Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

3 hours ago, Jambomo said:

This is probably true. I don't think they always are and there is an element of the EU demanding rather than negotiating however I don't think it helps that we aren't coming out with a clear position and sometimes with unworkable ideas such as the Irish border idea. 

Negotiations require an element of goodwill and trust to work which we undermine constantly in our newspapers and with ministers like Boris Johnson saying stupis things, speaking contradictory ideas. We also keep trying to move on to the trade agreement without having made any real progress on other areas which looks unprofessional.

Can't disagree with any of that. The government have spent most of the time trying to negotiate with the press and their backbenchers rather than the EU. 

I agree about our plans for the Irish border as well. Another thing no-one thought about properly. Though to defend our government slightly, it's not an unreasonable position to say that the size of our leaving settlement should be contingent on what we trade terms we get. Pay more to get more. The EU are saying, "Promise to pay us a sh*tload of money first, and then we'll talk after."  The EU's stance shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but I don't think remainers should pretend it's a fair and reasonable one.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Carl Cort's Hamstring

[strichener]

43 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

No different, except we've signed contracts to contribute to projects lasting the next 20 years, and contributing to pensions and the like for civil servants. If you pay a reduced rate for a gym for a year you don't get your money back if you can't be arsed turning up.

As the EU budgets are agreed on 7 year cycles with the current one running until 2020, I would be interested to know which contracts we have signed up to that last 20 years.

[strichener]

19 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Japanese companies are talking about suing the UK for promising a base in the hub of Europe when the likes of Nissan invested billions. 

Do you have a source for this, Nissan for one have not made any such comment.

[Jambomo]

Can't disagree with any of that. The government have spent most of the time trying to negotiate with the press and their backbenchers rather than the EU. 
I agree about our plans for the Irish border as well. Another thing no-one thought about properly. Though to defend our government slightly, it's not an unreasonable position to say that the size of our leaving settlement should be contingent on what we trade terms we get. Pay more to get more. The EU are saying, "Promise to pay us a sh*tload of money first, and then we'll talk after."  The EU's stance shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but I don't think remainers should pretend it's a fair and reasonable one.

I think the EU are saying at this point "This is what we believe you owe" and expecting us to come back with some figures since we are saying that we disagree. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable.

This should really be the easiest area of discussion as presumably commitments entered into by the U.K. ought to be documented and it should really be a case of showing this. If we have promised to pay into things and made binding contracts then it should be clear what is owed here.

These costs don't change or alter depending on how much trade we do. They are things we have agreed to and possibly already gained from (I am think of things such as H2020/FP7 projects where the EU have put a lot of funds into U.K. universities and some of these projects may easily extend beyond 2020).

[welshbairn]

23 minutes ago, strichener said:

As the EU budgets are agreed on 7 year cycles with the current one running until 2020, I would be interested to know which contracts we have signed up to that last 20 years.

We have committed ourselves to projects and responsibilities that go way further than 2020. The 20 year figure was illustrative, not an accounting limit.

Quote

     ● EU budget items (such as road or rail projects) that had yet to be paid (a category, formally known as reste à liquider, which amounts to about €241bn).

● Other legal commitments to projects that would be initiated after Brexit takes place in 2019, such as investment projects in less developed regions, in rural areas and for fisheries (a total of up to €172bn).

● Long-term obligations and liabilities such as pension promises and contingent loan guarantees.
 

https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

[Jambomo]

There is no "true parallel" that is part of what makes it so complicated, the hypothetical that I outlined was based on perceived strength of the opposing sides in the negotiation.  There are clearly parallels in that regard.

It is likely that in any kind of nation state separation, one side will be larger and have more power than the other. It doesn't really tell us much if the similarities end there.

Again, the position of both parties, the relative levels of trust and goodwill, a desire to see some success in negotiations and the skill of the negotiating parties all play a much larger part in how these things work out.

[Ad Lib]

54 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You'll have to ask @Ad Lib about that, but I'd imagine the Highlands, Wales, Cornwall and lots of other places with EU projects would lose out. A trade agreement would be out the window. When America pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, Japan swiftly concluded a deal with the EU which means that Americans exporting agricultural products will get 15% higher tariffs than EU members. Japanese companies are talking about suing the UK for promising a base in the hub of Europe when the likes of Nissan invested billions. 

There's a limit, of course, to what I can say now, but as a matter of international law and EU law, the UK would be in breach of its obligations should it refuse to meet financial contributions already committed to unless it was agreed that all or part of those obligations would be varied or waived as part of an agreement reached under the Article 50 process.

However, as a matter of EU law, funds like structural funds are distributed among member states. If the UK ceases to be a member-state its regions cease to be entitled to receive those payments. Unless otherwise agreed, therefore, Cornwall and the like would no longer receive funding from the EU.

Settling any oustanding financial liabilities appears, if you look at the EU's published papers on this, to be a political precondition for the entering into of any trade agreement further down the line. In practice this means what folk are calling "hard Brexit" would become an involuntary legal reality. The EU couldn't impose conditions worse than WTO terms for trade, but those would be, on any objective analysis, less favourable than the terms currently enjoyed by the UK with respect to the markets of EU and EEA member-states.

[strichener]

47 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

There's a limit, of course, to what I can say now, but as a matter of international law and EU law, the UK would be in breach of its obligations should it refuse to meet financial contributions already committed to unless it was agreed that all or part of those obligations would be varied or waived as part of an agreement reached under the Article 50 process.

However, as a matter of EU law, funds like structural funds are distributed among member states. If the UK ceases to be a member-state its regions cease to be entitled to receive those payments. Unless otherwise agreed, therefore, Cornwall and the like would no longer receive funding from the EU.

Settling any oustanding financial liabilities appears, if you look at the EU's published papers on this, to be a political precondition for the entering into of any trade agreement further down the line. In practice this means what folk are calling "hard Brexit" would become an involuntary legal reality. The EU couldn't impose conditions worse than WTO terms for trade, but those would be, on any objective analysis, less favourable than the terms currently enjoyed by the UK with respect to the markets of EU and EEA member-states.

The other side of this argument is that if the UK ceases to be a member-state then commitments that fall on member states such as Article 83 of the Staff Regulations

Quote

Member States shall jointly guarantee payment of such benefits in accordance with the scale laid down for financing such expenditure.

would no longer be enforceable.  It works both ways.

There is precedent here - did the EU (or EEC as it was at the time) meet it's obligations as a member of the ITC? 

Edited August 31, 2017 by strichener

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

a) The general public (and I include myself in this) had no real understanding of what the EU was even responsible for, and shouldn't have been given a vote on it in the first place.

 

It was the craziest political decision ever made in my lifetime.

 

[bob the tank]

Do you have a source for this, Nissan for one have not made any such comment.

I saw a Japanese government official saying it live on BBC news 24 early this morning. The government and the companies are both very unhappy

[vikingTON]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/01/liam-fox-uk-blackmailed-eu-brexit-deal

More tears and snotters about the EU not playing along to the Brexit fantasists' script.

[strichener]

9 hours ago, bob the tank said:

 

I saw a Japanese government official saying it live on BBC news 24 early this morning. The government and the companies are both very unhappy

Can you provide more details, I haven't seen anyone from Japan's government or Japanese companies threatening to sue the UK over Brexit.  Is this what the interviewee intimated?

[bob the tank]

That is exactly what the guy said. I'm sorry i can't give more background as I clicked the TV over to the BBC news channel on the way to bed and caught the interview, but missed the introduction, but he was a Japanese government spokesperson, and speaking better English than me, so there was no doubt what he was saying

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, bob the tank said:

That is exactly what the guy said. I'm sorry i can't give more background as I clicked the TV over to the BBC news channel on the way to bed and caught the interview, but missed the introduction, but he was a Japanese government spokesperson, and speaking better English than me, so there was no doubt what he was saying

Cheers.  I have looked for this and can't find it but it does appear to contradict what the Japanese PM has said.

[Granny Danger]

Interesting bit on Sky News website

http://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-brexit-talks-cannot-succeed-11015205

From what we have seen from the three rounds of talks so far, the negotiations cannot succeed. If they go on as they are, Britain will fall out of the EU without a deal - something neither side wants (although it would be more damaging to the UK).

And that is because of a mistake Theresa May made on day one of becoming prime minister. She adopted the language and approach of the Leave campaign, hook, line and sinker and she failed to prepare the way for the inevitable compromise which would be part of any bespoke deal.

I do not agree with the conclusion of the article but the bit about May is spot on and she is begining to look a bit like Trump; complete denial of the reality around her in favour of her own deluded take on the world.  Her recent comments about fighting the next election as Tory party leader is further evidence of this delusional position.  She is a truely awful politician.

[sparky88]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/01/liam-fox-uk-blackmailed-eu-brexit-deal

More tears and snotters about the EU not playing along to the Brexit fantasists' script.

The UK was screwed when they let the EU dictate the terms of the negotiation I.e. discussing the brexit bill first then any trade deals. The Tories will be forced to announce to the electorate that the UK will have to pay 100bn to the EU, causing anger amongst brexit voting simpletons, which will threaten Brexit even happening.

[ayrmad]

21 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

The UK was screwed when they let the EU dictate the terms of the negotiation I.e. discussing the brexit bill first then any trade deals. The Tories will be forced to announce to the electorate that the UK will have to pay 100bn to the EU, causing anger amongst brexit voting simpletons, which will threaten Brexit even happening.

That's not dictating terms, that's doing business properly, there's no point wasting valuable man hours in negotiations if it all falls through because the UK won't stump up.

The Tories have been too busy playing to the galleries and disrespecting the EU and it's members, as usual getting re-elected trumps the greater good.

Edited September 1, 2017 by ayrmad

[welshbairn]

Quote

When I spoke to my European counterpart Michel Barnier I said to him once: ‘The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity, the optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty’. David Davis 1/9/17

Truly the Oscar Wilde of our time.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Have the UK govt even put out what their counter offer is on the divorce bill? What sums they have done on what we owe or are they still just digging their heels in and thinking we will somehow not pay anything.

[Granny Danger]

24 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Have the UK govt even put out what their counter offer is on the divorce bill? What sums they have done on what we owe or are they still just digging their heels in and thinking we will somehow not pay anything.

There should be full transparency on this issue from both sides.  They should both be stating a figure and explaining how this figure has been reached.  I can't see how that would be difficult TBH.