What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

I fully expect us to tell the EU, probably on Friday, that once we leave, we will continue to contribute to the EU coffers to the tune of around £10B per year for a further 2 or 3 years after we've left. Do you not think we'll still be paying in after March 2019?

Apparently during a "transitional" period of two years. Firstly its only an opening gambit, secondly if its a series of payments reflecting our lessening involvement then it makes some sense.

 

I do not believe for one minute we will be paying 10s of billions a year, as was suggested above, for no good reason. I've heard it described as compensation for a funding shortfall- surely that's the purpose of two years after article 50 was triggered -to get the EU in a position to account for this, as well as for the UK to make the necessary adjustments.

All we want is to trade freely that suits European states as well. If the federalist crackpots like juncker are driving the EU fun bus it's only going to end in a crash. I'm quite sure though that more liberal states who aren't interested in more Europe will win the day and common sense will eventually prevail. In the meantime we must steer a steady course without interference for pro EU Brits who can't get over it.

 

And regarding who's holding what set of cards is irrelevant if we decide to stack cut and run giving the EU nothing. I'd actually love us to do just that just to see how the lunatics who run the EU asylum would react.

So you cut and run then come back days later wanting a lucrative trade deal with the same group you have just f*cked??? Yeah right like that going to happen

We'll see, but I can still everything working out just fine for us, and probably them, but I'd rather be us.

 

Merkel will be taking over after the election and there's nothing in it for Germany to punish us.

So you cut and run then come back days later wanting a lucrative trade deal with the same group you have just f*cked??? Yeah right like that going to happen

We don't need to come running back they need our money maybe they'll come running back first. Of course you always see weakness in the UK position, whereas I don't.

Edited September 21, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

We don't need to come running back they need our money maybe they'll come running back first. Of course you always see weakness in the UK position, whereas I don't.

So let's look at it this way, one of your customers refuses to pay an invoice because they just don't want to pay. They then come back a few weeks later looking for the best deal they have ever had from you. Are you saying you would give them that deal because it is good for business?

So let's look at it this way, one of your customers refuses to pay an invoice because they just don't want to pay. They then come back a few weeks later looking for the best deal they have ever had from you. Are you saying you would give them that deal because it is good for business?

Thats a bad analogy I woukd put it another way your supplier invoices you for £5000 of services then 30 days days later sends you statement for £10000. You tell them to get to fuck wouldn't you?

Thats a bad analogy I woukd put it another way your supplier invoices you for £5000 of services then 30 days days later sends you statement for £10000. You tell them to get to fuck wouldn't you?

I dont understand why your analogy makes your point, you pay the £5k and dispute the difference asking for evidence for why you should pay the rest. They cant provide evidence so you don't pay and if they take you to court they lose, not a problem. Explain why my analogy is a bad one?

I dont understand why your analogy makes your point, you pay the £5k and dispute the difference asking for evidence for why you should pay the rest. They cant provide evidence so you don't pay and if they take you to court they lose, not a problem. Explain why my analogy is a bad one?

Because we are going to offer the EU what we think is correct and fair we have challenged line for line the invoice while the EU has seemingly plucked a figure out of thin air and expect us to pay it without challenging the bill. Therefore my analogy of the situation is more accurate than yours. Once again your thought process seems to find a way of finding a positive outcome for the EU and a negative one for the UK when nothing could be further from the truth.

Edited September 21, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

Didn't say I believe it or didn't believe it

 

Funny how those with obvious confirmation bias immediately don't believe it

I've got obvious confirmation bias

 

Summat new I didn't know I had!

Because we are going to offer the EU what we think is correct and fair we have challenged line for line the invoice while the EU has seemingly plucked a figure out of thin air and expect us to pay it without challenging the bill. Therefore my analogy of the situation is more accurate than yours. Once again your thought process seems to find a way of finding a positive outcome for the EU and a negative one for the UK when nothing could be further from the truth.

We signed a legally binding agreement and we are paying according to that agreement.

However, I challenged the point you made "if we decide to stack cut and run giving the EU nothing. I'd actually love us to do just that just to see how the lunatics who run the EU asylum would react" as unrealistic. But now you have changed your position once again so i am struggling to argue against a moving target.

We signed a legally binding agreement and we are paying according to that agreement.

However, I challenged the point you made "if we decide to stack cut and run giving the EU nothing. I'd actually love us to do just that just to see how the lunatics who run the EU asylum would react" as unrealistic. But now you have changed your position once again so i am struggling to argue against a moving target.

Sometimes you have to walk away from the table to make folk see sense it's part of negotiations and if they see sense then you can resume talks. We can walk away without any commitment to pay anything if we so wish and we should always have that up our sleeve. Obviously we want a sensible agreement but if they are intent on punishing us we should definitely use walking away as a tactic. We go to WTO with the EU they go to WTO with us if you that's how they want to play it that's fine I wouldn't give them 1 cent in that scenario.

Are we obliged/committed to actually pay anything? I don't think so

 

That's why we are negotiating. Both sides will have to give something to get a least worst position.

 

But, we've got to be prepared to walk away.

Would we offer anything if we were not obligated to pay a thing, I don't think so

 

There is a clear legal and moral obligation thus TM opening with a £20bn offer

Are we obliged/committed to actually pay anything? I don't think so

 

That's why we are negotiating. Both sides will have to give something to get a least worst position.

 

But, we've got to be prepared to walk away.

We have joint liabilities so why shouldnt we pay our dues? We are negotiating the size of that liability not whether we have one or not

Would we offer anything if we were not obligated to pay a thing, I don't think so

 

http://www.elphicke.com/downloads/the-withdrawal-of-the-uk-from-the-eu--analysis-of-potential-financial-liabilities.pdf

 

There is a clear legal and moral obligation thus TM opening with a £20bn offer

I agree that there is a moral obligation, but can't see anything else.

 

They want 100bn, offer 20, settle on 50, with a reasonable trade deal, then fuck off.

Edited September 21, 20178 yr by boltondiver

We have joint liabilities so why shouldnt we pay our dues? We are negotiating the size of that liability not whether we have one or not

Let's not forget, plenty of joint assets as well that have been built up over the years

 

I'm sure we don't want to walk away from them either

 

The thought of just telling them to fuck off a fortnight after the vote without working it all out properly is crazy

 

It will take years

 

Meanwhile investment from public and private sector stalls as we wait to see what the future is going to look like!

 

Crazy time to do it (if any) only a decade after a global financial crisis IMO

Edited September 21, 20178 yr by birch-chorley

Don't worry Birch, the sky won't fall in

We don't need to come running back they need our money maybe they'll come running back first. Of course you always see weakness in the UK position, whereas I don't.

 

 

Not forgetting our nuclear deterrent which everyone seems to conveniently pass over. A key Ace in our hand even though Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey and Germany host some US nukes. 

 

This pulling power of this deterrent should not be underestimated, especially whilst the fat nutter is spouting off and no one actually knows what Iran is up to.

We have joint liabilities so why shouldnt we pay our dues? We are negotiating the size of that liability not whether we have one or not

Absolutely. For example Wales has benefitted from about 6 billion EU money since about 2000 on a number of projects that may not have happened otherwise. The UK government has a duty to pay its dues. Most in the pro-brexit camp speak from a London centric view which is strange when you live in the North of England.

From what I've heard there are a number of joint projects which would carry on; with funding from the UK and the EU. It only has to be as difficult as the negotiators make it.

 

As for funding once the UK has left- get to fuck.

Don't quite understand the pension liabilities issue either- perhaps BD could shed some light- once we have left then fewer employees would be needed for the EU, those that have left would have smaller pensions later on. Those that stay would continue to pay into the EU pot until they retire.

An over simplification, but I'm not getting the suggestion we should be funding pensions for an institution we are no longer part of.

I guess it all depends on how we (The UK as part of the EU) decided to fund the pensions, if there is a hole in funding that has been built up whilst we have been jointly responsible for the running of the organisation then we are obligated to support it. Especially as many of the recipients are British

 

Again with regards joint projects, these are planned years in advance, you cant just pull the plug on stuff that you have committed to with 2 years notice

 

Don't forget we will benefit from many of the projects anyway

From what I've heard there are a number of joint projects which would carry on; with funding from the UK and the EU. It only has to be as difficult as the negotiators make it.

 

As for funding once the UK has left- get to fuck.

Don't quite understand the pension liabilities issue either- perhaps BD could shed some light- once we have left then fewer employees would be needed for the EU, those that have left would have smaller pensions later on. Those that stay would continue to pay into the EU pot until they retire.

An over simplification, but I'm not getting the suggestion we should be funding pensions for an institution we are no longer part of.

 

Those items in the agreed budget for 2015 to 2020 should be paid for (including any in UK for completion after exit date).

The pension fund needs a split to cover liabilities to those who have retired or who work up to exit day. Thereafter a UK citizen working for the EU would be no different than an Australian doing so.

My best pal from school worked as a translator for the EU from 1973 until 2013, when he retired to Salopia. Future payments of his pension are clearly down to UK.

Before we agree to pay them I'd want to know what assets we have contributed to and how and when they intend to pay us back.

Before we agree to pay them I'd want to know what assets we have contributed to and how and when they intend to pay us back.

 

I presume we'd only get a pay back when those assets are sold, if they ever are.....

 

The point that you make is right though, we have contributed our share to numerous assets, so some how we should expect to get something back (at some point). I'm sure our negotiating people are fully aware, and this is part of ongoing notifications.......however, I have reducing confidence in this set of dicks to get us the best deal (especially as I suspect a lot of them, secretly, actually want us to remain)

Our GDP is £3 trillion.

 

Give them the €50billion, in 5€ notes, and tell them to keep the fucking change.

 

We're not North Korea for fucks sake.

 

We'll save €50billion in train fares to Brussels.

 

I've just had to email a thousand customers because of a fucking pointless EU directive and it's created more piss and wind for the company and countless organisations in a huge supply chain than I can even begin to explain, and all because some bored diplomats in Belgium couldn't think of any other way to justify their massive expense accounts.

 

They can fuck off. I mean it.

 

We can still drink espresso and eat paella without having them forcing dogshit legislation on us.

 

I'm happy to provide details fi anyone wants them, but trust me the EU are bang wrong.