How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
Crackie said:
Zod said:
Burwood said:
Zod said:
ORD said:
Good luck provisionally agreeing to pay £39 bn and then resisting a claim for that amount if sued.
The greater worry is the impact of non-payment on our ability to do deals with anyone else.don'tbesilly said:
Ghibli said:
don'tbesilly said:
Raab has even mentioned withholding part of the divorce settlement without a trade agreement.
Thank the lord that Raab is going to save us.Meanwhile leadson is telling the EU that we are not joking.
We are in safe hands but if the Tories don't get us out of this situation, no one is going to vote for them again.
The Brexit dream can still be saved
PS: It's Leadsom, not Leadson.
The EU let the mask slip yesterday and it was not a good moment for either side. The EU must show willingness to compromise otherwise public perception in the UK will harden even further.
The suspicion since Davis left is that there has not
been an awful lot of negotiating going on at all, if any, with the EU and we are simply going through the motions to a hard landing.
The EU ministers are basically confirming the position laid out by many, myself included in Volume 1 of this thread, is that the EU simply cannot agree or negotiate on anything as there are too many countries who are non-allies with the UK.
Much has been made of dis-agreements on the UK side in the media and however, the evidence is there for all to see, the speed of legislation being passed in the commons for brexit has surpassed expectations and we are the ones showing the EU how to get through piles of decisions swiftly and by consensus.
This is not being done by dictat, Labour MPs are smoothing the process out by voting with the government as they know what is at stake.
The EU on the other hand plays scolded gilfriend behind a locked toilet door in brussels and refuses to come out unless the breakup is called off.
The suspicion since Davis left is that there has not
been an awful lot of negotiating going on at all, if any, with the EU and we are simply going through the motions to a hard landing.
The EU ministers are basically confirming the position laid out by many, myself included in Volume 1 of this thread, is that the EU simply cannot agree or negotiate on anything as there are too many countries who are non-allies with the UK.
Much has been made of dis-agreements on the UK side in the media and however, the evidence is there for all to see, the speed of legislation being passed in the commons for brexit has surpassed expectations and we are the ones showing the EU how to get through piles of decisions swiftly and by consensus.
This is not being done by dictat, Labour MPs are smoothing the process out by voting with the government as they know what is at stake.
The EU on the other hand plays scolded gilfriend behind a locked toilet door in brussels and refuses to come out unless the breakup is called off.
sas62 said:
Crackie said:
Zod said:
Burwood said:
Zod said:
ORD said:
Good luck provisionally agreeing to pay £39 bn and then resisting a claim for that amount if sued.
The greater worry is the impact of non-payment on our ability to do deals with anyone else.That being by the by however, we come back to the ROW not giving 2 hoots if we tell the EU where to go. There have already been several reports out of America of varying amounts of validity across the political spectrum that all appear to be in agreement of laughing at such an idea. The major Commonwealth countries are lining up the trade deals - we appear to get daily reports how New Zealand is quite prepared to forget the "betrayal" by the UK for the original EU decision, to get a new one now - Trump's America is lining up the EU alongside China (and Canada - no I dont get that bit either) and the Far East couldnt give a rat f
k about European politics.IF, IF you consider it in that context its a no brainer gamble. IF you consider it in a Euro-centric context then yes it is a massive gamble.
Ghibli said:
I'm curious as to whether there are two different withdrawal agreements, one for Leave and one for Remain?
Or is it a case of remain reading 'The withdrawal agreement' and Leave not.
It is odd. Or is it a case of remain reading 'The withdrawal agreement' and Leave not.
Both remainers and leavers thinking they’ve won and lost and been betrayed.
Doesn’t it just show that the issue is divisive and tribal and a half Brexit doesn’t really suit anyone.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Murph7355 said:
So you have no idea what it is we are actually legally bound to pay?
Do you want a list of the costs or legal opinion on whether or not the UK is liable?Anyway, here is a link to the OBR's summary. See Annex B.
http://cdn.obr.uk/EFO-MaRch_2018.pdf
But note that the linked document is keen to stress the joint report from the EU/UK on this topic. All of which remains wrapped up in the remainder of Art50, which you see one way, and I see a slightly different way - I do not believe our views are significantly different btw. Art50 is ambiguous in the extreme and lacking in detail...which will make the legal case difficult for the EU to assert.
I particularly liked this text however, which is off at a slight tangent but, to me, underpins the whole economic argument
OBR report said:
The impact of Brexit on the public finances is complex and uncertainand ultimately will depend on both the outcome of the current negotiations and how it affects our future relationship with the rest of the world.Moreover, even withhindsight,it is likely tobedifficult to quantify the impactof Brexit on both the economy and the public financeswith any degree of confidence, since that requires a presumption as towhat would have happened in the absence of a vote to leave the EU.
Nail on head. Nothing will be provable one way or the other.All of the fannying round is about two things and nothing to do our economy:
1) Money - the EU trying to secure as much as it can from the UK so that it can kick the can as far down the road as possible about how it will make up the shortfall we leave. Cut budgets? Current net recipients are already getting chippy about the scope of the EU...cut their receipts and watch how that goes. Keep budgets as they are but expect more payments from EU27 - that'll work deliciously when less than half are currently net contributors, and of those most only just.
2) Political philosophy - the EU as a governing body wants an increasing hold on affairs across member states. This is the primary reason it drew its 4 "freedoms" as it did. They are prepared to throw anything into the mix, no matter how tenuous, to maintain this. Irish Border is one. There will be others waiting in the wings. That's fair enough if all member states agree (politicians evidently have, electorates less so). We've decided we don't agree with it.
May has allowed herself to be drawn in on point (2) badly. Which is no surprise as she's hopeless at politicking and strategy around her own government, let alone amongst the EU.
The money remains contingent on sensible arrangements on everything else (including the framework of our future relationship with the EU which includes trade - absolute detail not required, but sufficient so that breaking the agreement threatens all of it). If May backtracks on that (far from impossible) there will be a leadership change and possibly a GE in my opinion.
El stovey said:
It is odd.
Both remainers and leavers thinking they’ve won and lost and been betrayed.
Doesn’t it just show that the issue is divisive and tribal and a half Brexit doesn’t really suit anyone.
Maybe it's just Brexit that doesn't suit anyone rather than a half Brexit.Both remainers and leavers thinking they’ve won and lost and been betrayed.
Doesn’t it just show that the issue is divisive and tribal and a half Brexit doesn’t really suit anyone.
It will be what it will be but let's not forget that Next Bernie chairs are more important than Brexit to some people
DeejRC said:
turbobloke said:
gooner1 said:
DeejRC said:
Coolbanana said:
Garvin said:
So now it is you who can't or won't understand! It doesn't matter in the slightest what the payment is actually for. Never mind reality, perception is all (as witnessed throughout this thread). If the government coughs it up with three fifths of not a lot in return they will be unceremoniously dumped by the electorate.
Indeed, perception...and if the UK does not honour its Agreements made with the EU prior to the Referendum, it's image as a country that will renege on it's word and commitments will resonate throughout the R.O.W. and everyone will know to take anything the UK Negotiators say with a pinch of salt. The UK made commitments under a deal it was actively engaged in. If it refuses to pay its debts it is nothing less that a swine of a country and would deserve to be treated as such by all.
king certainty they won’t - the Yanks have already laughed at the idea they would in same circumstances!te in the way he did.He was wrong but so so right.
El stovey said:
Ghibli said:
I'm curious as to whether there are two different withdrawal agreements, one for Leave and one for Remain?
Or is it a case of remain reading 'The withdrawal agreement' and Leave not.
It is odd. Or is it a case of remain reading 'The withdrawal agreement' and Leave not.
Both remainers and leavers thinking they’ve won and lost and been betrayed.
Doesn’t it just show that the issue is divisive and tribal and a half Brexit doesn’t really suit anyone.
Ghibli said:
I'm curious as to whether there are two different withdrawal agreements, one for Leave and one for Remain?
Or is it a case of remain reading 'The withdrawal agreement' and Leave not.
What you're missing is that there isn't any withdrawal agreement at all. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.Or is it a case of remain reading 'The withdrawal agreement' and Leave not.
Certainly nothing has gone through Parliament and fortunately Gina did her thing so that May can't agree things on her own anymore.
Funny how that Remain victory has come back to bite.
paulrockliffe said:
What you're missing is that there isn't any withdrawal agreement at all. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Certainly nothing has gone through Parliament and fortunately Gina did her thing so that May can't agree things on her own anymore.
Funny how that Remain victory has come back to bite.
It's nothing to do with Victory. It's about reading the withdrawal agreement.Certainly nothing has gone through Parliament and fortunately Gina did her thing so that May can't agree things on her own anymore.
Funny how that Remain victory has come back to bite.
Have you read it?
sas62 said:
Crackie said:
Zod said:
Burwood said:
Zod said:
ORD said:
Good luck provisionally agreeing to pay £39 bn and then resisting a claim for that amount if sued.
The greater worry is the impact of non-payment on our ability to do deals with anyone else.There is currently no legal liability to pay.
Who’s to say we are not owed for eu assets.
We have provisionally agreed to pay this bribe in tne hope of
Securing a trade deal.
It is a bribe.
There is as fas i know, no provision or rule covering commitments after a country leaving tne eu.
As there is nothing written about a country retaining eu assets equivalent to their net input throughout tne term of their membershup.
It will have zip affect, as it is not at present a debt
I am amazeed at tne glee at which some put down tne uk or the uk’s position.
There will be dancing in tne streets if this country were to sink below tne waves it seems.
Edited by philv on Saturday 21st July 13:08
Edited by philv on Saturday 21st July 13:09
philv said:
And what would we be defaulting on?
There is currently no legal liability to pay.
Who’s to say we are not owed for eu assets.
We have provisionally agreed to pay this bribe in tne hope of
Securing a trade deal.
It is a bribe.
There is as fas i know, no provision or rule covering commitments after a country leaving tne eu.
As there is nothing written about a country retaining eu assets equivalent to their net input throughout tne term of their membershup.
It will have zip affect, as it is not at present a debt
I am amazeed at tne glee at which some put down tne uk or the uk’s position.
There will be dancing in tne streets if this country were to sink below tne waves it seems.
Have a read of this.There is currently no legal liability to pay.
Who’s to say we are not owed for eu assets.
We have provisionally agreed to pay this bribe in tne hope of
Securing a trade deal.
It is a bribe.
There is as fas i know, no provision or rule covering commitments after a country leaving tne eu.
As there is nothing written about a country retaining eu assets equivalent to their net input throughout tne term of their membershup.
It will have zip affect, as it is not at present a debt
I am amazeed at tne glee at which some put down tne uk or the uk’s position.
There will be dancing in tne streets if this country were to sink below tne waves it seems.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-brexit-bill-and-the-l...
paulrockliffe said:
Ghibli said:
It's nothing to do with Victory. It's about reading the withdrawal agreement.
Have you read it?
I know you struggle with these things, but if you could copy and paste the relevant part of the text which forms part of UK Statute then I'll happily read it?Have you read it?
Its the withdrawal agreement which both the UK & EU need to agree on. It's as simple as that.
PurpleMoonlight said:
philv said:
And what would we be defaulting on?
There is currently no legal liability to pay.
Who’s to say we are not owed for eu assets.
We have provisionally agreed to pay this bribe in tne hope of
Securing a trade deal.
It is a bribe.
There is as fas i know, no provision or rule covering commitments after a country leaving tne eu.
As there is nothing written about a country retaining eu assets equivalent to their net input throughout tne term of their membershup.
It will have zip affect, as it is not at present a debt
I am amazeed at tne glee at which some put down tne uk or the uk’s position.
There will be dancing in tne streets if this country were to sink below tne waves it seems.
Have a read of this.There is currently no legal liability to pay.
Who’s to say we are not owed for eu assets.
We have provisionally agreed to pay this bribe in tne hope of
Securing a trade deal.
It is a bribe.
There is as fas i know, no provision or rule covering commitments after a country leaving tne eu.
As there is nothing written about a country retaining eu assets equivalent to their net input throughout tne term of their membershup.
It will have zip affect, as it is not at present a debt
I am amazeed at tne glee at which some put down tne uk or the uk’s position.
There will be dancing in tne streets if this country were to sink below tne waves it seems.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-brexit-bill-and-the-l...
I do hope we have not been committing to anything else in tne last 2 years, just in case.
If it were so cut and dried, why make such a big deal of it in negotiations?
Surely, the eu would be confident of winning any court case.
gooner1 said:
Ghibli said:
What makes you think that the relevant part you are wanting to see will be in there?
Its the withdrawal agreement which both the UK & EU need to agree on. It's as simple as that.
So to summarise, the withdrawal agreement is yet to be agreed on.Its the withdrawal agreement which both the UK & EU need to agree on. It's as simple as that.
Am I doing this right?
gooner1 said:
Ghibli said:
What makes you think that the relevant part you are wanting to see will be in there?
Its the withdrawal agreement which both the UK & EU need to agree on. It's as simple as that.
So to summarise, the withdrawal agreement is yet to be agreed on.Its the withdrawal agreement which both the UK & EU need to agree on. It's as simple as that.
Am I doing this right?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff