Britain cannot be blackmailed by EU over exit bill: minister

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, KunMatt said:

 

Back to "the bus" argument yet again. Pathetic and just shows that you really have nothing to criticise about Brexit for over a year if you have to continually play "the bus" card on every Brexit thread.

I'm just glad that nobody was stupid enough to be blackmailed into remaining in the EU. I knew Project Fear was all lies and as I expected none of it happened. You want to talk about who lied for votes, nothing comes close to any of Project Fear.

But keep harping on about a suggestion written on the side of the bus one time. That apparently negates being told everyone in the UK would be £4,000 worse off every year and that there would be a punishment budget a week after the vote, or that we would definitely go straight into a recession, or a million people would be out of work, and so on and so on.

But that bus suggestion is the biggest gripe you Remoaners have about the whole leave campaign after all this time. Just proves how little you have to complain about.

 

It's hard to credit that you believe the only place that pledge existed was on the side of a bus. It was one of the Brexiteers big promises. They put it on the side of a bus because they wanted it to be seen.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, KunMatt said:

 

You realise I was being facetious, right? I actually quite liked the other guy's analogy.

Do you know where they got this nice round 100 billion Euros figure from? Apparently our net contribution to the EU every year is only £9 billion and obviously nowhere near 100% of that was going to fund the EU projects.

So how did they come up with this figure?

It's simply asking for as much as they possible can to continue funding all of the other net recipients of the EU money once the UK leaves.

Either they provide us with a documented reasonable bill or we pay nothing at all.

 

being American and only knowing what I read in the papers and hear on TV, this is a learning experience for me and have no opinion on the particulars in this case. Just using some common sense.

  I am sure your point concerning the amount owed and the reasons asking for it is arguable otherwise there would be no argument.

If the EU has entered into long term projects based on the British promise to participate , then they are liable and should have thought about it before they decided to leave. 

 

[aright]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

Unless you agreed to do so when you joined. 

As I said in an other post , I dont know a lot about this subject other than what I read in the papers and hear on TV , but I do believe the disagreement is  over the , What the Brits agreed to pay when they joined, what they have paid so far, and how much is still owed.

As I said in an other post, no one  is stopping the Brits from leaving,  but before talking  of any future relationship please pay as what you owe as.

Would you not say the same to any of your friend who owes you money??

This argument won't fly. As I have said in a previous post we have a moral obligation to clear up some debts like foreign aid agreements. The argument has even less soul when we realise the EU Treaty makes no provision for these so called debts.

I would be happy to come to an agreed figure with the EU but do not accept the ridiculously high exit fee they have imposed. We are not in this negotiation to do as we are told. We are not in this negotiation to be bought to heel and punished for voting to leave the club.

[joecoolfrog]

This thread has unsurprisingly turned into yet another pro / anti Brexit slanging match. The salient question is , and I speak as one who voted to remain , should the UK really be expected to discuss a bill which by all accounts been pulled out of thin air.

Legal obligations are one thing but punitive damages are another thing entirely , should we just roll over and accept whatever the EU demands of us ?

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, joecoolfrog said:

This thread has unsurprisingly turned into yet another pro / anti Brexit slanging match. The salient question is , and I speak as one who voted to remain , should the UK really be expected to discuss a bill which by all accounts been pulled out of thin air.

Legal obligations are one thing but punitive damages are another thing entirely , should we just roll over and accept whatever the EU demands of us ?

The first rule in debating is never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

But I am not here simply to debate but curious to know , so I will ask a question of which I don't know the answer but have serious suspicions.

   When the EU entered into long term projects wasn't Britain consulted? and didn't the sign on ?

If they did not, then case closed but if they did then they are liable.

It should be a simple forensic accounting project to research the number of  projects the UK signed on, (they must keep records) determine their cost , and calculate the UK's share of it.

  

 

[KunMatt]

It's hard to credit that you believe the only place that pledge existed was on the side of a bus. It was one of the Brexiteers big promises. They put it on the side of a bus because they wanted it to be seen.

It wasn't a big Brexit promise, it wasn't even a Brexit promise, a suggestion cannot be a promise, the only people who pretend it was are Remoaners just for the sake of arguing. It was a suggestion and one which I think everyone agrees with. Let's stop paying the EU fee and fund the NHS. Who wouldn't want that?

Have we stopped paying the EU fee yet? Have we left the EU yet? So even if it was a promise how could it even have happened get?

And is agreeing to pay an extortionate punishment bill going to help us towards helping the NHS in any way?

What I find sad is that Remoaners want Brexit to fail so badly that they are willing to throw the UK under a bus just to prove a point so this is why they are siding with the EU over the UK about extorting 100 billion Euros out of us. You know what that makes you, don't you? I'll give you a clue; it rhymes with "crater".

[aright]

18 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The first rule in debating is never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

But I am not here simply to debate but curious to know , so I will ask a question of which I don't know the answer but have serious suspicions.

   When the EU entered into long term projects wasn't Britain consulted? and didn't the sign on ?

If they did not, then case closed but if they did then they are liable.

It should be a simple forensic accounting project to research the number of  projects the UK signed on, (they must keep records) determine their cost , and calculate the UK's share of it.

  

 

This is far too simplistic. Yes they did sign up to long term projects but why would they expect us to pay full price for a project from which we will receive no benefit eg a chargeable land bridge or mountain tunnel. If any UK projects are on the list are they going to continue with those because we have paid. I doubt it.   As I have said before, and I am sure I talk on behalf of the majority of the UK we are prepared to review  a fully costed  exit fee and come to a mutually agreed price. We are not however going to have a fee imposed on us by the two unelected Chuckle brothers Barnier and Juncker.. 

[aright]

47 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The first rule in debating is never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

 

  

 

That may be true for debates but when it comes to negotiation the first rule is to ignore the rules.

[joecoolfrog]

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The first rule in debating is never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

But I am not here simply to debate but curious to know , so I will ask a question of which I don't know the answer but have serious suspicions.

   When the EU entered into long term projects wasn't Britain consulted? and didn't the sign on ?

If they did not, then case closed but if they did then they are liable.

It should be a simple forensic accounting project to research the number of  projects the UK signed on, (they must keep records) determine their cost , and calculate the UK's share of it.

  

 

I may be wrong but I understand that such a list has not been presented. In addition I believe the UK have accepted there should be some liability for agreed future projects but a credit should be made for any benefit ( to the UK ) that would have been forthcoming.

I cant see that the last point is unreasonable given that the net sum would be the one that affected the long term finances of the EU.

[ilostmypassword]

31 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

It wasn't a big Brexit promise, it wasn't even a Brexit promise, a suggestion cannot be a promise, the only people who pretend it was are Remoaners just for the sake of arguing. It was a suggestion and one which I think everyone agrees with. Let's stop paying the EU fee and fund the NHS. Who wouldn't want that?

Have we stopped paying the EU fee yet? Have we left the EU yet? So even if it was a promise how could it even have happened get?

And is agreeing to pay an extortionate punishment bill going to help us towards helping the NHS in any way?

What I find sad is that Remoaners want Brexit to fail so badly that they are willing to throw the UK under a bus just to prove a point so this is why they are siding with the EU over the UK about extorting 100 billion Euros out of us. You know what that makes you, don't you? I'll give you a clue; it rhymes with "crater".

 

Maybe you should get the NHS to check out that failing memory of yours.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nearly-half-of-britons-believe-vote-leaves-false-350-million-a-week-to-the-eu-claim-a7085016.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/661244/European-Union-EU-Boris-Johnson-Michael-Gove-Brexit-Vote-Leave-Tory-London-Mayor

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

[chrissables]

20 hours ago, chang50 said:

Brexit has been a total disaster for the UK economy and especially bad for expats as the pound goes down the toilet yet there are still plenty of them defending it.It defies all logic.

It has not happened yet!

 

The poor exchange rate is not good for expats for sure, but for UK exports very good.

[KunMatt]

Maybe you should get the NHS to check out that failing memory of yours.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nearly-half-of-britons-believe-vote-leaves-false-350-million-a-week-to-the-eu-claim-a7085016.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/661244/European-Union-EU-Boris-Johnson-Michael-Gove-Brexit-Vote-Leave-Tory-London-Mayor
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

Yawn.

It's been well over a year and you are still flogging this dead horse. You got nothing except this. And this is a great big nothingburger. You want to compare that to all the Project Fear threats, how would it stand?

Again, it's pathetic that this is your biggest issue with the leave campaign.

You Remoaners are all the same, a bunch of crybaby traitors who side with the EU over the UK. I'm glad the majority of the country are better people than you and don't just care about themselves in the short term.

[chrissables]

14 hours ago, Grouse said:

Frankly, the divorce payment is de minimis 

 

5% of one year's GDP 

 

We should stop being so cheap

 

But here's the thing, the Cons don't want a deal. They want to show the plebs European intransigence.

 

Let's stick it to The Hun and The Frogs!

 

We'll storm out and create a low rent, low class, low quality, low pay, low civil society with a few Dickensian toffs driving the underclasses! 

 

 

From what i have read the issue regarding the divorce issue is the EU have not actually come up with a figure and explained how they came to that figure.

 

And as they are so corrupt that their account have not been signed off for many years, how can they give an accurate figure?

 

Storm out? It appears that the EU won't discuss further points until we agree to pay an unknown amount. Would you do that?

[chrissables]

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

Unless you agreed to do so when you joined. 

As I said in an other post , I dont know a lot about this subject other than what I read in the papers and hear on TV , but I do believe the disagreement is  over the , What the Brits agreed to pay when they joined, what they have paid so far, and how much is still owed.

As I said in an other post, no one  is stopping the Brits from leaving,  but before talking  of any future relationship please pay as what you owe as.

Would you not say the same to any of your friend who owes you money??

The is not and has never been an agreement to pay anything if leaving. The great EU unelected were so arrogant they presumed nobody would leave.

 

We do not legally owe any money from the leaving date. Morally maybe for what we have agreed and some pension payments. 

 

The EU has not given an itemised bill accounting for the payment they are demanding, would you pay an unqualified bill? 

[aright]

8 minutes ago, chrissables said:

From what i have read the issue regarding the divorce issue is the EU have not actually come up with a figure and explained how they came to that figure.

 

And as they are so corrupt that their account have not been signed off for many years, how can they give an accurate figure?

 

Storm out? It appears that the EU won't discuss further points until we agree to pay an unknown amount. Would you do that?

All good points.

The EU seem to feel we have to accept so called sequential negotiation. Trade and exit fee negotiations should run in parallel and our negotiators must be strong on this point. I am slowly coming to the conclusion its time to call their bluff , leave the table and say we will return when they are ready to talk trade and exit. The exit fee is related to the trade agreement. In the meantime you will find us talking to non EU countries in world trade organisation terms. 

[chrissables]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

The first rule in debating is never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

But I am not here simply to debate but curious to know , so I will ask a question of which I don't know the answer but have serious suspicions.

   When the EU entered into long term projects wasn't Britain consulted? and didn't the sign on ?

If they did not, then case closed but if they did then they are liable.

It should be a simple forensic accounting project to research the number of  projects the UK signed on, (they must keep records) determine their cost , and calculate the UK's share of it.

  

 

New projects start in 7 year cycles, there will be a year left on the latest cycle after the leave date.

 

Even so we are not legally bound to pay anything after the leave date. I am sure the UK government will pay what is fair and accounted for.

 

The EU has not had its yearly accounts signed off for 15 + years, no international company would do so, the corruption is know about, hence the accounts not signed.

[KunMatt]

New projects start in 7 year cycles, there will be a year left on the latest cycle after the leave date.
 
Even so we are not legally bound to pay anything after the leave date. I am sure the UK government will pay what is fair and accounted for.
 
The EU has not had its yearly accounts signed off for 15 + years, no international company would do so, the corruption is know about, hence the accounts not signed.

So if we have 1 year left of commitments, then how have they come up with a bill of 100 billion Euros?

What about all of the assets and investments the UK helped fund. Do we get to keep our share of those?

[chrissables]

Just now, KunMatt said:

 

So if we have 1 year left of commitments, then how have they come up with a bill of 100 billion Euros?

What about all of the assets and investments the UK helped fund. Do we get to keep our share of those?

 

As i understand it, after the leave date there is one year remaining.

 

That is the whole point, they can't actually come up with any correct amount without signed off accounts.

 

We own / have invested a large amount into the EU Investment bank, current value 10 billion $US

 

Then there are all the buildings dotted around Brussels and Strasbourg etc we own a percentage of.

 

 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

I may be wrong but I understand that such a list has not been presented. In addition I believe the UK have accepted there should be some liability for agreed future projects but a credit should be made for any benefit ( to the UK ) that would have been forthcoming.

I cant see that the last point is unreasonable given that the net sum would be the one that affected the long term finances of the EU.

 This argument  has being  answered by RuamRudy ob past #66 with his analogy of ordering drinks at a bar but leaving before all of them arive . 

Would you have to pay for all them or would you have to pay only for the ones that arrived and you derived benefits for them?

Or lets say you order dinner at a restaurant, you eat the first course and then you get up and start to leave , the weigher present you with the bill and you argue that you will not pay the whole bill but only for what you  ate so far because you derive no benefit from the rest.

How do you think such argument would fly?

 

But I agree, these are negotiating techniques. "You will pay a lot" says one," I will pay very little" says the other.  and in the end both sides find an amicable compromise 

[KunMatt]

As i understand it, after the leave date there is one year remaining.
 
That is the whole point, they can't actually come up with any correct amount without signed off accounts.
 
We own / have invested a large amount into the EU Investment bank, current value 10 billion $US
 
Then there are all the buildings dotted around Brussels and Strasbourg etc we own a percentage of.
 
 

Yeah, exactly. Nobody can answer where this ridiculous bill has appeared from and why we owe them a round 100 billion after credit for what is ours.

It's nothing but extortion. But don't you think it's disgusting how many Remainers are siding with the EU about blackmailing and extorting us?

[KunMatt]

 This argument  has being  answered by RuamRudy ob past #66 with his analogy of ordering drinks at a bar but leaving before all of them arive . 
Would you have to pay for all them or would you have to pay only for the ones that arrived and you derived benefits for them?
Or lets say you order dinner at a restaurant, you eat the first course and then you get up and start to leave , the weigher present you with the bill and you argue that you will not pay the whole bill but only for what you  ate so far because you derive no benefit from the rest.
How do you think such argument would fly?
 
But I agree, these are negotiating techniques. "You will pay a lot" says one," I will pay very little" says the other.  and in the end both sides find an amicable compromise 

Again, as explained many times, we want a proper summary and bill. Not just 100 billion Euros scrawled on the back of a cigarette packet and then be forced to pay it.

When we see a real bill, then we can make some progress. They won't because the current bill is nothing but fantasy.

[chrissables]

Just now, KunMatt said:

 

Yeah, exactly. Nobody can answer where this ridiculous bill has appeared from and why we owe them a round 100 billion after credit for what is ours.

It's nothing but extortion. But don't you think it's disgusting how many Remainers are siding with the EU about blackmailing and extorting us?

 

Disgusted at some people's ignorance. But people should have the right to question things and post what they trust as true rather than what they wish was true.

 

Have a look at this clip, really worth watching.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, KunMatt said:

 

Yawn.

It's been well over a year and you are still flogging this dead horse. You got nothing except this. And this is a great big nothingburger. You want to compare that to all the Project Fear threats, how would it stand?

Again, it's pathetic that this is your biggest issue with the leave campaign.

You Remoaners are all the same, a bunch of crybaby traitors who side with the EU over the UK. I'm glad the majority of the country are better people than you and don't just care about themselves in the short term.

 

Whenever someone does the yawn thing in the face of facts, you know they've got nothing.

[KunMatt]

Whenever someone does the yawn thing in the face of facts, you know they've got nothing.

I'm yawning because you've offered no facts and this whole debate is from well over a year ago. It's pathetic that you feel the need to play the "bus card" on every Brexit discussion whenever you feel like you are losing.

Just grow and get on board with the rest of us. Brexit is happening. You can either keep trying to undermine it or you can try to make it as successful as possible.

Siding with the EU when they are trying to extort us is exactly what is wrong with you Remainers.

[Jip99]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whenever someone does the yawn thing in the face of facts, you know they've got nothing.

 

 

Or, alternatively, they are just bored with the continuing cr4p from any given poster.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, KunMatt said:

 

I'm yawning because you've offered no facts and this whole debate is from well over a year ago. It's pathetic that you feel the need to play the "bus card" on every Brexit discussion whenever you feel like you are losing.

Just grow and get on board with the rest of us. Brexit is happening. You can either keep trying to undermine it or you can try to make it as successful as possible.

Siding with the EU when they are trying to extort us is exactly what is wrong with you Remainers.

 

I don't know what you consider facts. I offered 4 links that were authoritative. You've offered nothing but assertions. I guess you hail from oppositeland. 

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, KunMatt said:

 

I'm yawning because you've offered no facts and this whole debate is from well over a year ago. It's pathetic that you feel the need to play the "bus card" on every Brexit discussion whenever you feel like you are losing.

Just grow and get on board with the rest of us. Brexit is happening. You can either keep trying to undermine it or you can try to make it as successful as possible.

Siding with the EU when they are trying to extort us is exactly what is wrong with you Remainers.

 

 

 

Not it having a go at the Scots, but it is like England playing Brazil in the World Cup and the Scots saying "I don't care who beats England as long as they lose...."

 

[dick dasterdly]

21 hours ago, Orac said:

 

The nonsense can't be stopped completely
and a decision to remain now and try and get back to where we were (or still are technically) would be devastating to our national self confidence and position in the world order.

What we need is our politicians to stop playing to the home crowd and get on with negotiating a good deal for us which means getting past the divorce payment which is not really significant given the volume of trade involved if paid over a period of a few years so that we can move forward.

 

Better still if the EU would address some of the issues that resulted in the brexit vote - especially as it's not only the UK electorate that are unhappy.

 

If the EU recognised the things that needed to be changed - and changed them (instead of relying on fear tactics and demanding ridiculous sums of money before talking about anything else.... ) - it would make it far easier for UK politicians to sell 'remain' to the electorate.

[sirineou]

55 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Again, as explained many times, we want a proper summary and bill. Not just 100 billion Euros scrawled on the back of a cigarette packet and then be forced to pay it.

When we see a real bill, then we can make some progress. They won't because the current bill is nothing but fantasy.

 

A reasonable request!

I am sure the " Not just 100 billion Euros scrawled on the back of a cigarette packet" is an exaggeration to make a point.

but I can't believe that when the bill was presented the British  delegation did not ask 

"how did you come up with such a number " and  also can't believe the EU delegation did not have an answer.

 

55555 the letter U  is right next to the letter I  on the keyboard. Instead of typing "Bill" on my above response , I had typed "the  bull was presented the British  delegation"   glad I found the typo and corrected it before I pulled the trigger. Given our views on the subject I am sure you would had loved the typo 55555

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by sirineou

[JAG]

On 01/09/2017 at 4:34 PM, Grouse said:

That IS the plan.

 

It sure as hell will be bad for the numpties in particular.

You just can't help yourself can you?

 

Back on the old "numpties" tack.

 

Those of us who don't subscribe to your view, and dared to vote in a way of which you disapprove are "numpties".

 

A lot of us "numpties"  think you are a (four letter verb turned into an adjective) arrogant (another four letter word, widely believed to be of Anglo Saxon origin). 

 

I hope that this comment is sufficiently veiled to allow you to exercise your academic superiority (of which I seem to recall you rather like to remind us) in "decoding it".

 

If it offends, feel free to scamper along bleating to the mods about a "numpty" calling you rude names.

Edited September 2, 2017 by JAG