How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)

[Burwood]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Burwood said:

They could easily keep it held up in court for years. Kick the can into the long grass. If we get ‘no deal’ or call it a st deal and we hand over 39b, the government is out. I’ve always voted Con. never again if they did that

Then you clearly can't or won't understand what the £39bn is for.

I know what it is for, technically. In reality it’s grease for a decent deal. That’s how I look at it. I realise remainers will be it differently

[turbobloke]

JagLover said:

Jimboka said:

I don’t know why there is a fuss about the £40 billion. It’s peanuts compared to the amount we found to bail out the banks

"bailing out" the banks cost the UK taxpayer £27bn according to the latest estimates I have seen.

You are perhaps confusing the total amounts of debts guaranteed, or the cost of the equity investments in the banks, with the actual eventual cost to the taxpayer.

The inflated numbers touted around come, as you say, from inclusion of sums for indemnities and guarantees in the total. Sometimes you get the impression that this is deliberate in order to give an inflated picture based on politicised and irrational anti-banker sentiment. Even then, it's only rarely reported that - according to NAO - banks have paid over £9bn in fees for the government's guarantees and indemnities.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Burwood said:

I know what it is for, technically. In reality it’s grease for a decent deal. That’s how I look at it. I realise remainers will be it differently

That's a 'won't' then.

[Burwood]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Burwood said:

I know what it is for, technically. In reality it’s grease for a decent deal. That’s how I look at it. I realise remainers will be it differently

That's a 'won't' then.

[don'tbesilly]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Murph7355 said:

Art 50 notes the framework for the future relationship being agreed as part of it.

No it doesn't.

It states:

"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."

Taking into account does not mean the future relationship is specified in it, and the future relationship could be no trade agreement.

The purpose of the withdrawal agreement is clearly to settle matters relating to an exit from the EU. Any future relationship agreements are separate to that.

It is amazing that two years on from the referendum that people still don't know this.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 21st July 08:04

Any legally binding agreement made between the EU and the UK on trade can not be agreed and signed until the UK becomes a third country, so after the withdrawal agreement has been agreed and signed, and the UK has left the EU

It would be incredibly stupid and arguably a dereliction of duty on the part of the UK to agree/sign the withdrawal agreement without some form of legally binding agreement on a trade agreement.

"Nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed!"

Raab has even mentioned withholding part of the divorce settlement without a trade agreement.

[Garvin]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Burwood said:

I know what it is for, technically. In reality it’s grease for a decent deal. That’s how I look at it. I realise remainers will be it differently

That's a 'won't' then.

It matters not what the precise legal or moral position is. Politically, if the government cough up 39Bn quid and get nothing in return they will be toast.

[anonymous-user]

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

[don'tbesilly]

Garvin said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Burwood said:

I know what it is for, technically. In reality it’s grease for a decent deal. That’s how I look at it. I realise remainers will be it differently

That's a 'won't' then.

It matters not what the precise legal or moral position is. Politically, if the government cough up 39Bn quid and get nothing in return they will be toast.

More importantly May would never get such a proposal past the House of Commons, and rightly so.

[Burwood]

Garvin said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Burwood said:

I know what it is for, technically. In reality it’s grease for a decent deal. That’s how I look at it. I realise remainers will be it differently

That's a 'won't' then.

It matters not what the precise legal or moral position is. Politically, if the government cough up 39Bn quid and get nothing in return they will be toast.

If dyed in the wool Tory’s abandon them. PM Corbyn, guaranteed.

I threatened to not vote Con after Cameron’s lying and betrayal last time. I caved. I won’t hesitate next time. Of course I’d never voted Labour

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

More importantly May would never get such a proposal past the House of Commons, and rightly so.

Why is that?

Is it because a no deal Brexit is favoured?

[PurpleMoonlight]

Garvin said:

It matters not what the precise legal or moral position is. Politically, if the government cough up 39Bn quid and get nothing in return they will be toast.

We get the transition in return, and it settles our financial account with the EU.

No part of it is buying a trade agreement.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 21st July 08:42

[Burwood]

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

One thing for it. Walk away.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Burwood said:

If dyed in the wool Tory’s abandon them. PM Corbyn, guaranteed.

I threatened to not vote Con after Cameron’s lying and betrayal last time. I caved. I won’t hesitate next time. Of course I’d never voted Labour

Vote for the Purple Moonlight Stay in Bed Instead Party?

[anonymous-user]

Burwood said:

One thing for it. Walk away.

Wouldn't that depend on what flavour of Brexit you voted for;)

[don'tbesilly]

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

In your case you'd wander into Next pay for the Bernie chairs, not knowing whether you were getting faux leather or real leather, and then complain you'd ended up with the cheapest Bernie chairs which were knock offs from Ebay.

PS: It's Leadsom, not Leadson.

[Burwood]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Burwood said:

If dyed in the wool Tory’s abandon them. PM Corbyn, guaranteed.

I threatened to not vote Con after Cameron’s lying and betrayal last time. I caved. I won’t hesitate next time. Of course I’d never voted Labour

Vote for the Purple Moonlight Stay in Bed Instead Party?

If you run, you’ve got one vote.

[Garvin]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Garvin said:

It matters not what the precise legal or moral position is. Politically, if the government cough up 39Bn quid and get nothing in return they will be toast.

We get the transition in return, and it settles our financial account with the EU.

No part of it is buying a trade agreement.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 21st July 08:42

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.

[PurpleMoonlight]

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.

True, stupidity rules the world.

[B'stard Child]

PurpleMoonlight 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.

True, stupidity rules the world.

Excellent

[anonymous-user]

Ghibli said:

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

Leadsom making threats, the EU must be quaking in their boots!