FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > EU admits it can't force UK to pay £39 billion divorce bill
EU admits it can't force UK to pay £39 billion divorce bill
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt " So which countries in the world will feel inclined to do deals with a nation that reneges on it's deals? Not paying will ensure that trade with the EU is permanently fucked. I cannot believe that I am a citizen of a nation which merrily talks about proroguing parliament and reneging on debts. We are being turned into a banana republic run by shysters, conmen and extremists. I know that people like you think that's all well and good, but youve clearly mislaid both your moral compass and your sense of reality. All that is decent, tolerant and outward looking is being turned on its head.....it's a fucking disgraceful state of affairs | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt So which countries in the world will feel inclined to do deals with a nation that reneges on it's deals? Not paying will ensure that trade with the EU is permanently fucked. I cannot believe that I am a citizen of a nation which merrily talks about proroguing parliament and reneging on debts. We are being turned into a banana republic run by shysters, conmen and extremists. I know that people like you think that's all well and good, but youve clearly mislaid both your moral compass and your sense of reality. All that is decent, tolerant and outward looking is being turned on its head.....it's a fucking disgraceful state of affairs" This.. It's like brexit is a sickness for its zealots and its spreading like a cancer to every aspect of our countries psyche.. | |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing" So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with us | |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with us" To be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. | |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on." It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. | |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. " So we pay it and feel justified that we have done the right thing .... I can just see a future negotiation dialogue - “I hope you are going to be fair in this negotiation - remember we paid that 39billion to the eu, and we didn’t have to pay that, but we did, because we are fair and decent” - 
It doesn’t work like that - really!
Where has the backbone of this country gone that we accept being walked over.
Strength, confidence, pride - dwindling everyday we drift down the apathetic path of mediocrity and reliance on someone else to lead us by the hand.
| |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. " . If someone did us a product or service and we refused to pay then rightly our credit rating would be affected but I think your missing the point in we haven't been given a product or service to pay for. Are future payments were based on us benefiting from them, without a deal we don't and therefore we have nothing to pay for. | |||
| |||
"It's the 1st I've read about not paying the £39 billion would raise borrowing costs. I don't see the logic in that at all. " I can explain it andy.... which is why what centy is trying to spin is bordering on dangerous... its probably easier if i explain the principle in 2 parts.... what would happen to us civilians, and then apply that to what happens internationally... 1) imagine you have a mortgage... and you said to the bank "i have decided i am not going to pay the rest of our legally binding agreement and am walking away" besides having your assets repossesed (which doesn't happen usually to countries.. but has in the past, the most famous case lately was that an argentine warship was "repo'd" whilst in a foreign harbour)..... anyway what happened to you and i is that we "default".... which affects our credit rating, because we are seen are a much more risky people to borrow to, which means that we are then not offered for example all those credit cards with the lower APR's attached to them... and we are offered cards with much higher rates.. or not offered them at all! so instead of paying, lets say, 105 pound to borrow 100, we may pay 120 to borrow 100... we are in effect paying more to counter the risk they are taking to lend to us... and the risk of us defaulting if someone had a history of defaulting... you probably wouldn't lend then 100 to get back 105 because the risk far outweighs the reward.... but you might then them that 100 pounds if you knew you might get back lets say 400 pounds (cue the loan sharks and the payday lenders for example) | |||
"It's the 1st I've read about not paying the £39 billion would raise borrowing costs. I don't see the logic in that at all. I can explain it andy.... which is why what centy is trying to spin is bordering on dangerous... its probably easier if i explain the principle in 2 parts.... what would happen to us civilians, and then apply that to what happens internationally... 1) imagine you have a mortgage... and you said to the bank "i have decided i am not going to pay the rest of our legally binding agreement and am walking away" besides having your assets repossesed (which doesn't happen usually to countries.. but has in the past, the most famous case lately was that an argentine warship was "repo'd" whilst in a foreign harbour)..... anyway what happened to you and i is that we "default".... which affects our credit rating, because we are seen are a much more risky people to borrow to, which means that we are then not offered for example all those credit cards with the lower APR's attached to them... and we are offered cards with much higher rates.. or not offered them at all! so instead of paying, lets say, 105 pound to borrow 100, we may pay 120 to borrow 100... we are in effect paying more to counter the risk they are taking to lend to us... and the risk of us defaulting if someone had a history of defaulting... you probably wouldn't lend then 100 to get back 105 because the risk far outweighs the reward.... but you might then them that 100 pounds if you knew you might get back lets say 400 pounds (cue the loan sharks and the payday lenders for example)" Is the 39 billion a debt? If not then all of the above, while factually correct, is not applicable. | |||
"It's the 1st I've read about not paying the £39 billion would raise borrowing costs. I don't see the logic in that at all. " 2) so... lets call the 39 billion what it actually is! its the amount that we owe in legally binding spending commitments made under international law! so.... if we default on that...it would affect the country's credit rating would mean that: a) the money being used to service the government debt would be charged at a higher rate b) the money the government would need to borrow for the likes of infrustructure projects, which is paid for ia government bonds would need to yield a higher rate for potential investors to take that risk, which means the government would pay out more when the bonds "mature" | |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. . If someone did us a product or service and we refused to pay then rightly our credit rating would be affected but I think your missing the point in we haven't been given a product or service to pay for. Are future payments were based on us benefiting from them, without a deal we don't and therefore we have nothing to pay for." As I understand it the amount in question is what we have committed to? | |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. . If someone did us a product or service and we refused to pay then rightly our credit rating would be affected but I think your missing the point in we haven't been given a product or service to pay for. Are future payments were based on us benefiting from them, without a deal we don't and therefore we have nothing to pay for. As I understand it the amount in question is what we have committed to? " No. It only becomes legally bound if the withdrawal agreement is passed | |||
| |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. So we pay it and feel justified that we have done the right thing .... I can just see a future negotiation dialogue - “I hope you are going to be fair in this negotiation - remember we paid that 39billion to the eu, and we didn’t have to pay that, but we did, because we are fair and decent” -
It doesn’t work like that - really!
Where has the backbone of this country gone that we accept being walked over.
Strength, confidence, pride - dwindling everyday we drift down the apathetic path of mediocrity and reliance on someone else to lead us by the hand.
"It's likely to be less than the 39 mentioned as we are still paying it down as we are still a member and part of it is for budgets we committed to in 2013/14.. Its also to do with pensions for members of the EU, some British.. So whilst my analogy of products and services may not have been accurate the basic point is we have committed to something.. Your jingoistic John bull remarks are a bit twee but possibly if you include honouring ones word and Internationally recognised commitments, decency and trustworthiness then yes they are pertinent.. | |||
"The uk committed to projects that have and are still running, just because we decide to leave we are still bound to these commitments for a time so that’s where the 39 billion comes in. If you take out a mobile phone contract you are bound by the contract until the end of it so either way you end up paying the full corse even if you end it early. Same with renting or any other contract you have signed up for. Another thing that the leave vote never thought of because the spin doctors said that the EU would be bending over to give us a good deal better than we had before. So all the UK can do is pay up what is agreed and try to salvage what ever it can after this almighty fuck up " You do know that if your mobile Phone provider makes substantial changes to the contract you are legally entitled to walk away at that point without having to pay any more to them? | |||
| |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. . If someone did us a product or service and we refused to pay then rightly our credit rating would be affected but I think your missing the point in we haven't been given a product or service to pay for. Are future payments were based on us benefiting from them, without a deal we don't and therefore we have nothing to pay for. As I understand it the amount in question is what we have committed to? No. It only becomes legally bound if the withdrawal agreement is passed" Am confused as looking at several sources we have committed to it as part of the budgets set for2019/20.. It's legal now as we are paying into the pot so surely that's still the case.. Looking at what the EUs position of no trade deals if we do renege, does anyone know the potential costs of that against the less than 39 billion.. | |||
| |||
"The UK signed up to the EU budget until 2020 that will be covered by contract law. The court which would hear the case would be the International Court, where we lost our judge who sat in it - 12 months ago! As to how much of the £39bn would be covered by the budget I don't know? I would assume it would take years, cost a lot of money, but the UK has always been seen as a state that could be trusted, and that trust will be dented!" How much do you think that contribution to 2020 is? | |||
"It's the 1st I've read about not paying the £39 billion would raise borrowing costs. I don't see the logic in that at all. 2) so... lets call the 39 billion what it actually is! its the amount that we owe in legally binding spending commitments made under international law! so.... if we default on that...it would affect the country's credit rating would mean that: a) the money being used to service the government debt would be charged at a higher rate b) the money the government would need to borrow for the likes of infrustructure projects, which is paid for ia government bonds would need to yield a higher rate for potential investors to take that risk, which means the government would pay out more when the bonds "mature" " Thanks  | |||
"Let's say we found a loophole which got us out of paying the early redemption on a mortgage. It's legit. No damage to credit rating. If another bank knew we did this... Would they be as happy with offering us a new mortgage than if we had paid our dues..." . It's not a loophole it's in the EU rules!. All legal ties and commitments cease to exist once any country leaves. Only do legal ties and commitments continue if a new agreement between the two comes into force. Ie no agreement no legal commitment or ties. | |||
"It's the 1st I've read about not paying the £39 billion would raise borrowing costs. I don't see the logic in that at all. 2) so... lets call the 39 billion what it actually is! its the amount that we owe in legally binding spending commitments made under international law! so.... if we default on that...it would affect the country's credit rating would mean that: a) the money being used to service the government debt would be charged at a higher rate b) the money the government would need to borrow for the likes of infrustructure projects, which is paid for ia government bonds would need to yield a higher rate for potential investors to take that risk, which means the government would pay out more when the bonds "mature" " . It's only legally binding if we remain a member of the EU. You cannot default on something your not legally bound on so therefore the rest of your premise is wrong. | |||
"It's the 1st I've read about not paying the £39 billion would raise borrowing costs. I don't see the logic in that at all. 2) so... lets call the 39 billion what it actually is! its the amount that we owe in legally binding spending commitments made under international law! so.... if we default on that...it would affect the country's credit rating would mean that: a) the money being used to service the government debt would be charged at a higher rate b) the money the government would need to borrow for the likes of infrustructure projects, which is paid for ia government bonds would need to yield a higher rate for potential investors to take that risk, which means the government would pay out more when the bonds "mature" . It's only legally binding if we remain a member of the EU. You cannot default on something your not legally bound on so therefore the rest of your premise is wrong." If you're in a club that does it's finances like the EU does in cycles then yes you are obliged to still pay upto the end of the cycle which you choose to leave in. | |||
| |||
"If my gym membership renews in January but I decide to leave in June then I'm still liable to pay until the next January. " . Have you actually read the EU rules on leaving?. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just to be clear the only legally binding contacts the UK have with the EU is via the treaties. The EUs own rules in the treaty declares that all legally binding contacts crease to exist after exit. Without a new agreement we legally owe zero, in fact legally the only thing owed is roughly 10 billon to us from the EIB. If they try under international law to make a claim for future payments to previous EU employees for pensions then we legally would be also be able to make a claim for any future profits from EU ventures after we've left for the same period, ie if we're liable for EU employees after we've left then we're also entitled to future profits and capital." It will be interesting to see which court farage would take the EU to if they withheld his pension... | |||
"Just to be clear the only legally binding contacts the UK have with the EU is via the treaties. The EUs own rules in the treaty declares that all legally binding contacts crease to exist after exit. Without a new agreement we legally owe zero, in fact legally the only thing owed is roughly 10 billon to us from the EIB. If they try under international law to make a claim for future payments to previous EU employees for pensions then we legally would be also be able to make a claim for any future profits from EU ventures after we've left for the same period, ie if we're liable for EU employees after we've left then we're also entitled to future profits and capital. It will be interesting to see which court farage would take the EU to if they withheld his pension... " . That would be his problem and not the UK's. I would imagine it would go through the European court as his employment contract would have been with the EU. | |||
| |||
"So the idea is to walk out on a bill we owe and then immediately try and negotiate trade deals, including with the same organisation we have just refused to pay? What a genius strategy. After all, the best way to get good deals is to let the world know you can't be trusted to honour your obligations. " It'll be ok! . We can get a pay day loan if our credit rating hits rock bottom because we don't pay our bills. Just be positive and wave the bloody flag . | |||
| |||
"Just to be clear the only legally binding contacts the UK have with the EU is via the treaties. The EUs own rules in the treaty declares that all legally binding contacts crease to exist after exit. Without a new agreement we legally owe zero, in fact legally the only thing owed is roughly 10 billon to us from the EIB. If they try under international law to make a claim for future payments to previous EU employees for pensions then we legally would be also be able to make a claim for any future profits from EU ventures after we've left for the same period, ie if we're liable for EU employees after we've left then we're also entitled to future profits and capital. It will be interesting to see which court farage would take the EU to if they withheld his pension... . That would be his problem and not the UK's. I would imagine it would go through the European court as his employment contract would have been with the EU." Be interesting to see if a non eu citizen can use the ecj.... And if so, why can't the ecj be used for a a non member state.... It feels like the whole area is unexplored territory. | |||
"Just to be clear the only legally binding contacts the UK have with the EU is via the treaties. The EUs own rules in the treaty declares that all legally binding contacts crease to exist after exit. Without a new agreement we legally owe zero, in fact legally the only thing owed is roughly 10 billon to us from the EIB. If they try under international law to make a claim for future payments to previous EU employees for pensions then we legally would be also be able to make a claim for any future profits from EU ventures after we've left for the same period, ie if we're liable for EU employees after we've left then we're also entitled to future profits and capital." nope.... the Treaties and the Financial obligations are two completely seperate entitles.... the UK signed Financial Obligations to pay fully up EU member regardless until march 2020 (which is the end of the EU's 7yrs spending cycle) the UK also signed financial obligation contracts on certain projects, such as the EU space programme for example, Beyond the march 2020 period.... any legal treaties the UK are a part of as part of the EU End when the UK is no longer part thereof... | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt " More good news for the UK economy. It is amazing how many people would simply settle up with the EU regardless . Does anyone know how the EU propose the make up the £ 8 billion annual contribution that they will lose from the UK. ? | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt More good news for the UK economy. It is amazing how many people would simply settle up with the EU regardless . Does anyone know how the EU propose the make up the £ 8 billion annual contribution that they will lose from the UK. ? " Ask farage maybe?  | |||
"If my gym membership renews in January but I decide to leave in June then I'm still liable to pay until the next January. . Have you actually read the EU rules on leaving?. " Did you understand them though | |||
"If my gym membership renews in January but I decide to leave in June then I'm still liable to pay until the next January. . Have you actually read the EU rules on leaving?. Did you understand them though ". Yes I got the rough grasp of them but then the lords also confirmed it after it's enquiry into the matter. | |||
"Just to be clear the only legally binding contacts the UK have with the EU is via the treaties. The EUs own rules in the treaty declares that all legally binding contacts crease to exist after exit. Without a new agreement we legally owe zero, in fact legally the only thing owed is roughly 10 billon to us from the EIB. If they try under international law to make a claim for future payments to previous EU employees for pensions then we legally would be also be able to make a claim for any future profits from EU ventures after we've left for the same period, ie if we're liable for EU employees after we've left then we're also entitled to future profits and capital. nope.... the Treaties and the Financial obligations are two completely seperate entitles.... the UK signed Financial Obligations to pay fully up EU member regardless until march 2020 (which is the end of the EU's 7yrs spending cycle) the UK also signed financial obligation contracts on certain projects, such as the EU space programme for example, Beyond the march 2020 period.... any legal treaties the UK are a part of as part of the EU End when the UK is no longer part thereof... " . Your just wrong, this has been ruled on by the justices, the EUs legal financial regulations are secondary to EU treaties, that means they get there legal standings from the treaties and not visa versa. Again this comes back to international law tribunals and IF they wish to apply that we have contributions after the treaty has ended then under that law we'll also have rights to capital from said project, ie you pay for services you use or own or you don't pay for services your not using and don't own. There is NO international law to force a state to pay for something they won't be allowed to use or have a say in. | |||
"So the idea is to walk out on a bill we owe and then immediately try and negotiate trade deals, including with the same organisation we have just refused to pay? What a genius strategy. After all, the best way to get good deals is to let the world know you can't be trusted to honour your obligations. " . We have NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS without a deal in place after the treaty ceases to exist. End of. | |||
"So the idea is to walk out on a bill we owe and then immediately try and negotiate trade deals, including with the same organisation we have just refused to pay? What a genius strategy. After all, the best way to get good deals is to let the world know you can't be trusted to honour your obligations. . We have NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS without a deal in place after the treaty ceases to exist. End of." Are you deliberately missing the point on purpose, or just to be obtuse? -Matt | |||
"So the idea is to walk out on a bill we owe and then immediately try and negotiate trade deals, including with the same organisation we have just refused to pay? What a genius strategy. After all, the best way to get good deals is to let the world know you can't be trusted to honour your obligations. . We have NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS without a deal in place after the treaty ceases to exist. End of. Are you deliberately missing the point on purpose, or just to be obtuse? -Matt" . Could be, although I suspect when the EU admit they can't make us pay up they actually know themselves that we have no legal obligations, if we did they could make us pay up! Don't you think?. If they want us to have a legal obligation then the onus is on them to get us to sign a legal agreement that replaces our current one when it comes to an end on October 31st. | |||
| |||
"So the idea is to walk out on a bill we owe and then immediately try and negotiate trade deals, including with the same organisation we have just refused to pay? What a genius strategy. After all, the best way to get good deals is to let the world know you can't be trusted to honour your obligations. . We have NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS without a deal in place after the treaty ceases to exist. End of." I'm not taking about the legality. Weaseling out of a debt with people you want to get a good deal from is a terrible idea. You think the EU or other countries will just forget about it when we sit down to negotiate? Not sure why I'm wasting my time actually, you're just going to reply with 'N0 LEGaL OBLIGaTIoN' again, aren't you. | |||
 | |||
"So the idea is to walk out on a bill we owe and then immediately try and negotiate trade deals, including with the same organisation we have just refused to pay? What a genius strategy. After all, the best way to get good deals is to let the world know you can't be trusted to honour your obligations. . We have NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS without a deal in place after the treaty ceases to exist. End of." Yes we have no legal obligation to pay because there is no court or legal process that can find against us. So I take it it's on this basis that we don't have to pay because there is no law that can make us that you think we shouldn't pay. | |||
"This isn't rocket science. We have legal obligations to pay today, were paying them and will continue to up until our legal obligations cease to exist come October 31st. We want to continue with our legal obligations to pay but to do that we need another legally binding "treaty" deal. We want to pay, they want us to continue paying, this is what we want to continue paying, this is what there willing to give to continue receiving. We both have alternatives, they can fuck the money off if they don't want what we want and we can stop paying if they don't offer what we want. Hopefully somewhere in the middle is where the two parties reach agreement. But there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION AFTER OCTOBER 31ST " Exactly correct, and the remainers seem to be missing the point that its not only Brexiteers now saying we don't have to pay, the EU themselves have admitted that the UK is not obliged to pay and they have no way to force us to pay either. The £39 billion payment is only conditional on a deal being reached in Parliament, and seeing as Parliament has rejected the deal (3 times), then the £39 billion as part of that deal has also been rejected by Parliament (3 times). As Esther McVey pointed out on her appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show when she was still in the Tory leadership race, around £30 Billion of the divorce bill is accounted for to pay for the implementation period after we leave, so if there is no deal, and no implementation period then why would we pay for an implementation period that hasn't happened? As Boris Johnson said in Parliament many months ago, "The EU can go whistle for it". | |||
"This isn't rocket science. We have legal obligations to pay today, were paying them and will continue to up until our legal obligations cease to exist come October 31st. We want to continue with our legal obligations to pay but to do that we need another legally binding "treaty" deal. We want to pay, they want us to continue paying, this is what we want to continue paying, this is what there willing to give to continue receiving. We both have alternatives, they can fuck the money off if they don't want what we want and we can stop paying if they don't offer what we want. Hopefully somewhere in the middle is where the two parties reach agreement. But there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION AFTER OCTOBER 31ST Exactly correct, and the remainers seem to be missing the point that its not only Brexiteers now saying we don't have to pay, the EU themselves have admitted that the UK is not obliged to pay and they have no way to force us to pay either. The £39 billion payment is only conditional on a deal being reached in Parliament, and seeing as Parliament has rejected the deal (3 times), then the £39 billion as part of that deal has also been rejected by Parliament (3 times). As Esther McVey pointed out on her appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show when she was still in the Tory leadership race, around £30 Billion of the divorce bill is accounted for to pay for the implementation period after we leave, so if there is no deal, and no implementation period then why would we pay for an implementation period that hasn't happened? As Boris Johnson said in Parliament many months ago, "The EU can go whistle for it". " Didn't Boris mention article 24 yesterday... This involves havi g the eu onside... It can't be invoked unilaterally.... | |||
"This isn't rocket science. We have legal obligations to pay today, were paying them and will continue to up until our legal obligations cease to exist come October 31st. We want to continue with our legal obligations to pay but to do that we need another legally binding "treaty" deal. We want to pay, they want us to continue paying, this is what we want to continue paying, this is what there willing to give to continue receiving. We both have alternatives, they can fuck the money off if they don't want what we want and we can stop paying if they don't offer what we want. Hopefully somewhere in the middle is where the two parties reach agreement. But there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION AFTER OCTOBER 31ST Exactly correct, and the remainers seem to be missing the point that its not only Brexiteers now saying we don't have to pay, the EU themselves have admitted that the UK is not obliged to pay and they have no way to force us to pay either. The £39 billion payment is only conditional on a deal being reached in Parliament, and seeing as Parliament has rejected the deal (3 times), then the £39 billion as part of that deal has also been rejected by Parliament (3 times). As Esther McVey pointed out on her appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show when she was still in the Tory leadership race, around £30 Billion of the divorce bill is accounted for to pay for the implementation period after we leave, so if there is no deal, and no implementation period then why would we pay for an implementation period that hasn't happened? As Boris Johnson said in Parliament many months ago, "The EU can go whistle for it". " Under UK law and EU law we may not be liable but under international law we would be. Many BREXITERS have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels if we Leave with 'no deal'. This is mostly based on a House of Lords report from 2017 which said that we won’t be bound by EU law after BREXIT, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But the report is extremely contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still and will always be, bound to our financial commitments under international law. The most likely cause for the EU would be to sue the UK at the International Court of Justice at the Hague under the "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" on the bases that the UK, whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, bears the liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, it entered into while a member of the EU and legally is still required to execute them. Failure to honour are financial commitments under International Law would also be considered a default of payment by international and national lenders leading to a very significant drop in our credit rating and subsequent increase in the interest payments on our not insignificant debt. Beyond the obvious legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations would weaken our credibility and trustworthiness globally and would make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, impossible. | |||
"Well that's in then. It's sorted. Let's just bugger off. Fuck 'em eh. It's their fault for trying to cobble 28 countries together in the first place. Not my problem Guv, You're the ones in charge not me." Even given the way you actually meant that, I’m happy enough with that. Fuck em!  | |||
"The express is a pitiful excuse for a media outlet, with a massive bias. If the UK wants to continue to have reasonable relationships with European countries, it should of course pay what is calculated and agreed as its debt. How will Nigel Farages future pension be paid, if we don't pay the EU?! We have significant economic dependences upon the EU, so we'd be stupid to try to not pay. It's different to for example not paying north Korea, or somewhere that's not a significant part of the UK wellbeing etc. Stupid. "Agreed. There is a real psychotic disconnect amongst a large number of Brexshitters. The thought of sticking it to the E.U. is like taking a double dose of Viagra for some people and they appear not to be able to see further than the end of their anti E.U. hard-on. How does it work to protect your own citizens, your own jobs and your own economy by doing everything possible to fuck up the lives of trading partners that you are so reliant on? This is negotiation tactics straight out of the unreasonable neighbour hand-book. “Do what I want or I will plant Leilandi conifers along your fence - twats.” | |||
"The express is a pitiful excuse for a media outlet, with a massive bias. If the UK wants to continue to have reasonable relationships with European countries, it should of course pay what is calculated and agreed as its debt. How will Nigel Farages future pension be paid, if we don't pay the EU?! We have significant economic dependences upon the EU, so we'd be stupid to try to not pay. It's different to for example not paying north Korea, or somewhere that's not a significant part of the UK wellbeing etc. Stupid.
Agreed.
There is a real psychotic disconnect amongst a large number of Brexshitters. The thought of sticking it to the E.U. is like taking a double dose of Viagra for some people and they appear not to be able to see further than the end of their anti E.U. hard-on.
How does it work to protect your own citizens, your own jobs and your own economy by doing everything possible to fuck up the lives of trading partners that you are so reliant on?
This is negotiation tactics straight out of the unreasonable neighbour hand-book. “Do what I want or I will plant Leilandi conifers along your fence - twats.” "Moan moan moan! Honestly I love reading these messages. It proves how far we have been pushed into this attempt at federalisation. Remoaners will leave a trail of finger nails as they try in vain to stop us from leaving. HAPPY DAYS!  | |||
"This isn't rocket science. We have legal obligations to pay today, were paying them and will continue to up until our legal obligations cease to exist come October 31st. We want to continue with our legal obligations to pay but to do that we need another legally binding "treaty" deal. We want to pay, they want us to continue paying, this is what we want to continue paying, this is what there willing to give to continue receiving. We both have alternatives, they can fuck the money off if they don't want what we want and we can stop paying if they don't offer what we want. Hopefully somewhere in the middle is where the two parties reach agreement. But there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION AFTER OCTOBER 31ST Exactly correct, and the remainers seem to be missing the point that its not only Brexiteers now saying we don't have to pay, the EU themselves have admitted that the UK is not obliged to pay and they have no way to force us to pay either. The £39 billion payment is only conditional on a deal being reached in Parliament, and seeing as Parliament has rejected the deal (3 times), then the £39 billion as part of that deal has also been rejected by Parliament (3 times). As Esther McVey pointed out on her appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show when she was still in the Tory leadership race, around £30 Billion of the divorce bill is accounted for to pay for the implementation period after we leave, so if there is no deal, and no implementation period then why would we pay for an implementation period that hasn't happened? As Boris Johnson said in Parliament many months ago, "The EU can go whistle for it". Under UK law and EU law we may not be liable but under international law we would be. Many BREXITERS have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels if we Leave with 'no deal'. This is mostly based on a House of Lords report from 2017 which said that we won’t be bound by EU law after BREXIT, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But the report is extremely contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still and will always be, bound to our financial commitments under international law. The most likely cause for the EU would be to sue the UK at the International Court of Justice at the Hague under the "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" on the bases that the UK, whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, bears the liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, it entered into while a member of the EU and legally is still required to execute them. Failure to honour are financial commitments under International Law would also be considered a default of payment by international and national lenders leading to a very significant drop in our credit rating and subsequent increase in the interest payments on our not insignificant debt. Beyond the obvious legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations would weaken our credibility and trustworthiness globally and would make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, impossible." Nah... that’s your interpretation, an opinion. | |||
| |||
| |||
"This isn't rocket science. We have legal obligations to pay today, were paying them and will continue to up until our legal obligations cease to exist come October 31st. We want to continue with our legal obligations to pay but to do that we need another legally binding "treaty" deal. We want to pay, they want us to continue paying, this is what we want to continue paying, this is what there willing to give to continue receiving. We both have alternatives, they can fuck the money off if they don't want what we want and we can stop paying if they don't offer what we want. Hopefully somewhere in the middle is where the two parties reach agreement. But there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION AFTER OCTOBER 31ST Exactly correct, and the remainers seem to be missing the point that its not only Brexiteers now saying we don't have to pay, the EU themselves have admitted that the UK is not obliged to pay and they have no way to force us to pay either. The £39 billion payment is only conditional on a deal being reached in Parliament, and seeing as Parliament has rejected the deal (3 times), then the £39 billion as part of that deal has also been rejected by Parliament (3 times). As Esther McVey pointed out on her appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show when she was still in the Tory leadership race, around £30 Billion of the divorce bill is accounted for to pay for the implementation period after we leave, so if there is no deal, and no implementation period then why would we pay for an implementation period that hasn't happened? As Boris Johnson said in Parliament many months ago, "The EU can go whistle for it". Under UK law and EU law we may not be liable but under international law we would be. Many BREXITERS have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels if we Leave with 'no deal'. This is mostly based on a House of Lords report from 2017 which said that we won’t be bound by EU law after BREXIT, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But the report is extremely contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still and will always be, bound to our financial commitments under international law. The most likely cause for the EU would be to sue the UK at the International Court of Justice at the Hague under the "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" on the bases that the UK, whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, bears the liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, it entered into while a member of the EU and legally is still required to execute them. Failure to honour are financial commitments under International Law would also be considered a default of payment by international and national lenders leading to a very significant drop in our credit rating and subsequent increase in the interest payments on our not insignificant debt. Beyond the obvious legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations would weaken our credibility and trustworthiness globally and would make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, impossible. Nah... that’s your interpretation, an opinion. " So, in your opinion, we're no longer subject to internal law when we leave the EU. Well, in a way, you're correct. As a sovereign country we are only ever subject to UK law and only by treaty and agreement of Parliament can any other jurisdiction have influence on UK law. Currently we are subject to EU law because of our treaty obligations and the 1972 European Communities Act. Under UK law simply repealing the 1972 act would end any further EU influence on UK law. However, under EU law and international law, because of our international treaty obligations, we would be still subject to EU law, hence article 50, which when completed, would withdraw us from our obligations under EU law. So as I first stated, under UK law and EU law we may be able to argue that we don't owe the money or that, even though we may owe the money, there is no way to enforce the debt. However we would still owe the money under International Law and the EU could sue us through the International Court of Justice in the Hague. That's not opinion, it's fact. If the EU were to do that, and it is a matter of opinion whether it would or not but not that it could, and we lost, which legal precedent suggest we would, we will have been in default on the payments and that will effect our international credit rating. That last bit is not opinion either, it's fact. Unless you want to be a country like North Korea trying to walk away from international commitments is never going to do you much good. And also why shouldn't we pay for the pensions of British MEPs and other British people employed by the EU, as we agreed we would at the time? | |||
| |||
"This isn't rocket science. We have legal obligations to pay today, were paying them and will continue to up until our legal obligations cease to exist come October 31st. We want to continue with our legal obligations to pay but to do that we need another legally binding "treaty" deal. We want to pay, they want us to continue paying, this is what we want to continue paying, this is what there willing to give to continue receiving. We both have alternatives, they can fuck the money off if they don't want what we want and we can stop paying if they don't offer what we want. Hopefully somewhere in the middle is where the two parties reach agreement. But there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION AFTER OCTOBER 31ST Exactly correct, and the remainers seem to be missing the point that its not only Brexiteers now saying we don't have to pay, the EU themselves have admitted that the UK is not obliged to pay and they have no way to force us to pay either. The £39 billion payment is only conditional on a deal being reached in Parliament, and seeing as Parliament has rejected the deal (3 times), then the £39 billion as part of that deal has also been rejected by Parliament (3 times). As Esther McVey pointed out on her appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show when she was still in the Tory leadership race, around £30 Billion of the divorce bill is accounted for to pay for the implementation period after we leave, so if there is no deal, and no implementation period then why would we pay for an implementation period that hasn't happened? As Boris Johnson said in Parliament many months ago, "The EU can go whistle for it". Under UK law and EU law we may not be liable but under international law we would be. Many BREXITERS have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels if we Leave with 'no deal'. This is mostly based on a House of Lords report from 2017 which said that we won’t be bound by EU law after BREXIT, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But the report is extremely contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still and will always be, bound to our financial commitments under international law. The most likely cause for the EU would be to sue the UK at the International Court of Justice at the Hague under the "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" on the bases that the UK, whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, bears the liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, it entered into while a member of the EU and legally is still required to execute them. Failure to honour are financial commitments under International Law would also be considered a default of payment by international and national lenders leading to a very significant drop in our credit rating and subsequent increase in the interest payments on our not insignificant debt. Beyond the obvious legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations would weaken our credibility and trustworthiness globally and would make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, impossible. Nah... that’s your interpretation, an opinion. So, in your opinion, we're no longer subject to internal law when we leave the EU. Well, in a way, you're correct. As a sovereign country we are only ever subject to UK law and only by treaty and agreement of Parliament can any other jurisdiction have influence on UK law. Currently we are subject to EU law because of our treaty obligations and the 1972 European Communities Act. Under UK law simply repealing the 1972 act would end any further EU influence on UK law. However, under EU law and international law, because of our international treaty obligations, we would be still subject to EU law, hence article 50, which when completed, would withdraw us from our obligations under EU law. So as I first stated, under UK law and EU law we may be able to argue that we don't owe the money or that, even though we may owe the money, there is no way to enforce the debt. However we would still owe the money under International Law and the EU could sue us through the International Court of Justice in the Hague. That's not opinion, it's fact. If the EU were to do that, and it is a matter of opinion whether it would or not but not that it could, and we lost, which legal precedent suggest we would, we will have been in default on the payments and that will effect our international credit rating. That last bit is not opinion either, it's fact. Unless you want to be a country like North Korea trying to walk away from international commitments is never going to do you much good. And also why shouldn't we pay for the pensions of British MEPs and other British people employed by the EU, as we agreed we would at the time? " You are entitled to an opinion and an interpretation of how you see things, however reeling of yards and yards of ICJ this and communities act that doesn’t make it the definitive ruling. But thanks for your insight | |||
| |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. So we pay it and feel justified that we have done the right thing .... I can just see a future negotiation dialogue - “I hope you are going to be fair in this negotiation - remember we paid that 39billion to the eu, and we didn’t have to pay that, but we did, because we are fair and decent” -
It doesn’t work like that - really!
Where has the backbone of this country gone that we accept being walked over.
Strength, confidence, pride - dwindling everyday we drift down the apathetic path of mediocrity and reliance on someone else to lead us by the hand.
"Strength, backbone and pride? FFS, reneging on debts is none of those things, it's an act of dishonesty. We signed contracts as a member state and are still bound morally at the very least, to pay what we owe | |||
"Still don't see why we have to pay for a trade deal when we import more than we export " Jeez, unbelievable.... | |||
"At the moment there is not deal between the UK and EU as nothing has been ratified by Parliament. May ,may of negotiated a deal but without ratification we owe nothing So what happens when the uk refuses to pay the balance of what we have signed up for ? The UK then becomes a bad risk as a borrower because we don’t pay our bills and then the rest of the world require cash up front before dealing with usTo be honest mate i think the house of lords would have a bit more idea than any keyboard warrior on here so not even worth speculating on. It's not the house of Lords we want and need to do deals with.. It's other countries and if anyone can't see the fact that trust in us if we renege will be lower than whale shit then it's beyond me.. Use any aspect of your own life and ask yourself objectively and with honesty if someone did to you over a product or service what is being suggested we do with the EU then would you trust them again.. And why would anyone.. . If someone did us a product or service and we refused to pay then rightly our credit rating would be affected but I think your missing the point in we haven't been given a product or service to pay for. Are future payments were based on us benefiting from them, without a deal we don't and therefore we have nothing to pay for. As I understand it the amount in question is what we have committed to? No. It only becomes legally bound if the withdrawal agreement is passed" If we walk away with No Deal and then go back and ask to do an FTA with the EU, there will be 3 things that the EU will demand: sorting out the backstop, sorting out citizens' rights and paying what we owe....the alternative is no FTA ever. That is economic suicide | |||
"The uk committed to projects that have and are still running, just because we decide to leave we are still bound to these commitments for a time so that’s where the 39 billion comes in. If you take out a mobile phone contract you are bound by the contract until the end of it so either way you end up paying the full corse even if you end it early. Same with renting or any other contract you have signed up for. Another thing that the leave vote never thought of because the spin doctors said that the EU would be bending over to give us a good deal better than we had before. So all the UK can do is pay up what is agreed and try to salvage what ever it can after this almighty fuck up You do know that if your mobile Phone provider makes substantial changes to the contract you are legally entitled to walk away at that point without having to pay any more to them? " We have made the changes NOT the EU. We will also continue to benefit from the programmes that we have paid into like ESF | |||
"It's the 1st I've read about not paying the £39 billion would raise borrowing costs. I don't see the logic in that at all. 2) so... lets call the 39 billion what it actually is! its the amount that we owe in legally binding spending commitments made under international law! so.... if we default on that...it would affect the country's credit rating would mean that: a) the money being used to service the government debt would be charged at a higher rate b) the money the government would need to borrow for the likes of infrustructure projects, which is paid for ia government bonds would need to yield a higher rate for potential investors to take that risk, which means the government would pay out more when the bonds "mature" . It's only legally binding if we remain a member of the EU. You cannot default on something your not legally bound on so therefore the rest of your premise is wrong." You're not a lawyer are you? | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt So which countries in the world will feel inclined to do deals with a nation that reneges on it's deals? Not paying will ensure that trade with the EU is permanently fucked. I cannot believe that I am a citizen of a nation which merrily talks about proroguing parliament and reneging on debts. We are being turned into a banana republic run by shysters, conmen and extremists. I know that people like you think that's all well and good, but youve clearly mislaid both your moral compass and your sense of reality. All that is decent, tolerant and outward looking is being turned on its head.....it's a fucking disgraceful state of affairs" But is it an actual debt? Is it not a divorce bill, that's payable in return for certain concessions made by the EU . . A real deal? | |||
| |||
"The latest estimate for the size of the UK’s ‘divorce bill’ with the EU is £39 billion (€42 billion). This is based on calculations the UK and EU have agreed, although the final value may still change. On 11th December 2017, the Prime Minister confirmed that the UK and the EU have agreed “the scope of commitments, and methods for valuations and adjustments to those values.” The calculations are an estimate of the UK’s commitments to the EU, valued according to a set of agreed principles. The bill is made up of: The UK’s contribution to EU annual budgets up to 2020; Payment of outstanding commitments; and Financing liabilities up to the end of 2020. In November 2018 UK government and EU negotiators reached agreement over the UK’s withdrawal from the EU which reaffirmed that the UK and EU have agreed that the UK will honour its commitments to the EU through a financial settlement. The next step is for the agreement to be presented to parliament to vote on. The divorce bill is NOT BINDING until parliament approves the withdrawal agreement (which so far hasn’t happened). Legal and political considerations are obviously intertwined in the debate about a financial settlement as the UK prepares to leave the EU.But it is possible to separate them in some respects. Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that the termination of a treaty… "does not affect the right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination". In other words, as the EU would argue, your obligations only come to an end on the day of the termination of an international treaty - the "get-out clause" doesn't apply to obligations made before you leave. But - and it is a big but - there is a crucial caveat. Those terms apply under the Vienna Convention "unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree". And the treaty in question - the Treaty on European Union (TEU) - does provide otherwise, in the form of the infamous Article 50. So many (but not all) lawyers argue that Article 50 of the TEU trumps Article 70 of the Vienna Convention. Article 50 doesn't say anything about money or rights or obligations. So, in this interpretation, the UK would not be required to pay anything if there were to be no withdrawal agreement, because the treaty itself says nothing about any such payments. Article 50 says "the treaties shall cease to apply to the state in question" either when a withdrawal agreement takes effect, or two years after the Article 50 process has been triggered by the member state that intends to leave. This is the ticking clock. An in-depth report on this debate, issued by the House of Lords, acknowledges that there are "competing interpretations" on what the UK should pay, but it reaches the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at all. The Lords has taken the view that Article 50 is in effect a "guillotine" and the UK would be free to walk away without any responsibilities should agreement not be reached. It is also important to emphasise that these are largely uncharted legal waters and some kind of legal challenge at an international level would probably be made. The EU itself could NOT bring a case against the UK at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, because it is NOT a SOVEREIGN state. But the remaining 27 member states - acting either individually or collectively - could in theory appeal to the ICJ, or to another relevant international tribunal. They would want their money back. The divorce bill is just that a bill not a debt. Britain's withholding of 39 billion pounds ($50 bln) it promised the EU as part of its original Brexit plan would not constitute a default in the eyes of credit ratings agencies, but lawyers said it could lead to international court battles. "Our ratings speak to commercial debt obligations," S&P's primary analyst for the UK, Aarti Sakhuja, told Reuters. "The UK not paying the 39 billion pound bill would therefore not constitute a sovereign default under our methodology." A spokesman for Fitch said it would not be a default in its view either. Moody's took a similar approach. "Sovereign ratings speak solely to the risks faced by private investors and not the risks borne by official sector entities," it said in 2015 when Greece was negotiating better repayment terms on its euro zone and IMF bailout loans." If that is the interpretation they really want to use then it may be a case of be careful of what you wish for.... because you just gave Scotland for example of leaving the union and not paying any of the debt.... | |||
| |||
| |||
"The latest estimate for the size of the UK’s ‘divorce bill’ with the EU is £39 billion (€42 billion). This is based on calculations the UK and EU have agreed, although the final value may still change. On 11th December 2017, the Prime Minister confirmed that the UK and the EU have agreed “the scope of commitments, and methods for valuations and adjustments to those values.” The calculations are an estimate of the UK’s commitments to the EU, valued according to a set of agreed principles. The bill is made up of: The UK’s contribution to EU annual budgets up to 2020; Payment of outstanding commitments; and Financing liabilities up to the end of 2020. In November 2018 UK government and EU negotiators reached agreement over the UK’s withdrawal from the EU which reaffirmed that the UK and EU have agreed that the UK will honour its commitments to the EU through a financial settlement. The next step is for the agreement to be presented to parliament to vote on. The divorce bill is NOT BINDING until parliament approves the withdrawal agreement (which so far hasn’t happened). Legal and political considerations are obviously intertwined in the debate about a financial settlement as the UK prepares to leave the EU.But it is possible to separate them in some respects. Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that the termination of a treaty… "does not affect the right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination". In other words, as the EU would argue, your obligations only come to an end on the day of the termination of an international treaty - the "get-out clause" doesn't apply to obligations made before you leave. But - and it is a big but - there is a crucial caveat. Those terms apply under the Vienna Convention "unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree". And the treaty in question - the Treaty on European Union (TEU) - does provide otherwise, in the form of the infamous Article 50. So many (but not all) lawyers argue that Article 50 of the TEU trumps Article 70 of the Vienna Convention. Article 50 doesn't say anything about money or rights or obligations. So, in this interpretation, the UK would not be required to pay anything if there were to be no withdrawal agreement, because the treaty itself says nothing about any such payments. Article 50 says "the treaties shall cease to apply to the state in question" either when a withdrawal agreement takes effect, or two years after the Article 50 process has been triggered by the member state that intends to leave. This is the ticking clock. An in-depth report on this debate, issued by the House of Lords, acknowledges that there are "competing interpretations" on what the UK should pay, but it reaches the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at all. The Lords has taken the view that Article 50 is in effect a "guillotine" and the UK would be free to walk away without any responsibilities should agreement not be reached. It is also important to emphasise that these are largely uncharted legal waters and some kind of legal challenge at an international level would probably be made. The EU itself could NOT bring a case against the UK at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, because it is NOT a SOVEREIGN state. But the remaining 27 member states - acting either individually or collectively - could in theory appeal to the ICJ, or to another relevant international tribunal. They would want their money back. The divorce bill is just that a bill not a debt. Britain's withholding of 39 billion pounds ($50 bln) it promised the EU as part of its original Brexit plan would not constitute a default in the eyes of credit ratings agencies, but lawyers said it could lead to international court battles. "Our ratings speak to commercial debt obligations," S&P's primary analyst for the UK, Aarti Sakhuja, told Reuters. "The UK not paying the 39 billion pound bill would therefore not constitute a sovereign default under our methodology." A spokesman for Fitch said it would not be a default in its view either. Moody's took a similar approach. "Sovereign ratings speak solely to the risks faced by private investors and not the risks borne by official sector entities," it said in 2015 when Greece was negotiating better repayment terms on its euro zone and IMF bailout loans." Finally someone putting forward a reasoned argument as to why we may not be liable for the full amount rather than the usual BS; well done. I'm not sure that it's totally inline with what I've read but certainly gives pause for thought. | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt " There are more useful things to do with the express newspaper, such as toilet paper in prison.  | |||
| |||
"The latest estimate for the size of the UK’s ‘divorce bill’ with the EU is £39 billion (€42 billion). This is based on calculations the UK and EU have agreed, although the final value may still change. On 11th December 2017, the Prime Minister confirmed that the UK and the EU have agreed “the scope of commitments, and methods for valuations and adjustments to those values.” The calculations are an estimate of the UK’s commitments to the EU, valued according to a set of agreed principles. The bill is made up of: The UK’s contribution to EU annual budgets up to 2020; Payment of outstanding commitments; and Financing liabilities up to the end of 2020. In November 2018 UK government and EU negotiators reached agreement over the UK’s withdrawal from the EU which reaffirmed that the UK and EU have agreed that the UK will honour its commitments to the EU through a financial settlement. The next step is for the agreement to be presented to parliament to vote on. The divorce bill is NOT BINDING until parliament approves the withdrawal agreement (which so far hasn’t happened). Legal and political considerations are obviously intertwined in the debate about a financial settlement as the UK prepares to leave the EU.But it is possible to separate them in some respects. Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that the termination of a treaty… "does not affect the right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination". In other words, as the EU would argue, your obligations only come to an end on the day of the termination of an international treaty - the "get-out clause" doesn't apply to obligations made before you leave. But - and it is a big but - there is a crucial caveat. Those terms apply under the Vienna Convention "unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree". And the treaty in question - the Treaty on European Union (TEU) - does provide otherwise, in the form of the infamous Article 50. So many (but not all) lawyers argue that Article 50 of the TEU trumps Article 70 of the Vienna Convention. Article 50 doesn't say anything about money or rights or obligations. So, in this interpretation, the UK would not be required to pay anything if there were to be no withdrawal agreement, because the treaty itself says nothing about any such payments. Article 50 says "the treaties shall cease to apply to the state in question" either when a withdrawal agreement takes effect, or two years after the Article 50 process has been triggered by the member state that intends to leave. This is the ticking clock. An in-depth report on this debate, issued by the House of Lords, acknowledges that there are "competing interpretations" on what the UK should pay, but it reaches the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at all. The Lords has taken the view that Article 50 is in effect a "guillotine" and the UK would be free to walk away without any responsibilities should agreement not be reached. It is also important to emphasise that these are largely uncharted legal waters and some kind of legal challenge at an international level would probably be made. The EU itself could NOT bring a case against the UK at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, because it is NOT a SOVEREIGN state. But the remaining 27 member states - acting either individually or collectively - could in theory appeal to the ICJ, or to another relevant international tribunal. They would want their money back. The divorce bill is just that a bill not a debt. Britain's withholding of 39 billion pounds ($50 bln) it promised the EU as part of its original Brexit plan would not constitute a default in the eyes of credit ratings agencies, but lawyers said it could lead to international court battles. "Our ratings speak to commercial debt obligations," S&P's primary analyst for the UK, Aarti Sakhuja, told Reuters. "The UK not paying the 39 billion pound bill would therefore not constitute a sovereign default under our methodology." A spokesman for Fitch said it would not be a default in its view either. Moody's took a similar approach. "Sovereign ratings speak solely to the risks faced by private investors and not the risks borne by official sector entities," it said in 2015 when Greece was negotiating better repayment terms on its euro zone and IMF bailout loans." its interesting that someone should bring up article 70 of the vienna convention... because that is the "unforseen circumstances" get out clause..... one problem though... anytime article 70 has been brought up in a case to try and get it out of obligations it has lost in the international courts.... the last time it was tried to get out was the excuse of "well the cold war has just finished, how much more "unforseen" do you want?" .... to which the ICJ said.... "not unforseen enough!" so.... if the end of the cold war wasn't a good enough reason to get out of obligations under article 70, why would you think brexit would be? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The latest estimate for the size of the UK’s ‘divorce bill’ with the EU is £39 billion (€42 billion). This is based on calculations the UK and EU have agreed, although the final value may still change. On 11th December 2017, the Prime Minister confirmed that the UK and the EU have agreed “the scope of commitments, and methods for valuations and adjustments to those values.” The calculations are an estimate of the UK’s commitments to the EU, valued according to a set of agreed principles. The bill is made up of: The UK’s contribution to EU annual budgets up to 2020; Payment of outstanding commitments; and Financing liabilities up to the end of 2020. In November 2018 UK government and EU negotiators reached agreement over the UK’s withdrawal from the EU which reaffirmed that the UK and EU have agreed that the UK will honour its commitments to the EU through a financial settlement. The next step is for the agreement to be presented to parliament to vote on. The divorce bill is NOT BINDING until parliament approves the withdrawal agreement (which so far hasn’t happened). Legal and political considerations are obviously intertwined in the debate about a financial settlement as the UK prepares to leave the EU.But it is possible to separate them in some respects. Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that the termination of a treaty… "does not affect the right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination". In other words, as the EU would argue, your obligations only come to an end on the day of the termination of an international treaty - the "get-out clause" doesn't apply to obligations made before you leave. But - and it is a big but - there is a crucial caveat. Those terms apply under the Vienna Convention "unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree". And the treaty in question - the Treaty on European Union (TEU) - does provide otherwise, in the form of the infamous Article 50. So many (but not all) lawyers argue that Article 50 of the TEU trumps Article 70 of the Vienna Convention. Article 50 doesn't say anything about money or rights or obligations. So, in this interpretation, the UK would not be required to pay anything if there were to be no withdrawal agreement, because the treaty itself says nothing about any such payments. Article 50 says "the treaties shall cease to apply to the state in question" either when a withdrawal agreement takes effect, or two years after the Article 50 process has been triggered by the member state that intends to leave. This is the ticking clock. An in-depth report on this debate, issued by the House of Lords, acknowledges that there are "competing interpretations" on what the UK should pay, but it reaches the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at all. The Lords has taken the view that Article 50 is in effect a "guillotine" and the UK would be free to walk away without any responsibilities should agreement not be reached. It is also important to emphasise that these are largely uncharted legal waters and some kind of legal challenge at an international level would probably be made. The EU itself could NOT bring a case against the UK at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, because it is NOT a SOVEREIGN state. But the remaining 27 member states - acting either individually or collectively - could in theory appeal to the ICJ, or to another relevant international tribunal. They would want their money back. The divorce bill is just that a bill not a debt. Britain's withholding of 39 billion pounds ($50 bln) it promised the EU as part of its original Brexit plan would not constitute a default in the eyes of credit ratings agencies, but lawyers said it could lead to international court battles. "Our ratings speak to commercial debt obligations," S&P's primary analyst for the UK, Aarti Sakhuja, told Reuters. "The UK not paying the 39 billion pound bill would therefore not constitute a sovereign default under our methodology." A spokesman for Fitch said it would not be a default in its view either. Moody's took a similar approach. "Sovereign ratings speak solely to the risks faced by private investors and not the risks borne by official sector entities," it said in 2015 when Greece was negotiating better repayment terms on its euro zone and IMF bailout loans." This is the point. This is not money that we have borrowed and are refusing to repay. It does not effect our credit rating. It's an agreement to pay money which we are reneging on. We are not keeping our promises, just as the USA has started to do. If we choose not to pay the EU then be quite clear that we will not get beneficial terms of trade with our closest neighbors who are amongst the richest and biggest in the world. This is what the Lord's select committee said months ago. We don't HAVE to pay, but should be aware of the consequences. | |||
"Basically to keep it simple, article 70 of the Vienna convention states that if an act is so big it has unforeseen circumstances beyond the intended action that all treaties and obligations can be voided... The end of the Cold War was not considered large enough! You might have heard of the phrase “the nuclear option”.... well article 70 is basically it!!!!!!" . Article 70 doesn't apply in our case, we are already under treaty with the EU, that treaty ceases to be my mutual agreement under the terms of article 50. | |||
"Basically to keep it simple, article 70 of the Vienna convention states that if an act is so big it has unforeseen circumstances beyond the intended action that all treaties and obligations can be voided... The end of the Cold War was not considered large enough! You might have heard of the phrase “the nuclear option”.... well article 70 is basically it!!!!!!. Article 70 doesn't apply in our case, we are already under treaty with the EU, that treaty ceases to be my mutual agreement under the terms of article 50. " plenty of thick tossers on here pal | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt " The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours. | |||
| |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves." How did you come to the figure of £38 billion? that must have taken some time to work out. | |||
| |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves." What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? | |||
| |||
"If people in Britain want to keep buying their stuff, they'll keep sending their stuff here for sale. Or have I misunderstood your question?" Correct answer | |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves. What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? " The EU will still sell whatever we want to us. Either we'll pay more because of higher tariffs, or they will sell us even more because of zero tariffs. UK companies will be locked out of the EU due to WTO tariffs significantly increasing purchasing costs. If we aren't selling to the EU they will substitute our goods by selling to each other. What's your point? | |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves. What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? The EU will still sell whatever we want to us. Either we'll pay more because of higher tariffs, or they will sell us even more because of zero tariffs. UK companies will be locked out of the EU due to WTO tariffs significantly increasing purchasing costs. If we aren't selling to the EU they will substitute our goods by selling to each other. What's your point?" Nothing has happened yet. That’s the point . | |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves. What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? The EU will still sell whatever we want to us. Either we'll pay more because of higher tariffs, or they will sell us even more because of zero tariffs. UK companies will be locked out of the EU due to WTO tariffs significantly increasing purchasing costs. If we aren't selling to the EU they will substitute our goods by selling to each other. What's your point? Nothing has happened yet. That’s the point . " Oh. You have no point to make. Super | |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves. What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? The EU will still sell whatever we want to us. Either we'll pay more because of higher tariffs, or they will sell us even more because of zero tariffs. UK companies will be locked out of the EU due to WTO tariffs significantly increasing purchasing costs. If we aren't selling to the EU they will substitute our goods by selling to each other. What's your point? Nothing has happened yet. That’s the point . Oh. You have no point to make. Super "It is the point. What do we know now, and how best can we use that information. Anything else is simply conjecture. | |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves. What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? The EU will still sell whatever we want to us. Either we'll pay more because of higher tariffs, or they will sell us even more because of zero tariffs. UK companies will be locked out of the EU due to WTO tariffs significantly increasing purchasing costs. If we aren't selling to the EU they will substitute our goods by selling to each other. What's your point? Nothing has happened yet. That’s the point . Oh. You have no point to make. Super
It is the point.
What do we know now, and how best can we use that information.
Anything else is simply conjecture.
"How do you decide what the best course of action is without conjecturing what the future may hold? Its our ability to think about the future which sets us apart from the animals... | |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves. What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? The EU will still sell whatever we want to us. Either we'll pay more because of higher tariffs, or they will sell us even more because of zero tariffs. UK companies will be locked out of the EU due to WTO tariffs significantly increasing purchasing costs. If we aren't selling to the EU they will substitute our goods by selling to each other. What's your point? Nothing has happened yet. That’s the point . Oh. You have no point to make. Super
It is the point.
What do we know now, and how best can we use that information.
Anything else is simply conjecture.
"Right. So building an extension and knocking a wall down. Will the house collapse? No point using the knowledge that we have to predict the outcome. That's just conjecture. Let's knock the wall down and see | |||
| |||
"More fantasy stuff from the Brexiteers. The economic value of the harm inflicted on the UK by severing all ties with the EU27 and the single market overnight will quickly exceed £38 billion, of that I am sure. It's another delusion to believe this will have the EU knocking down our door to talk about trade. The EU said from day one there can be no discussion of trade until the money, citizen rights and the border are sorted. That will still be the case if the UK just ups and leaves. What will happen to the businesses providing the 341 billion of uk imports if it’s a no deal exit? The EU will still sell whatever we want to us. Either we'll pay more because of higher tariffs, or they will sell us even more because of zero tariffs. UK companies will be locked out of the EU due to WTO tariffs significantly increasing purchasing costs. If we aren't selling to the EU they will substitute our goods by selling to each other. What's your point? Nothing has happened yet. That’s the point . Oh. You have no point to make. Super
It is the point.
What do we know now, and how best can we use that information.
Anything else is simply conjecture.
Right. So building an extension and knocking a wall down.
Will the house collapse?
No point using the knowledge that we have to predict the outcome.
That's just conjecture.
Let's knock the wall down and see "I can recommend a good structural engineer and he'll point you in the right direction regarding loads and steel and pad stones etc.otherwise it won't past building regs.. | |||
| |||
"So blinkered "
Knock it down! Knock it down! Knock it down!
| |||
"So blinkered
Knock it down! Knock it down! Knock it down!
"Thanks for the shining example of the point | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours." . You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments. | |||
" You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments. "Do you really think that the E.U. will entertain any sort of future agreement with the U.K. if the U.K. withholds funds that it owes “under E.U. law” but which it technically would not owe once that membership ceases? Some people in this country are completely losing all sense of rationale about this stuff. We made commitments as E.U. Members and we chose to leave. It is absolutely right that we honour those commitments even after we leave. As an aside - it won’t now be £39 billion as that was the figure to March 29th - it will be less now and will keep reducing the longer it takes to actually leave. | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments. "Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties. When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse. No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked. | |||
" You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Do you really think that the E.U. will entertain any sort of future agreement with the U.K. if the U.K. withholds funds that it owes “under E.U. law” but which it technically would not owe once that membership ceases?
Some people in this country are completely losing all sense of rationale about this stuff.
We made commitments as E.U. Members and we chose to leave. It is absolutely right that we honour those commitments even after we leave.
As an aside - it won’t now be £39 billion as that was the figure to March 29th - it will be less now and will keep reducing the longer it takes to actually leave.". We don't owe the EU anything without a future treaty by the EU's own rules, this has been made clear by the highest court in the land. | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
". We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement. | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement."Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices. | |||
| |||
| |||
"First member state to leave, yes. But not the first country to do so. Greenland won that contest." Greenland never wanted to join in the first place but were taken in by the Danes, being a Danish Sovereign territory. They managed to get out after being given more autonomy by Denmark, holding a referendum that went,53/47 in favour of leaving. It also took 3 years to leave. It has a population of slightly over 50000! | |||
| |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement.
Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices.". Just to be clear, nobody seems to want to leave without having another treaty in place, we want it and they want it, when that's in place then we'll have commitments to that treaty but without one there are no commitments, you can't dodge what your not committed to do. We don't pay the EU charity money, we pay them to make commitments that we agreed that benefit the UK, that is the purpose of those monetary commitments. If we're not benefiting from them we have no moral or legal commitments, trade deals are done for mutual benefit, that is they benefit both parties. Without a written agreement by both parties we owe them NOTHING and no country in the world would think we do unless we enter into an agreement and then renege (go back on a contract or promise) on paying. | |||
| |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement.
Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices..
Just to be clear, nobody seems to want to leave without having another treaty in place, we want it and they want it, when that's in place then we'll have commitments to that treaty but without one there are no commitments, you can't dodge what your not committed to do.
We don't pay the EU charity money, we pay them to make commitments that we agreed that benefit the UK, that is the purpose of those monetary commitments.
If we're not benefiting from them we have no moral or legal commitments, trade deals are done for mutual benefit, that is they benefit both parties.
Without a written agreement by both parties we owe them NOTHING and no country in the world would think we do unless we enter into an agreement and then renege (go back on a contract or promise) on paying."So just to be clear - even though the U.K. agreed to (and thereby agreed to fund) long standing E.U. commitments that go beyond March 29th including MEP Pensions - the U.K. should just walk away and declare that it owes nothing? How come then that the E.U. has made the agreement of U.K. funds due a prior condition to opening any future relationship discussions? | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement.
Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices..
Just to be clear, nobody seems to want to leave without having another treaty in place, we want it and they want it, when that's in place then we'll have commitments to that treaty but without one there are no commitments, you can't dodge what your not committed to do.
We don't pay the EU charity money, we pay them to make commitments that we agreed that benefit the UK, that is the purpose of those monetary commitments.
If we're not benefiting from them we have no moral or legal commitments, trade deals are done for mutual benefit, that is they benefit both parties.
Without a written agreement by both parties we owe them NOTHING and no country in the world would think we do unless we enter into an agreement and then renege (go back on a contract or promise) on paying."Yes if we leave without a deal then legally we won't own much other than the financial commitment we made leading up to the next EU 2020 budget. Obviously we wouldn't have access anymore to many projects and institutions we benefit and have paid into them for many years. But yes there is no court that could prosecute us for no payment whatsoever. | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement.
Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices..
Just to be clear, nobody seems to want to leave without having another treaty in place, we want it and they want it, when that's in place then we'll have commitments to that treaty but without one there are no commitments, you can't dodge what your not committed to do.
We don't pay the EU charity money, we pay them to make commitments that we agreed that benefit the UK, that is the purpose of those monetary commitments.
If we're not benefiting from them we have no moral or legal commitments, trade deals are done for mutual benefit, that is they benefit both parties.
Without a written agreement by both parties we owe them NOTHING and no country in the world would think we do unless we enter into an agreement and then renege (go back on a contract or promise) on paying.
Yes if we leave without a deal then legally we won't own much other than the financial commitment we made leading up to the next EU 2020 budget.
Obviously we wouldn't have access anymore to many projects and institutions we benefit and have paid into them for many years.
But yes there is no court that could prosecute us for no payment whatsoever. ". I don't disagree with anything you've said | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement.
Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices..
Just to be clear, nobody seems to want to leave without having another treaty in place, we want it and they want it, when that's in place then we'll have commitments to that treaty but without one there are no commitments, you can't dodge what your not committed to do.
We don't pay the EU charity money, we pay them to make commitments that we agreed that benefit the UK, that is the purpose of those monetary commitments.
If we're not benefiting from them we have no moral or legal commitments, trade deals are done for mutual benefit, that is they benefit both parties.
Without a written agreement by both parties we owe them NOTHING and no country in the world would think we do unless we enter into an agreement and then renege (go back on a contract or promise) on paying.
So just to be clear - even though the U.K. agreed to (and thereby agreed to fund) long standing E.U. commitments that go beyond March 29th including MEP Pensions - the U.K. should just walk away and declare that it owes nothing?
How come then that the E.U. has made the agreement of U.K. funds due a prior condition to opening any future relationship discussions?". meps are paid by the EU regardless of their citizenship status they as a body are responsible for their employees, no different than UK government employees are the responsibility of the UK government, UK budgets today effect long term spending plans in the UK, just like the EU budgets today effect they're long term spending plans, we have commitments to pay to when we leave and that's by mutual agreement under treaty, with another treaty we could have commitments to keep paying beyond leaving but that requires a deal that both parties agree to, that both parties agree to how it ends as well and that both parties agree is beneficial to both. Until that day though we don't have ANY commitments past October 31st, JUST LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GIVING US ACCESS TO THE SINGLE MARKET JUST BECAUSE WE ONCE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE. what do you struggle to understand about that? | |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement.
Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices..
Just to be clear, nobody seems to want to leave without having another treaty in place, we want it and they want it, when that's in place then we'll have commitments to that treaty but without one there are no commitments, you can't dodge what your not committed to do.
We don't pay the EU charity money, we pay them to make commitments that we agreed that benefit the UK, that is the purpose of those monetary commitments.
If we're not benefiting from them we have no moral or legal commitments, trade deals are done for mutual benefit, that is they benefit both parties.
Without a written agreement by both parties we owe them NOTHING and no country in the world would think we do unless we enter into an agreement and then renege (go back on a contract or promise) on paying.
So just to be clear - even though the U.K. agreed to (and thereby agreed to fund) long standing E.U. commitments that go beyond March 29th including MEP Pensions - the U.K. should just walk away and declare that it owes nothing?
How come then that the E.U. has made the agreement of U.K. funds due a prior condition to opening any future relationship discussions?.
meps are paid by the EU regardless of their citizenship status they as a body are responsible for their employees, no different than UK government employees are the responsibility of the UK government, UK budgets today effect long term spending plans in the UK, just like the EU budgets today effect they're long term spending plans, we have commitments to pay to when we leave and that's by mutual agreement under treaty, with another treaty we could have commitments to keep paying beyond leaving but that requires a deal that both parties agree to, that both parties agree to how it ends as well and that both parties agree is beneficial to both.
Until that day though we don't have ANY commitments past October 31st, JUST LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GIVING US ACCESS TO THE SINGLE MARKET JUST BECAUSE WE ONCE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE.
what do you struggle to understand about that? "I struggle to understand that you can’t comprehend the very poor position that it will put is in with regards to future cooperation with our closest and most valuable trading partners. Then again, these days it seems that the most bizarre and logic contrary concepts get aired as viable propositions with outrageous confidence, | |||
| |||
"The EU has finally admitted it can't force the UK to pay Theresa May's negotiated £39 billion divorce bill in the event of a no deal Brexit. Speaking to reporters in Brussels a couple of days ago the European Commission's budget chief Gunther Oettinger said, "There will be no court for the EU to settle in if the UK refuses to pay". Of course Brexiteers already knew this all along, and have been saying this since March 2017, when the House of Lords released a report which said in the event of no deal, the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU a single penny. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1140103/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Brexit-bill-budget-Boris-Johnson-next-prime-minister-update Some remainers have also claimed that refusing to pay the £39 billion divorce bill would scupper the Uk's ability to borrow money in future. However BBC political analyst and commentator Andrew Neil has called these claims "Nonsense!". After Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said on Twitter, that the UK is not legally obliged to pay the EU any money in the event of no deal, someone responded to say it would be classed as an international debt and would scupper future UK borrowing. Andrew Neil jumped in and tweeted "Nonsense!" He went on to say the divorce bill would not be classified as debt, if the UK refused to pay and the idea it would increase borrowing costs is simply nonsense. www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1142058/brexit-news-andrew-neil-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-deal-money-debt The EU never said that it could force us to make the payment, so they can't really "admit" to anything. The simple fact is any future tease agreement with our wealthy and populous neighbours will be dependent upon us honouring our commitments. You know, the old fashioned notion of keeping our word. Would you do a deal with someone who reneges on their agreements? I'm sure that the USA and China will be delighted to, on their terms. Not ours.. You keep misleading people, let me put this simple, without a new treaty in place we have NO COMMITMENTS. commitments come from legally binding deals and treaties, if we don't have one then by default we don't have any commitments.
Absolutely right, with no treaties we have no commitments. And when the whole world has seen us wriggle out of commitments by ditching our treaties, the world will just tell us to go fuck ourselves when we ask for some new treaties.
When will you brexiters realise that we are a just a little country off the edge of the European continent, with fuck all industry of our own, and money that is fleeing abroad faster than Usain Bolt with a wasp up his arse.
No deal = no commitments = we save 39 billion = no one in the world trusts us anymore = no new treaties = UK is utterly and permanently fucked.
.
We haven't ditched "our treaties" it has come to an end by mutual agreement under EU treaty law and agreement.
Have the EU ever asked us to leave? I rather think that you'll find the only country that has asked to end our arrangement with Europe is the United Kingdom. It's a unilateral decision by us. And anyway the specific legal loopholes of it count for exactly zero. The entire world has seen us arguing with ourselves and doing everything we can to find a way to leave without any settlement of the bill. Why the fuck would any country be in any rush to do any new deals with us? They will all be perfectly happy to watch us crash and burn, then pick up the pieces of us at bankruptcy sale prices..
Just to be clear, nobody seems to want to leave without having another treaty in place, we want it and they want it, when that's in place then we'll have commitments to that treaty but without one there are no commitments, you can't dodge what your not committed to do.
We don't pay the EU charity money, we pay them to make commitments that we agreed that benefit the UK, that is the purpose of those monetary commitments.
If we're not benefiting from them we have no moral or legal commitments, trade deals are done for mutual benefit, that is they benefit both parties.
Without a written agreement by both parties we owe them NOTHING and no country in the world would think we do unless we enter into an agreement and then renege (go back on a contract or promise) on paying.
So just to be clear - even though the U.K. agreed to (and thereby agreed to fund) long standing E.U. commitments that go beyond March 29th including MEP Pensions - the U.K. should just walk away and declare that it owes nothing?
How come then that the E.U. has made the agreement of U.K. funds due a prior condition to opening any future relationship discussions?.
meps are paid by the EU regardless of their citizenship status they as a body are responsible for their employees, no different than UK government employees are the responsibility of the UK government, UK budgets today effect long term spending plans in the UK, just like the EU budgets today effect they're long term spending plans, we have commitments to pay to when we leave and that's by mutual agreement under treaty, with another treaty we could have commitments to keep paying beyond leaving but that requires a deal that both parties agree to, that both parties agree to how it ends as well and that both parties agree is beneficial to both.
Until that day though we don't have ANY commitments past October 31st, JUST LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GIVING US ACCESS TO THE SINGLE MARKET JUST BECAUSE WE ONCE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE.
what do you struggle to understand about that?
I struggle to understand that you can’t comprehend the very poor position that it will put is in with regards to future cooperation with our closest and most valuable trading partners.
Then again, these days it seems that the most bizarre and logic contrary concepts get aired as viable propositions with outrageous confidence,"I guess what he's getting at is the bare bones of we don't legally have to pay anything.... How that would effect future relationships with the EU is a whole different matter though. | |||
"We may not possibly have to pay the 39 billion. But can you imagine what it will do to the countries credit rating if we don't pay. The extra interest payments will make the 39 billion seem like a drop in the ocean." Concerns regarding credit ratings have already been dismissed if you read earlier posts. | |||
"We may not possibly have to pay the 39 billion. But can you imagine what it will do to the countries credit rating if we don't pay. The extra interest payments will make the 39 billion seem like a drop in the ocean." That's what I thought too but there have been a number of interesting legal points made further up this thread that are making me reconsider that. I still think we should pay all our commitments, even if there is a valid legal loophole that allows us to escape them. I also believe that ultimately we will pay because, sooner or later, we will want to do a deal with the EU and they won't do one with us if we don't. | |||
| |||
"We may not possibly have to pay the 39 billion. But can you imagine what it will do to the countries credit rating if we don't pay. The extra interest payments will make the 39 billion seem like a drop in the ocean. Concerns regarding credit ratings have already been dismissed if you read earlier posts." private lenders would surely be spooked by a country trying to weasel out paying its sovereign debts. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Folks it is not £39 billion. The EUs own web page states this The full cost the UK will pay in this deal will not be known for many years to come as the EU are free to demand more money from the UK for items not included in the £39 billion. We will pay the EU whatever they decide they want and this has to be agreed before they tell us what their trade demands are going to be. Tariffs and VAT to be paid to the EU even on goods we buy from the out side world keeping prices high in our shops," "The withdrawal agreement does not refer to any estimate of the total amount of the financial settlement. However, it does describe the EU and the UK's future financial relations for the proposed transition years 2019 and 2020. As far as these two budgetary years are concerned, the UK will have the same rights and obligations as if it remained an EU Member State. Beyond 2020, the UK will remain liable to the EU, but those liabilities, and assets, are impossible to estimate, because they will result from outturns (some paid out well beyond 2020, such as pensions), among other things, and not from the current estimates. Further uncertainty as to the final total amount of financial settlement owed by the UK is added by, among other things, the changing pound to euro exchange rate, contingency of some EU financial activities, and payments resulting from closing the current and past EU Multiannual Financial Frameworks (MFF)." From the European Parliament summary. Essentially we continue to pay in and take out of the EU in exactly the same way as any other member until the end of the budget cycle that we are paying for, as that's what we were bound by treaty to do before unilaterally decided to leave. | |||
