Brexit discussion thread II

robindch

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's no coming back in to the EU or staying by the back door. It wasn't working. It's time for something better for all involved.

It was working well - so well, in fact, that the public forgot about it and assuming that roughly half of the nation's trade simply happened without any intervention from anybody.

Instead, significant numbers - including yourself in retrospect, it seems - chose to believe the copious dishonesty provided by Gove, Carswell, Johnson, Farage and the rest of them. Mostly, it seems since it was easy to do, required no subtlety or learning, and played to the worst tribal instincts of any population.

robindch

Nody wrote: »

Yes they owe money but honestly let's stop wasting time arguing over the details which will go nowhere, end the discussion and let UK start dealing with Brexit is Brexit.

It's certainly tempting to abandon the UK to the disastrous group of politicians currently mismanaging the country and the current and pending liabilities could be zero'd by abandoning negotiations.

However, in order to make up for the shortfall, the EU would then likely need to slap significant tariffs on UK trade, and I can't see that ending up in any place useful.

ancapailldorcha

robindch wrote: »

It's certainly tempting to abandon the UK to the disastrous group of politicians currently mismanaging the country and the current and pending liabilities could be zero'd by abandoning negotiations.

However, in order to make up for the shortfall, the EU would then likely need to slap significant tariffs on UK trade, and I can't see that ending up in any place useful.

I don't see either the EU or the UK benefiting from Brexit. In terms of apportioning responsibility though, the EU is the only choices for politicians. Can't blame the voters for obvious reasons, none of them are likely to take responsibility for it themselves which means that the EU will continue to take the sort of flak it's been absorbing for the past few decades. The logical thing to do would be to backtrack but without the mere will to accept that mistakes are made, the Tories are just going to plough ahead in the name of their party.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Plus they will have to pay the cost of Brexit - likely to be €10 million, plus the cost of moving the two EU agencies out of the UK. Their own cost of Bexit is likely to be of the same order.

The Medicines Agency signed a 35 year lease on the Canary Wharf offices.

It was the Fincial Times that came out with a figure of €100 million (or was it GB£s - mind you by the time of Brexit it will not make much difference)

The commitment thing is a given. The UK has already stated it will honour it commitments. The cost of brexit and moving the agencies is something the eu has added on, so that is all open to negotiation.

oppenheimer1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The commitment thing is a given. The UK has already stated it will honour it commitments. The cost of brexit and moving the agencies is something the eu has added on, so that is all open to negotiation.

How can we trust the UK to honour it's commitments when it seems intent on undermining the sequence of the talks - a point it freely signed up to.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then what are the negotiations about? Surely they can all go home now and save us all a fortune

Internal Tory party politics.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

it will need to be sold as a payment for a future relationship rather than a bill to be politically acceptable.

More lies for the electorate.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

robindch wrote: »

It was working well - so well, in fact, that the public forgot about it and assuming that roughly half of the nation's trade simply happened without any intervention from anybody.

Instead, significant numbers - including yourself in retrospect, it seems - chose to believe the copious dishonesty provided by Gove, Carswell, Johnson, Farage and the rest of them. Mostly, it seems since it was easy to do, required no subtlety or learning, and played to the worst tribal instincts of any population.

I don't think anyone said that 44% of trade (what goes to the EU in goods and services) was achieved automatically.

The point is that there is a lot of potential for the 56% to be expanded by having control of trade policy. That's too good an opportunity to miss out on.

If you're going to claim that I'm dishonest you need to explain why.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see either the EU or the UK benefiting from Brexit. In terms of apportioning responsibility though, the EU is the only choices for politicians. Can't blame the voters for obvious reasons, none of them are likely to take responsibility for it themselves which means that the EU will continue to take the sort of flak it's been absorbing for the past few decades. The logical thing to do would be to backtrack but without the mere will to accept that mistakes are made, the Tories are just going to plough ahead in the name of their party.

It isn't logical to backtrack. That's a rejection of democracy.

It's logical to move forward on the best terms possible with the EU and take the benefits of being on the outside with both hands.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

More lies for the electorate.

No, not lies but a negotiating strategy.

It means that however much the EU say it's a bill. It isn't a bill in the eyes of the British public. The UK won't pay it until the details of the transition and future relationship become clear.

It's an obvious strategy. The EU desperately need this money. It's one of Britain's trump cards. They need to get something in return for it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

If this is the typical attitude of the British public then in all for the French attitude.


Let them go after their too good an opportunity to miss.


The tories really are a horrible party

Calina

The EU will cope without the money if it comes to it. It is a far bigger economy than the UK is. But the money represents commitments the UK has already made and if the UK welches on it then quite frankly who would trust them in the future?

The issue is this. The UK desperately needs trade arrangements. The EU justifiably considers that the UK cannot be trusted so until it demonstrates a willingness in grown up detail not to welch on previous commitments, the EU will not discuss trade. After all, the UK are already in trouble for not applying customs regs to third party countries.

The EU's position is justified in the context of 1) Johnson's general behaviour and cake and eat it comments 2) Davis lack of engagement and up front lack of knowledge 3) May's decision to issue Article 50 without actually having a concrete strategy for negotiation and 4) May's decision to have an election after issuing Article 50. The UK has not been acting like a trustworthy counterparty, they have not been negotiating in good faith. Half their own electorate don't trust them.

Samaris

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

Peregrinus

Calina wrote: »

The EU will cope without the money if it comes to it. It is a far bigger economy than the UK is. But the money represents commitments the UK has already made and if the UK welches on it then quite frankly who would trust them in the future?

I don't think it's a question of the UK welching on it, or of the UK not being trusted. I think the position is:

- The UK has accepted the principle that some transitional payment is proper, and needs to be negotiated.

- Although neither side will say so explicitly, a reasonable and open-handed attitude on the part of the UK to identifying and quantifying the amount due is widely seen something of a quid pro quo for a reasonable and open-handed attitude on the part of the EU to a trade deal.

- The UK desparately needs a solid trade deal with the EU, not just because the EU is, and will certainly remain, far and away its largest trading partner, but also because its strategy of negotiation trade deals with other countries lacks all credibility if it cannot even negotiate a deal with the the Union.

- So a failure by the UK to agree an exit payment wouldn't be seen so much as a matter of mistrust as an indicator of massive ineptitude. The UK needs a trade deal, and if they allow disagreement over the exit payment to get in the way of that, "incompetent" is about the nicest thing that will be said of them internationally. The already wishful notion that the UK will be "nimble" in its negotations with other countries will become simply ludicrous. Basically, if they stuff this up, Brexit will be seen to fall at the first hurdle, which is negotiating an exit that keeps open the UK's options for a good trade deal.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

Good morning!

I'm amenable to the UK paying up to £36bn net (without a return of assets) if the EU are willing to provide clarity on trading terms.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If these terms are unsatisfactory the UK could rescind this.

The UK needs to act for the interests of its people here. Handing over large sums of money without any willingness for the EU to give the UK anything in return would be a negotiating error.

If we get a WTO terms Brexit I'd rather use that £36bn on British priorities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm amenable to the UK paying up to £36bn net (without a return of assets) if the EU are willing to provide clarity on trading terms.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If these terms are unsatisfactory the UK could rescind this.

The UK needs to act for the interests of its people here. Handing over large sums of money without any willingness for the EU to give the UK anything in return would be a negotiating error.

If we get a WTO terms Brexit I'd rather use that £36bn on British priorities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're not thinking this through, solo.

The GBP 36bn, I recall you mentioning, is a multiple of the UK's budget contribution in previous years. But the UK's budget contribution is measured in euros, not GBP, and your expression of it in sterling ignores the decline in sterling triggered by the Brexit vote. Effectively, you're trying to dictate a maximum exit payment on the basis that the Union must wear the foreign exchange losses attributable to the Brexit decision. Simple self-respect would prevent the Union from accepting this, which suggests that your cap has been manufactured with the express purpose of making it unacceptable to the other side; this looks like a negotiating strategy designed to prevent any agreement from being reached.

I realise that may not be your intention, but fuzzy thinking at a time like this can be just as dangerous as outright malice. I think if it is to have any credibility the UK has to start by producing a coherent basis for measuring the UK's net liabilities to the Union and then deducing a figure from that, rather than the other way around.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The commitment thing is a given. The UK has already stated it will honour it commitments. The cost of brexit and moving the agencies is something the eu has added on, so that is all open to negotiation.

Is this the same people that committed to not having an election anytime soon? Or the same people that stood in front of a bus that had lies written all over it? Would you trust people like that? Why should the EU?

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're not thinking this through, solo.

The GBP 36bn, I recall you mentioning, is a multiple of the UK's budget contribution in previous years. But the UK's budget contribution is measured in euros, not GBP, and your expression of it in sterling ignores the decline in sterling triggered by the Brexit vote. Effectively, you're trying to dictate a maximum exit payment on the basis that the Union must wear the foreign exchange losses attributable to the Brexit decision. Simple self-respect would prevent the Union from accepting this, which suggests that your cap has been manufactured with the express purpose of making it unacceptable to the other side; this looks like a negotiating strategy designed to prevent any agreement from being reached.

I realise that may not be your intention, but fuzzy thinking at a time like this can be just as dangerous as outright malice. I think if it is to have any credibility the UK has to start by producing a coherent basis for measuring the UK's net liabilities to the Union and then deducing a figure from that, rather than the other way around.

Good morning!

Again I agree with David Davis that this isn't the best approach. Putting a minimum value down isn't a good approach.

I think the best approach is to scrutinize the EU's proposal and work to a final outcome.

The UK shouldn't offer money carte blanche without an assurance on trade. The EU should be playing off trade access with the contribution.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Samaris wrote: »

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

Good morning!

I'm amenable to the UK paying up to £36bn net (without a return of assets) if the EU are willing to provide clarity on trading terms.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If these terms are unsatisfactory the UK could rescind this.

The UK needs to act for the interests of its people here. Handing over large sums of money without any willingness for the EU to give the UK anything in return would be a negotiating error.

If we get a WTO terms Brexit I'd rather use that £36bn on British priorities.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit in itself is not acting in the interests of its people and neither was the referendum itself because it was so poorly done.

Fratton Fred

Samaris wrote: »

The stuff that the EU are asking Britain to pony up for are pretty reasonable. Britain, as part of the bloc, signed up to a seven-year budget, based on the contributions and needs of 28 countries, Britain included. Britain could have waited until the seven years was up and done this before the next budget was created rather than doing it in the middle, but Britain has shown a complete disregard for causing themselves trouble and their media positively rejoices at the idea of causing other people trouble.

What Britain essentially wants to do is to skip out on the last six months rent for the tenancy they signed up for, but demands to keep relationships open for business - oh, and to stick around in the house for maybe three-four more months just while they sort things out. But they're not paying the bill, nosirree!

that is completely untrue.

The budget runs until 2020 and there is nothing to suggest the UK will not honour ts commitments to this budget.

Samaris wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the EU is going "oh, shove it, get out if you're going, but you're paying your rent. Act like reasonable people, and we'll keep trading and even make this relatively easy. Act like asshats and we'll wait you out." And we can. Yes, Britain crashing out will hurt the EU, but there's little the EU can do about one country acting the maggot bar not trade with it. And the EU will ride out the results of raising tensions like that far easier than Britain ultimately will, since the EU is "alienating" one country. Britain is doing its damnedest to alienate 27 of its closest neighbours.

again, other than a few posters (with obvious ulterior motives) I see no one saying this at all, this is completely un true

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK shouldn't offer money carte blanche without an assurance on trade.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's exit bill, you're basically advocating for the UK to blackmail the EU.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's payments for enhanced access to the Single Market after it has agreed its exit bill, fair enough (...noting however that the EU is hardly in a position to provide 'assurance' on trade levels: the UK trades with individual EU27 countries, not with the EU on its own; all the EU could give assurances about, in a trading context, is procedural trade facilitation).

Which is it?

listermint

ambro25 wrote: »

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's exit bill, you're basically advocating for the UK to blackmail the EU.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's payments for enhanced access to the Single Market after it has agreed its exit bill, fair enough (...noting however that the EU is hardly in a position to provide 'assurance' on trade levels: the UK trades with individual EU27 countries, not with the EU on its own; all the EU could give assurances about, in a trading context, is procedural trade facilitation).

Which is it?

It's basically saying we are an untrustworthy worthy lot but trust us.

Amusing, yet no so amusing at the same time.

How can you trust someone when they won't actually pay their bill. Their.... Bill

solodeogloria

ambro25 wrote: »

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's exit bill, you're basically advocating for the UK to blackmail the EU.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's payments for enhanced access to the Single Market after it has agreed its exit bill, fair enough (...noting however that the EU is hardly in a position to provide 'assurance' on trade levels: the UK trades with individual EU27 countries, not with the EU on its own; all the EU could give assurances about, in a trading context, is procedural trade facilitation).

Which is it?

Good morning!

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

robindch

Calina wrote: »

The EU justifiably considers that the UK cannot be trusted so until it demonstrates a willingness in grown up detail not to welch on previous commitments, the EU will not discuss trade. [...] The EU's position is justified in the context of 1) Johnson's general behaviour and cake and eat it comments 2) Davis lack of engagement and up front lack of knowledge 3) May's decision to issue Article 50 without actually having a concrete strategy for negotiation and 4) May's decision to have an election after issuing Article 50. The UK has not been acting like a trustworthy counterparty, they have not been negotiating in good faith. [...]

Can't disagree with any of that - the Tory frontbench are currently negotiating with the EU as though the EU were some peculiar mixture of the Tory backbench and the electorate - by turns, threatening and cajoling, hand-shaking, fist-waving and huffing + puffing like an overweight steamtrain.

Of the elements you've listed, the worst is certainly the fact that May launched A50 without any clear idea of what 'exiting the EU' actually means. So instead of heads-down discussion with EU negotiators to achieve an outcome in some general area, most of the fighting instead seems to have been happening within the Tory party - and that civil war, and the tone of it, is what's inevitably spilling over into the EU negotiations.

Honestly, the UK government is an embarrassment to the country at the moment.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.


Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

solodeogloria

listermint wrote: »

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.


Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.

There are two sides to this negotiation. Good will goes both ways.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.

There are two sides to this negotiation. Good will goes both ways.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This is fantasy land stuff. The UK has obligations


You don't walk into a restaurant eat half the meal then start negotiating down your bill.

That a just not on.

The obligation is the obligation no one is asking the UK to pay more than they owe.

You however are trying to say that they are being asked such a thing

robindch

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny.

You don't appear to understand how any of this works.

If the UK can't negotiate a deal, then the UK will "hard-brexit" and in the absence of agreed trading terms, default trading terms will apply. These default trading terms are owned by the WTO and they will screw the UK as they penalize service sector activity which is a large component of the UK's economy.

That's not the EU "offering WTO terms" - that's the UK failing to realize that they've got less than a year to negotiate a deal which avoids them defaulting WTO terms.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote:

his is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

The EU are not going to "offer the UK WTO terms". Them's the default terms if the UK exits without any agreement, and I fully agree that the UK shouldn't have to pay anything for that level of access to SM. I thought that was well understood from a long time on both sides of the debate.

See, that's just the thing: the EU doesn't have to offer anything to the UK. The UK is free to exit at any time before March 2019 on WTO terms, and will find itself on WTO terms on April 01, 2019 regardless if nothing is agreed by thern. The UK will still be liable for its exit bill just the same, because of its pre-Brexit binding commitments whilst fully subjected to Treaty provisions as a full EU member. The UK shall eventually have to send its solicitors to The Hague in that respect, if it should continue to stall, and I'll let you imagine the chances of achieving wondrous FTAs around the world after it should demonstrate such wilful disregard for its binding commitments with its closest partners of 40+ years.

But then, the UK doesn't want "just" WTO terms, does it?

Else why is it negotiating, and what is it trying to negotiate for?

solodeogloria wrote:

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

By its own position papers, the UK wants EFTA-like enhanced access to the Single Market. There's a price tag for that. Just ask Norway (-by reason of which, the UK won't ever get EFTA-like access for nowt)

solodeogloria wrote:

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

Fine. No transition, nor enhanced access to the SM. And the UK will still meet the EU in The Hague just the same.

solodeogloria wrote:

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

You don't ever get everything you want in life. Life lesson #1, I believe.

The UK ain't so special. It stopped have any realistic pretentions to that title on June 24, 2016. The EU is just reminding it of the fact, time and again, until it sinks in. Eventually, it will.

You can disagree with all that, all you want. Doesn't change matters one iota.

Red_Wake

solodeogloria wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.


Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.

There are two sides to this negotiation. Good will goes both ways.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Does anyone know which court would be applicable in such a scenario?

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.



Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why would anyone else (Japan ,etc) sign a trade deal with someone who demonstrates so readily they aren't going to honour their commitments

Water John

De Gaulle always maintained that, the UK was not suited to the European Project. He just may have been right.

ambro25

Red_Wake wrote: »

Does anyone know which court would be applicable in such a scenario?

The ICJ in The Hague, with heads of claims under a mixture of the TEU/TFEU (EU-specific) and the Vienna Convention (governing international treaties such as the TEU/TFEU).

Whilst the UK could weasel out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ after March 2019 (not an EU member anymore, so not concerned by jurisdiction of the ECJ post<actual> Brexit), the UK can't dodge out the ICJ: it is a signatory of the VC (1970, deposited 1971) and, through that signature, has unconditionally agreed to the jurisdiction of the ICJ for settling disputes (Article 66 VCLT).

Note that the dispute would be with the EU27, individually and collectively, not with the EU itself. So it is (one or more of-) the EU27 which would take the case to the ICJ, not the EU itself. Whence France immediately threatened the UK with proceedings before the ICJ when the UK first mooted that they wouldn't pay a penny.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

It means that however much the EU say it's a bill. It isn't a bill in the eyes of the British public.

So don't pay it.

Nody

Red_Wake wrote: »

Does anyone know which court would be applicable in such a scenario?

ECJ could be applicable as it's relating to deals struck as a member of EU under their jurisdiction or alternatively International Court of Justice in Hague or possibly The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce which has often been used for international disputes as well.

robindch

listermint wrote: »

This is fantasy land stuff.

Of such stuff is the magical wonderland of Brexit made - a place where you can have your cake and eat it, and go whistle when the bill arrives.

robindch

Water John wrote: »

De Gaulle always maintained that, the UK was not suited to the European Project. He just may have been right.

Remember that the people in the UK which he was dealing with were familiar with the British Empire - that group is rapidly dying off and the people who would have been young when De Gaulle was around are now the elderly who voted, en masse and at the behest of liars and ideologues, to strip the young of the EU-derived privileges, rights and responsibilities which the young and/or educated voted, en masse, to retain.

If the vote had been held off for a few years - allowing the elderly leavers to vacate for young remainers - or if the electorate were just a little bit more educated - the ill-judged, and dishonestly-carried referendum would have carried easily and far more honestly.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So don't pay it.

Can you please post more than just these one-liners? They're a bit rude and adding very little if anything to the debate.

Fratton Fred

listermint wrote: »

It's basically saying we are an untrustworthy worthy lot but trust us.

Amusing, yet no so amusing at the same time.

How can you trust someone when they won't actually pay their bill. Their.... Bill

listermint wrote: »

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.


Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

listermint wrote: »

This is fantasy land stuff. The UK has obligations


You don't walk into a restaurant eat half the meal then start negotiating down your bill.

That a just not on.

The obligation is the obligation no one is asking the UK to pay more than they owe.

You however are trying to say that they are being asked such a thing

once again the thread disappears off into fantasy land.:rolleyes:

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to, Davis has already said this, so trying to claim the UK will "Weasel out of this" is just plain daft and to be honest, makes a mockery of this thread which is supposed to be about sensible discussion.

Nody

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to,

It was in reply to Solo who stated:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So clearly someone DID suggest nothing should be paid inc. the exit bill; but hey selective reading and all that.

Fratton Fred

Nody wrote: »

It was in reply to Solo who stated:

So clearly someone DID suggest nothing should be paid inc. the exit bill; but hey selective reading and all that.

paying an Exit bill does not equal paying what you are committed to pay.

ArmaniJeanss

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to, Davis has already said this, so trying to claim the UK will "Weasel out of this" is just plain daft and to be honest, makes a mockery of this thread which is supposed to be about sensible discussion.

Well, the poster with the most posts in the thread has suggested it, so it's reasonable to debate it here.

****
Parliament back today, next few weeks will be fun anyway.
Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

Fratton Fred

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well, the poster with the most posts in the thread has suggested it, so it's reasonable to debate it here.

****
Parliament back today, next few weeks will be fun anyway.
Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Harika

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Isn't the exit bill what the outstanding commitments are? There seems to be some discussion around what a commitment is/was and what EU and UK feel they are obliged to pay or not.

ArmaniJeanss

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Ah fair enough, I thought he was suggesting the 'pay them nothing at all, exit bill or commitments' idea that tends to only get an airing on the DM comment page.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Do you believe the UK has no commencements to the EU . Most people believe they do. If you don't explain why you think they don't.

Chips Lovell

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

A single financial settlement should ensure that the union and the United Kingdom both respect the obligations undertaken before the date of withdrawal. The settlement should cover all legal and budgetary commitments as well as liabilities, including contingent liabilities.

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Do you believe the UK has no commencements to the EU . Most people believe they do. If you don't explain why you think they don't.

Yes I do, but that is not what I'm saying.

murphaph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So don't pay it.

Yeah. Eurozone economy growing fast enough to simply replace the UK's contribution without the average person noticing. The EU doesn't cost nearly as much as your average Daily Mail reader thinks.

Fratton Fred

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

eu negotiating guidelines do not equal UK commitments though, do they?

What the eu considers an obligation, the UK may not. The best example is the eu's demands that the UK pays all costs associated with Brexit, including the cost to move eu institutions out of the UK.

How is that a commitment by the UK? it is just aspirational stuff from the eu and will therefore be open to negotiation.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes I do, but that is not what I'm saying.

So the UK shouldn't pay for pensions of British civil servants who worked in the EU?

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote:

How is that a commitment by the UK? it is just aspirational stuff from the eu and will therefore be open to negotiation.

TBH Fred, I think that yes, the UK should indemnify the EU for costs forced on the EU by a UK decision which the EU neither wanted nor sought.

Relocation of the EU agencies is a key example. The decision was a UK decision. Why wouldn't the UK take responsibility for it? You wanted control back, right?

Really, the UK appears not have a clue what it has signed up for.