Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
All this "we won't even start talks until you promise us the money we demand and you won't so it's the UKs fault, so we're taking our ball away" .. that's their decision.
There is a clock ticking. The EU are the ones playing games and being unreasonable here, there is absolutely NO reason everyone couldn't start talks on other areas and come to agreements while in parallel the money is discussed. The only reason is the EU playing childish games, it's as obvious as the fact boiled egg jars "may contain egg"!
Very sad that the remoaners of course blame the UK for all this...
There is a clock ticking. The EU are the ones playing games and being unreasonable here, there is absolutely NO reason everyone couldn't start talks on other areas and come to agreements while in parallel the money is discussed. The only reason is the EU playing childish games, it's as obvious as the fact boiled egg jars "may contain egg"!
Very sad that the remoaners of course blame the UK for all this...
Show More
Does anyone on here seriously expect our/other agenda driven 'news' agencies to report responsibly or even accurately on either side??
dave1357
16 Oct 17 15:51
Joined: 05 Sep 10
| Topic/replies: 5,945 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
Usual brex**** I see.
The EU hasn't mentioned a monetary figure. The UK agreed to the format of the leaving negotiations. 1) What the liabilities of the UK are with the cost of these to be calculated later 2) What is the position of UK/EU citizens 3) Irish border issues.
They keep saying that they can't do 1) until they know what the future trade deal is. That is quite obviously nonsense. The two are entirely separate issues. There might be an argument about 3) and future trade, but that isn't the blockage.
The blockage is that the Tory party is split and can't conduct negotiations.
Sufficient progress on the top 3 is required. It does not mean it has to be signed and sealed.
The EU keep rejecting every offer we make because they dont want anyone else to leave their gang.
If the EU were on a rolling contract that expired and each session inside it was a new agreement then the UK could have just run down the agreement.
That isnt what is happening, the UK are breaking an agreement that they signed into, its expected that the party breacking 'contract' will get punished isnt it?
That isnt what is happening, the UK are breaking an agreement that they signed into, its expected that the party breacking 'contract' will get punished isnt it?
As a Irish citizen I can vouch that they won't stop till they get they're own way, We vetoed Maastricht they told us to vote again, we vetoed Nice they told us vote again.European Union killed Democracy imo....
What is May even doing going there tonight??
They can come to us if they're bovvered. As for the 'divorce bill' (which has NO legal basis), give them a round pound coin and ask for change.
They can come to us if they're bovvered. As for the 'divorce bill' (which has NO legal basis), give them a round pound coin and ask for change.
The "this is all caused by internal fights in the tory party" rubbish is pretty much a labour press release.
And the Labour party/Lib dem line that "no deal" can't be an option is a blank cheque for the EU to either scroo us, or make a deal so bad we try and stop Brexit.
Labour probably don't care either way as long as it damages the Tories, which is what matters to the marxist a-holes on their front bench.
And the Labour party/Lib dem line that "no deal" can't be an option is a blank cheque for the EU to either scroo us, or make a deal so bad we try and stop Brexit.
Labour probably don't care either way as long as it damages the Tories, which is what matters to the marxist a-holes on their front bench.
"The EU keep rejecting every offer we make because they dont want anyone else to leave their gang."
The only "offer" was Treeza saying that she would pay membership fees for two years if the EU let the UK stay in for another two years (while completely ignoring the actual negotiating framework).
Davis hasn't provided the EU with any position papers on the UK's leaving bill.
Davis is holding firm on not giving into EU demands over the money, and repeated his line from last week’s press conference that officials went through the EU’s financial demands “line by line” in order to get the best deal from taxpayers
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/
david-davis-brexit-divorce-bill_uk_59aed637e4b0354e440ce5b5
The EU provided the papers that Davis went through line by line but has not responded with their own documents and continues to insist that future trade is linked to the leaving bill.
Mr Davis admitted there was still "much work" to be done, but said there had been movement on divorce issues, including a "rigorous examination" of the financial settlement by UK officials.
The Brexit Secretary also highlighted how some withdrawal issues were "dependent on discussions on our future relationship"
http://news.sky.com/story/michel-barnier-says-no
-brexit-progress-amid-very-disturbing-deadlock-11077391
Davies and Treeza are quite obviously taking the position that we aren't paying a leaving bill unless we get a trade deal. With Davies playing for time by not actually negotiating. That is the cause of the blockage.
Now Treeza is going to Brussels tomorrow to beg the EU to change their mind. They won't and Treeza will be hit with a vote of no confidence in the House. Many of her own MP's will abstain.
The only "offer" was Treeza saying that she would pay membership fees for two years if the EU let the UK stay in for another two years (while completely ignoring the actual negotiating framework).
Davis hasn't provided the EU with any position papers on the UK's leaving bill.
Davis is holding firm on not giving into EU demands over the money, and repeated his line from last week’s press conference that officials went through the EU’s financial demands “line by line” in order to get the best deal from taxpayers
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/
david-davis-brexit-divorce-bill_uk_59aed637e4b0354e440ce5b5
The EU provided the papers that Davis went through line by line but has not responded with their own documents and continues to insist that future trade is linked to the leaving bill.
Mr Davis admitted there was still "much work" to be done, but said there had been movement on divorce issues, including a "rigorous examination" of the financial settlement by UK officials.
The Brexit Secretary also highlighted how some withdrawal issues were "dependent on discussions on our future relationship"
http://news.sky.com/story/michel-barnier-says-no
-brexit-progress-amid-very-disturbing-deadlock-11077391
Davies and Treeza are quite obviously taking the position that we aren't paying a leaving bill unless we get a trade deal. With Davies playing for time by not actually negotiating. That is the cause of the blockage.
Now Treeza is going to Brussels tomorrow to beg the EU to change their mind. They won't and Treeza will be hit with a vote of no confidence in the House. Many of her own MP's will abstain.
"Davies and Treeza are quite obviously taking the position that we aren't paying a leaving bill unless we get a trade deal"
And WTF is wrong with that sensible position? What's the opposite, we give them money and DON'T get a trade deal?
And WTF is wrong with that sensible position? What's the opposite, we give them money and DON'T get a trade deal?
lol Because Davies agreed to sort out the other issues before trade! That is why the negotiations are deadlocked. This isn't difficult stuff.
What kind of idiot would pay if we dont get a decent deal when we pay nothing if we do no deal?
it's worth pointing out that the EU is doing this because there are absolutely no visible signs that we are preparing for no deal.
there would need to be myriad projects going on in, which would be visible to all, for us to be ready to take that option.
so our bluff, and it is just that, is being called and they are being obstructive because they know our threats are hollow. Bernier's job is to get the best possible deal for the EU and he is doing just that. May and Davies are hopeless while Jeremy Heywood probably doesn't even want brexit.
there would need to be myriad projects going on in, which would be visible to all, for us to be ready to take that option.
so our bluff, and it is just that, is being called and they are being obstructive because they know our threats are hollow. Bernier's job is to get the best possible deal for the EU and he is doing just that. May and Davies are hopeless while Jeremy Heywood probably doesn't even want brexit.
For instance what if we say fine here is a cheque for £50bn and the 3 million can stay under ECJ rules.
Then we move to trade and they so we pay £20bn a year and have to accept free movement of labour or there will be no trade deal.
What happens then?
Then we move to trade and they so we pay £20bn a year and have to accept free movement of labour or there will be no trade deal.
What happens then?
Dave if there is no deal we have to pay a zero 'divorce bill' unless we offer money just for the sake of it.
For a start the "leaving bill" negotiations include discussions on obligations
There is no negotiation if we get nothing back in return. Why pay anything?
There is no negotiation if we get nothing back in return. Why pay anything?
In all seriousness if we had the right people running the show we would start with a demand for £20BN and go from there.
Not a chance we owe them a penny.
Not a chance we owe them a penny.
If we agreed that "big figure plucked out of the sky" is due, then we have to pay the figure. Why would you think there is any connection to winding up the finances of EU membership and future arrangements? This is why Treeza's intervention was idiotic. She just said we'll give you £40bn for a transition period and the EU basically said fine we'll have that but first let's sort out the leaving bill, "what do you agree you owe or don't owe and why?". Davies has refused to do that for entirely party political reasons.
Injera • October 16, 2017 5:57 PM BST
In all seriousness if we had the right people running the show we would start with a demand for £20BN and go from there.
Not a chance we owe them a penny.
Well Davies simply needs to set this out in a document and give it to the EU. He has refused to do so.
In all seriousness if we had the right people running the show we would start with a demand for £20BN and go from there.
Not a chance we owe them a penny.
Well Davies simply needs to set this out in a document and give it to the EU. He has refused to do so.
As I say, we need the right people. First rule of negotiation is position.
Where should Davis and May be? London. They can come here. If they want dosh let them beg.
#leavingthebuilding
Where should Davis and May be? London. They can come here. If they want dosh let them beg.
#leavingthebuilding
Dave, you understand we have to pay zero?
Why would we? We have put in far more into the assets of the EU than we have ever taken out.
Why would we? We have put in far more into the assets of the EU than we have ever taken out.
For the umpteenth time "if we have to pay zero" then Davies should set that out in a document. He hasn't done so and that is the cause of the stalled negotiations.
A50 never mentions a 'divorce bill'.
No side in the referendum debate ever mentioned a 'divorce bill'.
It is something that was made up after the time to try to stop us leaving.
No side in the referendum debate ever mentioned a 'divorce bill'.
It is something that was made up after the time to try to stop us leaving.
of course it was mentioned before
...the germans will be begging for a deal to avoid tariffs ....we were told
...the germans will be begging for a deal to avoid tariffs ....we were told
Viral video of the time of the brexit vote from Prof Michael Dougan about 14.00 in the vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n2LcIfZNr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n2LcIfZNr4
Davis is decent but soft. Only Moggy will deal with these fascists. Sadly May is so frightened of his intelligence she wouldn't dare give him a job.
Davies is doing exactly as instructed for reasons I have explained.
Dave no one who wants to leave is in the least bit interested in what Dougan had to say because he is one man on a mission. He is pro-EU so of course he takes their side.
Please link the documents that prove we have pay for future projects that we get no benefits from and that Davies must tell them exactly what we have to pay before the trade deal is done.
Please link the documents that prove we have pay for future projects that we get no benefits from and that Davies must tell them exactly what we have to pay before the trade deal is done.
a) because Davies agreed to that format of negotiations
b) because (once again) if he doesn't think he owes anything he puts why in a document and the negotiations proceed
the relevant source of the obligation is the Vienna Convention of Treaties.
b) because (once again) if he doesn't think he owes anything he puts why in a document and the negotiations proceed
the relevant source of the obligation is the Vienna Convention of Treaties.
lol everytime I give you a link you ignore it saying it biased or msm or some such rubbish, so
"google is your friend"
"google is your friend"
Dave I cannot see it.
I genuinely dont know where you have found your information.
All I have is this scrap of detail:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/620409/Terms_of_reference_for_the_Article_50_negotiations_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf
It does not contain all the points you are making and say Davies agreed to.
I genuinely dont know where you have found your information.
All I have is this scrap of detail:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/620409/Terms_of_reference_for_the_Article_50_negotiations_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf
It does not contain all the points you are making and say Davies agreed to.
Pay nil, trade deal, exclude EU citizens.
The EU will come around to that position.
The EU will come around to that position.
Or they won't, but agree that's what we should offer in the absence of a decent agreement.
If they want cash, let em chase us for it rather than cave in.
If they want cash, let em chase us for it rather than cave in.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-caves-into
-eu-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6
Your link doesn't work split it into parts.
-eu-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6
Your link doesn't work split it into parts.
This all the official UK releases on Brexit:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/article-50-and-negotiations-with-the-eu
Your link looks like an article rather than anything official but I will take a look and see.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/article-50-and-negotiations-with-the-eu
Your link looks like an article rather than anything official but I will take a look and see.
Your article is the day after the terms of reference paper came out.
Nothing mentions about those three things needing to be concluded before trade talks. Davies himself said as much in your article.
Where is the information saying Davies has to produce a document outlining what we will pay?
How does that work...
1. Davies sends in a document saying £10bn
They so no
2. Davies sends in a document saying £11bn
They so no
?
It could endless. I dont see that in the terms of reference. Where is it?
Nothing mentions about those three things needing to be concluded before trade talks. Davies himself said as much in your article.
Where is the information saying Davies has to produce a document outlining what we will pay?
How does that work...
1. Davies sends in a document saying £10bn
They so no
2. Davies sends in a document saying £11bn
They so no
?
It could endless. I dont see that in the terms of reference. Where is it?
Also how can we concluded the Ireland issue before a trade deal is done.
For instance the border will look very different if we end up in a free trade/free movement of people deal compared to if he has no free movement and 5% tarriffs.
For instance the border will look very different if we end up in a free trade/free movement of people deal compared to if he has no free movement and 5% tarriffs.
The UK has now agreed to enter talks on divorce proceedings, including Britain's exit bill and the border with Northern Ireland, before any talks on future trading relations can begin.
When asked why he had capitulated to EU demands, Davis replied that: "It's not when it starts. It's how it's concluded that matters."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-caves-into-eu
-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6
When asked why he had capitulated to EU demands, Davis replied that: "It's not when it starts. It's how it's concluded that matters."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-caves-into-eu
-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6
re Ireland I conceded that about 50 posts ago - do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Also that isn't the stumbling block
Also that isn't the stumbling block
"The UK has now agreed to enter talks on divorce proceedings, including Britain's exit bill and the border with Northern Ireland, before any talks on future trading relations can begin."
And here we are days later and you seem to agreeing with my original point, as does Davis.
The sentence here is NOT "The UK has now agreed to complete and sign off agreements on divorce proceedings, including Britain's exit bill and the border with Northern Ireland, before any talks on future trading relations can begin."
They've entered the talks.
This thread is just sophistry as you try and justify blaming the Tories for obstacles thrown in front of the UK and Brexit by the EU. Whose side are you on? Doesn't appear to be the UK, it appears to be booze hound Junker and that arrogant bovine Merkel.
And here we are days later and you seem to agreeing with my original point, as does Davis.
The sentence here is NOT "The UK has now agreed to complete and sign off agreements on divorce proceedings, including Britain's exit bill and the border with Northern Ireland, before any talks on future trading relations can begin."
They've entered the talks.
This thread is just sophistry as you try and justify blaming the Tories for obstacles thrown in front of the UK and Brexit by the EU. Whose side are you on? Doesn't appear to be the UK, it appears to be booze hound Junker and that arrogant bovine Merkel.
I am no at a loss with what you are going on about Dave.
We have started talks on those subjects as we agreed.
So what is the problem?
We have started talks on those subjects as we agreed.
So what is the problem?
Really roflcopters
From the article, the EU position: "early agreement on the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the Brexit divorce bill and the Northern Irish border, before any discussions could begin on a trade deal".
Davis has not produced any substantive proposals. He has not even pretended to produce any substantive proposals. That is why the talks have stalled.
From the article, the EU position: "early agreement on the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the Brexit divorce bill and the Northern Irish border, before any discussions could begin on a trade deal".
Davis has not produced any substantive proposals. He has not even pretended to produce any substantive proposals. That is why the talks have stalled.
Seriously!!!!!
You are basing the whole argument on an article where the writer (not an official) wrote:
The EU had demanded early agreement on the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the Brexit divorce bill and the Northern Irish border, before any discussions could begin on a trade deal.
But this is not what happened!
The UK did not agree to that demand.
The UK agreed to start the talks off with those issues as the paper I linked to shows.
Had the UK agreed an 'agreement' on Ireland before the trade deal it would be stupid as you agree.
This is a case of you reading an article and a comment by the writer about a historical demand and getting the wrong end of the stick.
You are basing the whole argument on an article where the writer (not an official) wrote:
The EU had demanded early agreement on the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the Brexit divorce bill and the Northern Irish border, before any discussions could begin on a trade deal.
But this is not what happened!
The UK did not agree to that demand.
The UK agreed to start the talks off with those issues as the paper I linked to shows.
Had the UK agreed an 'agreement' on Ireland before the trade deal it would be stupid as you agree.
This is a case of you reading an article and a comment by the writer about a historical demand and getting the wrong end of the stick.
The EU have said themselves they want to see 'sufficient progress' to move onto trade. Not concluded settlements.
How they define that seems to be up to them. We cannot force them to talk trade with us.
How they define that seems to be up to them. We cannot force them to talk trade with us.
Excellent work from Dave. He pitched against a dozen Brexiteers, more or less, and emerged with the one through line of reason. Winner.
The EU want a large pile of money from us and we want a trade deal back. Why should we agree to give them a huge amount of money when we don't know what we'll get in return for it? Sod the EU, they are, as I say, taking the yellow stuff.
The basis is "agreement" on the three issues - that doesn't need to be complete agreement. The EU conceded (that was an EU concession - why would they do that?) sufficient progress. Davis hasn't made any progress. He got the EU position papers, but hasn't produced UK position papers. He hasn't disputed the divorce bill. He hasn't done anything substantive.
UB, Dave thinks we agreed to sign off on the 3 issues before we can talk trade because a writer thought that was something the EU asked for before the Terms of Reference were drawn up.
Do you agree with that analysis or do you think it is just 'sufficient progress' that is required?
Do you agree with that analysis or do you think it is just 'sufficient progress' that is required?
EU want us to pay what they think we owe them PLUS probably treble that amount as a punishment for leaving, and a majority of people think we should just roll over & pay it 
David davis hasn't disputed the divorce bil? "Google is you friend". Go google that, there's a good lad.
You only get like 600,000 hits telling you you're wrong.
You only get like 600,000 hits telling you you're wrong.
Is it any wonder that people say Brexiters are thick?
Where is Davis's position paper on the divorce bill? Where are his legal arguments about what is owed and not owed? That is the only thing that matters, not what he tells the Daily Fail when he's had a few.
Where is Davis's position paper on the divorce bill? Where are his legal arguments about what is owed and not owed? That is the only thing that matters, not what he tells the Daily Fail when he's had a few.
pumphol where is your link to an EU official to back up that statement?
Patronising people to try and shore up your obvious (and well founded) intellectual insecurities does not make your right. HTH.
Think you probably want to look up the definition of "patronising", there's a good lad.
Legally the UK doesn't have to pay the EU any money.
Don't pay them, let them take us to court.
Don't pay them, let them take us to court.
Don't mention the border in Ireland also, if they have a proposal regarding that we might listen, otherwise they can pipe down.
Don't mention the border in Ireland also, if they have a proposal regarding that we might listen, otherwise they can pipe down.
rights of foreigners in Britain ?, they know already our position on that.
its got nothing to do with them.
its got nothing to do with them.
now move onto trade deals.
which by the way should as a matter of principle not take any longer than 6 months, if it does walk away someone is taking the piss
which by the way should as a matter of principle not take any longer than 6 months, if it does walk away someone is taking the piss
There are some sad sights on the forum, but few sadder than lfc1971 talking to himself again.
well as Trevino once said to Jacklin before trevino won the british open
when jacklin was in a sour mood, and said he didn't feel like talking
Trevino said that's ok tony, I,ll talk you just listen
when jacklin was in a sour mood, and said he didn't feel like talking
Trevino said that's ok tony, I,ll talk you just listen
dave1357 16 Oct 17 20:12
pumphol where is your link to an EU official to back up that statement?
Sorry Dave its an opinion, though I gather only yours really counts in the realm of things.
pumphol where is your link to an EU official to back up that statement?
Sorry Dave its an opinion, though I gather only yours really counts in the realm of things.
Jacklin should have won that Open, 1971 or 72 but for the greatest display of golf in the greatest tournament perhapsever by Trevino
remember that biscuits, Jacklin shouldn't have been rude.
remember that biscuits, Jacklin shouldn't have been rude.
dave1357
16 Oct 17 20:11
Joined: 05 Sep 10
| Topic/replies: 5,963 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
Is it any wonder that people say Brexiters are thick?
Where is Davis's position paper on the divorce bill? Where are his legal arguments about what is owed and not owed? That is the only thing that matters, not what he tells the Daily Fail when he's had a few.
What 'position paper' are you talking about?
There is nothing mentioned of this in the terms of reference.
It seems the EU has presented a bill and Davies' team are going through the lines.
Where did you get this 'position paper' nonsense from?
16 Oct 17 20:11
Joined: 05 Sep 10
| Topic/replies: 5,963 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
Is it any wonder that people say Brexiters are thick?
Where is Davis's position paper on the divorce bill? Where are his legal arguments about what is owed and not owed? That is the only thing that matters, not what he tells the Daily Fail when he's had a few.
What 'position paper' are you talking about?
There is nothing mentioned of this in the terms of reference.
It seems the EU has presented a bill and Davies' team are going through the lines.
Where did you get this 'position paper' nonsense from?
It is ok to see a cluster of lfc1971 posts because you can just skip past them to the next interesting one.
3. The following initial negotiating groups have been established:
Citizens' rights;
Financial Settlement;
Other Separation issues.
In addition, a dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland has been launched
under the authority of the Coordinators.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/620409/Terms_of_reference_
for_the_Article_50_negotiations_between
_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf
Citizens' rights;
Financial Settlement;
Other Separation issues.
In addition, a dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland has been launched
under the authority of the Coordinators.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/620409/Terms_of_reference_
for_the_Article_50_negotiations_between
_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf
So what do you think "Financial Settlement" is about?
poor biscuits, strange how interesting uninteresting things can become.
oh i see what your "problem" is. If you look at the list of docs on the .gov link you will see a number of position documents etc. There doesn't appear to be any document about financial settlement. Why do you think that is?
Jacob Rees Mogg would eat EU.nited biscuits for breakfast, metaphorically speaking 
Because they are going through the EU's outline paper and the details.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-financial_settlement_en_2.pdf
What do you want the UK to do? They are the ones demanding money of us. It is up to them to justify it.
Say we will pay XYZ and then the EU to say yes/no?
All Davies agreed to do is to start on those 3 points.
The EU does not want to talk trade until they think 'sufficient progress' has been made on those 3 points.
That is up to the EU.
We cannot ever force them to talk trade if they dont want a trade deal.
If they offer a decent trade deal they might get more cash off us.
But only an idiot would pay up front.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-financial_settlement_en_2.pdf
What do you want the UK to do? They are the ones demanding money of us. It is up to them to justify it.
Say we will pay XYZ and then the EU to say yes/no?
All Davies agreed to do is to start on those 3 points.
The EU does not want to talk trade until they think 'sufficient progress' has been made on those 3 points.
That is up to the EU.
We cannot ever force them to talk trade if they dont want a trade deal.
If they offer a decent trade deal they might get more cash off us.
But only an idiot would pay up front.
Ok so you say the hold-up is because Davies hasn't done anything but "start the talks" and he thinks that was all he needed to do? You agree that Davies hasn't negotiated over the leaving bill?
They are going through the lines of what the EU is asking for and the legal advice they have with the EU.
That is hardly doing nothing.
What more do you expect us to do? Make an offer and see if they accept it?
Whenever we offer something on citizens rights they say it is not enough.
The EU is just looking for us to fold regardless of law because they need our money.
At the end of the day the EU will either do trade talks that benefit everyone or they won't.
Using this to run down the clock to put pressure on us to pay more is from negotiation 101 classes.
That is hardly doing nothing.
What more do you expect us to do? Make an offer and see if they accept it?
Whenever we offer something on citizens rights they say it is not enough.
The EU is just looking for us to fold regardless of law because they need our money.
At the end of the day the EU will either do trade talks that benefit everyone or they won't.
Using this to run down the clock to put pressure on us to pay more is from negotiation 101 classes.
you can walk into a garage to buy a car, if you do your homework you will know what sort of price you
can offer to purchase the car.
the garage will expect you to pay more
these negotiations can be boring but you know what the outcome will be
does davies have a clue what the cost of his car will be?
that really is the important question
we will end up with a car, lets hope its one we want.
can offer to purchase the car.
the garage will expect you to pay more
these negotiations can be boring but you know what the outcome will be
does davies have a clue what the cost of his car will be?
that really is the important question
we will end up with a car, lets hope its one we want.
What the EU wants is you pay £300,000 up front for a super car, but won't let you see it until you've paid, when it may be a 1990 VW Golf with the engine missing.
And remoaners think this a good idea, and that walking away without a car should be illegal.
And remoaners think this a good idea, and that walking away without a car should be illegal.
I would like to apologise to dave1357 on behalf of all the thick people who have made him so unhappy. Sorry dave.
no the eu wants me to overpay for a supercar and will let me pay on delivery
i know how much this supercar is worth (hopefully)
and therefore in time will get the car for that price
it may take some time to get to this price, but get there i shall
i know how much this supercar is worth (hopefully)
and therefore in time will get the car for that price
it may take some time to get to this price, but get there i shall
the garage has a caravan i want too
i know that will save me money in years to come
i have a one on my drive they want
they will not swop the caravans until i agree to buy the car
i know that will save me money in years to come
i have a one on my drive they want
they will not swop the caravans until i agree to buy the car
The Brexit secretary has conceded that Britain has “obligations” from its 44 years of EU membership, but will not say anything about what they might be when he meets the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, in Brussels next week, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/
aug/23/david-davis-to-avoid-putting-brexit-payment-on-table-in-brussels
David Davis has said the UK's refusal to commit to a figure for the EU divorce bill until later this year has made the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier "quite cross" with British negotiators.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday morning before the government's customs union transition plan is published, the Brexit Secretary claimed the government was using "constructive ambiguity" as a deliberate tactic and "it will be difficult to read what we intend."
Davis said that while the UK "will meet any real international obligations... there won't be a number [agreed for the divorce bill] by October or November."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-on-the-brexit
-divorce-bill-michel-is-getting-quite-cross-with-us-2017-8
I really can't see how you can possibly deny he is stalling. Nearly two months ago he had an idea of the "obligations" and still hasn't moved forward with the issue.
The position "we will pay if we get a good trade deal" although attractive to the shire Tories is inconsistent and probably illegal. The government shouldn't be paying anything unless it has a legal obligation and if it has such a legal obligation it should pay it. (If it wants to make it difficult to pay and trash the UK's credit rating, fair enough but after imposing years of austerity to keep that credit rating?)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/
aug/23/david-davis-to-avoid-putting-brexit-payment-on-table-in-brussels
David Davis has said the UK's refusal to commit to a figure for the EU divorce bill until later this year has made the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier "quite cross" with British negotiators.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday morning before the government's customs union transition plan is published, the Brexit Secretary claimed the government was using "constructive ambiguity" as a deliberate tactic and "it will be difficult to read what we intend."
Davis said that while the UK "will meet any real international obligations... there won't be a number [agreed for the divorce bill] by October or November."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-on-the-brexit
-divorce-bill-michel-is-getting-quite-cross-with-us-2017-8
I really can't see how you can possibly deny he is stalling. Nearly two months ago he had an idea of the "obligations" and still hasn't moved forward with the issue.
The position "we will pay if we get a good trade deal" although attractive to the shire Tories is inconsistent and probably illegal. The government shouldn't be paying anything unless it has a legal obligation and if it has such a legal obligation it should pay it. (If it wants to make it difficult to pay and trash the UK's credit rating, fair enough but after imposing years of austerity to keep that credit rating?)
indeed they will not agree to swap the caravans until i agree to buy the car.
but i know they will agree to the swap
but i know they will agree to the swap
The right has no plan beyond a desire to turn Britain into a Randian dystopia where regulations vanish and the state withers. It has no policy beyond a nostalgic hope that Britain will sail across the wide blue oceans and conquer new markets as our imperial ancestors conquered them before.
The right offers religion, not politics. Its faith is without blemish, the gospel runs. If Brexit fails, that is not because the faith is false but because heretical traitors, judges, civil servants and EU governments have schemed to defeat it. “He that doubteth is damned,” said St Paul. “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Boris Johnson agrees.
Thatcherism, Britain’s last revolt of the right, was preceded by years of hard planningin the Centre for Policy Studies and Institute of Economic Affairs. If you were around in the 1970s, you might have loved or loathed it. But you could not deny the right had built a programme for government. Today, there is no plan, no programme, no nothing. Instead of being populated by serious thinkers, Brexit’s thinktanks are filled with propagandists, tabloid hacks and tax-exile newspaper proprietors. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are columnists turned politicians. The Sun, Telegraph,Mail and Express do not just cheer on the cause while the grown-ups make the real decisions, as they did in Margaret Thatcher’s day. They are what brains the Brexit campaign possesses.
Dominic Cummings, the director of Vote Leave, demonstrated the frivolity of the enterprise last year when he wiped his own campaign’s website after the referendum. It as if he was admitting the promises Johnson and Gove had made to 17.4 million voters were worthless. Now the heist had been pulled, he would destroy the incriminating evidence.
A global movement against over-mighty states in Ronald Reagan’s America and Mikhail Gorbachev ’s Soviet Union sustained the Thatcher government. The Brexiters have no one beyond Donald Trump and they don’t really have him. Along with all his other faults – the racism, the narcissism, the incessant mendacity – Trump is an “America first” protectionist. He will never give us a sweetheart deal to make up for lost European markets, even if Congress let him (which it would not).
The Brexiters have no allies, only enemies. Men such as Daniel Hannan and Bernard Jenkin have been fighting their opponents in the Tory party for 30 years. The wounds are too deep, the scars are too thick, for them to admit now the other side may have a point. If they once had a conception of Britain’s interests and the welfare of its citizens, they forgot it long ago. Beyond the desire to create an isolated state in the Atlantic, where welfare and regulations are slashed and climate change denied, is a more primal impulse. They cannot concede an inch to enemies, who have belittled them for most of their adult lives. Compromise in these psychological circumstances feels like a betrayal, even if the only compromise demanded of them is a compromise with reality.
So be my guest and say that Brexit is a movement of organised stupidity. But accept that as propagandists the Brexiters are anything but stupid. They have been the most brilliantly successful manipulators of public opinion in modern British history.
From the point of propaganda, their vices are virtues. During the referendum, the Remain campaign mocked Brexiters’ inability to offer the British a coherent account of our future. But laughter was misplaced. The inability to level with the public made the Leave campaign a moving target that never offered its opponents a clear line of attack.
The religious insistence that supporting Brexit is a matter of faith, not reason, has the propaganda benefit of keeping supporters in line. Despite the collapse in the pound and living standards, despite the descent of the negotiations into the mire, not one prominent supporter of Brexit has admitted to the smallest doubt. The normal arguments of politics no more exist on the right than they do in the Church of Scientology. Who will break ranks when they know a movement run by vicious hacks will denounce them as traitors? Newspaper proprietors have power without responsibility, Stanley Baldwin said, the “prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages”.
The harlot’s prerogative ensured that when Liam Fox said negotiating a deal with the EU will be “the easiest thing in human history”, or when David Davis promised in 2016 that by now we would have “trade deals with the US and China”, or when Johnson and Gove swore there would be £350m a week for the NHS, they never expected to be held to account. True democratic politicians are responsible for their words. The Brexit right never is.
Last week, the right showed how it is always two steps ahead of its opponents. It demanded the punishment of Phillip Hammond for refusing to shake the magic money tree and spend on new quangos and custom and excise bureaucracies in case we cannot reach a deal. It was a revealing tantrum. They know Brexit is going wrong. When it is revealed to be a bloody mess, they want to be able to say: “It’s not our fault. If only the government had listened to us in October 2017 we would be prosperous and free.”
The failure of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour frontbench to challenge the right is as irresponsible as the right’s failure to protect the national interest. Instead of listening to them, listen to the men and women who are prepared to fight in the Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists and on the Labour backbenches. They know the best tactic is the simplest. “They hate it when you throw their words in their faces,” Labour’s Chuka Umunna told me. “They start shouting, ‘You want to refight the referendum’.”
To which the only response is, you promised to cut immigration, boost prosperity, secure global trade deals and restore parliamentary sovereignty. You can’t just wipe that off the web and pretend it never happened.
You do not win by treating 17.4 million people as stupid. You win by treating them as democratic citizens with the right to punish the men who made impossible promises. Once it is clear they will never be kept and were never meant to be kept, the question arises: is it time to think again?
The right offers religion, not politics. Its faith is without blemish, the gospel runs. If Brexit fails, that is not because the faith is false but because heretical traitors, judges, civil servants and EU governments have schemed to defeat it. “He that doubteth is damned,” said St Paul. “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Boris Johnson agrees.
Thatcherism, Britain’s last revolt of the right, was preceded by years of hard planningin the Centre for Policy Studies and Institute of Economic Affairs. If you were around in the 1970s, you might have loved or loathed it. But you could not deny the right had built a programme for government. Today, there is no plan, no programme, no nothing. Instead of being populated by serious thinkers, Brexit’s thinktanks are filled with propagandists, tabloid hacks and tax-exile newspaper proprietors. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are columnists turned politicians. The Sun, Telegraph,Mail and Express do not just cheer on the cause while the grown-ups make the real decisions, as they did in Margaret Thatcher’s day. They are what brains the Brexit campaign possesses.
Dominic Cummings, the director of Vote Leave, demonstrated the frivolity of the enterprise last year when he wiped his own campaign’s website after the referendum. It as if he was admitting the promises Johnson and Gove had made to 17.4 million voters were worthless. Now the heist had been pulled, he would destroy the incriminating evidence.
A global movement against over-mighty states in Ronald Reagan’s America and Mikhail Gorbachev ’s Soviet Union sustained the Thatcher government. The Brexiters have no one beyond Donald Trump and they don’t really have him. Along with all his other faults – the racism, the narcissism, the incessant mendacity – Trump is an “America first” protectionist. He will never give us a sweetheart deal to make up for lost European markets, even if Congress let him (which it would not).
The Brexiters have no allies, only enemies. Men such as Daniel Hannan and Bernard Jenkin have been fighting their opponents in the Tory party for 30 years. The wounds are too deep, the scars are too thick, for them to admit now the other side may have a point. If they once had a conception of Britain’s interests and the welfare of its citizens, they forgot it long ago. Beyond the desire to create an isolated state in the Atlantic, where welfare and regulations are slashed and climate change denied, is a more primal impulse. They cannot concede an inch to enemies, who have belittled them for most of their adult lives. Compromise in these psychological circumstances feels like a betrayal, even if the only compromise demanded of them is a compromise with reality.
So be my guest and say that Brexit is a movement of organised stupidity. But accept that as propagandists the Brexiters are anything but stupid. They have been the most brilliantly successful manipulators of public opinion in modern British history.
From the point of propaganda, their vices are virtues. During the referendum, the Remain campaign mocked Brexiters’ inability to offer the British a coherent account of our future. But laughter was misplaced. The inability to level with the public made the Leave campaign a moving target that never offered its opponents a clear line of attack.
The religious insistence that supporting Brexit is a matter of faith, not reason, has the propaganda benefit of keeping supporters in line. Despite the collapse in the pound and living standards, despite the descent of the negotiations into the mire, not one prominent supporter of Brexit has admitted to the smallest doubt. The normal arguments of politics no more exist on the right than they do in the Church of Scientology. Who will break ranks when they know a movement run by vicious hacks will denounce them as traitors? Newspaper proprietors have power without responsibility, Stanley Baldwin said, the “prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages”.
The harlot’s prerogative ensured that when Liam Fox said negotiating a deal with the EU will be “the easiest thing in human history”, or when David Davis promised in 2016 that by now we would have “trade deals with the US and China”, or when Johnson and Gove swore there would be £350m a week for the NHS, they never expected to be held to account. True democratic politicians are responsible for their words. The Brexit right never is.
Last week, the right showed how it is always two steps ahead of its opponents. It demanded the punishment of Phillip Hammond for refusing to shake the magic money tree and spend on new quangos and custom and excise bureaucracies in case we cannot reach a deal. It was a revealing tantrum. They know Brexit is going wrong. When it is revealed to be a bloody mess, they want to be able to say: “It’s not our fault. If only the government had listened to us in October 2017 we would be prosperous and free.”
The failure of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour frontbench to challenge the right is as irresponsible as the right’s failure to protect the national interest. Instead of listening to them, listen to the men and women who are prepared to fight in the Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists and on the Labour backbenches. They know the best tactic is the simplest. “They hate it when you throw their words in their faces,” Labour’s Chuka Umunna told me. “They start shouting, ‘You want to refight the referendum’.”
To which the only response is, you promised to cut immigration, boost prosperity, secure global trade deals and restore parliamentary sovereignty. You can’t just wipe that off the web and pretend it never happened.
You do not win by treating 17.4 million people as stupid. You win by treating them as democratic citizens with the right to punish the men who made impossible promises. Once it is clear they will never be kept and were never meant to be kept, the question arises: is it time to think again?
The UK got screwed going into the EU, and now they are getting screwed coming out.
With no legal obligation to pay the EU anything why do the EU expect us to make a good will gesture and hand over £50bn (or whatever) for investment projects in the EU that we will not benefit from?
The only reason the UK would pay anything would be to sweeten a trade deal.
At the moment the EU has nothing to negotiate with.
The only reason the UK would pay anything would be to sweeten a trade deal.
At the moment the EU has nothing to negotiate with.
the no legal obligation would doubtless be tested in law, somewhere
that would take time with ill feeling between sides causing its own problems
may has already stated we are going to pay, so why not just get on with
agreeing the amount rather than stating we dont need to pay anything.
her visit yesterday looks like a statement of intent to crack on with it
that would take time with ill feeling between sides causing its own problems
may has already stated we are going to pay, so why not just get on with
agreeing the amount rather than stating we dont need to pay anything.
her visit yesterday looks like a statement of intent to crack on with it
We should not pay anything unless we legally have to, it's the principle .
Trade talks and anything else are a seperate issue.
Trade talks and anything else are a seperate issue.
that is why we should not agree to pay anything before the talks have been finalised.
What is it exactly that the EU are going to offer Britain ? Let's wait and see.
its a principle on here, but seemingly not one held by teresa
i think the democracy of that is she has a vote and you sadly do not lfc
i think the democracy of that is she has a vote and you sadly do not lfc
Now so far I have not heard of any proposals for in the EU, apart from the concessions that they want the U.K. to make.
Well that's too bad, it's not good enough they had better get back to work.
Well that's too bad, it's not good enough they had better get back to work.
maybe the torys will sack teresa and chit chat forum will
take over leadership of the tory party, then we can walk away without paying anything
can that happen?, i dont know., anything is possible and who
would want to disagree with that?
take over leadership of the tory party, then we can walk away without paying anything
can that happen?, i dont know., anything is possible and who
would want to disagree with that?
Here's a little clue, there's nothing to talk about that the EU wants to talk about , apart from one thing.
Freedom of movement , that is what they are talking about even when they are not talking about it.
Freedom of movement , that is what they are talking about even when they are not talking about it.
When we realise that their whole house of cards comes crashing down.
All the other fantasies will vanish and are meaningless.
If any trade deal comes with free movement there will be no trade deal.
There should also be no payments.
There should also be no payments.
The only reason the UK would pay anything would be to sweeten a trade deal.
That probably would be illegal.
Davis has admitted there are liabilities. He simple needs to agree what these are, refute the EU ones he doesn't agree with and then we can move forward. He is stalling because the shire Tories won't allow him to agree on any liability.
That probably would be illegal.
Davis has admitted there are liabilities. He simple needs to agree what these are, refute the EU ones he doesn't agree with and then we can move forward. He is stalling because the shire Tories won't allow him to agree on any liability.
Yes, dave1357 is right. When he puts it like that, he reason for the deadlock becomes clear to everyone.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539