabinet ministers at a meeting of her new Brexit sub-committee, who accepted that a bigger divorce bill was needed to see movement on trade and transition in talks with the EU.
The ministers, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Brexit Secretary David Davis, also agreed that the government should be prepared to withdraw their financial offer if they were unhappy with the final deal.
What a great bit of negotiating
JagLover said:
Given that our legal obligation is nil then a trade deal is the only reason to pay such a bill. You cannot separate the two.
You're basing this on one narrow interpretation given in the Lords with little to no traction anywhere outside of Brexitania. The rest of us are out here on planet real world.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/lds...
Eddie Strohacker said:
JagLover said:
Given that our legal obligation is nil then a trade deal is the only reason to pay such a bill. You cannot separate the two.
You're basing this on one narrow interpretation given in the Lords with little to no traction anywhere outside of Brexitania. The rest of us are out here on planet real world.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/lds...
Eddie Strohacker said:
JagLover said:
Given that our legal obligation is nil then a trade deal is the only reason to pay such a bill. You cannot separate the two.
You're basing this on one narrow interpretation given in the Lords with little to no traction anywhere outside of Brexitania. The rest of us are out here on planet real world.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/lds...
JagLover said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
JagLover said:
Given that our legal obligation is nil then a trade deal is the only reason to pay such a bill. You cannot separate the two.
You're basing this on one narrow interpretation given in the Lords with little to no traction anywhere outside of Brexitania. The rest of us are out here on planet real world.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/lds...
JagLover said:
"planet real world" being that this is a political liability rather than a legal one. Where is the backup for this legally enforceable liability, presumably which the EU will try and enforce at the Hague?.
Okey dokey. In your world we tell the EU to stick their bill & then say, hey guys, let's trade. The scary thing is their are lots of people out there who entertain this tosh & half of them are NPE posters.
p1stonhead said:
Do you really think it matters whether or not we are obliged to pay it or not?
It matters a great deal if many are seeking to detach the payment to be made from any future Trade deal. I would not expect the UK government to pay any amounts it is not legally obliged to pay unless it was receiving something valuable in return.
p1stonhead said:
The EU isnt obliged to give us anything at all in terms of a deal but we kinda need to play ball now dont we if we want to get anywhere with them.
The trade deal on offer at present isn't worth having even were it free. A transition deal is worth having and we should be willing to offer our usual net contributions for the duration of such a deal.Edited by JagLover on Friday 24th November 10:57
johnxjsc1985 said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
The scary thing is their are lots of people out there who entertain this tosh & half of them are NPE posters.
Zod said:
JagLover is making the mistake of the badly advised participant in legal proceedings - believing the advice from his own lawyers that his case is a rock solid win, when the lawyers don't take him through the strengths of the other side's case and the possibility that they might win. Complex cases around contractual rights governing who owes how much to whom are rarely binary.
FineLets take it to the International Court of Justice. I haven't heard of any Brexiteers who wouldn't be happy to be bound by the judgment of this independent court on the issue.
What we shouldn't do is treat the EU's position as the gospel truth.
mx5nut said:
We want something from them, so we have to dance to their tune to get it.
If only somebody had warned us before we voted!
If you just wanted to use that golden opportunity to get out of the EU then there was only one option available.
Not everyone's lives revolve solely around economics.
JagLover said:
Fine
Lets take it to the International Court of Justice. I haven't heard of any Brexiteers who wouldn't be happy to be bound by the judgment of this independent court on the issue.
What we shouldn't do is treat the EU's position as the gospel truth.
The divorce bill reflects past commitments which remain outstanding. Nobody with any say in the process rationally supports that we have no liability to pay. But I agree the eventual agreement will be a political one of what both sides are prepared to accept to avoid continued conflict on the matter.Lets take it to the International Court of Justice. I haven't heard of any Brexiteers who wouldn't be happy to be bound by the judgment of this independent court on the issue.
What we shouldn't do is treat the EU's position as the gospel truth.
Once that point is reached discussions can move on to the future trade relationship.
Robertj21a said:
mx5nut said:
We want something from them, so we have to dance to their tune to get it.
If only somebody had warned us before we voted!
If you just wanted to use that golden opportunity to get out of the EU then there was only one option available.
Not everyone's lives revolve solely around economics.
p1stonhead said:
Other than voting based on economic considerations, what was leaving a 'golden opportunity' for?
The government will be forced to choose on this. Access & harmonisation or control & sovereignty. This will be what it comes down to & woe betide us if they go with the latter.Robertj21a said:
For the umpteenth time, you seem to think that the Referendum had multiple options, including economic assessments etc.
If you just wanted to use that golden opportunity to get out of the EU then there was only one option available.
Not everyone's lives revolve solely around economics.
And this is another non argument. It might not concern you, but it does millions of others & therefore is an entirely valid line of reasoning.If you just wanted to use that golden opportunity to get out of the EU then there was only one option available.
Not everyone's lives revolve solely around economics.
Edited by Eddie Strohacker on Friday 24th November 11:22
p1stonhead said:
Other than voting based on economic considerations, what was leaving a 'golden opportunity' for?
The point he is making is that if people are given the opportunity to vote out or in, they are entitled to do so for any reason they choose. You are entitled to disagree with their reason, but that doesn't change its validity to them.
And before someone mentions it, I didn't have a reason either way so didn't vote.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 24th November 11:25
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff