What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature1 min ago
20Billion Euros To Get Out Of A Club We've Paid For For 44 Year?? Madness
63 Answers
http://
Have a day off Tezza!
Have a day off Tezza!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree we should honour our commitments up to the time we leave. But certainly not for anything we are not bound by. There is nothing about 'moral' obligations just legal obligations.
However I understand it was a junior member of the team pointed out and trashed all the EUs paperwork on how much we owed and why. Didn't he go line by line and prove without doubt that each item we were being told we had to pay for was either wrong or not a legal requirement!!
So, no 'divorce bill' and no 'morally payable bill' which leaves.... no bill or a small,one at most.
If the EU then want to 'clobber' us with an extortion bill to remain in the single market then we say, thank you for your offer but the WTO rates are just fine for now.
However I understand it was a junior member of the team pointed out and trashed all the EUs paperwork on how much we owed and why. Didn't he go line by line and prove without doubt that each item we were being told we had to pay for was either wrong or not a legal requirement!!
So, no 'divorce bill' and no 'morally payable bill' which leaves.... no bill or a small,one at most.
If the EU then want to 'clobber' us with an extortion bill to remain in the single market then we say, thank you for your offer but the WTO rates are just fine for now.
We have known since this whole question came up that the UK would be in a weak negotiating position and that the EU would be setting terms.
First it was about how to begin negotiations. The UK wanted informal talks before A50 was triggered, the EU insisted that talks could only happen after A50. The EU won.
Then it was about whether to discuss issues simultaneously or sequentially. The EU won.
Then it was about the exit bill. EU looks to be getting their way there too (highballing to get the actual figure you want is negotiation 101).
As for all these allegations that Brussels is "not playing fair" or "mafiosi" or whatever... this is politics. Politics is a profession that by its nature selects for ruthlessness, short-termism and expediency. If you did not consider the political implications of the UK's bargaining position - i.e. that it would be at the mercy of people whose political interests are not in favour of making the UK a positive example for leaving - well... too late.
As people keep pointing out, the simple fact is that if the UK reverts back to WTO terms it *will* lose business because for those companies which rely on EU commerce, moving elsewhere will eventually become the path of least resistance. The UK needs a deal and the longer we deny it, the more humiliating this circus will turn out to be.
First it was about how to begin negotiations. The UK wanted informal talks before A50 was triggered, the EU insisted that talks could only happen after A50. The EU won.
Then it was about whether to discuss issues simultaneously or sequentially. The EU won.
Then it was about the exit bill. EU looks to be getting their way there too (highballing to get the actual figure you want is negotiation 101).
As for all these allegations that Brussels is "not playing fair" or "mafiosi" or whatever... this is politics. Politics is a profession that by its nature selects for ruthlessness, short-termism and expediency. If you did not consider the political implications of the UK's bargaining position - i.e. that it would be at the mercy of people whose political interests are not in favour of making the UK a positive example for leaving - well... too late.
As people keep pointing out, the simple fact is that if the UK reverts back to WTO terms it *will* lose business because for those companies which rely on EU commerce, moving elsewhere will eventually become the path of least resistance. The UK needs a deal and the longer we deny it, the more humiliating this circus will turn out to be.
Also an international trading bloc offering exclusive rights to members (which most developed countries in the world belong to in some form or another) is not like a club. Or a TV license. Or a marriage.
As is so often the case, statecraft is not relatable to everyday life. It's a comforting thought to imagine we can understand these things without doing so on their own terms, but it's a fantasy. Analogies which attempt to portray it like that are typically the tools of demagogues or people who are fooled by them.
As is so often the case, statecraft is not relatable to everyday life. It's a comforting thought to imagine we can understand these things without doing so on their own terms, but it's a fantasy. Analogies which attempt to portray it like that are typically the tools of demagogues or people who are fooled by them.
Brexit: PM bids to break deadlock with two-year deal offer ::::
http://
Looks like she is going to propose a two-year transitional deal, after March 2019, ahead of a permanent trade deal.
http://
Looks like she is going to propose a two-year transitional deal, after March 2019, ahead of a permanent trade deal.
Cassa, could this be what you were referring to?
http://
http://
I don't see it a a list of "EU won". I see it as a list of EU being intransigent, quarrelsome, and the UK being mature and pragmatic, and opting to move things along.
It's never a weak position to be able to say that, enough is enough and we're off, stick your single market/customs union. One of the main drivers for getting out was to shake off free movement, so there's zero incentive to pay for a further transitional period of it. They should pay us if they want us to put up with it for longer.
It's never a weak position to be able to say that, enough is enough and we're off, stick your single market/customs union. One of the main drivers for getting out was to shake off free movement, so there's zero incentive to pay for a further transitional period of it. They should pay us if they want us to put up with it for longer.
Spice rack, That was a precursor to the one about the junior bod. It was a month or so ago.
As is usual I can't find anything I am actually looking for.
But with your link and the fact the EU are aware it isn't possible to force us to pay anything we simply shouldn't.
The EU know we shouldn't pay anything (other than for stuff we want to remain in such as security, nuclear isotopes and what have you)
but they have played a very crafty game. They have shouted loudly, all the while not putting a figure on it, and we seem to have blinked first. They won't say how much they are demanding because they know they can't ask.
As is usual I can't find anything I am actually looking for.
But with your link and the fact the EU are aware it isn't possible to force us to pay anything we simply shouldn't.
The EU know we shouldn't pay anything (other than for stuff we want to remain in such as security, nuclear isotopes and what have you)
but they have played a very crafty game. They have shouted loudly, all the while not putting a figure on it, and we seem to have blinked first. They won't say how much they are demanding because they know they can't ask.
//I don't see it a a list of "EU won". I see it as a list of EU being intransigent, quarrelsome, and the UK being mature and pragmatic, and opting to move things along.//
Erm at every stage of the negotiations so far, the EU has gotten its way the UK has caved.
Also the EU has been nothing but consistent about its goals from the beginning. The UK is completely unclear about what it actually wants other than "a good deal for Britain", when that doesn't mean anything if you're not clear about what you think "good for Britain" is in this circumstance.
Erm at every stage of the negotiations so far, the EU has gotten its way the UK has caved.
Also the EU has been nothing but consistent about its goals from the beginning. The UK is completely unclear about what it actually wants other than "a good deal for Britain", when that doesn't mean anything if you're not clear about what you think "good for Britain" is in this circumstance.
Once we make a formal, even soft formal offer we are dead in the water.
The EU have just done a lot of loud shouting and we appear to have caved in. That is the shame of the UK. Caving in when we had no reason. EU went in hard because they know they are in a weak position but we caved so they are going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
Shame on our government and shame on anyone who thinks paying a conman and bully is the right thing to do.
I just hope they don't capitulate to the EU when they turn the offer down flat.
The EU have just done a lot of loud shouting and we appear to have caved in. That is the shame of the UK. Caving in when we had no reason. EU went in hard because they know they are in a weak position but we caved so they are going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
Shame on our government and shame on anyone who thinks paying a conman and bully is the right thing to do.
I just hope they don't capitulate to the EU when they turn the offer down flat.
It does rather make a mockery of "taking back control" from the EU, if -- according to all the Brexiteers on here -- we've given it back instead to a bunch of spineless toads.
Or -- and here's just a suggestion I'm throwing out there -- Theresa May, and the cabinet, who have been entrusted with negotiating our side of the deal, have a rather better idea of what's going on than we do. And, considering how much I think she's a buffoon (mainly for the General Election), that's saying something.
Still, it's not a bad point to make. Liam Fox, David Davis, Boris Johnson, etc etc, all in the run-up to the referendum and in the period after made grandiose claims about how easy it was going to be, and by and large have dropped those claims. Liam Fox talked once about how easy this whole thing was going to be, and Davis then said in a Commons statement that "no-one said this was going to be easy". Pragmatism is taking over the UK side, it seems, even in the most hardened warriors for the Brexit campaign. I'm just throwing it out there, but perhaps if they are "breaking" or "caving in", as you say it, they are simply acknowledging the reality of the situation.
The EU is acting in its own interests. And it holds a great deal more of the cards than we do. Perhaps you should start taking note of what's happening, and rather than lash out at the people you voted for to deliver this, you might care to re-examine whether what you were asking them to deliver was actually achievable. It's looking increasingly unlikely that the "simply walk away with nothing" Brexit is implausible, bad for Britain in the short-term, and would cause severe long-term damage to our diplomatic reputation on top of that.
Or -- and here's just a suggestion I'm throwing out there -- Theresa May, and the cabinet, who have been entrusted with negotiating our side of the deal, have a rather better idea of what's going on than we do. And, considering how much I think she's a buffoon (mainly for the General Election), that's saying something.
Still, it's not a bad point to make. Liam Fox, David Davis, Boris Johnson, etc etc, all in the run-up to the referendum and in the period after made grandiose claims about how easy it was going to be, and by and large have dropped those claims. Liam Fox talked once about how easy this whole thing was going to be, and Davis then said in a Commons statement that "no-one said this was going to be easy". Pragmatism is taking over the UK side, it seems, even in the most hardened warriors for the Brexit campaign. I'm just throwing it out there, but perhaps if they are "breaking" or "caving in", as you say it, they are simply acknowledging the reality of the situation.
The EU is acting in its own interests. And it holds a great deal more of the cards than we do. Perhaps you should start taking note of what's happening, and rather than lash out at the people you voted for to deliver this, you might care to re-examine whether what you were asking them to deliver was actually achievable. It's looking increasingly unlikely that the "simply walk away with nothing" Brexit is implausible, bad for Britain in the short-term, and would cause severe long-term damage to our diplomatic reputation on top of that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.