We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 134 comments are related to the topic:
EU brexit negotiations - the final bill ?
EU brexit negotiations - the final bill ?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 134
|
By:
Oh dear I apologise profusely
|
|
By:
Anyway you haven't responded to
Insider Trader, if the Uk owes nothing why is Davis not telling them that? ... Because he wants the UK to get a decent trade deal and not annoy the EU so much they dig their heals in. The problem is they are doing this anyway. May said in Florence we would pay 20bn for things we signed up to even though there is no legal obligation. The EU banked that and then the likes of Macron said we were not even half way. We are offering some good will and to do the right thing but nothing is enough for the tyrants in the EU. My impression is the EU has no intention of offering a free trade deal without free movement of people and that is why they are demanding this money up front. |
|
By:
Why do you refer to the heads of government, they're the ones making all the decisions after all, of other befriended EU countries as tyrants?
|
|
By:
I should say governments in general instead of just heads of governments
|
|
By:
May said in Florence we would pay 20bn for things we signed up to even though there is no legal obligation.
No she didn't. She said that she would pay £20m a year for a two year transition period. No one has "signed up" for a transition period. Why do you constantly lie about things like this? |
|
By:
The last time a European tyrant controlled an army with recruits from eastern Europe to Spain things did not end well for the continent.
|
|
By:
Says David. The man that runs off any thread where he is found to be wrong. Only to reappear on another.
|
|
By:
Just for the record dave:
Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership. |
|
By:
That is not at all an answer to my question.
|
|
By:
To help secure this transition period, the prime minister offered to pay enough into the EU to ensure no member state will have to stump up more (or receive less) during the current budget round ending in 2020. She did not mention a sum, but it should be about €20bn (£18bn).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/22/theresa-mays-florence-speech-key-points |
|
By:
It's just a moniker you picked up somewhere and you don't even know why you use it, right?
|
|
By:
Dave, where do you get your 20bn a year from?
|
|
By:
sorry my bad it was just 20bn to secure the transition period not 20bn a year. But the point is that it is a for a transition period ie an extension of single market access after brexit and not simply a financial settlement.
|
|
By:
My understanding is the 20bn is for everything we have signed up to until 2020.
She did not say the figure but that was what the Guardian and others thought the figure would be. |
|
By:
northern ireland get billions on grants from the EU .who will pay them when uk walk away with no deal.So it may a bigger problem down the road.
|
|
By:
yes but for a transition deal which the EU are not obliged to agree to, not as a settlement for obligations as at April 2019. The EU naturally said fine but lets talk about the actual financial settlement, assets and liabilities.
I can't see at all why Davis won't do that. It isn't going to go away. |
|
By:
Is it worth worrying about though dave? The cards will fall where they fall. Nowt any of us can do to affect things, so I just ignore it all.
|
|
By:
Dave,
we are already paying up to when we leave in 2019. May was saying we will pay for longer. There are no liabilities. What is it you do not understand about this? Are you on purpose just trying to misread charts and contradict every fact given to you for a laugh? Any payment by the UK is a good will gesture to smooth our exit and to all stay friends after. Did you read the legal advise from the house of lords on this yet? Please take the time to read the facts rather than a watered down opinion piece from a globalist publication of your choice. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context. |
|
By:
dave1357 14 Nov 17 09:35 OK here's some basic stuff, which I rather assumed you would understand. Organisations don't pay money they don't owe and usually pay money that they owe. If the UK owes the EU money, then it should pay it. If it refuses or disputes that payment it will go to the appropriate court. If it doesn't owe the money, then it shouldn't pay it. Yes there might be a gray area where some money is paid or not paid, depending on diplomatic considerations, but that will only apply to a minority of issues. None of this has to do with trade deals. It has to do with the UK leaving the EU. Any suggestion that we should pay £x only if we get a deal basically says we should pay money we might not owe, which would be illegal and implies that we shouldn't pay money we do owe if we don't get a deal, also illegal. Here's some basic stuff you say then start with IF.  Yep we know all that but I asked you what we legally owed and you obviously don't know despite constantly demanding that the UK stump up. You do know that the EU want us to agree to a payment which has fluctuated greatly since talks began but not only agree but pay before we know what final deal we are going to be offered. That would be madness. Hopefully common sense will prevail but if it doesn't we should just walk away. |
|
By:
dave runs off as you say but I am still waiting for his evidence about his muslim accusation
|
|
By:
@ akabula
Yep we know all that but I asked you what we legally owed and you obviously don't know despite constantly demanding that the UK stump up. At no time have I said the UK should "stump up" anything it doesn't owe (unlike you- see quote below). I have said several times that the UK should say that it doesn't owe anything if it believes that. (Although Davis has said that is not the case). My post was in response to your statement We should make a counter offer and give them an ultimatum. Nothing but we might consider something depending on the type of deal we get offered You didn't "ask what was legally owed". You came out with the above guff and you wonder why someone reacts to it? Your faux indignation is embarrassing. |
|
By:
nothing is legally owed, not a penny .
|
|
By:
Does dave want Britain to hand over billions of pounds to the EU without getting something in return?
I wouldn't trust someone from Britain if they have that kind of attitude , who knows what they might be prepared to accept . |
|
By:
@IT
we are already paying up to when we leave in 2019. May was saying we will pay for longer. There are no liabilities. What is it you do not understand about this? We have covered this several times already, if there are no liabilities, why doesn't Davis say so, rather than saying he agrees there are liabilities but doesn't agree what they are? we are already paying up to when we leave in 2019. May was saying we will pay for longer. Good we have that settled, May was offering to pay for a transition period and not to cover liabilities as I said three times. btw as we have also discussed before the Vienna Treaties Convention appears to suggest that the UK is liable for any commitment made while under the relevant treaty, so the HoL opinion is just that. |
|
By:
When Britain leaves the EU it is not subject to any treaty.
|
|
By:
Treaties are for people who are members of the club, not countries outside the club.
|
|
By:
Tell the EU that we will consider some form of payment, even determine on an amount ,
with the proviso that an acceptable deal can be found. That is the best way to proceed for all . |
|
By:
They won't do that will they?
That's why we won't get a good deal for Britain. |
|
By:
I think Trump wrote a book about it .
'The Art of the Deal' British politicians should read it, and listen to the good advice. |
|
By:
^ so you are suggesting we borrow as much as we can then declare bankruptcy?
|
|
By:
It's like this, the British people are only prepared to rule the state , or else ruin the state.
That is something very important. |
|
By:
@David
There are no liabilities. What is it you do not understand about this? We have covered this several times already, if there are no liabilities, why doesn't Davis say so, rather than saying he agrees there are liabilities but doesn't agree what they are? ... Why? How many more times. It is to grease the palms of the EU so we can move onto a trade deal. Even they admit that. This is why they are using talks about trade as a bargining chip. From the House of Lords: we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. DAVIES WANTS THE PROSPECT OF A DEAL. THIS IS WHY MONEY HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT. Dave, what is it you do not understand about this. You cannot read a chart and now you cannot see that we owe nothing but are offering something to keep things friendly while we try to get a trade deal. It really is not that hard to understand. |
|
By:
@Dave
There is plenty on this if you are interested. For instance: https://pjgoldsmith.com/2017/11/06/why-the-uk-has-no-financial-obligations-to-the-eu-legally-but-they-do-politically/ |
|
By:
@Dave
There is plenty on this if you are interested. For instance: https://pjgoldsmith.com/2017/11/06/why-the-uk-has-no-financial-obligations-to-the-eu-legally-but-they-do-politically/ |
|
By:
Saying that there are no financial obligations and there are financial obligations but no way of enforcing them (if that is the case) are two different animals.
In any case Davis has said neither. His position appears to be (I am happy to be corrected on this) that there are financial obligations, but these can't be assessed until the framework for the future relationship is agreed. This entire discussion thread arose from the contention that the EU is responsible for negotiations stalling, in that they were "blackmailing" the UK. So it is quite odd that you are effectively bringing up the argument that the UK won't have to pay anything if the EU doesn't agree to our demands by April 2019 ie agree to our demands or else! The far right of the Tory Party want a super-deregulated, low tax economy as it will be profitable for their paymasters (eg Redwood's city employers). They believe that having no agreement with the EU will assist that goal. They are hindering Davis in the negotiations by refusing to allow him to settle the UK's obligations. They are the cause of the stalled negotiations. |
|
By:
Dave,
How many times? There are no legal obligations. The 'obligations' are purely political if we want to keep the EU happy about doing a decent trade deal for all concerned. Do you simply not bother to investigation things? Someone told you there was a legal obligation to pay the EU and you refuse to even entertain the idea you could possibly be wrong? |
|
By:
they are going to lose so much cash that we put in and they splash out on expenses and give handouts to less efficient economies
no wonder they want to grab as much as they can to offset this loss do not give them a penny |
|
By:
Everyone agrees that a country is liable for commitments made under a treaty. Why is the UK paying the EU money right now? Because it is obliged to by commitments entered into under a treaty.
The only debate is whether liability for commitments made under a treaty continues after that treaty applies. The Vienna Convention says it does, some contend that Article 50 extinguishes that liability when the treaties no longer apply. If as you say there are no legal obligations and it is completely clear, why isn't Davis saying that? Why is he actually the opposite The Government recognise that the UK has obligations to the EU, and the EU obligations to the UK, that will survive the UK’s withdrawal—and that these need to be resolved. |
|
By:
Looks like May will up it to 40 billion (but don't tell the Tory loons) - getting closer to the final figure of 50-60 billion - which everyone knows will be the end position on this point.
Realism is hitting home. Don't pay up, then no talks, no trade and chaos costing way more than 50-60 billion in the long run. (Mark my words - in retrospect this bit will seem easy - Ireland situation is going to be a nightmare). |
|
By:
The fee has already been agreed (behind closed doors) That is not the stumbling block.
|