France's economy minister tells Britain - 'We want our money back'

[sawadee1947]

6 hours ago, chrissables said:

But legally bound we are not.

Single European Act (1986). The treaty that was signed between 12 members of the EEC revised the Treaty of Rome and provided the basis for foundation of a single market. It also formalised the European Political Cooperation, the precursor of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Maastricht Treaty (1992).

[nauseus]

38 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Single European Act (1986). The treaty that was signed between 12 members of the EEC revised the Treaty of Rome and provided the basis for foundation of a single market. It also formalised the European Political Cooperation, the precursor of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Maastricht Treaty (1992).

Nice cut n paste. But we're quitting all of these, so its OK.

[sawadee1947]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Nice cut n paste. But we're quitting all of these, so its OK.

sure its was pasted. I can't convince you that you have to fulfill obligations and that you can't break contracts without compensations. If you can't get it then wait and see what will happen. Even you will wake up. But....you are safe here in Thailand. So who care if UK's going to the dogs.

[Khun Han]

12 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

sure its was pasted. I can't convince you that you have to fulfill obligations and that you can't break contracts without compensations. If you can't get it then wait and see what will happen. Even you will wake up. But....you are safe here in Thailand. So who care if UK's going to the dogs.

 

Could you please specify what these contractual obligations are, with specific details of the schedules that we have signed up to? Or, alternatively, could you stop spamming this thread?

[KNJ]

1 hour ago, sawadee1947 said:

Single European Act (1986). The treaty that was signed between 12 members of the EEC revised the Treaty of Rome and provided the basis for foundation of a single market. It also formalised the European Political Cooperation, the precursor of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Maastricht Treaty (1992).

Excellent please quote chapter and verse where it spells out what a country has to pay if it leaves the EU.......... this may take a while

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

sure its was pasted. I can't convince you that you have to fulfill obligations and that you can't break contracts without compensations. If you can't get it then wait and see what will happen. Even you will wake up. But....you are safe here in Thailand. So who care if UK's going to the dogs.

The UK will pay what it is fairly due to pay, I'm sure. I'm awake but who is safe anywhere these days? I have always cared about the UK.

[sawadee1947]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Could you please specify what these contractual obligations are, with specific details of the schedules that we have signed up to? Or, alternatively, could you stop spamming this thread?

If you would read my comments very carefully you would not bother this community with useless phrases

[KNJ]

Just now, sawadee1947 said:

If you would read my comments very carefully you would not bother this community with useless phrases

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.

 

[rockingrobin]

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/

[KNJ]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

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/

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

[Khun Han]

54 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Could you please specify what these contractual obligations are, with specific details of the schedules that we have signed up to? Or, alternatively, could you stop spamming this thread?

If you would read my comments very carefully you would not bother this community with useless phrases

 

Ah, so you're taking the latter of  my two options then.

 

Troll alert! Troll alert!

[Khun Han]

22 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

56 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/

 

It's worth bearing in mind that Breugel is run in Brussels by a German guy called Guntram Wolff, who joined it from the European Commission. It's also worth bearing in mind Breugel's main client is the EU.

[chrissables]

3 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

Single European Act (1986). The treaty that was signed between 12 members of the EEC revised the Treaty of Rome and provided the basis for foundation of a single market. It also formalised the European Political Cooperation, the precursor of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Maastricht Treaty (1992).

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. 

[rockingrobin]

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

[Golgota]

Just now, 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. 

Sure you could, but this will put a lot of future financial burdens to trade with UE.
If the UE thinks UK owe something, and UK simply "whistle" the whistling will probably less funny once all trade agreements and other bilateral relationships are cut or downgraded...quite sure both side should think carefully...

Also and I repeat : it was a french official speaking for the EU, not for France alone...

[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

 

[chrissables]

4 minutes ago, Golgota said:

Sure you could, but this will put a lot of future financial burdens to trade with UE.
If the UE thinks UK owe something, and UK simply "whistle" the whistling will probably less funny once all trade agreements and other bilateral relationships are cut or downgraded...quite sure both side should think carefully...

Also and I repeat : it was a french official speaking for the EU, not for France alone...

I am sure the EU could and actually make problems, i am not disputing that, just how we stand legally.

The "whistle" remark i would suggest was made because they (EU) can't quantify the amounts.

[chrissables]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

This is not correct

 

Please explain.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Please explain.

Give him a chance to google and copy first!

[rockingrobin]

10 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Please explain.

Art 50 states that the treaties shall cease to apply

 

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I am sure the EU could and actually make problems, i am not disputing that, just how we stand legally.

The "whistle" remark i would suggest was made because they (EU) can't quantify the amounts.

And if they can't quantify them, they'll have an even harder time justifying them, especially without fully audited accounts.

[shanesox]

Go to hell


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

Art 50 states that the treaties shall cease to apply

 

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

What did I tell you! And this doesn't mention any financial settlements anyway! 

[chrissables]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Art 50 states that the treaties shall cease to apply

 

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

We are leaving following the rules of article 50. Those rules state we can legally walk away without owing anything, or we can agree to pay an amount negotiated. We actually don't have to do so, and until the EU can quantify amounts asked for i see no reason to pay.

[Golgota]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

And if they can't quantify them, they'll have an even harder time justifying them, especially without fully audited accounts.

Do you think it would be a smart move on the long run for the UK to just run away and tell the UE "we owe you nothing" and not enter any discussion?

In my opinion and looking at a map, shows that the one which will be the most penalized would be the UK, not UE...

 

[Golgota]

The hard reality for UK if they just leave the table :
 

According to initial estimates by the British government, leaving the advantages of EU membership behind and switching to use of WTO trade rules would cost the U.K.’s businesses about £65.5 billion per year (or around US$82 billion). Over a 15-year period, this would lower the country’s GDP by between 5.4% and 9.5%. In addition to lost trade, the U.K. may also be on the hook for paying about £20 billion in unpaid bills to the EU.

Analysts believe that the U.K. would find it difficult to replace the lost trade revenues from the EU, which has a consumer market of around 500 million people and a GDP around €12 trillion (US$13 trillion or £10 trillion). About 44% (or £220 billion of £510 billion) of the U.K.’s exports currently go to EU countries. Export trade with the EU is linked to about 12.5% of U.K.’s GDP, while the EU’s trade with the nation is linked to only about 3% of its GDP.

While the country might be able to expand trade unfettered around the world once out of the EU, it might also find it difficult to match the negotiating power of the EU. With more than 50 partners around the globe, the union has more free trade agreements than any other single nation or trading bloc. And in addition to its existing trade agreements, the EU is negotiating agreements with the U.S., Canada, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand and others.

Pride may be a difficult thing to keep when the reality strikes....

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, Golgota said:

Do you think it would be a smart move on the long run for the UK to just run away and tell the UE "we owe you nothing" and not enter any discussion?

In my opinion and looking at a map, shows that the one which will be the most penalized would be the UK, not UE...

 

Not what I said but what I did say (another post 276) was: The UK will pay what it is fairly due to pay, I'm sure. I

 

If the exit cost is fair and justifiable then hopefully fair and reasonable further negotiation will follow on.

 

Don't try and misquote me. Looking at maps won't help either.  

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, Golgota said:

Do you think it would be a smart move on the long run for the UK to just run away and tell the UE "we owe you nothing" and not enter any discussion?

In my opinion and looking at a map, shows that the one which will be the most penalized would be the UK, not UE...

 

 

Firstly, the UK isn't running away, it's currently engaged in negotiations. Secondly, the EU is refusing to provide any details of it's financial demands. Thirdly, there will be no winners from restricted trade, though the EU as an entity will suffer most because of the balance of trade.

[chrissables]

2 minutes ago, Golgota said:

Do you think it would be a smart move on the long run for the UK to just run away and tell the UE "we owe you nothing" and not enter any discussion?

In my opinion and looking at a map, shows that the one which will be the most penalized would be the UK, not UE...

 

We are already in talks with them.

 

To me the issue seem that the EU are stating as a fact we must pay, which is wrong. Secondly that they have not quantified the amounts.

 

They are also refusing to discuss trade agreements until we agree to pay. Playing hardball when we can just walk away seems a foolish approach. But if the can't quantify the amounts owed they will continue to bluster. 

[lvr181]

On 7/20/2017 at 9:54 AM, Dave67 said:

How about we take out the cost of liberating your country from the Nazis

A German lorry driver in a pub in Newcastle gobbing off about how lazy  the British are, he drives his load from Hamburg, goes through  Holland, Belgium, up to Newcastle and back to Hamburg in two days. This old Geordie man mutters.. "Ay! Way back man... I used to pick up   my load in Newcastle drop off in Hamburg and be back in Newcastle the   same day. The German trucker snorted and said... "Oh Ya....vat rig ver you driving?"* The old fella replied... "A LANCASTER "   C'mon - its just a joke (and an old one at that).