No, that's no problem. The "bill" is about the obligations left from the UK's time in the EU. It doesn't matter what future arrangement there will be.
- Status
No, that's no problem. The "bill" is about the obligations left from the UK's time in the EU. It doesn't matter what future arrangement there will be.
It's the EU that is refusing to negotiate the kind of Brexit the UK will get until the, so-called, 'divorce bill' is agreed.
We know exactly what kind of Brexit the UK wants, and it's a continued lie from the remainers to keep saying that the UK has no idea.
What Britain wants is for all trading conditions to remain exactly as at present but for Britain to be able to control its own immigration and laws.
Now realistically, in any negotiation, neither side gets exactly what it wants, but to repeatedly say that it's not clear what the UK wants is a lie.
As long as the EU persists with its current stance of demanding the signing of a blank cheque there is no chance of progress. The EU must discuss possible future arrangements and assign a cost to the UK for each of the possible options. The UK can then haggle over the final agreed cost and decide which, if any, of the proposed deals is worth taking.
It's no surprise that the EU are delaying the negotiations. This has been the pattern of every EU negotiation ever. The EU delights in delay, brinkmanship, and eleventh-hour deals. Actually they never finish by the eleventh hour and the final discussions always go on all night and are often extended into subsequent days after any agreed deadline.
Last edited:
This is part of the confusion.
Under EU treaties the only legally enforceable liabilities are the annual budget contributions.
Everything else has the status of a moral obligation. See the consistent EU use of obligation, not liability, and Davies' reference today to moral obligation.
If the UK had remained in the EU, the obligations would eventually end up in the budget and fall due for paying. As the UK is leaving, it can be argued that the obligations fall away. In reality there should be a compromise, but we are a long way from that at the moment.
Last edited:
You're saying that in UK legal jargon, the word 'obligation' does not imply legally binding consequences? I really would like a source for that. What word is used for legally binding obligations?
Last edited:
You keep saying things that aren't true, people point out the evidence that proves its untrue, but you carry on repeating it anyway, are you sure your not Theresa May?
That is the EU that is obstructing negotiations when in reality its the clown show running the British side and their 'creative ambiguity' that's at fault.
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
From across the pond, it does strike me that the EU absolutely has an interest in the UK experiencing some turbulence and maybe even some pain in their leaving. They have to give every other EU country watching a case study to consider should they start pondering an exit themselves.
There in a nutshell is the problem.
The phrase " to be able to control its own immigration and laws" is so vague as to be essentially meaningless - that situation already exists for certain interpretations of the phrase - and no clarification has been given.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
"I've finally resigned from the golf club after years of whinging about the rules and demanding special treatment but I still want to use the facilities, and still expect to get the same discounts on green fees and shop/bar purchases I got whilst I was a member".
Dream on.
Those responsible for the UK negotiations are wetting themselves because they are finding it sobering that they are responsible for whatever we end up with. Their decades of senseless demands, stupidity, ignorance and outright lying is catching up with them.
There are lots of terrible Brexit analogies, here's yet another.
The Brexit vote was, in essence, at vote about whether or not to move house where the question was just "Should we move house ?". The Remain position was clear insofar as we were already living in our current house and so we knew where it was, what the current advantages and disadvantages of the house were, what the area was like, and so on.
The Leave position was unclear. Some people voted to move because they wanted a penthouse flat in the city, others wanted a stately pile in the country others yet wanted to move to a bungalow at the seaside. The costs involved in the move were unclear and we had no idea what kind of house we would be moving to and where it would be.
"Project fear" pointed out that if we moved there would risks. For example, the house could be far more expensive or if we were in the country we wouldn't be able to get to the shops quite as easily. The Leave campaign assured us that the house would be far better, the mortgage payments would be far lower and we'd still be able to walk to the shops even though we would be living on top of a mountain (whilst at the same time being in the middle of the city and on a quiet spot by the beach).
The Brexit vote was, in essence, at vote about whether or not to move house where the question was just "Should we move house ?". The Remain position was clear insofar as we were already living in our current house and so we knew where it was, what the current advantages and disadvantages of the house were, what the area was like, and so on.
The Leave position was unclear. Some people voted to move because they wanted a penthouse flat in the city, others wanted a stately pile in the country others yet wanted to move to a bungalow at the seaside. The costs involved in the move were unclear and we had no idea what kind of house we would be moving to and where it would be.
"Project fear" pointed out that if we moved there would risks. For example, the house could be far more expensive or if we were in the country we wouldn't be able to get to the shops quite as easily. The Leave campaign assured us that the house would be far better, the mortgage payments would be far lower and we'd still be able to walk to the shops even though we would be living on top of a mountain (whilst at the same time being in the middle of the city and on a quiet spot by the beach).
As usual, the poor ickle UK is being bullied by those horrible EU meanies:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41119870
Honestly, it's like watching a kid who hasn't done their homework claiming that they're being oppressed when the teacher asks for it.
You forgot to quote the part of the same post where I said that, in a negotiation, neither side usually gets everything it wants.
What the EU wants is either for the UK not to leave, or for the UK to continue to fund the EU for years after it has left - and they want the UK to agree to do that before moving on to discuss other things.
Dream on.
Best thing the UK side could do now is walk away from time-wasting, so called, negotiations - tell the EU goodbye, WTO rules here we come, and we won't pay you a penny more than we're legally bound to.
Then we can wait for the EU to beg us to come back and negotiate a better deal.
Then we can wait for the EU to beg us to come back and negotiate a better deal.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
A tabloid was reporting yesterday that British tourists are now getting just £0.83 per €1. The other year I was getting a handsome €1.39. This time round, thankfully, I had a whole wodge of EUROs left over from last year.
By the end of the year, the f/x forecast is that the pound won't just be on a par with €uro but will finish <€1, on the money markets.
This tells you about the economy. F/x rates are a good signal and interest rates chase them across the globe (imagine it as an equation: sterling high somewhere, another key currency low and vice versa, with interest margins adjusted by the brokers).
In addition, if Theresa May is expecting to ally with Japan, that is a tough call as Japan only invested heavily in the UK because it was in the EU.
Business is business. It will start to pull out.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Do you know what? This sounds exactly what happens in a divorce, so an apt analogy.
The deserted party being as unreasonable and obstructive as possible in a case of wounded pride, with the other party equally entrenched and trying to hide the deeds to all the assets so the other party gets as little as possible.
If the UK had that kind of leverage it wouldn't be crying like a whiny baby about being "blackmailed".
Have you dense Britishers forgotten that the EU and its member states has explicitly stated multiple times that you can't "eat your cake and have it too"?
You can't have all the benefit of being a member in the EU without any of the responsibilities. No picking and choosing either. This has been explained countless times but Britishers apparently don't understand English.
- Status