Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 05-09-2017 09:38AM

ambro25 wrote: »

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's exit bill, you're basically advocating for the UK to blackmail the EU.

If that "money carte blanche" in your post refers to the UK's payments for enhanced access to the Single Market after it has agreed its exit bill, fair enough (...noting however that the EU is hardly in a position to provide 'assurance' on trade levels: the UK trades with individual EU27 countries, not with the EU on its own; all the EU could give assurances about, in a trading context, is procedural trade facilitation).

Which is it?

Good morning!

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

robindch · 05-09-2017 09:44AM

Calina wrote: »

The EU justifiably considers that the UK cannot be trusted so until it demonstrates a willingness in grown up detail not to welch on previous commitments, the EU will not discuss trade. [...] The EU's position is justified in the context of 1) Johnson's general behaviour and cake and eat it comments 2) Davis lack of engagement and up front lack of knowledge 3) May's decision to issue Article 50 without actually having a concrete strategy for negotiation and 4) May's decision to have an election after issuing Article 50. The UK has not been acting like a trustworthy counterparty, they have not been negotiating in good faith. [...]

Can't disagree with any of that - the Tory frontbench are currently negotiating with the EU as though the EU were some peculiar mixture of the Tory backbench and the electorate - by turns, threatening and cajoling, hand-shaking, fist-waving and huffing + puffing like an overweight steamtrain.

Of the elements you've listed, the worst is certainly the fact that May launched A50 without any clear idea of what 'exiting the EU' actually means. So instead of heads-down discussion with EU negotiators to achieve an outcome in some general area, most of the fighting instead seems to have been happening within the Tory party - and that civil war, and the tone of it, is what's inevitably spilling over into the EU negotiations.

Honestly, the UK government is an embarrassment to the country at the moment.

listermint · 05-09-2017 09:48AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.

Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

solodeogloria · 05-09-2017 09:58AM

listermint wrote: »

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.

Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.

There are two sides to this negotiation. Good will goes both ways.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 05-09-2017 10:15AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.

There are two sides to this negotiation. Good will goes both ways.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This is fantasy land stuff. The UK has obligations

You don't walk into a restaurant eat half the meal then start negotiating down your bill.

That a just not on.

The obligation is the obligation no one is asking the UK to pay more than they owe.

You however are trying to say that they are being asked such a thing

robindch · 05-09-2017 10:16AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny.

You don't appear to understand how any of this works.

If the UK can't negotiate a deal, then the UK will "hard-brexit" and in the absence of agreed trading terms, default trading terms will apply. These default trading terms are owned by the WTO and they will screw the UK as they penalize service sector activity which is a large component of the UK's economy.

That's not the EU "offering WTO terms" - that's the UK failing to realize that they've got less than a year to negotiate a deal which avoids them defaulting WTO terms.

ambro25 · 05-09-2017 10:24AM

solodeogloria wrote:

his is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

The EU are not going to "offer the UK WTO terms". Them's the default terms if the UK exits without any agreement, and I fully agree that the UK shouldn't have to pay anything for that level of access to SM. I thought that was well understood from a long time on both sides of the debate.

See, that's just the thing: the EU doesn't have to offer anything to the UK. The UK is free to exit at any time before March 2019 on WTO terms, and will find itself on WTO terms on April 01, 2019 regardless if nothing is agreed by thern. The UK will still be liable for its exit bill just the same, because of its pre-Brexit binding commitments whilst fully subjected to Treaty provisions as a full EU member. The UK shall eventually have to send its solicitors to The Hague in that respect, if it should continue to stall, and I'll let you imagine the chances of achieving wondrous FTAs around the world after it should demonstrate such wilful disregard for its binding commitments with its closest partners of 40+ years.

But then, the UK doesn't want "just" WTO terms, does it?

Else why is it negotiating, and what is it trying to negotiate for?

solodeogloria wrote:

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

By its own position papers, the UK wants EFTA-like enhanced access to the Single Market. There's a price tag for that. Just ask Norway (-by reason of which, the UK won't ever get EFTA-like access for nowt)

solodeogloria wrote:

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

Fine. No transition, nor enhanced access to the SM. And the UK will still meet the EU in The Hague just the same.

solodeogloria wrote:

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

You don't ever get everything you want in life. Life lesson #1, I believe.

The UK ain't so special. It stopped have any realistic pretentions to that title on June 24, 2016. The EU is just reminding it of the fact, time and again, until it sinks in. Eventually, it will.

You can disagree with all that, all you want. Doesn't change matters one iota.

Red_Wake · 05-09-2017 10:26AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.

Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.

There are two sides to this negotiation. Good will goes both ways.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Does anyone know which court would be applicable in such a scenario?

LeinsterDub · 05-09-2017 10:26AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This is where I disagree. If the EU are going to offer the UK WTO trading terms then there is no point paying the EU a penny. There is also no point in the current talks. In a walk away scenario the UK will only pay what the law requires in court as opposed to any good will payment.

If on the other hand the EU is willing to offer a generous free trade deal with a reasonable transition period then I suspect the UK will pay within reasonable limits.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why would anyone else (Japan ,etc) sign a trade deal with someone who demonstrates so readily they aren't going to honour their commitments

Water John · 05-09-2017 10:35AM

De Gaulle always maintained that, the UK was not suited to the European Project. He just may have been right.

ambro25 · 05-09-2017 10:35AM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Does anyone know which court would be applicable in such a scenario?

The ICJ in The Hague, with heads of claims under a mixture of the TEU/TFEU (EU-specific) and the Vienna Convention (governing international treaties such as the TEU/TFEU).

Whilst the UK could weasel out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ after March 2019 (not an EU member anymore, so not concerned by jurisdiction of the ECJ post<actual> Brexit), the UK can't dodge out the ICJ: it is a signatory of the VC (1970, deposited 1971) and, through that signature, has unconditionally agreed to the jurisdiction of the ICJ for settling disputes (Article 66 VCLT).

Note that the dispute would be with the EU27, individually and collectively, not with the EU itself. So it is (one or more of-) the EU27 which would take the case to the ICJ, not the EU itself. Whence France immediately threatened the UK with proceedings before the ICJ when the UK first mooted that they wouldn't pay a penny.

Zubeneschamali · 05-09-2017 10:37AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It means that however much the EU say it's a bill. It isn't a bill in the eyes of the British public.

So don't pay it.

Nody · 05-09-2017 10:37AM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Does anyone know which court would be applicable in such a scenario?

ECJ could be applicable as it's relating to deals struck as a member of EU under their jurisdiction or alternatively International Court of Justice in Hague or possibly The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce which has often been used for international disputes as well.

robindch · 05-09-2017 10:37AM

listermint wrote: »

This is fantasy land stuff.

Of such stuff is the magical wonderland of Brexit made - a place where you can have your cake and eat it, and go whistle when the bill arrives.

robindch · 05-09-2017 10:45AM

Water John wrote: »

De Gaulle always maintained that, the UK was not suited to the European Project. He just may have been right.

Remember that the people in the UK which he was dealing with were familiar with the British Empire - that group is rapidly dying off and the people who would have been young when De Gaulle was around are now the elderly who voted, en masse and at the behest of liars and ideologues, to strip the young of the EU-derived privileges, rights and responsibilities which the young and/or educated voted, en masse, to retain.

If the vote had been held off for a few years - allowing the elderly leavers to vacate for young remainers - or if the electorate were just a little bit more educated - the ill-judged, and dishonestly-carried referendum would have carried easily and far more honestly.

ancapailldorcha · 05-09-2017 11:09AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So don't pay it.

Can you please post more than just these one-liners? They're a bit rude and adding very little if anything to the debate.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 11:48AM

listermint wrote: »

It's basically saying we are an untrustworthy worthy lot but trust us.

Amusing, yet no so amusing at the same time.

How can you trust someone when they won't actually pay their bill. Their.... Bill

listermint wrote: »

The UK owes the money trade agreement or no trade agreement.

You understand the term dishonorable.

Well avoiding your commitments is dishonorable and the trade agreements across the globe should reflect the UKs actions

listermint wrote: »

This is fantasy land stuff. The UK has obligations

You don't walk into a restaurant eat half the meal then start negotiating down your bill.

That a just not on.

The obligation is the obligation no one is asking the UK to pay more than they owe.

You however are trying to say that they are being asked such a thing

once again the thread disappears off into fantasy land.:rolleyes:

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to, Davis has already said this, so trying to claim the UK will "Weasel out of this" is just plain daft and to be honest, makes a mockery of this thread which is supposed to be about sensible discussion.

Nody · 05-09-2017 11:54AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to,

It was in reply to Solo who stated:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think the UK should pay for a free trade agreement. So that rules out the second option.

I don't think the UK should pay the "exit bill" unless the EU is willing to offer good trade terms to the UK.

This is where I agree with Davis in objecting to the sequencing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So clearly someone DID suggest nothing should be paid inc. the exit bill; but hey selective reading and all that.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 11:55AM

Nody wrote: »

It was in reply to Solo who stated:

So clearly someone DID suggest nothing should be paid inc. the exit bill; but hey selective reading and all that.

paying an Exit bill does not equal paying what you are committed to pay.

ArmaniJeanss · 05-09-2017 11:56AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to, Davis has already said this, so trying to claim the UK will "Weasel out of this" is just plain daft and to be honest, makes a mockery of this thread which is supposed to be about sensible discussion.

Well, the poster with the most posts in the thread has suggested it, so it's reasonable to debate it here.

****
Parliament back today, next few weeks will be fun anyway.
Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 12:00PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well, the poster with the most posts in the thread has suggested it, so it's reasonable to debate it here.

****
Parliament back today, next few weeks will be fun anyway.
Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Harika · 05-09-2017 12:04PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Isn't the exit bill what the outstanding commitments are? There seems to be some discussion around what a commitment is/was and what EU and UK feel they are obliged to pay or not.

ArmaniJeanss · 05-09-2017 12:06PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Ah fair enough, I thought he was suggesting the 'pay them nothing at all, exit bill or commitments' idea that tends to only get an airing on the DM comment page.

LeinsterDub · 05-09-2017 12:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

Do you believe the UK has no commencements to the EU . Most people believe they do. If you don't explain why you think they don't.

Chips Lovell · 05-09-2017 12:12PM

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

A single financial settlement should ensure that the union and the United Kingdom both respect the obligations undertaken before the date of withdrawal. The settlement should cover all legal and budgetary commitments as well as liabilities, including contingent liabilities.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 12:18PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Do you believe the UK has no commencements to the EU . Most people believe they do. If you don't explain why you think they don't.

Yes I do, but that is not what I'm saying.

murphaph · 05-09-2017 12:38PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So don't pay it.

Yeah. Eurozone economy growing fast enough to simply replace the UK's contribution without the average person noticing. The EU doesn't cost nearly as much as your average Daily Mail reader thinks.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 12:57PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

eu negotiating guidelines do not equal UK commitments though, do they?

What the eu considers an obligation, the UK may not. The best example is the eu's demands that the UK pays all costs associated with Brexit, including the cost to move eu institutions out of the UK.

How is that a commitment by the UK? it is just aspirational stuff from the eu and will therefore be open to negotiation.

LeinsterDub · 05-09-2017 01:03PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes I do, but that is not what I'm saying.

So the UK shouldn't pay for pensions of British civil servants who worked in the EU?

Calina · 05-09-2017 01:07PM

Fratton Fred wrote:

How is that a commitment by the UK? it is just aspirational stuff from the eu and will therefore be open to negotiation.

TBH Fred, I think that yes, the UK should indemnify the EU for costs forced on the EU by a UK decision which the EU neither wanted nor sought.

Relocation of the EU agencies is a key example. The decision was a UK decision. Why wouldn't the UK take responsibility for it? You wanted control back, right?

Really, the UK appears not have a clue what it has signed up for.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments