A friend sent me this and Im not sure whether I agree with him or not .He seems right, but would Mrs May really put herself in that position? Thought Id put it on here to get other opinions. Sorry if the points been covered before and I missed it.

Beginning of friends question.
" I really do hope that you can convince me I am wrong.

This https://www.conservativehome.com/pa...-we-achieve-them-by-different-means.html is the most concise evidence I could find to sustain my opinion. Not surprisingly it appears to say I am wrong but think about her words and you will understand why I said she has irrevocably given the money away.

I do not see where she states “ the agreement” is an offer subject to a satisfactory trade agreement. I do see that she has identified the billions agreed as being fair settlement for nothing else other than fair settlement of commitments.

So having clearly identified the payment as being for “obligations” she goes into full bullshit mode and states. “It depends upon a broader agreement being reached – as I have said, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed – so if there is no agreement then our offer also falls away."

So deal or no deal the EU will claim we are obliged to pay that money as payment for commitments. Having put in writing what is agreed and what it’s for can you imagine the EU doing other than use her own words to destroy our reputation if we tried to walk away without paying? (end of friends comment)

The obligations are always questionable, we are a shareholder in the EU, when you give up your shares it is exceedingly unusual for the obligations to not also be wiped out.

Additionally the next EU budget is set in 2020, any so called obligations should only be those that are due to be paid before the next budget.

But in reality I don't mind paying a reasonable sum especially if there is a transition period. That sum ideally should exceed our expected NET contributions up to 2020 but unfortunately it will

There will only be one final signature, all prior "agreements" will be conditional one would hope, I can't see how it can be any other way as up to that signature we cannot be anything other than EU members.

I think you people should face the facts.

The first phase of the negotiations involved agreeing what we owed. That was done and is now History. It was agreed by Mrs May, as was the 'no borders' policy which means we are locked into the customs union. There is absolutely nothing linking these with any trade agreements. They have been signed off and agreed. We would not be entering phase two unless they were.

The only way we can get out of both these agreements is a 'no deal' brexit.

Anything coming from the conservative party will be deliberately made ambiguous so that both brexiteers and remainers in the party will read it the way they want it to read. The facts, however, are as above.

So far we have agreed to pay a great deal of money to be in the customs union (as we are now) but to have no control over it! I don't - for once - blame the conservatives for this. They have no choice. It is the inevitable consequence of getting out of the EU according to laws which WE agreed to as members.

I dont understand how the Remainers are not pointing to this phrase

“It depends upon a broader agreement being reached – as I have said, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed – so if there is no agreement then our offer also falls away."

As the bare faced lie it has to be ? I mean its REALLY the opp of the truth! There IS no way we can just walk away without paying even without a deal , just as my friend says , is there .

Yes. A hard brexit would mean we would do exactly that.

The result would be disastrous for us, however. They would probably slap heavy tariffs on our exports to them, and the result would be a hemorrhaging of manufacturing and finance from the UK to the EU, bad relations with the EU, and no prospect of trade deals with them.

The three alternatives - with some of their plusses and minuses - are:

1. Stay in. Business as usual
2. Soft Brexit. Expensive, but trade with them is undamaged. We remain in the customs union with no control over it. We would not be allowed to set up trade deals with other countries without the EU's blessing.
3. Hard brexit. We 'walk away'. The implications are trade barriers, a border in Northern Ireland, loss of UK industry and jobs to the EU. we would be free to set up trade deals under the WTO with other countries but this will take up to a decade. Probably the UK government - desperate for trade with other nations - will be being pushed into very bad agreements for the UK. If David Davis is doing the negotiation they will be appaling deals for us.

How can we "owe" anything when we have ALWAYS been a net contributor. Unlike most other member states we have always put in more than we have taken out. We owe nothing. if anything, they owe us. That is a "fact".



The EU INSIST that trade, finance and freedom of movement are linked - its funny how they change their own impositions when they are dealing with Brexit!

The whole EU concept is flawed that it relies on certain countries continually gifting money to other countries, they should have been limited loans with re-payments based on trade-balance. That way their would be an incentive for the EU to get these other countries on their feet properly instead of just being a cash-cow putting useless tin statues up all over the place.

But of course Germany wanted a cheap flexible workforce to boost its own economy so it pays Germany to keep some of the other countries in poverty.

As a net contributor DD, surely that just means that the system must have worked out what was fair for each country to pay, according to its means and we accepted that position. I dont see that that necessarily means that just because we will be leaving , we can now choose to reposition ourselves in the 'what is fair for them to pay' list , to avoid paying our previously agreed share of past present or future obligations or committments right up to 2020?

All those busy bees working for the EU will need to have their pensions paid and we will be liable for our share of that.

I see Farage is now sounding off about a second referendum.

I'd prefer to see our sovereign parliament making the decision. It is too easy for rabble-rousers to influence referendums. As we have seen already.

The UK agreed to the conditions now being imposed by the EU.

That is seldom mentioned by the EU-bashers.

My point is that we cannot possibly be considered in debt to them so we "owe" them nothing.

There is no such thing as a "future obligation", they are agreements which can be changed especially if circumstances change and Brexit would count as a pretty big change. I'm sure many of those projects will change in the 2020 budget.

The EU claimed obligations go way beyond 2020.

Supposing we weren't a net contributor, would the EU pay us their "obligations" to our Brexit? That is a normal test of a fair contract, it can't be one sided.

They are not 'linked' in the sense that one can be traded off at the expense of another DD. They are linked only by being one of the four freedoms - free movement of trade, capital, work and people.

The UK, despite being told many times that they cannot get rid of free movement of people by some trade or financial settlement - insist on pretending they can.

I think any posturing by Davis should be ignored. What will happen in the end is what happened in phase 1. May will appear at the last moment and give the EU what it wants. She has no other option.

Although maybe the EU would argue its more like the principle with With Profits Funds--- in difficult times a Market Value Adjustment is made if you withdraw, to ensure those left behind are not financially disadvantaged by your doing so .

You find it, it isn't mentioned in Article 50 or anywhere else. The EU are making imaginary conditions up as they go.

None of the EU conditions apply to the UK when we leave.

In fact Article 50 states "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". So the exit rules are set by the leaver as part of its own constitution, not the EU.

The EU state that these are implicitly linked whenever we tried to negotiate them separately.