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

[gooner1]

paulrockliffe said:

No, you need to go and read the legally binding unagreed withdrawal agreement. Then you'll change your view.

Ah, maybe if you shout your reply Paul, I may understand it?

[PurpleMoonlight]

philv said:

Interesting.
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.

Much better to negotiate than go to court.

I think it is highly likely the UK will effect the Withdrawal Agreement even if no trade agreement is agreed. If nothing else, we desperately need the transition as we are not ready to crash out in March 2019.

[PurpleMoonlight]

gooner1 said:

So to summarise, the withdrawal agreement is yet to be agreed on.
Am I doing this right?

80% is agreed.

The remaining hurdle is basically the NI border.

[Crackie]

philv said:

I am amazed at the glee at which some put down the uk or the uk’s position.
There will be dancing in the streets if this country were to sink below the waves it seems.

Apparently 1 in 4 of us have a negative view of the UK...…...the French dislike us less than we do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-British_sentime...

[paulrockliffe]

PurpleMoonlight said:

gooner1 said:

So to summarise, the withdrawal agreement is yet to be agreed on.
Am I doing this right?

80% is agreed.

The remaining hurdle is basically the NI border.

In principle, however in the context of this discussion, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And once it's 'agreed' it has to go through Parliament to become legally binding on the UK.

[PurpleMoonlight]

paulrockliffe said:

In principle, however in the context of this discussion, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And once it's 'agreed' it has to go through Parliament to become legally binding on the UK.

And has to go through the EU ratification process too.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 21st July 14:35

[Murph7355]

PurpleMoonlight said:

philv said:

Interesting.
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.

Much better to negotiate than go to court.

I think it is highly likely the UK will effect the Withdrawal Agreement even if no trade agreement is agreed. If nothing else, we desperately need the transition as we are not ready to crash out in March 2019.

The EU has been careful around this topic as they know Article 50 is not well thought through and that they wouldn't stand much of a chance of getting anything at all. They're keeping the Irish Border front and centre at present as it strings this out and they (correctly, now) believe this gets the UK government in knots and improves their chances not only of seeing the 39bn or so, but maybe more (anyone who thinks the Irish Border issue wouldn't go away if more money was offered is deluded).

It is much (much) better to negotiate than to go to court. And this is why the stance of "nothing is agreed until it's all agreed" is the right one. What I'm concerned about is May's lack of spine. My reading of Davis is that he was prepared to stand firm in his position while May was making the right noises, but I think he's witnessed her spine disappear over the last 6mths and doesn't want to front it any longer as a result - I don't blame him.

No trade agreement can be agreed before we leave (PM - have you learnt nothing in the last 2yrs ). But the "framework for our future relationship" can be, and indeed must be accounted for in the withdrawal agreement. If that framework does not include substantive agreement on trade, amongst other things, the 39bn will IMO evaporate. That's not to say the EU would get nothing in that circumstance necessarily. But it will unravel quickly.

The best thing that the EU have done in all of this thus far is keep quiet on how they will make up the shortfall in our contributions. IMO we should have been needling at that consistently over the last 2yrs. As and when that starts being made more public (whether before or after 29th March), the cracks will start to seriously show in the EU IMO (didn't Juncker want a plan by May?). This is why they are doing what they can to make this more difficult than it really needs to be

[paulrockliffe]

PurpleMoonlight said:

paulrockliffe said:

In principle, however in the context of this discussion, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And once it's 'agreed' it has to go through Parliament to become legally binding on the UK.

And had to go through the EU ratification process too.

Exactly. From a legal point of view it doesn't matter what May and Barnier agree, it's only a recommendation to the respective legislatives.

We've seen recently the extent of May's authority so the idea that the provisional agreement is a firm commitment is just rubbish.

[gooner1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

paulrockliffe said:

In principle, however in the context of this discussion, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And once it's 'agreed' it has to go through Parliament to become legally binding on the UK.

And has to go through the EU ratification process too.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 21st July 14:35

So to summarise. .....

[PurpleMoonlight]

paulrockliffe said:

Exactly. From a legal point of view it doesn't matter what May and Barnier agree, it's only a recommendation to the respective legislatives.

We've seen recently the extent of May's authority so the idea that the provisional agreement is a firm commitment is just rubbish.

True.

[Burwood]

gooner1 said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

paulrockliffe said:

In principle, however in the context of this discussion, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And once it's 'agreed' it has to go through Parliament to become legally binding on the UK.

And has to go through the EU ratification process too.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 21st July 14:35

So to summarise. .....

so to summarise, wake me when it's done, ohh, in about 5 years

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

So to summarise. .....

We need to agree to the withdrawal agreement or not agree to it.

Weigh up the odds, make a decision and get on with whatever the decision may be.

Whatever is best for our country doesn't matter now because the blame has been put on the EU for letting us leave.

[paulrockliffe]

Ghibli said:

gooner1 said:

So to summarise. .....

We need to agree to the withdrawal agreement or not agree to it.

Weigh up the odds, make a decision and get on with whatever the decision may be.

Whatever is best for our country doesn't matter now because the blame has been put on the EU for letting us leave.

And in answer to your assertion that the 39bn was legally owed, due, all signed up to, inescapable and not in anyway linked to the rest of the agreement?

[anonymous-user]

paulrockliffe said:

And in answer to your assertion that the 39bn was legally owed, due, all signed up to, inescapable and not in anyway linked to the rest of the agreement?

That was your assertion of what I was saying.

[paulrockliffe]

Ghibli said:

paulrockliffe said:

And in answer to your assertion that the 39bn was legally owed, due, all signed up to, inescapable and not in anyway linked to the rest of the agreement?

That was your assertion of what I was saying.

In relation to whether the current legal position means we're obliged to pay £39bn regardless, you said:

"I'm curious as to whether there are two different withdrawal agreements, one for Leave and one for Remain?"

I argued that there isn't a withdrawal agreement at all, you told me to go and read it. We've been round the houses and you now agree there is no agreement.

So if there isn't an agreement, how can there be two versions, how can I go and read it and going back to the discussion at the point you jumped in, how can there be a binding commitment re money without any binding commitment?

[PurpleMoonlight]

paulrockliffe said:

In relation to whether the current legal position means we're obliged to pay £39bn regardless, you said:

"I'm curious as to whether there are two different withdrawal agreements, one for Leave and one for Remain?"

I argued that there isn't a withdrawal agreement at all, you told me to go and read it. We've been round the houses and you now agree there is no agreement.

So if there isn't an agreement, how can there be two versions, how can I go and read it and going back to the discussion at the point you jumped in, how can there be a binding commitment re money without any binding commitment?

Are you substituting for sidicks today by any chance?



There is a draft Withdrawal Agreement, which has yet to be finalised and ratified.

[anonymous-user]

paulrockliffe said:

In relation to whether the current legal position means we're obliged to pay £39bn regardless, you said:

"I'm curious as to whether there are two different withdrawal agreements, one for Leave and one for Remain?"

I argued that there isn't a withdrawal agreement at all, you told me to go and read it. We've been round the houses and you now agree there is no agreement.

So if there isn't an agreement, how can there be two versions, how can I go and read it and going back to the discussion at the point you jumped in, how can there be a binding commitment re money without any binding commitment?

Nope, I didn't mention the 39b.

[jjlynn27]

andymadmak said:

Allegations of default implies that there is a legally binding agreement to pay.

There isn't

Nothing is agreed until it is all agreed.

I get that you and other Remainers would love the UK to pay your beloved EU 39 Billion for nowt, but sadly for you and the EU it simply is not going to happen.
You want our money? Get around the table and do a sensible deal.....

Edited by andymadmak on Saturday 21st July 00:40

lol.

"beloved EU'

'for nowt'

Bless.

[jjlynn27]

Vanden Saab said:

Ghibli said:

Anyone would think that the EU knows a thing or two about negotiating.

I'm sure we will be better when it comes to the rest of the world.

I am sure you are right...Lets compare how many FTAs the EU have compared to Australia...
Australia has ten FTAs currently in force with China, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, US, Chile, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) (with New Zealand) and Malaysia.

Now the EU …
South Korea,

Oh....

You think that EU has one FTA, with South Korea?

[jjlynn27]

paulrockliffe said:

In relation to whether the current legal position means we're obliged to pay £39bn regardless, you said:

"I'm curious as to whether there are two different withdrawal agreements, one for Leave and one for Remain?"

I argued that there isn't a withdrawal agreement at all, you told me to go and read it. We've been round the houses and you now agree there is no agreement.

So if there isn't an agreement, how can there be two versions, how can I go and read it and going back to the discussion at the point you jumped in, how can there be a binding commitment re money without any binding commitment?

There is a proposal for a withdrawal agreement, which will be followed by an implementation agreement. The legal position is, by people who are much better qualified than few random, angry blokes on a car forum, that 39bn is payable regardless of the trade agreement.