comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the want of repeating myself but again I don’t disagree. But again I don’t believe we will pay this £39bn.
At worst I see it being argued over and kicked down the road.
I just don’t see our parliamentary splits voting this through is all.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the want of repeating myself but again I don’t disagree. But again I don’t believe we will pay this £39bn.
At worst I see it being argued over and kicked down the road.
I just don’t see our parliamentary splits voting this through is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The deal won't be voted through, thats a given, but the money in regard to outstanding budgetary commitments, has already been agreed.
Geoffrey Cox, the current Attorney General, back in November, explained to parliament that the legal obligation will have to be met, irrespective of the outcome of negotiations between Britain and the EU.
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the want of repeating myself but again I don’t disagree. But again I don’t believe we will pay this £39bn.
At worst I see it being argued over and kicked down the road.
I just don’t see our parliamentary splits voting this through is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The deal won't be voted through, thats a given, but the money in regard to outstanding budgetary commitments, has already been agreed.
Geoffrey Cox, the current Attorney General, back in November, explained to parliament that the legal obligation will have to be met, irrespective of the outcome of negotiations between Britain and the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
No-Deal would be very harmful to the EU also
-------------
would be immeasurably harmful to the UK, IMMEASURABLY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Short term, yes.
Medium/Long term, who knows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how gambling on our future means so much to you. Who knows?
Parliament can have as many votes on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and the payment of money to the EU, as they like, but the idea a country that basically relies on credit, to keep itself afloat, is going to not uphold a financial obligation, is ludicrous.
If the government want the country to be dragged through the International court, whilst at the same time damaging the countries reputation further, then they are more than welcome to go down that road.
Somehow, I think they are more likely to avoid that.
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 9 minutes ago
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
Who’s an angry wee open mouthed slack jawed spunguzzler then?
Are you not able to comprehend the notion of a legal challenge ffs?
“t it” . How old are you ffs?
I knew one would come along eventually. You win.
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 48 seconds ago
Parliament can have as many votes on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and the payment of money to the EU, as they like, but the idea a country that basically relies on credit, to keep itself afloat, is going to not uphold a financial obligation, is ludicrous.
If the government want the country to be dragged through the International court, whilst at the same time damaging the countries reputation further, then they are more than welcome to go down that road.
Somehow, I think they are more likely to avoid that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough
The irony in all of this, is a percentage of this money, is a long term commitment toward pension payments for MEPs, including Nigel Garage.😀
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 9 minutes ago
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
Who’s an angry wee open mouthed slack jawed spunguzzler then?
Are you not able to comprehend the notion of a legal challenge ffs?
“t it”. How old are you ffs?
I knew one would come along eventually. You win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for confirming your t it status.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going to challenge them
Strange analogy that.
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 9 minutes ago
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
Who’s an angry wee open mouthed slack jawed spunguzzler then?
Are you not able to comprehend the notion of a legal challenge ffs?
“t it”. How old are you ffs?
I knew one would come along eventually. You win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for confirming your t it status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems a fair swap for yours.
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 2 minutes ago
The irony in all of this, is a percentage of this money, is a long term commitment toward pension payments for MEPs, including Nigel Garage.😀
----------------------------------------------------------------------
will he forego his pension? hmm no.. after all its £73k a year!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nigel-farage-will-take-73-000-eu-pension-for-sake-of-family-f930bvvk8
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going to challenge them
Strange analogy that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In much the same way as the UK will not challenge the £39bn regardless of what ministers say in soundbites.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going to challenge them
Strange analogy that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In much the same way as the UK will not challenge the £39bn regardless of what ministers say in soundbites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this another fact?
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 16 seconds ago
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
I’m not basing anything on facts. It’s based on a belief I have that if we leave under WTO rules there is a growing anger in a very split parliament that suggests to me we will not simply hand over this £39bn without at least having further discussions and if necessary a legal challenge. At the very least it’ll kick the van down the road.
It’s just an opinion is all but now I’m a “t it” and my electricity is about to be cut off
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
The 39bn is the UKs commitments that need to be paid.
Considering the UK paid off the DUP with £1bn that kind of money is not of great consequence to the EU members.
The UK will commit harm to its reputation should they not go through with paying that which is already committed and agreed.
This default will still be outstanding in face of other deals the UK hopes to make with the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t believe that is true at all.
Its been made perfectly clear that if we have no trade deal other than WTO then there is no payment.
Why on earth would the UK pay anything after essentially a two and a half year notice period?
And if anyone thinks that the likes of Spain, Greece, Italy and the like will stomach an additional £1.44bn because their politicians at a European level didn’t allow us any negotiation and were willing to let us walk away then they don’t underand the economic strain these countries and the EU are under.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats incorrect.
The 39bn is for the UKs existing obligations. End of.
If the UK wants to be part of new trading arrangements that require membership of eu institutions they will of course require the UK to pay more.
If it doesn't, then no more needs to be paid bar the 39bn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely disagree.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/britain-wont-pay-39bn-brexit-divorce-bill-if-there-is-no-deal-raab-insists-as-he-ramps-up-pressure-a3934541.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Dominic Raab the Brexit secretary who had NO idea how large or Vital the port of Dover is to the UK , a clown dressed up as a poor politician.
Labour are just assoles....sooner that dk corbyn leaves the better and he can take that tw@t abbot with him too
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its already been accepted by UK Gov as an appropriate figure.
If the UK goes into default it means all government debt is immediately down to junk status.
I do so wish folks wouldnt parrot politicians comments as something they can count on or as fact.
No wonder we are in this mess if people are so easy to lead.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its already been accepted by UK Gov as an appropriate figure.
If the UK goes into default it means all government debt is immediately down to junk status.
I do so wish folks wouldnt parrot politicians comments as something they can count on or as fact.
No wonder we are in this mess if people are so easy to lead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t polish a Tord Red .
Pay up or deal with the consequences !
Sign in if you want to comment
How can you rule out No Deal Brexit....
Page 3 of 5
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the want of repeating myself but again I don’t disagree. But again I don’t believe we will pay this £39bn.
At worst I see it being argued over and kicked down the road.
I just don’t see our parliamentary splits voting this through is all.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the want of repeating myself but again I don’t disagree. But again I don’t believe we will pay this £39bn.
At worst I see it being argued over and kicked down the road.
I just don’t see our parliamentary splits voting this through is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The deal won't be voted through, thats a given, but the money in regard to outstanding budgetary commitments, has already been agreed.
Geoffrey Cox, the current Attorney General, back in November, explained to parliament that the legal obligation will have to be met, irrespective of the outcome of negotiations between Britain and the EU.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements made by others, Dominic Rabb, David Davis etc, were in regard to a select committee paper that came from the House Of Lords.
The EU make budget commitments in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one, which ran from 2013, to 2020.
Therefore this payment of 39 billion is an agreed figure, between the EU, and Britain, to cover those outstanding obligations over that time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not disagreeing with that.
I’m merely referring to clear and unequivocal statements that stated we would not pay any divorce deal should we be forced to leave without a deal.
I believe we won’t is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, those statements were made in regard to a paper released from the House Of Lords, that holds no legal sway whatsoever.
The treaties Britain signed, are upheld by international treaty law, and would not be simply opposed, or negated by a document written up by a select committee from the House of Lords.
As you say, this country could simply refuse, but the damage caused in terms of trust, and future trade deals, as well as the fact it would be most certainly end up at a tribunal in the Hague, would make it entirely a futile exercise, and long term, far more costly.
A fair bit of the 39 billion is in regard to long term pension commitments also, that run well beyond 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the want of repeating myself but again I don’t disagree. But again I don’t believe we will pay this £39bn.
At worst I see it being argued over and kicked down the road.
I just don’t see our parliamentary splits voting this through is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The deal won't be voted through, thats a given, but the money in regard to outstanding budgetary commitments, has already been agreed.
Geoffrey Cox, the current Attorney General, back in November, explained to parliament that the legal obligation will have to be met, irrespective of the outcome of negotiations between Britain and the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
posted on 17/1/19
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
No-Deal would be very harmful to the EU also
-------------
would be immeasurably harmful to the UK, IMMEASURABLY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Short term, yes.
Medium/Long term, who knows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how gambling on our future means so much to you. Who knows?
posted on 17/1/19
Parliament can have as many votes on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and the payment of money to the EU, as they like, but the idea a country that basically relies on credit, to keep itself afloat, is going to not uphold a financial obligation, is ludicrous.
If the government want the country to be dragged through the International court, whilst at the same time damaging the countries reputation further, then they are more than welcome to go down that road.
Somehow, I think they are more likely to avoid that.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 9 minutes ago
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
Who’s an angry wee open mouthed slack jawed spunguzzler then?
Are you not able to comprehend the notion of a legal challenge ffs?
“t it” . How old are you ffs?
I knew one would come along eventually. You win.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 48 seconds ago
Parliament can have as many votes on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and the payment of money to the EU, as they like, but the idea a country that basically relies on credit, to keep itself afloat, is going to not uphold a financial obligation, is ludicrous.
If the government want the country to be dragged through the International court, whilst at the same time damaging the countries reputation further, then they are more than welcome to go down that road.
Somehow, I think they are more likely to avoid that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough
posted on 17/1/19
The irony in all of this, is a percentage of this money, is a long term commitment toward pension payments for MEPs, including Nigel Garage.😀
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 9 minutes ago
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
Who’s an angry wee open mouthed slack jawed spunguzzler then?
Are you not able to comprehend the notion of a legal challenge ffs?
“t it”. How old are you ffs?
I knew one would come along eventually. You win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for confirming your t it status.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going to challenge them
Strange analogy that.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by O.G.S. (U20644)
posted 9 minutes ago
And I believe we will legally challenge that and ergo it’s kicked down the road
------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are a tit
Irrespective of whether we leave with or without a deal, the government has committed to paying the 39bn.
What part of that dont you get?
What you think is irrelevant. We have agreed to pay so we will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
Who’s an angry wee open mouthed slack jawed spunguzzler then?
Are you not able to comprehend the notion of a legal challenge ffs?
“t it”. How old are you ffs?
I knew one would come along eventually. You win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for confirming your t it status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems a fair swap for yours.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 2 minutes ago
The irony in all of this, is a percentage of this money, is a long term commitment toward pension payments for MEPs, including Nigel Garage.😀
----------------------------------------------------------------------
will he forego his pension? hmm no.. after all its £73k a year!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nigel-farage-will-take-73-000-eu-pension-for-sake-of-family-f930bvvk8
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going to challenge them
Strange analogy that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In much the same way as the UK will not challenge the £39bn regardless of what ministers say in soundbites.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Look we’re going nowhere with this. Two completely different opinions but hopefully it’ll be put to the test.
-------------
You having two opinions?
I was stating facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye very good
We’re the statements by others I referred to not also facts as in they were clear statements?
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
irrelevant statements in respect to legal obligations.
see how you get around your next quarterly bill by making some statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going to challenge them
Strange analogy that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In much the same way as the UK will not challenge the £39bn regardless of what ministers say in soundbites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this another fact?
posted on 17/1/19
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 16 seconds ago
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
I’m not basing anything on facts. It’s based on a belief I have that if we leave under WTO rules there is a growing anger in a very split parliament that suggests to me we will not simply hand over this £39bn without at least having further discussions and if necessary a legal challenge. At the very least it’ll kick the van down the road.
It’s just an opinion is all but now I’m a “t it” and my electricity is about to be cut off
posted on 17/1/19
van?
can
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
The 39bn is the UKs commitments that need to be paid.
Considering the UK paid off the DUP with £1bn that kind of money is not of great consequence to the EU members.
The UK will commit harm to its reputation should they not go through with paying that which is already committed and agreed.
This default will still be outstanding in face of other deals the UK hopes to make with the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t believe that is true at all.
Its been made perfectly clear that if we have no trade deal other than WTO then there is no payment.
Why on earth would the UK pay anything after essentially a two and a half year notice period?
And if anyone thinks that the likes of Spain, Greece, Italy and the like will stomach an additional £1.44bn because their politicians at a European level didn’t allow us any negotiation and were willing to let us walk away then they don’t underand the economic strain these countries and the EU are under.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats incorrect.
The 39bn is for the UKs existing obligations. End of.
If the UK wants to be part of new trading arrangements that require membership of eu institutions they will of course require the UK to pay more.
If it doesn't, then no more needs to be paid bar the 39bn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely disagree.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/britain-wont-pay-39bn-brexit-divorce-bill-if-there-is-no-deal-raab-insists-as-he-ramps-up-pressure-a3934541.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Dominic Raab the Brexit secretary who had NO idea how large or Vital the port of Dover is to the UK , a clown dressed up as a poor politician.
posted on 17/1/19
Labour are just assoles....sooner that dk corbyn leaves the better and he can take that tw@t abbot with him too
posted on 17/1/19
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its already been accepted by UK Gov as an appropriate figure.
If the UK goes into default it means all government debt is immediately down to junk status.
I do so wish folks wouldnt parrot politicians comments as something they can count on or as fact.
No wonder we are in this mess if people are so easy to lead.
posted on 17/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
To be fair to Gingernuts, a lot of what he has said is true, in terms of parliamentary votes, in regard to outstanding obligations, and the fact that that figure, 39 billion, is constantly mentioned by politicians on the leave side, as a plus point to leaving with no deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its already been accepted by UK Gov as an appropriate figure.
If the UK goes into default it means all government debt is immediately down to junk status.
I do so wish folks wouldnt parrot politicians comments as something they can count on or as fact.
No wonder we are in this mess if people are so easy to lead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t polish a Tord Red .
posted on 18/1/19
Pay up or deal with the consequences !
Page 3 of 5