Stop fighting over Brexit and get real, Jim O'Neill tells UK

[jesimps]

5 hours ago, pitrevie said:

The fact is that there is no reliable source that Monnet ever said that.

https://eufundedproeutroll.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/european-union-what-did-monnet-say-about-europes-nations-and-the-superstate/

 

Doesn't matter if he said it or not, it's exactly what has happened.

 

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Doesn't matter if he said it or not, it's exactly what has happened.

 

Of course it matters. Otherwise why attribute it to him in the first place? People who are so eager to adopt and defend even obvious lies like this one end up making themselves unbelievable.

Edited September 9, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Jonmarleesco]

A banker, and a Goldman Sachs one at that, suggesting the UK get real? Reality is not something with which bankers in general are intimately acquainted.

[pitrevie]

48 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Doesn't matter if he said it or not, it's exactly what has happened.

 

Really, such are the exaggerations that you get used to here. France just elected a government and Germany about to elect a new government and the UK while still a member of the EU also elected a new government. In fact our new government is now trying to take powers far beyond what any European superstate could even dream about.

[chrissables]

7 hours ago, meinphuket said:

Yes, if it were only that simple...take responsibility for your commitments, or else face the collective economic and immigration wrath of the EU. Forget not that the UK is based on islands, easy to embargo. British police kicked out of Le Havre will open the immigration floodgates.High tariffs, tolls, visa requirements will do the job. Frankfurt as the new London. Enjoy !

There are no legal requirement to pay anything after the day we leave. Do you not understand that?

[pitrevie]

2 minutes ago, chrissables said:

There are no legal requirement to pay anything after the day we leave. Do you not understand that?

Apparently our Foreign Secretary and the rest of the Tory government think otherwise.

Boris Johnson concedes UK will have to pay for Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/25/boris-johnson-concedes-uk-will-have-to-pay-for-brexit

 

[chrissables]

Just now, pitrevie said:

Apparently our Foreign Secretary and the rest of the Tory government think otherwise.

Boris Johnson concedes UK will have to pay for Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/25/boris-johnson-concedes-uk-will-have-to-pay-for-brexit

 

Legally they don't have. Morally i can understand a further year until the 7 year investment cycle (or whatever it's called) ends.

 

 

[pitrevie]

3 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Legally they don't have. Morally i can understand a further year until the 7 year investment cycle (or whatever it's called) ends.

 

 

David Davis the Brexit secretary has conceded they do and so has the rest of the government. Perhaps you need to get in touch if you think you have information that will save us upwards of 50 billion or whatever the figure is.

[dunroaming]

9 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Those nasty europeans are going to make it as difficult and expensive as they can for U.K. to get out, mainly to try and scare any other country from trying to do the same. A bad idea from the start in my opinion.

But totally predictable and sensible from their position.  After all they did say so before the referendum and that was relayed by Cameron at the time.  It was poo-pooed as being scare tactics by the remain brigade. 

[lungbing]

Here's a novel idea.  We sue Germany for reparations for war damage to the UK, say 50 billion euros, then give it straight back to them as our 'divorce' settlement.

[chrissables]

5 hours ago, pitrevie said:

David Davis the Brexit secretary has conceded they do and so has the rest of the government. Perhaps you need to get in touch if you think you have information that will save us upwards of 50 billion or whatever the figure is.

I am right, prove me wrong.

[adammike]

13 hours ago, meinphuket said:

Yes, if it were only that simple...take responsibility for your commitments, or else face the collective economic and immigration wrath of the EU. Forget not that the UK is based on islands, easy to embargo. British police kicked out of Le Havre will open the immigration floodgates.High tariffs, tolls, visa requirements will do the job. Frankfurt as the new London. Enjoy !

They will have to check every vehicle that arrives on the mainland UK even those from northern Ireland for illegal aliens.all good, anything that helps destroy the tory scum. 

[pitrevie]

7 hours ago, chrissables said:

I am right, prove me wrong.

I have, every senior figure in the government from the PM down has said so. 

[rockingrobin]

8 hours ago, chrissables said:

I am right, prove me wrong.

Article 70 VCLT

 

Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty appears to contract out articles 65-68, and 56 VCLT

[nauseus]

On 9/9/2017 at 0:29 PM, champers said:

It was a French letter.

LMAO

[Grouse]

On 09/09/2017 at 11:27 AM, chrissables said:

There are no legal requirement to pay anything after the day we leave. Do you not understand that?

And that would be terminally damaging to our international reputation

 

Do you not understand that?

[chrissables]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

And that would be terminally damaging to our international reputation

 

Do you not understand that?

You are taking my statement out of context. I was (trying) to explain what is the law, not necessary what i thought should happen.

 

Having said that, paying an imaginary bill of ? billions of euros without an independently audited breakdown of costs would make us extremely stupid, and no better for our international reputation.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, chrissables said:

You are taking my statement out of context. I was (trying) to explain what is the law, not necessary what i thought should happen.

 

Having said that, paying an imaginary bill of ? billions of euros without an independently audited breakdown of costs would make us extremely stupid, and no better for our international reputation.

You have not explained the law

How does article 50 release the UK from obligations undertaken whilst the treaties was in force

[chrissables]

9 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

You have not explained the law

How does article 50 release the UK from obligations undertaken whilst the treaties was in force

I am far from qualified to explain the law. But i can and have read enough articles referring to what payments, if any are due as part of the settlement the EU is demanding.

 

I have at no time disagreed with payments that are legally due. Why do you think otherwise? All comments i have made are referring to payments due after we leave.

 

Also i have stated we should honour the last year of the 7 year investment we agreed to.

 

Had the EU bureaucrats and politicians been as smart as they think they are, payments due on leaving would have been put into law and the treaties. They in arrogance cocked up and are now trying to play hardball with threats, when in law their hand is quite weak. But for sure they will throw their toys out the pram to try and punish the UK for following a democratic decision. Pathetic really.

[rockingrobin]

47 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I am far from qualified to explain the law. But i can and have read enough articles referring to what payments, if any are due as part of the settlement the EU is demanding.

 

I have at no time disagreed with payments that are legally due. Why do you think otherwise? All comments i have made are referring to payments due after we leave.

 

Also i have stated we should honour the last year of the 7 year investment we agreed to.

 

Had the EU bureaucrats and politicians been as smart as they think they are, payments due on leaving would have been put into law and the treaties. They in arrogance cocked up and are now trying to play hardball with threats, when in law their hand is quite weak. But for sure they will throw their toys out the pram to try and punish the UK for following a democratic decision. Pathetic really.

You claimed that there was no legal requirement to pay anything after we leave, 

How do you arrive at this conclusion 

There is no need to place obligations on leaving into the treaties , as they are provided for in the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties, 

[chrissables]

11 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

You claimed that there was no legal requirement to pay anything after we leave, 

How do you arrive at this conclusion 

There is no need to place obligations on leaving into the treaties , as they are provided for in the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties, 

I explained how, after reading many articles. Maybe if you believe i am wrong, you can show me where it is written into law?

 

What to me is more interesting (to me) is the EU's inability or refusal to itemise or quantify the payments they demand.

 

I actually believe the UK will pay if a correctly audited and reasonable bill is produced. But to ask for money without that and threaten to not move on the exit negotiations towards a reasonable middle ground is a pathetic way for a government to act.

Edited September 13, 2017 by chrissables

[onthesoi]

9 minutes ago, chrissables said:

What to me is more interesting (to me) is the EU's inability or refusal to itemise or quantify the payments they demand.

 

Source?

[chrissables]

Just now, onthesoi said:

 

Source?

 

1 minute ago, onthesoi said:

 

Source?

Yes please, i would like to source the bill and a breakdown. 

 

I presume you believe there is one, what is your source?

[onthesoi]

7 minutes ago, chrissables said:

 

Yes please, i would like to source the bill and a breakdown. 

 

I presume you believe there is one, what is your source?

I think you're confused how this works, I didnt make any claims so there is no source for something I never said.

 

You on the other hand claimed:

What to me is more interesting (to me) is the EU's inability or refusal to itemise or quantify the payments they demand.

 

Im asking you for the source of that statement, failure to provide said source implies you're just making stuff up.

Edited September 13, 2017 by onthesoi

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I explained how, after reading many articles. Maybe if you believe i am wrong, you can show me where it is written into law?

 

What to me is more interesting (to me) is the EU's inability or refusal to itemise or quantify the payments they demand.

 

I actually believe the UK will pay if a correctly audited and reasonable bill is produced. But to ask for money without that and threaten to not move on the exit negotiations towards a reasonable middle ground is a pathetic way for a government to act.

Art 50 is a standard withdrawal clause, it describes the mechanics of leaving, but does not touch upon the obligations of the leaving member. It states that at some point in time the treaties will cease.

The VCLT is regarded as an "opinion of law" a necessity of international law , which leads us to Art 70 of the VCLT , Consequencesof the Termination of a Treaty

 

Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Conven tion:

(a) Releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;

(b) Does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.'

[chrissables]

5 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

I think you're confused how this works, I didnt make any claims so there is no source for something I never said.

 

You on the other hand claimed:

What to me is more interesting (to me) is the EU's inability or refusal to itemise or quantify the payments they demand.

 

Im asking you for the source of that statement, failure to provide said source implies you're just making stuff up.

I was being sarcastic.

 

I have seen enough politicians on different news shows ask how they have arrived at the amount, nobody has answered. 

 

So made up no. I would be most interested to read it.

[bert bloggs]

The day that Brussels can get its books signed off by the auditers ,lets say for the past 10 years ,then we can talk about paying them money .

[chrissables]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Art 50 is a standard withdrawal clause, it describes the mechanics of leaving, but does not touch upon the obligations of the leaving member. It states that at some point in time the treaties will cease.

The VCLT is regarded as an "opinion of law" a necessity of international law , which leads us to Art 70 of the VCLT , Consequencesof the Termination of a Treaty

 

Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Conven tion:

(a) Releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;

(b) Does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.'

If i understand correctly, if the UK refuse to agree to pay, at the leave date they can't force us to pay. 

[rockingrobin]

10 minutes ago, chrissables said:

If i understand correctly, if the UK refuse to agree to pay, at the leave date they can't force us to pay. 

Enforceability is another issue

[onthesoi]

The EU cant force the UK to pay but you can expect the pound to be devalued further if they dont.

 

The subsequent losses to the UK via another big currency devaluation would far exceed the divorce bill.

 

Numbers, however, have never been a strong point with Brexiteers.