Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[Vic]

I refer you to all the stuff that's been talked about for months. Programmes, pensions etc etc.

I wasn't being serious, I thought that would have been obvious. Text is so hard to parse.

No it's not obvious as Brexiters come up with so much that's cobblers that they do believe that it's hard to know when they're not serious about believing the cobblers.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I refer you to all the stuff that's been talked about for months. Programmes, pensions etc etc.

The only payments that are enforceable are the ones we're currently making whilst members of this club.
Any programmes planned by the EU for the future will obviously not be including the UK, any payments towards the pensions
of Juncker and his crew cease upon leaving in 19 months or so, we've paid into the club, when we quit the club, we don't have to pay
for it being refurbished years down the line. There may well be some commitments, the details of which have not been revealed by
Barnier, who appears to be wanting us to make some kind of offer, that do indeed need settlement, if so what are they, do you
have any figures, and what are they for?

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

There's talk of an actual rebate from the EU if push comes to shove. I prefer to listen to people like Rees Mogg when he states we can give them nothing and we should give them nothing if they continue to just sit there with their hands out saying NON.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

There's talk of an actual rebate from the EU if push comes to shove. I prefer to listen to people like Rees Mogg when he states we can give them nothing and we should give them nothing if they continue to just sit there with their hands out saying NON.

There has been talk of £100 billion, then £30 billion, what for exactly? To develop this scenario, which is something the EU has
come up with, what about the UK's share of the assets accumulated, it would mean we have equity, as a net contributor, in the many buildings,
institutions, wine stocks, cars, land etc; etc; are they willing to concede this?
I very much doubt it.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

There has been talk of £100 billion, then £30 billion, what for exactly? To develop this scenario, which is something the EU has
come up with, what about the UK's share of the assets accumulated, it would mean we have equity, as a net contributor, in the many buildings,
institutions, wine stocks, cars, land etc; etc; are they willing to concede this?
I very much doubt it.

The long and the short of it is that they wont talk unless we pay up, they wont even talk about British citizens in the EU.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The long and the short of it is that they wont talk unless we pay up, they wont even talk about British citizens in the EU.

Then if that is the case, there is nothing to talk about, we go to WTO trading regulations in 19 months, any medical
and residency issues of their citizens and ours not amicably resolved would be more problematic to them, as there are
far more here. To be honest, I don't believe reciprocal rights will be refused, we've been perfectly clear and fair, we have
offered EU here citizens residency rights, if they don't reciprocate on this point, then for me, discussion ends.

 

[jonmcity]

They want our cash, We want to trade. lock them in a room for three days and agree a deal. If after that we cannot agree, a cliff edge it will be. They money we were going to pay for EU trade, must be used on major projects immediately to prop up the UK economy. Just don't plan any holidays in the EU any time soon.

 

[jonmcity]

What, exactly, are our 'Dues?'

The EU agreed on long term spending projects based on a budget that included the UK contribution. They will say we are liable for these spending plans.

 

[hilts]

The EU agreed on long term spending projects based on a budget that included the UK contribution. They will say we are liable for these spending plans.

I would hope some of those spending plans would include projects in the UK and it's not like we woke up one day and stopped giving them money. They have 2 years to sort out their budget. Negotiations are a 2 way street you don't start off by agreeing to give these cunts a large wedge of money without anything in return regarding trade.

It's all a game of bluff and there will be loads of media stories from both sides getting there version out. The bed wetters on the remain side have been actively damaging the UKs prospects since the result of brexit was concluded.

Any bad deal will be as much their fault as the people involved in the negotiations.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The EU agreed on long term spending projects based on a budget that included the UK contribution. They will say we are liable for these spending plans.

They will say that, but it is a ridiculous stance to take. Any spending based on the UK's contribution beyond 2 years will
now have to be adjusted, as we are by then non contributors. That would be like having a gym and health club with 500 members,
basing your future renovations and expansion plans on the funding they bring in, 100 then leave, who then receive a bill for £1000 each
to fund the club's ambitions, said ex-members then proceed to tell the club what to do with their bill.
Complete nonsense, which is why there is no provision in EU rules or diktats that state anyone leaving
must pay an exit fee.
Again, there is the question of assets, will we get a share of these?

 

[Magicpole]

There's talk of an actual rebate from the EU if push comes to shove. I prefer to listen to people like Rees Mogg when he states we can give them nothing and we should give them nothing if they continue to just sit there with their hands out saying NON.

I think the fact they are suggesting this payment is simply because it must have been part of the rules.

If it wasn't we would have stated that. We didn't.

We now have a choice. We walk away and don't honour an agreement we were obviously a part of inserting, or we negotiate the fair sum and don't make a **** of a situation even worse if we hope to get any trade deal.

This leaving fee did not materialise since we decided to abandon ship. We need to remember that.

 

[hilts]

I think the fact they are suggesting this payment is simply because it must have been part of the rules.

If it wasn't we would have stated that. We didn't.

We now have a choice. We walk away and don't honour an agreement we were obviously a part of inserting, or we negotiate the fair sum and don't make a **** of a situation even worse if we hope to get any trade deal.

This leaving fee did not materialise since we decided to abandon ship. We need to remember that.

If it was it would have been stated and it would be a legal requirement, I have heard a few people say there is no legal obligation to pay a divorce fee.

 

[Magicpole]

If it was it would have been stated and it would be a legal requirement, I have heard a few people say there is no legal obligation to pay a divorce fee.

I agree. But it must have been a thing. If they just plucked that out of their arse with no justified agreement, we would have called them out.

We are talking about the amount. That's an acceptance that it was an agreement.

 

[hilts]

I agree. But it must have been a thing. If they just plucked that out of their arse with no justified agreement, we would have called them out.

We are talking about the amount. That's an acceptance that it was an agreement.

So your view is you join a club and pay a membership and sign on the dotted line and part of the agreement is upon leaving there will be an admin fee. But no one knows what the fee is?

Would this generally fit your view?

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

 

[Magicpole]

So your view is you join a club and pay a membership and sign on the dotted line and part of the agreement is upon leaving their will be a admin fee. But no one knows what the fee is?

Would this generally fit your view?

I being of average intelligence would ask what was expected. If they couldn't be specific and I had a veto then I would use it. We had a veto and didn't use it. People would have talked about what that sum was, if we didn't then we are even more fucked than I currently believe.

Which is very fucked.

Legally we signed the dotted line and if we didn't bother to find out what that actually means then whose faults that?

 

[hilts]

I being of average intelligence would ask what was expected. If they couldn't be specific and I had a veto then I would use it. We had a veto and didn't use it. People would have talked about what that sum was, if we didn't then we are even more fucked than I currently believe.

Which is very fucked.

Legally we signed the dotted line and if we didn't bother to find out what that actually means then whose faults that?

Why are you always looking at it from one side, if there is no figure(which there isn't), hell we don't know if a fee legally exists, that is as much a fuck up from there part as ours. So with this in mind it will be part of the negotiations. Like a divorce settlement you don't give the wife the bmw unless you know what your getting.

 

[Magicpole]

Why are you always looking at it from one side, if there is no figure(which there isn't), hell we don't know if a fee legally exists, that is as much a fuck up from there part as ours. So with this in mind it will be part of the negotiations. Like a divorce settlement you don't give the wife the bmw unless you know what your getting.

Yes but we know she's getting at least half.

 

[hilts]

Yes but we know she's getting at least half.

Which is precisely why you don't give a figure or even accept there has to be a figure until you get something in return. Do you really think we should agree to give them say 50 billion when their stance is we won't discuss anything else until you do?

 

[Len Rum]

Which is precisely why you don't give a figure or even accept there has to be a figure until you get something in return. Do you really think we should agree to give them say 50 billion when their stance is we won't discuss anything else until you do?

Normally yes, except they have us by the short and curlies.