952 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:37:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by vdcni on Aug 28, 2019 13:37:32 GMT
It's amazing what a point the no dealer's make of not paying the £39 billion while at the same time advocating a policy which will have a much more adverse economic impact.
That's even if you ignore the massive reputational impact not paying our commitments will have while we're trying to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:43:10 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 13:43:10 GMT
You understand there is no contract, no obligation, it's something the EU decided it would punt for and said it was a *condition* of negotiation, becasue it fancied Mrs May could be taken to the cleaners. Which even Parliament recognised she was.
She was foolish to even recognise there could be such a thing as a non-contractual obligation. Madness.
As I say, we are letting them use the roads and bridges we contributed to be built in Europe for 50 years, over the next 50 years. And we're not charging them. |
|
1,863 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 28, 2019 13:46:11 GMT
Today has moved ton from Brexit and is all about the way our Country is governed.
We have a Parliamentary Democracy, we may have useless indecisive spineless politicians, we voted for them and have to let them come up with a solution as per our democracy.
Suspending Parliament because it does not produce the result you want is a dangerous precedent.
We may have voted to leave Europe, we did not vote to change our Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:50:03 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 13:50:03 GMT
Well, actually, the middle class London media has chosen to "move onto" how the country is governed. What hashtag are they promoting for this 'peoples' something? When is the march due?
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:52:00 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 13:52:00 GMT
I love that one "a pariah state"! Fabulous stuff. How about they just use the roads and bridges we helped build for the next 50 years. In terms of trade, it is no exaggeration. If you cannot trust a nation to pay its dues then it gets treated differently. Whilst the goernment might claim it is not a sovereign debt. it matters little when others treat it as such anyway. Credit ratings will tumble and the only way is down. I have no idea why you are talking about roads and bridges. Surely you aren't naive enough to believe that anything 'saved' will be used for them. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:54:23 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 13:54:23 GMT
Goodness me, it's just terrible. A nation state not paying a non-contractual con job.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:55:08 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 13:55:08 GMT
A Prime Minister could call election when they wanted until the fixed term act came into play. With the two major party conferences coming up plus those by the lesser parties, the extra actual closure time will only be a couple of weeks.
Once the Queen has agreed to the PM's advice any legal challenge would be very hard and cause more issues. The Government could say the Queen has acted and her authority could not be challenged.
No doubt Two Taxis Swinson, and the one man bands will call this undemocratic.
|
|
2,762 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:58:44 GMT
Post by n1david on Aug 28, 2019 13:58:44 GMT
Goodness me, it's just terrible. A nation state not paying a non-contractual con job. But hey, they can go sing for it because we won the war! That’s what I call 21st Century diplomacy. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 13:59:56 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 13:59:56 GMT
Bit retro, but lets go with it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 14:02:09 GMT
You understand there is no contract, no obligation, it's something the EU decided it would punt for and said it was a *condition* of negotiation, becasue it fancied Mrs May could be taken to the cleaners. Which even Parliament recognised she was. The UK committed to these budgets and payments in writing. What do you think happened? That they just agreed to things over a few drinks? The idea that we don't owe anything is so extreme as to be jaw dropping. Where did you get this idea that they are not contracts? A link? |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:03:35 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 14:03:35 GMT
Only jaw dropping. You're slipping. I need a proper catastrophising phrase.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:04:29 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 14:04:29 GMT
You understand there is no contract, no obligation, it's something the EU decided it would punt for and said it was a *condition* of negotiation, becasue it fancied Mrs May could be taken to the cleaners. Which even Parliament recognised she was. The UK committed to these budgets and payments in writing. What do you think happened? That they just agreed to things over a few drinks? The idea that they we don't owe anything is so extreme as to be jaw dropping. Where did you get this idea that they are not contracts? A link? The link is this. There is no threat to sue the UK for monies owed. Unless you have a link in which Donald Tusk does threaten to sue the UK for breach of contract.
Perhaps better to call it quits and let them use for free all the infrastructure the UK contributed to build for decades. Obv. difficult to rip up 10% of a Polish motorway, etc.
What I'm trying to explain is many people do not accept what Mrs May agreed to as any kind of valid framework.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:10:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 14:10:47 GMT
What’s wrong with that if the smoothest exit they can deliver right now is No Deal, with plans in place to offset it? Though I was talking more about Johnson’s “we’re leaving, deal or no deal, by the given date” commitment. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:15:06 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 14:15:06 GMT
The UK committed to these budgets and payments in writing. What do you think happened? That they just agreed to things over a few drinks? The idea that they we don't owe anything is so extreme as to be jaw dropping. Where did you get this idea that they are not contracts? A link? The link is this. There is no threat to sue the UK for monies owed. Unless you have a link in which Donald Tusk does threaten to sue the UK for breach of contract.
Perhaps better to call it quits and let them use for free all the infrastructure the UK contributed to build for half a century. Obv. difficult to rip up 10% of a Polish motorway, etc.
They don't need to sue. Unlike the idiot in the White House EU leaders realise that you recover what you are owed by other, and more profitable, means. Political ones as well as financially. Anyone who doesn't see the 'catastrophe' of a no deal Brexit and not paying for our commitments by facilitating it wouldn't see that. Again, have you got a link to the idea that we have no 'contracts' with the EU? |
|
2,762 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:18:06 GMT
Post by n1david on Aug 28, 2019 14:18:06 GMT
What’s wrong with that if the smoothest exit they can deliver right now is No Deal, with plans in place to offset it? Though I was talking more about Johnson’s “we’re leaving, deal or no deal, by the given date” commitment. No Deal can, self-evidently, not be the “best possible” deal because it’s not a deal. The clue is in the name. And it’s all very well to repeat Johnson’s commitment but let’s remember that the public have never been invited to vote on that commitment. So to claim public support for that commitment is a bit odd considering they have never been asked for it. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:23:53 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 14:23:53 GMT
The link is this. There is no threat to sue the UK for monies owed. Unless you have a link in which Donald Tusk does threaten to sue the UK for breach of contract.
Perhaps better to call it quits and let them use for free all the infrastructure the UK contributed to build for half a century. Obv. difficult to rip up 10% of a Polish motorway, etc.
They don't need to sue. Unlike the idiot in the White House EU leaders realise that you recover what you are owed by other, and more profitable, means. Political ones as well as financially. Anyone who doesn't see the 'catastrophe' of a no deal Brexit and not paying for our commitments by facilitating it wouldn't see that. Again, have you got a link to the idea that we have no 'contracts' with the EU?
How can I. There is no contractual obligation. Any obligation is entirely a construct of Barnier's negotiation.
You will note the absence of 'we will see you in court' type talk.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:27:18 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 14:27:18 GMT
They don't need to sue. Unlike the idiot in the White House EU leaders realise that you recover what you are owed by other, and more profitable, means. Political ones as well as financially. Anyone who doesn't see the 'catastrophe' of a no deal Brexit and not paying for our commitments by facilitating it wouldn't see that. Again, have you got a link to the idea that we have no 'contracts' with the EU?
How can I. There is no contractual obligation. Any obligation is entirely a construct of Barnier's negotiation.
I see the problem. You need to look back to what we signed up to, way further back, back to the start of this cycle and beyond. At all points we have agreed to these commitments in writing. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:33:46 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 14:33:46 GMT
The short cut to that is this: is the EU threatening to sue the UK?
|
|
2,762 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:40:06 GMT
Post by n1david on Aug 28, 2019 14:40:06 GMT
The short cut to that is this: is the EU threatening to sue the UK? Unlike Mr Trump who suggested that the U.K. should have sued the EU, I suspect they’re still hoping to settle this like grownups. If we actually decide to walk away I’m sure they’ll be keen to protect their interests. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:41:55 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 14:41:55 GMT
Is that a 'no'?
The EU is not prepared to protect the income of its member states through the justified use of international law?
|
|
2,762 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:43:54 GMT
Post by n1david on Aug 28, 2019 14:43:54 GMT
It’s a “not yet”. If you’re hoping to come to a mutually acceptable agreement I don’t think you generally get it by throwing legal threats around until you really need to. As I said, if we try to walk away I sure they will protect their members interests by whatever means necessary.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:47:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 14:47:29 GMT
The short cut to that is this: is the EU threatening to sue the UK? How? International Court of Justice, which is as slow as you can get? Better to use trade to get back what you are owed, much more quickly and much more powerfully. That's the likely route if we refuse to pay. Even conservatives have said that we would probably end up paying more in the long run. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:48:57 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 14:48:57 GMT
The threat that Mrs May fell for was that the Barnier would not negotiate at all until the UK agreed to pay £39 billion. As in 'we will not negotiate. End of'.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:50:27 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 28, 2019 14:50:27 GMT
The short cut to that is this: is the EU threatening to sue the UK? How? International Court of Justice, which is as slow as you can get? Better to use trade to get back what you are owed, much more quickly and much more powerfully. That's the likely route if we refuse to pay. Even conservatives have said that we would probably end up paying more in the long run. Oh honestly. We get it, you're really into the EU - it can do little wrong. You are invested.
Some of us are not.
|
|
2,762 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 28, 2019 14:50:39 GMT
Post by n1david on Aug 28, 2019 14:50:39 GMT
I’m genuinely impressed at the people in this thread who were party to the sensitive and confidential negotiations over the last three years.
I mean, they wouldn’t be quoting third party sources with vested interests, would they?
|
|
