rockingrobin

2 minutes ago, chrissables said:

The article 50 treaty says we are not obliged to pay if we don't reach an agreement. The EU are not helping their cause by not actually quantifying the amounts.

 

If i understand correctly this means if we don't reach an agreement of payments, we can leave and owe nothing. 

This is not correct

15 minutes ago, KNJ said:

Which are known commitments u to 2020, which no one is arguing about. Nothing beyond that

Some of the current MFF are planned commitments upto 2025

31 minutes ago, KNJ said:

You have been asked multiple times to produce evidence of any contractual obligations, other than that up to 2020 which we will pay.

No rather you come up with inane and meaningless gobbledegook which in contract law means nothing.

Your inability to express yourself with justification,  but rather a mindless rant with no basis in any law reminds me of certain bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

Either side is not forthcoming on what commitments will be outstanding on Brexit.

The following article may go someway to explain how and why these commitments will exist

http://bruegel.org/2017/03/the-uks-brexit-bill-what-are-the-possible-liabilities/

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

1983 now! What opportunity was that then????? ??

1983 general election, Labour commited to withdraw

7 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

well it took 40 odd years!

No it did not take 40 odd years.

The people had the opportunity in 1983 

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, I remember this. Here it seems that Enoch assumed that the public had received or knew the same information about the political (federal) intent that he knew. But later he says when it is realized that the UK would become a province in a new state he did not believe that this would be assented. He also says later in this interview that the British people still have not been able to credit the implications of being in the common market and that they still think that they will be a nation and be able to govern and legislate and tax for themselves. So why would he say that?

 

The British public in general certainly were not aware that they were renouncing their nation state at the time. I certainly wasn't.

 

He also states that is not the fault of the pro marketeers

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Dead wrong on all counts. Here's an extract from the Labour 1974 election manifesto:

 

THE COMMON MARKET

Our genuine concern for democratic rights is in sharp contrast to the Tory attitude. In the greatest single peacetime decision of this century - Britain's membership of the Common Market - the British people were not given a chance to say whether or not they agreed to the terms accepted by the Tory Government. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have refused to endorse the rights of our people to make their own decision. Only the Labour Party is committed to the right of the men and women of this country to make this unique decision.

The Labour Government pledges that within twelve months of this election we will give the British people the final say, which will be binding on the Government - through the ballot box - on whether we accept the terms and stay in or reject the terms and come out.

Labour is an internationalist party and Britain is a European nation. But if the Common Market were to mean the creation of a new protectionist bloc, or if British membership threatened to impoverish our working people or to destroy the authority of Parliament, then Labour could not agree.

Within one month of coming into office the Labour Government started the negotiations promised in our February manifesto on the basis set out in that manifesto. It is as yet too early to judge the likely results of the tough negotiations which are taking place. But whatever the outcome in Brussels, the decision will be taken here by the British people.

 

NOT EXACTLY PRO EUROPEAN IS IT?

It was the consevative party that took the UK into to EEC

From their 1970 manifesto

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't think so. Reference needed.

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The overwhelming majority of historical evidence shows that the people of the UK were broadly misled into thinking that the EEC was merely a common market. If the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union in 1974 then that information was not widely released nor approved of by the UK electorate.

 

It was the name and purpose of the EEC that was changed and not the minds of the people. The idea of a free-trading Europe was fine and still is. The formation of the EU and subsequent treaties revealed the real political and federal nature of it all.  

 

The people was not misled

The government at the time was elected on a pro european mandate. As a sovereign state the government had the right to conduct any international treaties it wished. The UK parliament had the power to enact any laws , act of parliament, it so desired

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And it was, I think, Ted Heath, who later admitted that he'd been economical with the truth to the public about it.

I would refer you back to the night of the 1975 referendum , when Enoch Powell stated that the stay in campaign had been honest with the public,

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I'm hoping that your repeated references to the EU from back in 1975 are just a repeated error, and not an attempt to be disingenuous. There was no European Union back then, but there was a European Economic Community.

I suggest you do some research and seek what our foreign secreteries  were discussing at the time

11 minutes ago, chrissables said:

The point is, the UK have not at anytime agreed (legally) to pay if they leave. It seems the EU was so arrogant in thinking nobody would ever leave, they did not allow for it in law.

 

That of course does not mean UK will not pay, just they can't be forced to pay. That is what the negotiations are about.  

Its customary international law

The ending of a treaty releases any future obligations, but not ones that aise while the treaty is in force

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

It is true that people change their minds when things change but it took 41 years to allow the UK people to vote on the EEC that morphed into the EU.

The evidence does not support that view, 

1974 foreign secetaries requested clarification on the EU , and in Dec 1974 the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

But back in 1975 when I cast my vote there was NO EU, only the EEC which I what I voted to join.

 

Yes I did know what I was voting for, and it most certainly wasn't the EU.

Thank you

So as you state , things change, people change their minds

42 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

France ratified the convention , with reservations in 1970.

However we are not dealing with a UK - France bilaterall treaty, therefore it becomes irrelevant

Correction

France are not party to the Convention on law of treaties

Apologies

11 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Is that a justification?

 

Is he not just repeating what some Brexiteers claim , that in 1975 they did not know what they voted for.

21 minutes ago, KNJ said:

The Vienna Convention to which France is a non signatory?

France ratified the convention , with reservations in 1970.

However we are not dealing with a UK - France bilaterall treaty, therefore it becomes irrelevant

1 hour ago, vogie said:

The LibDems are the most undemocratic party in the land, it proved it at the last election. How can they win the hearts of the electorate when they are going againgst everything they voted for. You only like him grouse because he is saying things 'you' want to hear, the rest of us, yes the majority of the country just want the government to get on with it and get out!

Using expressions like "They may not know it yet but they will want another vote." does not do their cause any good, what an arrogant party they are. "They" do not want another vote.

Cable and the LibDems will be a long time in the wilderness till they get to grips with reality.

Using expressions like "They may not know it yet but they will want another vote." 

The same sentiments expressed by the anti EU membership campaign on the 1975 referendum night, 

3 hours ago, chrissables said:

Show me the contract. The fact is what it is, there is no legal contract for us to pay after the leave date.

Telling me i am wrong, does not in fact make me wrong.

 

Your half witted analogy of renting a house is quite frankly pathetic.

 

The UK can of course agree to some payments, and may actually do. But legally bound we are not.  

What about international law

Vienna convention on treaties

2 hours ago, bannork said:

I wonder if you're referring to the same article I read last week where The B.P. reporter said the doctor who treated Elise said she could have been displaying signs of decompensation- a failure to deal with stress and everyday changes.

No 

5 hours ago, bannork said:

Mum, who wasn't even in Thailand, doesn't explain why her daughter went to a psychiatric hospital for 4 days rather than Hua Chiew hospital which is very near Hualampong.

But yes, April is very hot, and dehydration, sunstroke  and disorientation, is possible,  even in a city with buildings to shelter in from the heat if one wanders around outside for hours, oblivious to the heat.

But Elise  had been in Asia for a year and a half- she shouldn't be getting dehydrated in the middle of Bangkok. It's possible  that is the story she told her Mum.

What makes me really wonder about Elise's state of mind is her decision to abandon her luggage and get off the boat at Koh Tao.That just doesn't make sense. She had been travelling for 18 months i believe, one report said she had 3 suitcases. There must have been souvenirs and stuff from her travels that she really wanted to take home and yet she just abandoned the luggage. Perhaps the bags were just full of old clothes but that decision to forget the luggage makes me wonder what was going through her head.

Your comments on dehydration are complete nonsense. Acclimatisation does not prevent an individual from becoming dehydrated. Dehydration is caused by a lack of water and can be contributed to by a number of factors

4 hours ago, bannork said:

Mum, who wasn't even in Thailand, doesn't explain why her daughter went to a psychiatric hospital for 4 days rather than Hua Chiew hospital which is very near Hualampong.

But yes, April is very hot, and dehydration, sunstroke  and disorientation, is possible,  even in a city with buildings to shelter in from the heat if one wanders around outside for hours, oblivious to the heat.

But Elise  had been in Asia for a year and a half- she shouldn't be getting dehydrated in the middle of Bangkok. It's possible  that is the story she told her Mum.

What makes me really wonder about Elise's state of mind is her decision to abandon her luggage and get off the boat at Koh Tao.That just doesn't make sense. She had been travelling for 18 months i believe, one report said she had 3 suitcases. There must have been souvenirs and stuff from her travels that she really wanted to take home and yet she just abandoned the luggage. Perhaps the bags were just full of old clothes but that decision to forget the luggage makes me wonder what was going through her head.

I understand the mother spoke to the treating physician

7 hours ago, Krenjai said:

The way her real name is crossed out makes me wonder a bit. It is done pretty nasty in my view, she really want this to be unreadable! 

 

 

 

Why on earth? She didn't want anybody to find her or what? She didn't want her luggage that arrived in Chumpon to be matched up with her last name by looking at Koh Phangan/Koh Tao ferry departures or resort check-ins of that day? Is that also the reason no passport number was given? She didn't want anybody to know where she was? Is that the reason she ended up in Tanote bay Poseidon Bungalows? What name did she use there? Dupuis (which is a common Belgium name) or Dallamagne? 

 

Did we get any news from the RTP on the previous suicide attempt in BKK? Did this really happen and if yes, is there hard evidence of this event? Maybe a record of the clinic? 

 

Why did she buy another ferry ticket? Is it because she originally bought Koh Phangan - Chumpon but left the boat in Koh Tao?  The answer to all these questions is very simple, we will never know, but calling this suspicious??? Not really or? 

 

 

The crossing out of her name serves no purpose, there is simply to much other info available in the register to identify her.

We have the first name, nationality, and a visible attempt to disguise the surname. Anybody who was attempting to locate Elise would quickly establish that this is her

If  Elise intention was to hide her identity, would it not be logical to completely erase the whole registration and re-register with a fresh alias, including a change of nationality.

2 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

do you have a link?

Christina Annesley

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/dark-side-koh-tao-seven-10708561

14 hours ago, frank83628 said:

was there??

The guy was filmed on cctv leaving Christina Annesley a few hours before she was found. This is in the police file/report