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.

They are not shifting on any of them though. Not for us, not for anyone. It is what the EU is based on, they believe in it and value it and they are not going to make a special case for the UK.

The sooner our negotiator accept this the better. Davis in particular, seems to live in a fantasy wor where he dreams up 'agreements' and proposals which break one or more of these principles, attempts to blur them, or pretend they can be played off against money but it is quite clear the EU is not having any of it. He has failed in very case. I think he believes his own propaganda. A very dangerous state to get into. May should have chucked him I reckon.

When we were in the EU, we supported these same four freedoms.

But now the EU are saying although they are implicitly linked we can only negotiate them separately but you can't have one without the other.

They can't argue its a take it or leave it package but at the same have staged negotiations for different parts, its a contradiction.

The default position both sides should negotiate from is a hard Brexit ie we are a full member of the EU until we aren't. The negotiations should then be about agreements beyond the hard Brexit which clearly should be negotiated in parallel not stages. Its a new relationship not a modification of the old relationship.

But that would be a modification of your profits, we have made a loss year after year in the EU "investment".

In any case if you withdraw early from a with-profits fund the actual earned income is not withdrawn. You would miss out on any final bonus's (by definition and policy) and incur an admin fee. You always have the option to sell your share of the fund on so someone else can benefit from the final bonus in a shorter period of time.

But in this instance Brexit is 100% doing what the EU agreed and what we committed to, it was an open ended agreement that could be terminated by either party at any time. Article 50 is an EU "rule", there is not mention of future commitments by either party.

I think the EU are saying they are ALL non-negotiable.They have said it several times in several different ways. And as they are in charge of these negotiations, they can enforce their views.

Why can't you brexiteers accept this and move on?

Well, that's true. We are not going to get free trade without free movement of people. So Mrs May signed up for a lot more than she realised when she agreed to 'no borders'. In practice, no borders = free trade = free movement.

Nothing to do with Article 50 or any other articles. It is a matter of what the EU is prepared to offer nations outside the EU which is entirely up to them.

Anyway, it is looking increasingly unlikely to happen. More and more people are calling for another referendum, and even Farage has indicated he is sympathetic to it. Perhaps he has seen the latest poll:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/second-eu-referendum-would-reverse-11837325

which has 55% remain against 45% leave.

(You must remember that what Farage needs is for the campaign to leave to continue indefinitely. He has no job or function once we leave.)

Bring it on, I'm fairly confident of the result. There has been a lot of exposure to the UK of what the EU is like, the more people see of the EU, the less they like.

Admittedly there is also exposure of what May & co are like which will swing it the other way a bit.

How can any of the two parties be "in charge" of negotiations? That is not possible.

If anything the instigator could be classed as "in charge" as they started the negotiation, the responder certainly has nothing to claim to be "in charge" of other than their own negotiation.

Despite most, if not all economists concluding that a no-deal brexit would be a disaster for the UK, the Express is telling its slack-jawed readers that a no-deal brexit will cost the EU £500 billion. The UK will benefit to the tune of £650 billion! I expect they are stupid enough believe this nonsense too.

The claim is attributed to 'leading economists' although who they are leading and where to is unclear. My bet as to the correct answers to these questions is "Lunatics" and "Over the cliff".

The economists saying it will be a disaster is a good thing, they are very rarely correct. Look at the UKP against the Dollar or Euro, absolutely nothing like the economists forecast.

Furthermore the economists are usually investors, it pays them to to make others think the market is going in the opposite direction to what it is.

I haven't bought a copy of the Express. But I don't for a moment expect it to give any more detail than "Experts have said..."

I am not at all sure economists are investors. I've only known two well, both academics, and neither invested a penny because it could be taken to affect the papers they wrote. I assume this is generally the case with academics, just as researchers receiving grants from private companies are expected to declare this in the papers they write.

The UK is asking the EU to make arrangements for brexit. The EU has little to gain from doing so and that puts them in charge in practice. They need to do nothing, unless they want to.

The UK, by contrast, having left the union is therefore in the position of asking for special status by the EU. There is no obligation for them to grant it. I'd say that puts them firmly in charge, wouldn't you?

The EU is losing its second largest net contributor, that alone is going to be a massive impact on most of the EU countries. Some countries who have special CAP deals are also going to have an additional hit. The impact on the EU is huge but unlike the UK, the EU will have no plan B that allows them to negotiate significant new deals with other countries without the EU imposing its usual 15% fee.

You cannot think of the UK as a twenty-eighth of the EU when it comes to finance, the majority of the EU countries are net-recipients. The impact to the EU is similar to Wirral not collecting any council tax.

The EU cannot be thought of being in charge of negotiations because its in a position of strength because it isn't, the UK gains an enormous amount of flexibility, the EU loses some of theirs.

The Prime objective of the EU was peace in Europe, it is very difficult to say what the main objectives are now apart from building a German empire.

The final nail in the coffin for me was the way the Lisbon Treaty was brought in by purposely bypassing democracy, the treaty had massive impacts but was virtually only supported by the political elite. It was the sign of things to come.

DD


I seem to remember a few things before the LT that were softening us up to sleepwalk into a State of Europe. The only time i really had any interest in politics.. Think it was the late Sir James Goldsmith and a few authors who pressed the button for me plus talking to a load of war veterans every time i took my father the British Legion.

The only reason we may not be able to have similar relations with European countries will be EU law and legislation

Best thing to do is look at david noakes on youtube
" end the eu dictatorship " files and look at his eutruth dot org site.
7 years ago smart people like him knew the facts and how eu totally controls us plus many mps/ pms and monarchy helped dismantle the uk.
He didnt think wed have the nerve to leave.
Its clear to see what a mess leaving is, shows how much the eu had us by the throat.

I see that the Mrs May, having asked for a transition period and been granted it on the understanding that EU rules would apply during it, now proposes to negotiate to modify these rules. It is a bit like someone asking for permission to take a shortcut across your garden, going on to demand that you lay a path for them to do so.

My bet is that the EU will simply say no and stick to it.

I cannot believe the level of unrealistic expectations that seems to pervade this government in its dealings with the EU. This is not the first time they have asked for some totally unrealistic concession and been refused. So far the EU has not shifted a millimetre, and Mrs May has had to agree to everything to get as far as we have.

Time to wise up, I think, and recognise that they do NOT need us more than we need them. Leaving is going to be painful, and that pain is going to go on for a long time - at least as long as it takes to negotiate good trade agreements with them and other countries. Ten years appears to be a not unrealistic estimate of how long that could take. What worries me is that a desperate government could rush into signing a one-sided agreement with - say - Trump that allows them to take over our NHS, and flood us with chlorinated chicken and GM and hormone impregnated food in exchange for the right for us to sell them Christmas cards.

Given the negotiating skill displayed so far, I think this is a not unlikely possibility.

The sooner this idiotic brexit business is abandoned the better.

If by some means the UK doesnt go ahead with Brexit Ex, how do you visualize us being treated overall by the other countries once we'd shown how weak we were that we 'crawled back like not very bright, naughty kids to do what we were told because we couldnt hack it' ?

The whole thing goes to show how protectionist the EU is yet they are the ones that moan about other countries being protectionist.

There is absolutely no way the EU should be trying to punish us and they risk their own courts chastising them.

If a UK resident chooses to leave the UK we don't punish them, we don't ask for their future tax and national insurance, where on earth does this unprecedented punishment come from?

That the EU keep trying to say there will be no unique trade deal is also unprecedented, they have loads of unique separate trade agreements with numerous countries around the world.

The consistent "you can't have freedom of trade without freedom of movement" is also a non-rule, look at CETA for a start, look at the Isle of Man etc

We should never have given our veto away, the reason countries originally had veto was to protect them from other countries ganging up against them.

Can't wait for the EU to break up, if we leave (even with punishment), other countries will follow, Poland especially, they can't keep bribing Poland to stay, they won't have the money.

Maybe there IS no way they should be 'punishing' us , but so what, there's a lot of seemingly bitter and childish behaviour going on .

There are a lot of people watching the way the EU are behaving, this could well set their future. There is a basic right for a country to be independent, not that we are supposed to be a dependent of the EU anyway.