Johnson warns EU against any 'Napoleonic' tariffs in no-deal Brexit

[CNXexpat]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 5:53 PM, snoop1130 said:

“I think it would be very bizarre if the EU should decide on their own... if they decided to impose tariffs on goods coming from the UK it would be...

They´ll have the same tariffs as every country in the world which has no trade contracts/deals with the EU - and no deal that´s what he wants. What´s his problem. Leave and start then to make deals. Btw., the trading deal between the EU and Switzerland needed 3 years.

[billd766]

48 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

You mean: was not willing to find it out in the many publications you can find on Internet. See also another comment of mine.

So if I send you a bill for 39 billion it is up to you to find what I am billing you for?

 

That has to be a very foolish way of working.

 

I would send you an itemised and audited bill of exactly what you owe me.

Edited June 27, 2019 by billd766
Edited for bad spelling after I had posted it

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

So if I send you a bill for 39 billion it is up to yo to find what I am billing you for?

 

That has to be a very foolish way of working.

 

I would send you an itemised and audited bill of exactly what you owe me.

Agreed. 

But how do you know that is not the case here?

[billd766]

28 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

Just see in Google with "assets of the European Union ", take off multi-annual commitments and… it brings you to the "devorse" bill of 39 Billion pounds,.

 

Searching on Internet and calculations are not the strongest points of Brexiteers

 

It seems to me that you want the UK to come to agreements based on Google?

 

How very strange. ????

[billd766]

19 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

means.. the sigfnature of a British PM is even not worth the ink spent on it.

I tought a British commitment would last only 20 years, see the Good Friday Agreement.. 

But TM was NOT signing for herself, she was signing for the UK parliament where the settlement should have been brought up and discussed and also on behalf of the UK citizens who were not consulted at all.

 

Her "settlement" was brought before parliament 3 times and kicked out 3 times before TM was given the option of resigning or being kicked out.

 

There IS no agreement to the divorce bill between the UK and the EU.

 

I have written it down for you, I have tried to explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

 

That is your problem.

[billd766]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed. 

But how do you know that is not the case here?

How do YOU know that it is the case here?

 

If there was an itemised bill there would be a record of it and it would have been produced the 1st, 2nd and 3rd times TM tried to get the bill through.

 

Have you ever seen or heard of it?

[Loiner]

still, she acted on behalf of the country didn't she, regardless if gentleman's or gentlelady's she committed to a deal or are you trying to imply that any and all deals she made will not be honored because she quit, not ditched, (she won the confidence vote, thus not ditched) she quit or she resigned  big difference

UK is not a dictatorship, it’s a parliamentary democracy as the Remainers keep reminding us. She can’t agree on her own, it must be ratified by Parliament. It hasn’t been - three times! Your deal is gone and there’s nothing to honour. We now have No Deal!!
She was forced to quit.
She didn’t win the confidence vote, the CON party did.
Leave a woman to do a man’s job.....

[puipuitom]

15 minutes ago, billd766 said:

TM had no right to commit the UK without consulting parliament which she only did this year, 3 times and 3 times it was rejected by parliament. That means there was NO written and signed agreement and what was not signed for cannot be committed to.

 

As a Brexiteer I have no objection to a financial settlement, however IMHO that means a fully audited agreement on who owes what and that firstly has to be audited and accounted for by an independent company, preferably Switzerland, and then agreed line by line for each article.

 

If there is a disagreement, put that one one side and complete the whole bill. Then pay that part of the bill and go back to the uncompleted items and deal with each one in turn.

 

Do NOT accept Mrs May's guesstimate but get a complete and signed off audit  of all the things that affect the UK and the EU before any agreement which must then go back to the UK parliament for ratification. If they agree then fine but if the EU want the guesstimate then play the guesstimate game back to them.

see with "calculation to justify the 39 B devorse bill " e.g. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-bill-understanding-39bn-divorce-payment-121445268.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIlSHe3HZtrDcjMovQzkZWNcbMm-MWNKHs5hxgnHGHgf3Ui_wZ0TwxGYqvzkKFjPYiBx3EoQheY61rpW8D9a0QWEhnPobemudF7S9CvwS6h1BNREpm9aOGlnZ56Fj6WSOG-wEnZRZrLSphwWzBANiuE6DZCacEME57tV-sIdiC33

and 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/printpdf/4686

 

+ MANY others.

 

So, when at the end it figures out, it is 89B pounds, you pay ? 

[Loiner]

not so fast my friend, still has to explain his burst and that will not be an easy one 555

The bus? That was it, kicked out of court. Nothing to explain to anybody.

[puipuitom]

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But TM was NOT signing for herself, she was signing for the UK parliament where the settlement should have been brought up and discussed and also on behalf of the UK citizens who were not consulted at all.

 

Her "settlement" was brought before parliament 3 times and kicked out 3 times before TM was given the option of resigning or being kicked out.

 

There IS no agreement to the divorce bill between the UK and the EU.

 

I have written it down for you, I have tried to explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

 

That is your problem.

4 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Does that mean that  the successor of Mr. Johnson (assuming he becomes P. M.) can eventually withdraw the decisions made by Mr. Johnson; and so further on. 

means.. the signature of a British PM is even not worth the ink spent on it.

I tought a British commitment would last only 20 years, see the Good Friday Agreement.. 

 

So, read the whole story. As THAT means, no British PM can make any agreement, which cannot be cancelled by any successor. NOT ONLY for the Brexit, but for everything.

What is May then doing at theG20 summit ? Keeping her chair warm ?

[evadgib]

10 hours ago, evadgib said:

To have ducked anything he must surely have first agreed to do it? My understanding is that this particular gauntlet was thrown down by Hunt but was never on Boris's agenda in the first place. With Sky being pro remain & with a manufactured non-event in his private life as soon as the Tories had fired the starting gun who could blame him?

 

(Dom-the-weasel was still at it yesterday!)

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

22 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I would send you an itemised and audited bill of exactly what you owe me.

What exactly is an “audited bill”? Are you engaging KPMG for every invoice you issue, and then you ask them to do what exactly? 

[billd766]

7 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

see with "calculation to justify the 39 B devorse bill " e.g. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-bill-understanding-39bn-divorce-payment-121445268.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIlSHe3HZtrDcjMovQzkZWNcbMm-MWNKHs5hxgnHGHgf3Ui_wZ0TwxGYqvzkKFjPYiBx3EoQheY61rpW8D9a0QWEhnPobemudF7S9CvwS6h1BNREpm9aOGlnZ56Fj6WSOG-wEnZRZrLSphwWzBANiuE6DZCacEME57tV-sIdiC33

and 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/printpdf/4686

 

+ MANY others.

 

So, when at the end it figures out, it is 89B pounds, you pay ? 

Both links are perhaps, may be, could be etc and deep into the realms of whataboutery.

 

Nothing is fully defined and is relying on guesswork.

 

If I send you a bill it will be fully itemised and I can substantiate each item.

 

The EU has not and cannot do this without a full line by line audit of their books which not been audited or signed off in years.

 

Obviously you cannot or will not accept my explanation.

 

Your problem and not mine.

[petemoss]

49 minutes ago, billd766 said:

TM had no right to commit the UK without consulting parliament which she only did this year, 3 times and 3 times it was rejected by parliament. That means there was NO written and signed agreement and what was not signed for cannot be committed to.

 

As a Brexiteer I have no objection to a financial settlement, however IMHO that means a fully audited agreement on who owes what and that firstly has to be audited and accounted for by an independent company, preferably Switzerland, and then agreed line by line for each article.

 

If there is a disagreement, put that one one side and complete the whole bill. Then pay that part of the bill and go back to the uncompleted items and deal with each one in turn.

 

Do NOT accept Mrs May's guesstimate but get a complete and signed off audit  of all the things that affect the UK and the EU before any agreement which must then go back to the UK parliament for ratification. If they agree then fine but if the EU want the guesstimate then play the guesstimate game back to them.

All very pretty but the EU will not renegotiate the agreement.

[luckyluke]

22 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

As THAT means, no British PM can make any agreement, which cannot be cancelled by any successor

The plot thickens for me.

 

And I thought only our Belgian system ( Flemish/Walloon's) was complicated.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

How do YOU know that it is the case here?

 

If there was an itemised bill there would be a record of it and it would have been produced the 1st, 2nd and 3rd times TM tried to get the bill through.

 

Have you ever seen or heard of it?

I have no idea, but you and others are presuming it is not thoroughly negotiated. Which is very unlikely.

And stop pretending this reimbursement was rejected by parliament, the deal this was a part of was rejected by parliament. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by stevenl

[SheungWan]

I do have my own reservations about Boris.  My hope is that he appoints smart people around him; people who are determined to deliver Brexit. May was too obsessed with having a balanced cabinet.  Boris will presumably have a Brexit cabinet.  And he'll be a kind of rallying figurehead (making the occasional gaff of course [emoji38])

Cabinet of clowns.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Loiner]

All very pretty but the EU will not renegotiate the agreement.

That’s good because there’s nothing else to put to Parliament again. WAG gone and we default to a No Deal Brexit.
Then we can start to talk trade deals, with no shackles.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, puipuitom said:

Time to search on Internet with Google like: "uk divorce bill explained". It is NOT an exit fee, but the UK's share in Mutual commitments from the past.

Some things are done together in the EU, like EFSA, RASFF, CE, EMA and a LOT more.

The UK signed a LOT of long time agreements, they now want to walk away.

Why Brexiteers canniot do this themselves ? Same reason as because they follow liers liek Boris and Nigel ?  What a nation...

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8039

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_divorce_bill

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-what-is-eu-leave-theresa-may-vote-commons-labour-conservatives-a8698056.html

Half the money is for the xition period, which will not apply without a deal.

[Scott]

Baiting post has been reported and removed.  

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, petemoss said:

All very pretty but the EU will not renegotiate the agreement.

Not surprising. "It's my agreement and you can't play with it! So there."

[billd766]

34 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I have no idea, but you and others are presuming it is not thoroughly negotiated. Which is very unlikely.

And stop pretending this reimbursement was rejected by parliament, the deal this was a part of was rejected by parliament. 

So according to you it was rejected by parliament either way, either on its own or part of a package.

 

You are the one who is assuming that it was thoroughly negotiated. So how come there is no definitive or accurate figure.

 

Why is it unlikely that it was not thoroughly negotiated?

 

The last time I looked it was "up to" £39 Bn. Now that is a wide open figure.

 

If the EU wants to send the UK a bill then audit the accounts (preferably by a neutral auditor) and send an itemised bill. Surely it can't be that difficult, can it?

[billd766]

2 hours ago, CNXexpat said:

They´ll have the same tariffs as every country in the world which has no trade contracts/deals with the EU - and no deal that´s what he wants. What´s his problem. Leave and start then to make deals. Btw., the trading deal between the EU and Switzerland needed 3 years.

And the trade deal with Canada was nearly 10 years.

[MRDave]

The EU sells us so many cars, wine and goods that they call us treasure Island. 1 in 7 cars made in Germany are sold in the UK. In 2018 the UK had a overall trade deficit of -£70 billion with the EU which means the EU sells the UK a lot more than they buy from us.   The fact is that a lot of people are jealous of Great Britain due to it's achievements, conquests and the fact that we punch well above our weight and we are the greatest ally of the United States of America. The fact is that if the UK leaves the EU on a no deal them the EU fats cats will be shi**ing themselves! So get your coat because we are leaving! It is time for the Empire to Strike Back! 

 

[whitemouse]

Johnson is about to tank Sterling even further, I feel bad for people from UK, on fixed income.

 

 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, MRDave said:

The EU sells us so many cars, wine and goods that they call us treasure Island. 1 in 7 cars made in Germany are sold in the UK. In 2018 the UK had a overall trade deficit of -£70 billion with the EU which means the EU sells the UK a lot more than they buy from us.   The fact is that a lot of people are jealous of Great Britain due to it's achievements, conquests and the fact that we punch well above our weight and we are the greatest ally of the United States of America. The fact is that if the UK leaves the EU on a no deal them the EU fats cats will be shi**ing themselves! So get your coat because we are leaving! It is time for the Empire to Strike Back! 

 

Cherry picking much? Over 40% of what would be UK's exports in the event of Brexit are sold to other EU nations. 8% of what would be EU nations' exports in the event of Brexit are sold to the UK. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by bristolboy

[luckyluke]

5 hours ago, MRDave said:

It is time for the Empire to Strike Back! 

Sounds a bit like post-imperial arrogance. 

 

Back to an Empire?

Why not?

 

Except  that the United Kingdom is not even united anymore. 

 

So better fix your Brexit conflict between your own, before thinking of anything supplemental. 

 

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

So according to you it was rejected by parliament either way, either on its own or part of a package.

 

You are the one who is assuming that it was thoroughly negotiated. So how come there is no definitive or accurate figure.

 

Why is it unlikely that it was not thoroughly negotiated?

 

The last time I looked it was "up to" £39 Bn. Now that is a wide open figure.

 

If the EU wants to send the UK a bill then audit the accounts (preferably by a neutral auditor) and send an itemised bill. Surely it can't be that difficult, can it?

No. I am saying the one off payment was not rejected, the package was.

And of course this was negotiated, to presume otherwise shows a level of thinking I can not relate to.

[stephenterry]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

So according to you it was rejected by parliament either way, either on its own or part of a package.

 

You are the one who is assuming that it was thoroughly negotiated. So how come there is no definitive or accurate figure.

 

Why is it unlikely that it was not thoroughly negotiated?

 

The last time I looked it was "up to" £39 Bn. Now that is a wide open figure.

 

If the EU wants to send the UK a bill then audit the accounts (preferably by a neutral auditor) and send an itemised bill. Surely it can't be that difficult, can it?

Billd, get it into your head that the £39B is an agreed 'estimate' at this stage, because UK's outstanding expenditure and returned assets from the EU need to be quantified and audited if and when the UK legally leaves the EU.  That agreed estimate would be included in the WAG, and would be subject to audit review. 

 

While, personally, I consider the EU to be less than proficient in auditing matters, I would expect the net divorce cost of £39b to be in the right ball-park, for the obvious reason that there would have been, and will be, UK accountants and auditors present to finalise the agreement. 

 

So hold your horses, it ain't finished yet.

 

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Billd, get it into your head that the £39B is an agreed 'estimate' at this stage, because UK's outstanding expenditure and returned assets from the EU need to be quantified and audited if and when the UK legally leaves the EU.  That agreed estimate would be included in the WAG, and would be subject to audit review. 

 

While, personally, I consider the EU to be less than proficient in auditing matters, I would expect the net divorce cost of £39b to be in the right ball-park, for the obvious reason that there would have been, and will be, UK accountants and auditors present to finalise the agreement. 

 

So hold your horses, it ain't finished yet.

 

"the £39B is an agreed 'estimate' at this stage, because UK's outstanding expenditure and returned assets from the EU need to be quantified and audited if and when the UK legally leaves the EU."

 

Perhaps you should explain this to some of the other remainers on this thread, as they are convinced that 39 bn is a 'done deal' as it was 'agreed' between the eu and May......