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
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
10 Nov 17
14:15
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
20 billion or nuthin' you decide ya ponces. what can they do? fk ;em.
why are we paying anything... we are dissatisfied customers. they've been in our pockets since
Heath begged to get in to the club.
they shafted Greece and Italy and now are on our backs for a payout.
one world government - let's see if we can free ourselves... i doubt it.
why are we paying anything... we are dissatisfied customers. they've been in our pockets since
Heath begged to get in to the club.
they shafted Greece and Italy and now are on our backs for a payout.
one world government - let's see if we can free ourselves... i doubt it.
Show More
Listen to the logical thinking of fathermaguire.
don't worry the 20 million , if we ever pay it , will not change a single vote.
Why should it ?
don't worry the 20 million , if we ever pay it , will not change a single vote.
Why should it ?
100 billion ? That won't change anything either , who would change their vote on the basis of that nonsense ?
no one.
no one.
However , if 2 or 3 million went straight to my own bank account ?
That's fine , then I will reconsider.
It won't take long.
That's fine , then I will reconsider.
It won't take long.
I am open to offers - as the actress said to the bishop
oh dear - I haven't upset the clergy now have I?
oh dear - I haven't upset the clergy now have I?
UFC you just slink around cowering in the lap of luxury in sussex while I continue the struggle in the trenches of west landistan
how awful for you moisok, I would wish it on no one to live permanently in London.
the whole thing is becoming farcical
Prominent Brexiteer John Redwood advised investors to avoid Britain this weekend as the country’s economy “hits the brakes”.
Before the vote Redwood advised that the “economic gains of leaving the EU will be considerable”.
But as the economy hits stormy waters this weekend he advised investors to look elsewhere – namely the European Central Bank in an article he penned titled “Look further afield as the UK hits the brakes.”
Prominent Brexiteer John Redwood advised investors to avoid Britain this weekend as the country’s economy “hits the brakes”.
Before the vote Redwood advised that the “economic gains of leaving the EU will be considerable”.
But as the economy hits stormy waters this weekend he advised investors to look elsewhere – namely the European Central Bank in an article he penned titled “Look further afield as the UK hits the brakes.”
EU Brexit Negotiations - the final bill?
No mystery here - we've been told. That will be 50 Billion Euro. Its pay (or pay the consequences). Pretty straightforward and in the scheme of things will be a lot cheaper than floundering around on WTO rules for a decade.
There are harder questions than this to be answered.
No mystery here - we've been told. That will be 50 Billion Euro. Its pay (or pay the consequences). Pretty straightforward and in the scheme of things will be a lot cheaper than floundering around on WTO rules for a decade.
There are harder questions than this to be answered.
Why should we cave in to blackmail.
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.
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.
I see it didnt take that great patriot Vulcan Redwood on his 200 grand sideline to start telling investors to start pulling their money out of Britain
we might consider something depending on the type of deal we get offered.
typical of a brexiter to promote an illegal and corrupt option. Just pay off Johnny foreigner, it's the only language they understand.
typical of a brexiter to promote an illegal and corrupt option. Just pay off Johnny foreigner, it's the only language they understand.
And how would that be illegal? You want to agree to a payment before knowing the deal? That would be utter madness.
It never fails to amaze me how anyone could support the EU over their own country in this ongoing process.
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.
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.
Legal process has it's time and place dave, but horse trading is where we are at right now. Let's fight the fight and see where we are legally when the dust settles.
pay the money we need to get the 3.5 billion in grants they owe us here in northern ireland
After this process is over, we still have to trade with, share military commitments and a host of other things with our EU neighbours. We should be prepared to pay for what we have already agreed with the EU. I have no axe to grind with any of the EU countries, merely that the EU model is flawed and despite representations from the UK and others they have no desire to reform this outdated concept.
The whole Referendum was botched by Cameron and cronies; legislation of this importance should have been passed only with a two thirds majority and the facts behind leaving should have been properly laid out for the whole population. Instead they were given half truths and exaggeration combined with a jingoism not seen for decades.
The whole Referendum was botched by Cameron and cronies; legislation of this importance should have been passed only with a two thirds majority and the facts behind leaving should have been properly laid out for the whole population. Instead they were given half truths and exaggeration combined with a jingoism not seen for decades.
dave1357
14 Nov 17 09:35
Joined: 05 Sep 10
| Topic/replies: 6,234 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
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.
...
The UK owes nothing according to the House of Lords report.
If we had to pay believe me the remain side would have used this in the campaign. Did anyone mention it? No. Why? Because the EU just made it up. There is nothing in A50 about a bill.
Any payment would be a good will gesture to grease the wheels of a trade deal that would suit the people of Europe. Notice I say people not the tyrants who run the EU and are forming their own army.
We could end up paying £50bn and then they say we can only have free trade if we keep free movement of people. Then we will have wasted £50bn.
14 Nov 17 09:35
Joined: 05 Sep 10
| Topic/replies: 6,234 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
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.
...
The UK owes nothing according to the House of Lords report.
If we had to pay believe me the remain side would have used this in the campaign. Did anyone mention it? No. Why? Because the EU just made it up. There is nothing in A50 about a bill.
Any payment would be a good will gesture to grease the wheels of a trade deal that would suit the people of Europe. Notice I say people not the tyrants who run the EU and are forming their own army.
We could end up paying £50bn and then they say we can only have free trade if we keep free movement of people. Then we will have wasted £50bn.
Insider Trader, if the Uk owes nothing why is Davis not telling them that?
Are you proposing that the UK pays taxpayers money to the EU when it doesn't owe them anything? You seem to be saying that we might say that we will pay you £50bn that we don't owe? Why would we ever do that?
Really you have to start thinking for yourself and stop parroting "the approved response" from whatever right wing asylum you lurk in.
What bearing has the exit bill got to do with future trade relationship?
Are you proposing that the UK pays taxpayers money to the EU when it doesn't owe them anything? You seem to be saying that we might say that we will pay you £50bn that we don't owe? Why would we ever do that?
Really you have to start thinking for yourself and stop parroting "the approved response" from whatever right wing asylum you lurk in.
What bearing has the exit bill got to do with future trade relationship?
Dave,
You say:
What bearing has the exit bill got to do with future trade relationship?
...
It is a massive bearing. They refuse to even start trade talks with them unless we massively up our offer of money.
Where have you been? No ransom money from us and there will be no trade talks (they say).
You say:
What bearing has the exit bill got to do with future trade relationship?
...
It is a massive bearing. They refuse to even start trade talks with them unless we massively up our offer of money.
Where have you been? No ransom money from us and there will be no trade talks (they say).
In Germany I can imagine manufacturers beating a path to merkel's front door. Conversation goes like this, Angela don't you dare fk this up - where are we going to dump all our billions of goods if you let the idiots screw this.
thinking again it is going to be mainly the germans who will be hurt not so much the belgians and french
hmmmmmmm.
hmmmmmmm.
You think countries trade with us to help us out?
We got stuff they want/need and that goes both ways.
Turn your back on people and , sooner or later, they come running.
Human nature.
We got stuff they want/need and that goes both ways.
Turn your back on people and , sooner or later, they come running.
Human nature.
So that's how ericster got with Kirsten Dunst.
We have been through this before IT.
The UK/EU agreement was to make sufficient progress in the areas of citizens, exit payments and Irish border.
The UK is deliberately stalling on the exit payments issue because of the Tory lunatic fringe. The EU actually isn't obliged to make a trade agreement as part of article 50, the only in scope discussions would be a future framework and potentially transition. Article 50 agreement is qualified majority of EU members and future trade agreement is unanimous agreement.
Anyway you haven't responded to
Insider Trader, if the Uk owes nothing why is Davis not telling them that?
Are you proposing that the UK pays taxpayers money to the EU when it doesn't owe them anything? You seem to be saying that we might say that we will pay you £50bn that we don't owe? Why would we ever do that?
The UK/EU agreement was to make sufficient progress in the areas of citizens, exit payments and Irish border.
The UK is deliberately stalling on the exit payments issue because of the Tory lunatic fringe. The EU actually isn't obliged to make a trade agreement as part of article 50, the only in scope discussions would be a future framework and potentially transition. Article 50 agreement is qualified majority of EU members and future trade agreement is unanimous agreement.
Anyway you haven't responded to
Insider Trader, if the Uk owes nothing why is Davis not telling them that?
Are you proposing that the UK pays taxpayers money to the EU when it doesn't owe them anything? You seem to be saying that we might say that we will pay you £50bn that we don't owe? Why would we ever do that?
moisok Joined: 13 Jun 06
Replies: 15478 14 Nov 17 14:54
In Germany I can imagine manufacturers beating a path to merkel's front door. Conversation goes like this, Angela don't you dare fk this up - where are we going to dump all our billions of goods if you let the idiots screw this.
Completely clueless rubbish. The kind of thing mobo or not allowed to bet would say.
Replies: 15478 14 Nov 17 14:54
In Germany I can imagine manufacturers beating a path to merkel's front door. Conversation goes like this, Angela don't you dare fk this up - where are we going to dump all our billions of goods if you let the idiots screw this.
Completely clueless rubbish. The kind of thing mobo or not allowed to bet would say.
Nov 14, 2017 -- 9:41AM, dave1357 wrote:
We have been through this before IT.The UK/EU agreement was to make sufficient progress in the areas of citizens, exit payments and Irish border.The UK is deliberately stalling on the exit payments issue because of the Tory lunatic fringe. The EU actually isn't obliged to make a trade agreement as part of article 50, the only in scope discussions would be a future framework and potentially transition. Article 50 agreement is qualified majority of EU members and future trade agreement is unanimous agreement.Anyway you haven't responded toInsider Trader, if the Uk owes nothing why is Davis not telling them that? Are you proposing that the UK pays taxpayers money to the EU when it doesn't owe them anything? You seem to be saying that we might say that we will pay you £50bn that we don't owe? Why would we ever do that?
Well, we wouldn't want to offend anybody now would we?
Always they play it safe. What if?
It's like the T-Shirt says, " JFDI".
Going for a trade agreement I can live with but having "anal-sex" forced upon me , metaphorically speaking of course, ohhh no.
Nov 14, 2017 -- 9:18AM, unitedbiscuits wrote:
So that's how ericster got with Kirsten Dunst.
No, that was the mobile phone, set to "silent mode" in my jeans pocket.
dave repeatedly playing agent provocateur there, poor form.
he accuses me of muslimophobia when I didn't mention them at all
when challenged about this he went away and hid
when challenged about this he went away and hid
I just asked him to show me where I had mentioned them and he was unable to provide any evidence
is this normal for forumites?
is this normal for forumites?
Do you really think you are fooling people when you use the language you do Moisok? Do you think it is normal behaviour on a gambling forum to make hundreds of posts about immigrants and virtually no posts about anything else??
but you are unable to provide evidence to back up your accusation
hope this helps
hope this helps
moisok • November 14, 2017 2:54 PM GMT
In Germany I can imagine manufacturers beating a path to merkel's front door. Conversation goes like this, Angela don't you dare fk this up - where are we going to dump all our billions of goods if you let the idiots screw this.
I once heard there is an entire world to trade with out there.
In Germany I can imagine manufacturers beating a path to merkel's front door. Conversation goes like this, Angela don't you dare fk this up - where are we going to dump all our billions of goods if you let the idiots screw this.
I once heard there is an entire world to trade with out there.
good point - and we can have all those Enfield motorbikes from India as well
yeah, those are lovely. Better yet though - remember Queen and go with bicycles. We need a traffic revolution away from motorized vehicles.
If for example, Germany had left, we would be seeking to punish them as much as we possibly could, and the press would be urging our politicians to ostracise them for pulling out of the European ideal - no deal is far worse for UK and we are in an atrocious negotiating position. The people who voted for this madness deserve everything they get, its just a shame the rest of us are going to get caught up in the long, messy fallout
and I actually and truly mean that in case you're wondering. I know we Germans are renowned for our first class primetime humour, but that is no joking matter.
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.
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.
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?
I should say governments in general instead of just heads of governments
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?
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?
The last time a European tyrant controlled an army with recruits from eastern Europe to Spain things did not end well for the continent.
Says David. The man that runs off any thread where he is found to be wrong. Only to reappear on another.
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.
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.
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
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/22/theresa-mays-florence-speech-key-points
It's just a moniker you picked up somewhere and you don't even know why you use it, right?
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.
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.
She did not say the figure but that was what the Guardian and others thought the figure would be.
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.
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.
I can't see at all why Davis won't do that. It isn't going to go away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
dave runs off as you say but I am still waiting for his evidence about his muslim accusation
@ 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.
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.
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 .
I wouldn't trust someone from Britain if they have that kind of attitude , who knows what they might be prepared to accept .
@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.
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.
When Britain leaves the EU it is not subject to any treaty.
Treaties are for people who are members of the club, not countries outside the club.
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 .
with the proviso that an acceptable deal can be found.
That is the best way to proceed for all .
They won't do that will they?
That's why we won't get a good deal for Britain.
That's why we won't get a good deal for Britain.
I think Trump wrote a book about it .
'The Art of the Deal'
British politicians should read it, and listen to the good advice.
'The Art of the Deal'
British politicians should read it, and listen to the good advice.
^ so you are suggesting we borrow as much as we can then declare bankruptcy?
It's like this, the British people are only prepared to rule the state , or else ruin the state.
That is something very important.
That is something very important.
@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.
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.
@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/
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/
@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/
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/
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
no wonder they want to grab as much as they can to offset this loss
do not give them a penny
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.
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.
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).
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).
The fee has already been agreed (behind closed doors) That is not the stumbling block.
It's not that much in reality we can just consider it to be foreign aid and move on.
The UK citizens of Wales & Scotland don't support their fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland. The UK Citizens of England recently did
mrtopnotch • November 20, 2017 12:03 PM GMT
The UK citizens of Wales & Scotland don't support their fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland. The UK Citizens of England recently did
what about?
The UK citizens of Wales & Scotland don't support their fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland. The UK Citizens of England recently did
what about?
..... So, as I predicted (along with many others admittedly) - we're getting closer to the 50 billion or so. But, this isn't a negotiating chip for trade discussions - as far as EU is concerned these are outstanding UK obligations - and not connected to trade, other than if we don't pay up, the EU are not even taking about trade. EU are rigid, not blackmail - if its "calculated" to be £3.50 or £300 billion it doesn't matter that's what they expect us to pay, and we will. But..............
There is going to be consternation when we commit the money and still no trade talks because of the Irish Border question. This will be the major stumbling block - way more difficult than a few billion here and there. The Irish (who are over-playing their hand, but have a premature but committed stance) will not accept a physical border and will veto any further talks until sorted, the DUP wont countenance any different arrangement for NI over rest of UK (and have the Tories over a barrel), and no technology exists that will meet a "frictionless" border. Sort that out!!
"Divorce bill" is easy compared to this..........and each party and everyone knows this - the elephant in the room if there ever was one.
There is going to be consternation when we commit the money and still no trade talks because of the Irish Border question. This will be the major stumbling block - way more difficult than a few billion here and there. The Irish (who are over-playing their hand, but have a premature but committed stance) will not accept a physical border and will veto any further talks until sorted, the DUP wont countenance any different arrangement for NI over rest of UK (and have the Tories over a barrel), and no technology exists that will meet a "frictionless" border. Sort that out!!
"Divorce bill" is easy compared to this..........and each party and everyone knows this - the elephant in the room if there ever was one.
why are we paying the divorce bill? are we the 'man'? the breadwinner hogg.
they are still in our pockets
they are still in our pockets
mrtopnotch • November 20, 2017 12:03 PM GMT
The UK citizens of Wales & Scotland don't support their fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland. The UK Citizens of England recently did
lfc1971 • November 20, 2017 12:11 PM GMT
^ there's another riddReple.
I'm still puzzled as to what this was. As a citizen of one of these countries i don't recall being asked to
support NI over anything in particular and can't think of what this could be?
The UK citizens of Wales & Scotland don't support their fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland. The UK Citizens of England recently did
lfc1971 • November 20, 2017 12:11 PM GMT
^ there's another riddReple.
I'm still puzzled as to what this was. As a citizen of one of these countries i don't recall being asked to
support NI over anything in particular and can't think of what this could be?
The apparent weakness of our current government in dealing with the EU really ticks me off, Britain should be taking a far tougher stance with those corrupt bullies.
The 2023 Rugby World Cup host?
RFU (England) voted for Ireland to host
Scotland voted for France
Wales for South Africa
RFU (England) voted for Ireland to host
Scotland voted for France
Wales for South Africa
^ nah can't be that. what has that got to do with the "citizens?"
if it is he's an idiot
if it is he's an idiot
Farage was on the daily politics today....he said in the long run it would be cheaper to leave with no deal.
well if Nigel says it it must be true - similar to before the vote, these idiots are unaccountable and can say anything they like
At last its dawning on people. When the EU say its 50 billion euro - its 50 billion euro. Guess what? 50 billion it was.
They understand the political sensitivities in the UK and haven't publicised the other 30-40 billion which will be paid for years and years for pensions etc. (including Nigel I daresay
).
• Now, next thing - if you want planes to fly - you must abide by EU aviation rules - ECJ rules in effect. Guess what will happen?
• You want a free trade deal with us? ECJ rules please. Guess what will happen?
The end game - abide by the rules and have no say in matters (which we used to have, we invented the single market to begin with!!!). By the way that will cost you all told by time its finished 100 odd billion. Plus your annual contributions to trade with. Thanks, pleasure doing business with you.
Wait and see.
They understand the political sensitivities in the UK and haven't publicised the other 30-40 billion which will be paid for years and years for pensions etc. (including Nigel I daresay
).• Now, next thing - if you want planes to fly - you must abide by EU aviation rules - ECJ rules in effect. Guess what will happen?
• You want a free trade deal with us? ECJ rules please. Guess what will happen?
The end game - abide by the rules and have no say in matters (which we used to have, we invented the single market to begin with!!!). By the way that will cost you all told by time its finished 100 odd billion. Plus your annual contributions to trade with. Thanks, pleasure doing business with you.
Wait and see.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539