New Brexit thread (with added poll)

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ric, 3 Sep 2017.


If the Brexit referendum was held now, how would you vote?

  1. Remain

    466 vote(s)
  2. Leave

    290 vote(s)
  3. Undecided

    20 vote(s)
  1. BJL_City


    13 Dec 2016
    I guess the EU would like a check for 0 Euros.
  2. mcfc1632


    2 Jan 2009
    I have been in those same offices.

    My experience in government negotiations has been an interesting development. I spent the 90s acting for major companies bidding for large government contracts and then negotiating them to closure. In 1998 I was asked by the government to 'swap sides' and represent them in letting them instead. It is much less stressful to not be the guy being told you have been unsuccessful and instead be the guy doing the telling.

    And yes there are a good few 'stories' similar to yours that I could tell
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2017
  3. mcfc1632


    2 Jan 2009
    My suggestion would be that we have started to talk about the events from now to 01/04/19 rather than whether the decision of 23/06/16 was right or wrong
  4. Vic


    11 Jan 2009
    No there isn't. There's legal opinion that we could walk away without a deal but I'm not sure you can really get a legal opinion on whether a claim is ridiculous if you don't know what it is. Anyway, first rule of contract disputes is, don't go to court if you can avoid it.

    Whatever you call it, it's a mechanism to solve a dispute. And how long do you think we'd spend arguing about who was going to be the arbitrators? Daily Express would slag off any name the EU proposed and the Mail would probably have the "enemies of the people" headline ready for the UK's reps.
  5. BobKowalski


    16 May 2007
    The money is a political decision not a legal one but even if it were a legal one and we wanted to go to court to prove we owed nothing the next and most obvious question is which court? What existing court would have jurisdiction over this dispute? Is there a court to take it to? And if there isn't what was the bloody point in us wasting time 'proving' there is no 'legal basis' for the monies claimed by the EU?
  6. Len Rum

    Len Rum

    27 Nov 2012
    The name's Rum, Len Rum.
    Totally erroneous analysis.
    First it assumes two parties of equal negotiating strength. That is not the case here, UK has a much weaker hand.
    Second it assumes a simple negotiating scenario i.e. buying of a car where agreement of a price can be left to the last minute and if no agreement then both sides go back to the status quo. Brexit is a very complex negotiation and there is no status quo to fall back on at the last minute( unless you want to include extension to Article 50 with UK remaining full member of EU?).
  7. mcfc1632


    2 Jan 2009
    Is this one of your efforts to prove the old adage about people being able start a fight in an empty house?

    I am enjoying posting on this 'new feel Brexit thread' so I will resist being drawn in

    1. Suffice to say that re legal opinion - Google can be your friend

    2. Re staying out of the courts is best - I fully agree with you - although I made no mention of a court. A court would not be involved anywhere in the process that I suggested

    I did say that the EU will avoid such measures IMO - well you would if you were able to assess where the judgement would fall

    3. and finally - no - you cannot twist what I said and ask me to accept it.

    I suggested an agreement of both parties for an International Tribunal to impartially assess on behalf of both parties - there would be no dispute to be had in such a process and no court involved.

    It is no kind of dispute resolution/arbitration process. And anyway it is a moot point as the EU would not go anywhere near such an objective process, because, IMO, they know how it would pan out

    So, no - I am not going to have 'one of those exchanges' with you that have been so common on these threads
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2017
  8. Chippy_boy


    11 Aug 2008
    I don't agree Len. Your analysis implies a situation where the UK wants a deal, but the EU does not. Where we have to try to win something and they do not. This is not the case. Both sides want a deal, of that I am 100% positive. Each side is simply trying to secure the most favourable terms.

    I am not suggesting that a no-deal outcome is impossible. Sometimes negotiations fail, despite both sides wanting to do a deal. But this is a very unlikely scenario imo. This is not an ebay auction where if we don't bid highest the item is sold, never to be seen again. The EU and the UK are not going anywhere and timelines and deadlines are entirely arbitrary and moveable should both sides wish to move them. So we cannot "run out of time", nor sell/buy from someone else. And since both sides want a deal, it's actually quite difficult to see how one won't be done.
  9. BlueAnorak


    31 Oct 2010
    As the EU refuses to point out what legal points are associated with each element of the 'Brexit Bill' that is a very much 'in the air'.
  10. BlueAnorak


    31 Oct 2010

Share This Page