dick dasterdly

1 hour ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

 

Why did you quote my post when you didn't answer any of the points raised?

 

Personally, I doubt that the UK needs the EU much more than vice-versa.  But of course the UK has been a major contributor to the EU budget, hence the EU's concentration on how many years' contribution it can force from the UK as part of any leaving package....

 

Which is understandable, but there is no reason for the UK to pay anything more than that legally enforceable - without a good trade deal.

 

And no, that shouldn't cost (approx.) 30bn!

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Yes it doesn't benefit either side. But the side it "doesn't benefit" more, so to speak, is the UK. And most of the Brexiters I see posting here are in denial about that.

I give up, as more than a few remainers are convinced that the EU doesn't have a problem if there is no trade deal with the UK.....

And, getting back on topic - similarly believe that the EU have no problem with losing the UK's contribution, and only receiving the (at best?) 10bn that is legally owed, rather than their "expected" 39 bn....

23 minutes ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

And that is why a negotiated trade deal with the EU is so important - for both the UK and EU.

 

It doesn't benefit either 'side' to not have a trade agreement in place - which brings us back to why the UK should only pay it's legally enforceable monetary obligations to the EU, and save some of the remaining 30bn odd to use as a 'sweetener' for a quickly negotiated, good trade deal.

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Possibly because, as basic arithmetic shows, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK?

What is so difficult about understanding that the UK exports a bigger percentage of its GDP to the EU than the EU does to the UK?

And what is so difficult about understanding the even greater importance of unrestricted supply chains?

And the even greater importance of full access to the EU of the UK's service industry, which is where the UK runs a surplus with the EU?

Why did you quote my post when you didn't answer any of the points raised?

Personally, I doubt that the UK needs the EU much more than vice-versa.  But of course the UK has been a major contributor to the EU budget, hence the EU's concentration on how many years' contribution it can force from the UK as part of any leaving package....

Which is understandable, but there is no reason for the UK to pay anything more than that legally enforceable - without a good trade deal.

And no, that shouldn't cost (approx.) 30bn!

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

One thing I've noticed that many Brexiters have difficulty understand is that under WTO rules, any tariffs imposed by the UK on EU goods and services will have to be equally imposed on all other trading entities not covered by a bilateral or multilateral trade agreement.

And that is why a negotiated trade deal with the EU is so important - for both the UK and EU.

It doesn't benefit either 'side' to not have a trade agreement in place - which brings us back to why the UK should only pay it's legally enforceable monetary obligations to the EU, and save some of the remaining 30bn odd to use as a 'sweetener' for a quickly negotiated, good trade deal.

4 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

There is a huge misunderstanding about UK debt.

It must honor its formal commitments and it will pay them, be sure.

But there is no reason to pay now for future trade access. This is the second negotiation that can start after agreement on the first.

I agree that the UK will pay it's legal obligations, but there is no reason to talk about paying a penny more until everything has been agreed - including a trade agreement.

7 hours ago, the guest said:

He really is an idiot. So you think the matter will not be brought up before the UK can engage with the EU in trade talks. It will be... "either pay up, or we walk away !"

The EU would have less of an incentive to negotiate a reasonable (for BOTH sides) trade agreement if the UK had already signed an agreement to pay an amount far above that which they legally owe.

Therefore it makes far more sense for the UK to save the (likely) 30 odd billion to use as a negotiating tool in the trade talks.  I never understood why May was happy to pay this 'sweetener' without anything in return!

28 minutes ago, juice777 said:

We owe this money if we like it or not what will happen if we don't pay it who will do business with us? how much harder will those mystical Trade deals be now? and we will be downgraded by all the credit agency's so the interest on government borrowing will go up probably around about the time the world goes into a recession, Even I know this and I know nothing. We will pay for it, in the end, this is just more lies and nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

I would recommend going back and reading earlier posts.

In short, the UK only 'owes' this money if the EU/May deal is agreed - and it has not, and will not be agreed by the UK parliament!

-The real question is, how much is legally owed by the UK?

This appears to be a far more likely figure of 7-9 bn in the event of 'no deal'.  Although the number would obviously increase in the event of yet another bloody extension.....

12 minutes ago, david555 said:

But her signature as a P.M. of the U.K. on that document  never faded.....????

Interesting point, did TM sign the WAG?  It seems unlikely as she knew that it would have to be passed by parliament?

AFAIK, May and the EU endorsed the agreement rather than signing it.

Not that it matters, as the May/EU agreement was rejected by parliament.

1 hour ago, fishtank said:

Boris the clown is even more deluded than we all thought.

Not meeting our legal obligations will get us a long way when making deals with anybody in the future.

From the OP:

"Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday that if Britain leaves the European Union without a deal, it will no longer legally owe the 39 billion pound ($47.88 billion) divorce bill agreed by his predecessor Theresa May."

"Sky News said the figure was 9 billion pounds, while the Sunday Times reported British government lawyers had concluded the amount Britain was legally obliged to pay could be as low as 7 billion pounds."

I don't believe that for one minute!

IMO BJ is ONLY looking for a small amendment to the 'backstop'...  Far less than should be required when it comes to the EU/May 'agreement'....

But I hope I'm wrong as I gather Boris has also said that the Uk is not paying the EU's demand of 39 bn (????) - only the amount that is legally required. 

6 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Indeed I was. Powell's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Have to admit that I know relatively little about Powell, but the brexit vote proved him partially right to a small extent?

i.e many brits. are being affected by (pretty much) uncontrolled immigration -  and this was a large part of the reason for the brexit vote as it is keeping wages as low as possible.

Additionally, more than a few areas are seeing other ethnicities becoming the majority, and taking over those areas....

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

An emended version.

And more than a few people still don't realise that these 'accusations' can be pointed at more than a few politicians.... - but seriously annoy those of us who know that 99% of politicians are corrupt - and they nearly all (?) support remain.  Question mark, as I suspect all support remain - but a few are worried about not being elected again if they make it obvious that they are ignoring their constituents vote.....

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Sure. Because these people are acting in a huge conspiracy. Nothing at all to do with how they perceive risk.

They got it very wrong previously ('08 crash) and there's no reason to believe they again have no idea, but of course are following their own personal/financial interests.

Sorry to 'bang on' about this - but the 'experts' and financial world got it VERY wrong prior to the '08 crash....

And yet expect us to believe that they are no longer beholdened to their own financial interests - this time they are knowledgeable and unbiased, certainly not swayed by their own financial interests ????!