If there is a second referendum ...

MobileSaver

adindas wrote: »

UK do not need to pay the divorce bill (EUR 39 bil) in no deal scenario I will give you the link.

Keep digging that hole. You are not surprisingly moving the goal posts again but I guess admitting that you are wrong is not something you have the integrity to do.

No-one disputes that we do not need to pay the "divorce bill" in a no deal scenario; the "divorce bill"is a media term for the Withdrawal Agreement and the clue is in the name, it's an agreement that has to be agreed and ratified.

adindas wrote: »

UK do not owe EU a penny.

However not agreeing a Withdrawal Agreement does not get us off the hook for existing commitments and liabilities previously agreed which is why your assertion that we do not owe the EU a penny is simply wrong.

Of course if there really is a consensus in parliament contradicting my view then please post the evidence and I would be happy to admit to being wrong. (Hint: a consensus is not one or two MPs or lone reports.)

MobileSaver

adindas wrote: »

Changing position huhhh..

Not at all, I was replying in context to your assertion that we didn't have to pay a penny.

adindas wrote: »

So calling people a troll is only a person to stupid to see this fact.

If you are not a troll then please provide the evidence that you claim to have proving there is a consensus in parliament that we do not have to pay anything...

adindas

MobileSaver wrote: »

Not at all, I was replying in context to your assertion that we didn't have to pay a penny....

Oh good to know that. But it makes me chuckles.
I herewith quote your posts again Reread.

# 1517

MobileSaver wrote: »

No-one disputes that we do not need to pay the "divorce bill" in a no deal scenario; the "divorce bill"is a media term for the Withdrawal Agreement and the clue is in the name, it's an agreement that has to be agreed and ratified.

# 1489 MobileSaver Old Today, 9:20 AM

MobileSaver wrote: »

Nonsense. Even the Brexiteer's Chief Clown, Boris Johnson, has admitted the "divorce bill" has to be paid although he wants to withhold half until a deal is done.

MobileSaver wrote: »

If you are not a troll then please provide the evidence

I am not aware here that there is a forum rule in order not to be accused as a troll I will need to prove it to you.
I am not going to do work for remoaners so, try harder find it yourself.
If you want me to post the link reread my previous post.

MobileSaver

adindas wrote: »

I am not going to do work for remoaners so, try harder find it yourself.

In other words you made it up and there is no evidence of a consensus in parliament that we do not have to pay anything. :rotfl:

Kohoutek

adindas wrote: »

Unbelievable that some people could easily hand over EUR39 bil without getting anything or very less in return. These type of people who tied up one hand of the UK negotiators causing the UK get a very bad deal considering what UK have been doing and will be offering to the EU.

The money they are going to use is also my money ....

Actually the UK is getting a lot in return (even though the £39bn is for existing commitments), if May's deal is approved. In particular staying in the single market for another 18 months (potentially longer), with all the economic advantages that brings (45% of trade is with EU) and having access to all EU trade deals, including the new one with Japan.

kabayiri

I'd offer more then £39bn to the EU...potentially quite a bit more, but paid over a decent period of time.

But...all this would be contingent on both a withdrawal *and* trade deal we like.

This would smooth our exit, and also help the EU out financially through a period which could be difficult.

phillw

adindas wrote: »

there is admission from UK parliament that UK do not need to pay the divorce bill (EUR 39 bil) in no deal scenario I will give you the link.

No, there was a suggestion that once out of the EU then there is no legal basis they could enforce a debt. It was a suggestion made by someone who doesn't understand international law. Probably Rees Mogg https://talkradio.co.uk/news/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-we-have-no-legal-obligation-pay-divorce-bill-and-mps-could-block-any (MPs don't need to have any clue about the law and often display that quite spectacularly).

The EU have a case, but it would take years and the final figure might be reduced, but it's unlikely to disappear altogether.

It's unlikely the EU would concede anything in future negotiations if we don't honour our obligations and other countries would be wary of us too.

It would be very embarrassing, for such a small amount of money (but leavers seem to get obsessed with small amounts of money).

The EU made a statement which doesn't seem to quite mean what you said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/07/michel-barnier-concedes-brexit-bill-could-linked-uk-eu-trade/

"Britain will be more likely to secure a free trade agreement with the European Union if it pays the the £39 billion Brexit bill, Michel Barnier has signalled in a concession from Brussels that will bolster Theresa May’s efforts to get the deal through parliament."

That doesn't sound like a commitment not to pursue us for the money, just telling us that we can forget the free trade agreement if we try to stiff them.

And since then we've announced we received legal advice that we have to pay.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1032527/Brexit-news-Philip-Hammond-UK-EU-exit-bill-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Theresa-May

There is no way we aren't paying that bill.

Theresa May has said we might not if we can't get a deal without the backstop, but most of what she says makes no sense whatsoever. She's a female Trump

adindas

phillw wrote: »

No, there was a suggestion that once out of the EU then there is no legal basis they could enforce a debt. It was a suggestion made by someone who doesn't understand international law. Probably Rees Mogg https://talkradio.co.uk/news/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-we-have-no-legal-obligation-pay-divorce-bill-and-mps-could-block-any (MPs don't need to have any clue about the law and often display that quite spectacularly).

The EU have a case, but it would take years and the final figure might be reduced, but it's unlikely to disappear altogether.

It's unlikely the EU would concede anything in future negotiations if we don't honour our obligations and other countries would be wary of us too.

It would be very embarrassing, for such a small amount of money (but leavers seem to get obsessed with small amounts of money).

The EU made a statement which doesn't seem to quite mean what you said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/07/michel-barnier-concedes-brexit-bill-could-linked-uk-eu-trade/

"Britain will be more likely to secure a free trade agreement with the European Union if it pays the the £39 billion Brexit bill, Michel Barnier has signalled in a concession from Brussels that will bolster Theresa May’s efforts to get the deal through parliament."

That doesn't sound like a commitment not to pursue us for the money, just telling us that we can forget the free trade agreement if we try to stiff them.

And since then we've announced we received legal advice that we have to pay.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1032527/Brexit-news-Philip-Hammond-UK-EU-exit-bill-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Theresa-May

There is no way we aren't paying that bill.

Theresa May has said we might not if we can't get a deal without the backstop, but most of what she says makes no sense whatsoever. She's a female Trump

Philips Hammond seking a legal advice ??
Well, who is Philips Hammonds ???

It is too naive not to understand the relationship between Philip Hammond and asking the view of an international lawyer.
If you pay a large sum of money to an international lawyer they will give you a statement whatever you want to hear. If you want to pay today I could also easily direct you to an international lawyer to say the opposite. But is it a concensus, the general view of international lawyers ???.

Oooooh Nooooo. you posted this link. I fullly believe the remonaers like MobileSaver do not like to see that

From your own link:

“The House of Lords produced an authoritative report which set out that we have NO OBLIGATIONS under UK, EU or international law to PAY ANYTHING if we leave under the terms of Article 50 without a withdrawal agreement.

All of your link just firmly confirm what I have always been saying. If UK wanted to pay EUR39 bil it is just a gesture of goodwill in exchange of a good trade deal. No legal requirement. With the current stand it is a very bad deal with this large sum of money. This is also my money they will be using.

It is unbelieveable that so many remoaners wants to handover EUR£39 bil wihout getting a good trade deal, no legal obligation. No wonder UK get a very bad deal due to remoaners tie up the UK negotiator hand. They even want to remove a no deal scenario. If you remove it What left ???

Try harder ..If you want me to post the link reread my previous post

MobileSaver

adindas wrote: »

Try harder ..If you want me to post the link reread my previous post

Don't feed the Troll! :rotfl:

Herzlos

phillw wrote: »

It's unlikely the EU would concede anything in future negotiations if we don't honour our obligations and other countries would be wary of us too.

It would be very embarrassing, for such a small amount of money (but leavers seem to get obsessed with small amounts of money).

I think that's the crux of it. Whether or not it's enforceable (and I don't think that the bulk of it is, but it'd cost us more than the £39bn bashing it out), it's a trivial sum of money in the grand scheme of things and refusing to pay it will cost us far more in lost good will.



The pragmatic (something we used to be respected for) is to just pay the money to grease the wheels and get a good deal going forward. There needs to be a lot of give and take in negotiations here especially since we're the underdog.

If we get a reputation for not honouring our side of deals then we're going to have a much harder time getting deals on the international stage. Anyone making a deal with us would need to go into it expecting to get screwed over, which means they'll be reluctant to expose themselves to any risk.


We could always got full North Korea and dig our heels in over pocket change, but it's not going to do us any favours in the future. I also don't get why Leavers are so fixated on this money, beyond the feeling that the EU is getting one over on us.