Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Aber]

If someone says that they may or may not do something and will, in fact, decide in the future then that is not a commitment. So why call it a commitment?

Because that is what the EU is doing.

House of Lords legal adviser on EU matters is Paul Hardy, who previously worked in Brussels, plus they heard evidence from 3 other experts.

The link you provided shows that lawyers are fascinated by discussion of who has juridstiction, but contains no view on the validity of any EU claims.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Pretty much what I said above.

We've been discussing the financial obligations of the UK, but what about the obligations that the EU would have to the UK? What commitments to the EU would remain in force (assuming this analysis is correct)?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Because that is what the EU is doing.

If you want to make the argument that the EU is misusing the word commitment then please do so.

In any case, if we are now arguing about which precise kind of expense the UK is obligated to pay, then we obviously have agreement on the principle of the matter: IE that the UK will have to pay up.

House of Lords legal adviser on EU matters is Paul Hardy, who previously worked in Brussels, plus they heard evidence from 3 other experts.

Thanks.

The link you provided shows that lawyers are fascinated by discussion of who has juridstiction, but contains no view on the validity of any EU claims.

Maybe reread it? Aepervius quotes part of the pertinent bit.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

We've been discussing the financial obligations of the UK, but what about the obligations that the EU would have to the UK? What commitments to the EU would remain in force (assuming this analysis is correct)?

I'd think the details on this need to be worked out in the negotiations. But off the top of my head:

-I'm certain that pensions to UK citizens or residents can't be touched.

-Long term contracts of any kind may lack a clause for early termination or stipulate a fine. These contracts could relate to anything like employment, renting facilities, research funding, etc...
I don't see that the UK government has an interest in seeing these EU projects abandoned. Letting them finish seems the better option but that's definitely for the negotiations.

 

[Aepervius]

We've been discussing the financial obligations of the UK, but what about the obligations that the EU would have to the UK? What commitments to the EU would remain in force (assuming this analysis is correct)?

Same as UK. Pretty much all subsidy and commitment already made up to and until the negotiation are ended and the brexit a reality.

ETA: it is a two way road , really.

 

[Aber]

If you want to make the argument that the EU is misusing the word commitment then please do so.

In any case, if we are now arguing about which precise kind of expense the UK is obligated to pay, then we obviously have agreement on the principle of the matter: IE that the UK will have to pay up.

The only agreement is that the UK will have to pay for liabilities which fall due before it leaves ie budget payments up to March 2019. These will also fall under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

The EU is now using commitment to cover things like long-term payments into the CAP, which are not legal obligations at the point that the UK leaves the EU.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

The only agreement is that the UK will have to pay for liabilities which fall due before it leaves ie budget payments up to March 2019. These will also fall under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

The EU is now using commitment to cover things like long-term payments into the CAP, which are not legal obligations at the point that the UK leaves the EU.

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to talk about the finer points of the EU budget but I'll try to keep up.
How much do you reckon the UK would have to pay unambiguously?
Can you go into detail on those commitments that aren't commitments?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The only agreement is that the UK will have to pay for liabilities which fall due before it leaves ie budget payments up to March 2019. These will also fall under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

The EU is now using commitment to cover things like long-term payments into the CAP, which are not legal obligations at the point that the UK leaves the EU.

Surely what are and aren't legal obligations will be decided by the lawyers? Are you of the opinion that should they be determined to be legal obligations the Uk should pay them?

People pontificating on what the right number is based on nothing seem to be arguing political rather than legal points. The difference between the EU position and the UK in that regard seems quite marked. The Eu at least seem to know what they think the UK should pay, the UK seems to have no idea other than 'not that big number'

 

[Newtons Bit]

Same as UK. Pretty much all subsidy and commitment already made up to and until the negotiation are ended and the brexit a reality.

ETA: it is a two way road , really.

I was actually thinking about non-financial stuff like free trade, movement of people, etc. There's been a lot of discussion on the rights of UK people in the EU and vice versa, but weren't those already covered by legal commitments?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Surely what are and aren't legal obligations will be decided by the lawyers? Are you of the opinion that should they be determined to be legal obligations the Uk should pay them?

People pontificating on what the right number is based on nothing seem to be arguing political rather than legal points. The difference between the EU position and the UK in that regard seems quite marked. The Eu at least seem to know what they think the UK should pay, the UK seems to have no idea other than 'not that big number'

It's pretty clear to me that the EU doesn't know what the UK owes any more than the UK does. The EU has had months to prepare for the negotiations, and it seems like the keep raising the monetary value each time they uncover a new document that they think is relevant...

It's all rather surprising to me. The EU is a giant bureaucracy, but there appears to be no centralized accounting of where all the money comes from and where it goes...

 

[The Don]

It's pretty clear to me that the EU doesn't know what the UK owes any more than the UK does. The EU has had months to prepare for the negotiations, and it seems like the keep raising the monetary value each time they uncover a new document that they think is relevant...

It's all rather surprising to me. The EU is a giant bureaucracy, but there appears to be no centralized accounting of where all the money comes from and where it goes...

It took the bank I was working at over a year to work out what it's position was w.r.t. Lehman's when they went under. Like the situation with the EU, every time they turned over a rock, so to speak, they found another set of positions that had to be reconciled.

The bank had more employees than the EU and the sums involved were orders of magnitude less. It really is very difficult to find everything.

 

[The Don]

I was actually thinking about non-financial stuff like free trade, movement of people, etc. There's been a lot of discussion on the rights of UK people in the EU and vice versa, but weren't those already covered by legal commitments?

No they weren't, hence the discussions now. EU citizens have their right to remain in the UK (and vice versa) as a result of the UK being an EU member. Once we're not, then all that in theory goes out of the window and they have no right to be there because they haven't been through the proper process.

The expectation is that their right to remain will continue but it's not clear whether there will be some sort of cut off date. It's almost unthinkable that my friend Trine who has been in the UK for over 30 years will be deported back to Denmark (not least because the NHS will still require her services) but as a foreign citizen she has no automatic right to remain.

A group which will be very carefully looked at I expect are those who arrive after Article 50 was triggered, will they be sent home ?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's pretty clear to me that the EU doesn't know what the UK owes any more than the UK does. The EU has had months to prepare for the negotiations, and it seems like the keep raising the monetary value each time they uncover a new document that they think is relevant...

It's all rather surprising to me. The EU is a giant bureaucracy, but there appears to be no centralized accounting of where all the money comes from and where it goes...

Well that seems simply untrue.

The EU have put together a list of the things that they feel the UK owes. Now they may have added things to the list over time but they can still point to what those things are as a justification for the number they have come up with. You can disagree with it if you like but at least there is something to disagree with.

The UK response so far has been 'no, we're not paying that. We don't know what we are paying but it's not that'.

 

[Amazer]

Well that seems simply untrue.

The EU have put together a list of the things that they feel the UK owes. Now they may have added things to the list over time but they can still point to what those things are as a justification for the number they have come up with. You can disagree with it if you like but at least there is something to disagree with.

The UK response so far has been 'no, we're not paying that. We don't know what we are paying but it's not that'.

I don't think that it is necessary for the UK to name an amount yet... negotiations haven't started yet after all.

For now a simple 'we will pay the amount that we have committed to the EU for future expenditure and liabilities' would be sufficient. I believe both TM and Davies have indicated as much also.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well that seems simply untrue.

The EU have put together a list of the things that they feel the UK owes. Now they may have added things to the list over time but they can still point to what those things are as a justification for the number they have come up with. You can disagree with it if you like but at least there is something to disagree with.

The UK response so far has been 'no, we're not paying that. We don't know what we are paying but it's not that'.

The EU went from 60Billion to 100 Billion in a couple of days, and Mr. Barnier himself has said he doesn't know the final figures yet either. They're discovering what they think are the demands as they go. While that's different behavior than what the UK is doing, it's still a symptom of the same problem: neither one has a complete picture of who was paying what.

 

[Aepervius]

The EU went from 60Billion to 100 Billion in a couple of days, and Mr. Barnier himself has said he doesn't know the final figures yet either. They're discovering what they think are the demands as they go. While that's different behavior than what the UK is doing, it's still a symptom of the same problem: neither one has a complete picture of who was paying what.

Untrue. It is not as if the 60 billion was born a few days ago, it has been floating for month. They only added 40 billion a few days ago. So saying that it went up in a few days is stupid sorry. What do you expect anyway ? That they add 200 million a day as a steady increase ? That would be more stupid.

 

[Aber]

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to talk about the finer points of the EU budget but I'll try to keep up.
How much do you reckon the UK would have to pay unambiguously?
Can you go into detail on those commitments that aren't commitments?

The best analysis of what and why, although it is out of date as it only talks about 60bn is here:

https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/pb_barker_brexit_bill_3feb17.pdf

Some paragraphs from the conclusion:

Britain’s counter case turns on a narrower reading of its responsibilities under the treaty. The word ‘binding’ appears once with regard to the EU budget, and it relates to the annual budget, not overall commitments or future liabilities accrued by the Union. The annual budget round transforms commitments into payment requests, agreed through a legislative process. That – and only that – is a binding requirement on member-states. In the past the gist of this argument was backed by net-contributors such as Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Britain’s exit bill is not easy to explain in everyday terms. And the Commission’s legal arguments are plausible but far from bulletproof. It might struggle to win a case in court. But the crucial point is that the technical details are probably going to be a secondary issue. The Brexit money dispute will begin as law, and conclude as politics.

 

[Aber]

EU citizens have their right to remain in the UK (and vice versa) as a result of the UK being an EU member.

And the current EU position seems to be that any EU citizen who has ever lived here retains the right to remain, and bring family members in (even if those family member are not EU citizens).

 

[Newtons Bit]

Untrue. It is not as if the 60 billion was born a few days ago, it has been floating for month. They only added 40 billion a few days ago. So saying that it went up in a few days is stupid sorry. What do you expect anyway ? That they add 200 million a day as a steady increase ? That would be more stupid.

What? What exactly are you arguing against?

 

[Aber]

Surely what are and aren't legal obligations will be decided by the lawyers?

Possibly. However listen to statements from EU spokesmen carefully. They talk about 'respecting commitments that the UK made', NOT the UK's legal liabilities.