Just for folks who do not know what the 39bn is for, or why, this is a really short article what it is for.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for
I get the feeling that there a quite a few people who think "no deal" means we save as we are not obliged to pay it.
Its not true, it is an obligation to pay.
The soundbites some politicians have made about not paying it is to somehow sell the idea that no deal brexit is in our favour. It really, completely absolutely isn't.
Just do yourselves a favour and have a grasp of the facts first. Lest you be led down a garden path to nowhere.
Presumably the notion of "ruling out no-deal", in practice, means committing to extending Art50 indefinitely until a deal can finally be agreed. If we can extend Art50 once without needing the EU's agreement, then presumably we can do it again if necessary.
the £39B was our share of the financial obligations the EU has already committed to within the current EU budget cycle.
we have also paid our share for the EU infrastructure - all the instutitions, land, buildings etc. if we pay them £39B for the committed funding, and we're leaving, then they also have to pay us the value for our share of their infrastructure.
as for getting a good deal from them, it's too late. letting someone who voted remain to have overall control of our side of the process was a mistake.
we needed to tell the eu, right at the start, we're leaving. we're happy leaving with no deal, in fact it's our preferred option. if you don't like that then give us something worthwhile.
we didn't. they haven't. and they won't now. that chance has gone.
as for Corbyn renegotiating anything, won't happen. he's even more committed to no deal than may is. the EU won't give him sod all.
also, Corbyn's trying to use all this as a platform for his grab for power, rather than trying to solve anything. an action which should immediately rule him out as unfit for the office.
and labour in power wouldn't do any better anyway, they're just as divided on the eu issue as the tories. they've just had the option of keeping quiet about it and letting the tories split apart. if in power, all the different factions would start voicing their opinions, then they would go exactly the same way the tories have over the last couple of years.
the thing is, if the EU had listened to the populace, who have repeatedly called for major reforms, and rejected more unification, then maybe Brexit vote wouldn't have happened. and the EU wouldn't be worried about the populist movements in france, Sweden, Norway, germany, Italy, spain, Portugal, et al.
instead, when the various treaty referendum's voted no, the EU's response? in junckers exact words: 'we carry on anway'.
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 5 hours, 46 minutes ago
Presumably the notion of "ruling out no-deal", in practice, means committing to extending Art50 indefinitely until a deal can finally be agreed. If we can extend Art50 once without needing the EU's agreement, then presumably we can do it again if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we can't extend article 50 without the eu's agreement.
we can, according to the latest ECJ ruling, unilaterally revoke article 50 and commit to remaining in Europe on the same terms we currently have ( where any opt-outs we have get eroded every time the EU updates their treaties, (we've lost over 50 opt-outs just in the last 3 treaty updates)
we can request an extension to the end date of article 50, but that requires unanimous agreement from the other 27 member states.
Seems as though too many people grasp on a legality and assume that’s it.
I believe that’s why we have appeals and challenges processes and higher courts.
Strange how it’s now a fact that we wouldn’t at least explore that avenue were we to leave with a WTO deal. I believe we would.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 30 minutes ago
Seems as though too many people grasp on a legality and assume that’s it.
I believe that’s why we have appeals and challenges processes and higher courts.
Strange how it’s now a fact that we wouldn’t at least explore that avenue were we to leave with a WTO deal. I believe we would.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wanted to, could you successfully appeal against your electricity bill a year after agreeing the tariff?
Sure the UK could go to court to appeal it, but it’ll be thrown out saying the UK has already agreed to it.
On what basis do you think the court would a rule that the UK may not pay?
Courts and appeals structures do exist, they however can rule for or against you based on the evidence at hand. Which, in this case is that the UK has accept r the cost to pay.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 30 minutes ago
Seems as though too many people grasp on a legality and assume that’s it.
I believe that’s why we have appeals and challenges processes and higher courts.
Strange how it’s now a fact that we wouldn’t at least explore that avenue were we to leave with a WTO deal. I believe we would.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wanted to, could you successfully appeal against your electricity bill a year after agreeing the tariff?
Sure the UK could go to court to appeal it, but it’ll be thrown out saying the UK has already agreed to it.
On what basis do you think the court would a rule that the UK may not pay?
Courts and appeals structures do exist, they however can rule for or against you based on the evidence at hand. Which, in this case is that the UK has accept r the cost to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh good Lord above
What is it with you and my electricity bill at, I don’t know; not a lot as I have solar panels against a “bill” for £39bn?
It’s the most stupid analogy I’ve ever heard.
If they decided I couldn’t have their electricity any longer but wanted to bill me for future commitments on their infrastructure I think I’d challenge that.
Hang on.
Why the fwck am I arguing this nonsense. Not one single person here has one single clue as to what will or will not happen. It’s all opinion and as for things like bills they’d certainly be fair game for a legal challenge at that level.
It’s not a fact to say it wouldn’t despite how many times you say it or mention my energy deal.
I’ve been merely suggesting that it could be challenged.
Oh it can be challenged, just not successfully.
You might feel het up about the analogy of your electricity bill, but that’s the analogy. You agreed the cost, so it’s due.
What’s your problem with understanding that? Quite bizarre that you don’t think agreements and treaties mean anything.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 20 seconds ago
Oh it can be challenged, just not successfully.
You might feel het up about the analogy of your electricity bill, but that’s the analogy. You agreed the cost, so it’s due.
What’s your problem with understanding that? Quite bizarre that you don’t think agreements and treaties mean anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. That’s all I was suggesting.
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted. It’s an irrelevant sum that would make a legal challenge quite ridiculous. I mostly use gas. The form of contract is in such legalese that no lawyer in the world would be able to challenge it. It’s a standard fork of contract probably recognised the world over.
I’m sure there are many other differences but equally I’m sure you recognise them.
And hang on
Why do you state that it couldn’t be successfully challenged?
Do you have some world high standing in the legal world that gives you this insight? Or would you be the last appeal judge?
What a ridiculous comment to make. You’ve no idea whether it would be successful or not. It’s just an opinion is all. It has no “fact” basis in the slightest.
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted
——————
Same as the UKs obligations re the 39bn.. the sum involved is inconsequential to the agreed obligation that the UK has accepted.
You seem to think if the UK didn’t want to pay it that there would be no consequence.
Deluded thinking from you.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted
——————
Same as the UKs obligations re the 39bn.. the sum involved is inconsequential to the agreed obligation that the UK has accepted.
You seem to think if the UK didn’t want to pay it that there would be no consequence.
Deluded thinking from you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And now you’ve resorted to just making stuff up. Where have I ever said that should we just not pay there would be no consequences?
Now that’s what is known as deluded.
In your own time, you show me.
And while you’re searching for something that doesn’t exist, keep me posted on your “factual” legal career.
I’m genuinely interested.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted
——————
Same as the UKs obligations re the 39bn.. the sum involved is inconsequential to the agreed obligation that the UK has accepted.
You seem to think if the UK didn’t want to pay it that there would be no consequence.
Deluded thinking from you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And now you’ve resorted to just making stuff up. Where have I ever said that should we just not pay there would be no consequences?
Now that’s what is known as deluded.
In your own time, you show me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said, "you seem to think.." read it and weep and your poor comprehension. You could have just said that you don't think that instead of trying to point score without reading properly..
So either you accept there will be consequences for not paying it, or you don't.
Which is it?
Ah so now you’re trying to me what I think.
This just gets better and better.
Mind reading as well as the highest legal brains combined with intimate knowledge of my electricity supply arrangements. What’s ever going to stop you?
“read it and weep”. How old are you ffs?
I said "seem to think" based on your comments, not acts of clairvoyance. Also you're using a device to communicate that requires electrical power, again not an act of clairvoyance.
Back to the matter at hand, simply put, the UK is obliged to pay the 39bn.
If the UK doesn't, there will be consequences.
A scenario doesnt exist, where, upon leaving the EU this payment isn't due. Whether thats with a deal, or with a no deal brexit.
If you want to raise an argument against that with facts feel free..
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 4 seconds ago
I said "seem to think" based on your comments, not acts of clairvoyance. Also you're using a device to communicate that requires electrical power, again not an act of clairvoyance.
Back to the matter at hand, simply put, the UK is obliged to pay the 39bn.
If the UK doesn't, there will be consequences.
A scenario doesnt exist, where, upon leaving the EU this payment isn't due. Whether thats with a deal, or with a no deal brexit.
If you want to raise an argument against that with facts feel free..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but you see I never once disputed what you said
All I’ve said is I can see this divided parliament of ours legally challenging this “divorce agreement” should the UK leave the EU under a WTO arrangement. I genuinely think they will if for no other reason that an attempt to re enter negotiations, try and reduce the amount and also kick it down the road at the same time.
That’s all I’ve ever said.
Legal opinion of a high degree states that we would be obliged to pay. I don’t doubt that. There are many things that can happen between us leaving and actually handing the money over.
I dont think its worth wasting time with any legal challenge, it will ultimately cost money and while kicking the can down the road might make it anothet governments problem, it will cause yet more harm to the country if possible trading partners think the UK will find ways to wriggle out of obligations.
Reputationaly harmful, very unlikely to have any part of it reduced and likely to incur costs of money and time in challenging it, and likely to incur interest charges.
Face upto it, its a cost of Brexit.
It may well be and again I don’t dispute the cost of legal proceedings nor do I suggest that any challenge would be successful.
I just believe this divided parliament would have no scruples in trying anything whatsoever and therefore I wouldn’t rule it out so much to a degree I could see them attempting it to deflect from their abject failings and try and insinuate some warped show of strength whereas so far there has been none.
Is all.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
the £39 billion is a negotiated sum, payable if a withdrawal agreement is applied.
both sides agree that.
both sides have publicly used that statement.
the wording implies that the sum could be different to what we've already committed to in the eu budgets.
it also implies that the sum may not be applicable if there is no deal.
so there is ambiguity, and with ambiguity there is always room for dispute.
obviously, the eu's stance will be that £39 billion (or more with no deal) is payable no matter what.
the uk has received multiple reports from various legal teams with differing opinions on what it's legally obliged to pay, ranging from the full amount, to nothing.
therefore, until the uk decides which course of action to take regarding the £39B, it's a moot point.
we may CHOOSE to pay it. we may CHOOSE to just not pay it. at which point, we either challenge the 'obligation' in court ourselves, or just wait to see if the eu takes us to court over it.
our legal obligations will only be determined when we either start paying ( where payment will be seen as us admitting to our obligation) or when a series of court actions has definitively determined it.
we neither know the full contents of the contracts signed, and legal teams that do have obviously found some potential get-outs. arguing about it on here resolves nothing.
as for consequences of not paying, also completely unknowable, it would depend on the circumstances of how we choose not to pay and the judges ruling statements on any court cases arising from any non-payment. and therefore, also completely pointless arguing about at this point.
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
the £39 billion is a negotiated sum, payable if a withdrawal agreement is applied.
both sides agree that.
both sides have publicly used that statement.
the wording implies that the sum could be different to what we've already committed to in the eu budgets.
it also implies that the sum may not be applicable if there is no deal.
so there is ambiguity, and with ambiguity there is always room for dispute.
obviously, the eu's stance will be that £39 billion (or more with no deal) is payable no matter what.
the uk has received multiple reports from various legal teams with differing opinions on what it's legally obliged to pay, ranging from the full amount, to nothing.
therefore, until the uk decides which course of action to take regarding the £39B, it's a moot point.
we may CHOOSE to pay it. we may CHOOSE to just not pay it. at which point, we either challenge the 'obligation' in court ourselves, or just wait to see if the eu takes us to court over it.
our legal obligations will only be determined when we either start paying ( where payment will be seen as us admitting to our obligation) or when a series of court actions has definitively determined it.
we neither know the full contents of the contracts signed, and legal teams that do have obviously found some potential get-outs. arguing about it on here resolves nothing.
as for consequences of not paying, also completely unknowable, it would depend on the circumstances of how we choose not to pay and the judges ruling statements on any court cases arising from any non-payment. and therefore, also completely pointless arguing about at this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well well well
Ambiguity it would appear does exist as does the potential prospect of a challenge.
Hmmm
And here are all the self proclaimed “legal” experts all over this thread claiming “facts” whilst completely ignoring the options of legal processes. So much so they have to resort to childish insults. Like that makes them right
I think it’s time to change my energy supplier
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
the £39 billion is a negotiated sum, payable if a withdrawal agreement is applied.
both sides agree that.
both sides have publicly used that statement.
the wording implies that the sum could be different to what we've already committed to in the eu budgets.
it also implies that the sum may not be applicable if there is no deal.
so there is ambiguity, and with ambiguity there is always room for dispute.
obviously, the eu's stance will be that £39 billion (or more with no deal) is payable no matter what.
the uk has received multiple reports from various legal teams with differing opinions on what it's legally obliged to pay, ranging from the full amount, to nothing.
therefore, until the uk decides which course of action to take regarding the £39B, it's a moot point.
we may CHOOSE to pay it. we may CHOOSE to just not pay it. at which point, we either challenge the 'obligation' in court ourselves, or just wait to see if the eu takes us to court over it.
our legal obligations will only be determined when we either start paying ( where payment will be seen as us admitting to our obligation) or when a series of court actions has definitively determined it.
we neither know the full contents of the contracts signed, and legal teams that do have obviously found some potential get-outs. arguing about it on here resolves nothing.
as for consequences of not paying, also completely unknowable, it would depend on the circumstances of how we choose not to pay and the judges ruling statements on any court cases arising from any non-payment. and therefore, also completely pointless arguing about at this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you read and pull that from?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for
It can't be done away with as the Uk has already benefitted and has obligations to it. Theres no cooling off period.
Pure fantasy that it is not due or won't be enforced
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 27 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for
It can't be done away with as the Uk has already benefitted and has obligations to it. Theres no cooling off period.
Pure fantasy that it is not due or won't be enforced
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again why do you continue to state these things as fact and that nothing can ever be challenged and indeed successfully challenged.
That makes absolutely no sense. It’s as if you’re staying as fact that this is enshrouded in something akin to the US constitution.
Even that is challenge almost on a daily basis!
Sign in if you want to comment
How can you rule out No Deal Brexit....
Page 4 of 5
posted on 18/1/19
Just for folks who do not know what the 39bn is for, or why, this is a really short article what it is for.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for
I get the feeling that there a quite a few people who think "no deal" means we save as we are not obliged to pay it.
Its not true, it is an obligation to pay.
The soundbites some politicians have made about not paying it is to somehow sell the idea that no deal brexit is in our favour. It really, completely absolutely isn't.
Just do yourselves a favour and have a grasp of the facts first. Lest you be led down a garden path to nowhere.
posted on 18/1/19
Presumably the notion of "ruling out no-deal", in practice, means committing to extending Art50 indefinitely until a deal can finally be agreed. If we can extend Art50 once without needing the EU's agreement, then presumably we can do it again if necessary.
posted on 18/1/19
the £39B was our share of the financial obligations the EU has already committed to within the current EU budget cycle.
we have also paid our share for the EU infrastructure - all the instutitions, land, buildings etc. if we pay them £39B for the committed funding, and we're leaving, then they also have to pay us the value for our share of their infrastructure.
as for getting a good deal from them, it's too late. letting someone who voted remain to have overall control of our side of the process was a mistake.
we needed to tell the eu, right at the start, we're leaving. we're happy leaving with no deal, in fact it's our preferred option. if you don't like that then give us something worthwhile.
we didn't. they haven't. and they won't now. that chance has gone.
as for Corbyn renegotiating anything, won't happen. he's even more committed to no deal than may is. the EU won't give him sod all.
also, Corbyn's trying to use all this as a platform for his grab for power, rather than trying to solve anything. an action which should immediately rule him out as unfit for the office.
and labour in power wouldn't do any better anyway, they're just as divided on the eu issue as the tories. they've just had the option of keeping quiet about it and letting the tories split apart. if in power, all the different factions would start voicing their opinions, then they would go exactly the same way the tories have over the last couple of years.
the thing is, if the EU had listened to the populace, who have repeatedly called for major reforms, and rejected more unification, then maybe Brexit vote wouldn't have happened. and the EU wouldn't be worried about the populist movements in france, Sweden, Norway, germany, Italy, spain, Portugal, et al.
instead, when the various treaty referendum's voted no, the EU's response? in junckers exact words: 'we carry on anway'.
posted on 18/1/19
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 5 hours, 46 minutes ago
Presumably the notion of "ruling out no-deal", in practice, means committing to extending Art50 indefinitely until a deal can finally be agreed. If we can extend Art50 once without needing the EU's agreement, then presumably we can do it again if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we can't extend article 50 without the eu's agreement.
we can, according to the latest ECJ ruling, unilaterally revoke article 50 and commit to remaining in Europe on the same terms we currently have ( where any opt-outs we have get eroded every time the EU updates their treaties, (we've lost over 50 opt-outs just in the last 3 treaty updates)
we can request an extension to the end date of article 50, but that requires unanimous agreement from the other 27 member states.
posted on 18/1/19
Seems as though too many people grasp on a legality and assume that’s it.
I believe that’s why we have appeals and challenges processes and higher courts.
Strange how it’s now a fact that we wouldn’t at least explore that avenue were we to leave with a WTO deal. I believe we would.
posted on 18/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 30 minutes ago
Seems as though too many people grasp on a legality and assume that’s it.
I believe that’s why we have appeals and challenges processes and higher courts.
Strange how it’s now a fact that we wouldn’t at least explore that avenue were we to leave with a WTO deal. I believe we would.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wanted to, could you successfully appeal against your electricity bill a year after agreeing the tariff?
Sure the UK could go to court to appeal it, but it’ll be thrown out saying the UK has already agreed to it.
On what basis do you think the court would a rule that the UK may not pay?
Courts and appeals structures do exist, they however can rule for or against you based on the evidence at hand. Which, in this case is that the UK has accept r the cost to pay.
posted on 18/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 30 minutes ago
Seems as though too many people grasp on a legality and assume that’s it.
I believe that’s why we have appeals and challenges processes and higher courts.
Strange how it’s now a fact that we wouldn’t at least explore that avenue were we to leave with a WTO deal. I believe we would.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wanted to, could you successfully appeal against your electricity bill a year after agreeing the tariff?
Sure the UK could go to court to appeal it, but it’ll be thrown out saying the UK has already agreed to it.
On what basis do you think the court would a rule that the UK may not pay?
Courts and appeals structures do exist, they however can rule for or against you based on the evidence at hand. Which, in this case is that the UK has accept r the cost to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh good Lord above
What is it with you and my electricity bill at, I don’t know; not a lot as I have solar panels against a “bill” for £39bn?
It’s the most stupid analogy I’ve ever heard.
If they decided I couldn’t have their electricity any longer but wanted to bill me for future commitments on their infrastructure I think I’d challenge that.
Hang on.
Why the fwck am I arguing this nonsense. Not one single person here has one single clue as to what will or will not happen. It’s all opinion and as for things like bills they’d certainly be fair game for a legal challenge at that level.
It’s not a fact to say it wouldn’t despite how many times you say it or mention my energy deal.
I’ve been merely suggesting that it could be challenged.
posted on 18/1/19
Oh it can be challenged, just not successfully.
You might feel het up about the analogy of your electricity bill, but that’s the analogy. You agreed the cost, so it’s due.
What’s your problem with understanding that? Quite bizarre that you don’t think agreements and treaties mean anything.
posted on 18/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 20 seconds ago
Oh it can be challenged, just not successfully.
You might feel het up about the analogy of your electricity bill, but that’s the analogy. You agreed the cost, so it’s due.
What’s your problem with understanding that? Quite bizarre that you don’t think agreements and treaties mean anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. That’s all I was suggesting.
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted. It’s an irrelevant sum that would make a legal challenge quite ridiculous. I mostly use gas. The form of contract is in such legalese that no lawyer in the world would be able to challenge it. It’s a standard fork of contract probably recognised the world over.
I’m sure there are many other differences but equally I’m sure you recognise them.
posted on 18/1/19
And hang on
Why do you state that it couldn’t be successfully challenged?
Do you have some world high standing in the legal world that gives you this insight? Or would you be the last appeal judge?
What a ridiculous comment to make. You’ve no idea whether it would be successful or not. It’s just an opinion is all. It has no “fact” basis in the slightest.
posted on 18/1/19
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted
——————
Same as the UKs obligations re the 39bn.. the sum involved is inconsequential to the agreed obligation that the UK has accepted.
You seem to think if the UK didn’t want to pay it that there would be no consequence.
Deluded thinking from you.
posted on 18/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted
——————
Same as the UKs obligations re the 39bn.. the sum involved is inconsequential to the agreed obligation that the UK has accepted.
You seem to think if the UK didn’t want to pay it that there would be no consequence.
Deluded thinking from you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And now you’ve resorted to just making stuff up. Where have I ever said that should we just not pay there would be no consequences?
Now that’s what is known as deluded.
In your own time, you show me.
posted on 18/1/19
And while you’re searching for something that doesn’t exist, keep me posted on your “factual” legal career.
I’m genuinely interested.
posted on 18/1/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 minutes ago
As for the electricity bill I’ve signed a legal contract binding on both parties. There is no appeal system on the planet that could get me out of that even if I wanted
——————
Same as the UKs obligations re the 39bn.. the sum involved is inconsequential to the agreed obligation that the UK has accepted.
You seem to think if the UK didn’t want to pay it that there would be no consequence.
Deluded thinking from you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And now you’ve resorted to just making stuff up. Where have I ever said that should we just not pay there would be no consequences?
Now that’s what is known as deluded.
In your own time, you show me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said, "you seem to think.." read it and weep and your poor comprehension. You could have just said that you don't think that instead of trying to point score without reading properly..
So either you accept there will be consequences for not paying it, or you don't.
Which is it?
posted on 18/1/19
Ah so now you’re trying to me what I think.
This just gets better and better.
Mind reading as well as the highest legal brains combined with intimate knowledge of my electricity supply arrangements. What’s ever going to stop you?
“read it and weep”. How old are you ffs?
posted on 18/1/19
I said "seem to think" based on your comments, not acts of clairvoyance. Also you're using a device to communicate that requires electrical power, again not an act of clairvoyance.
Back to the matter at hand, simply put, the UK is obliged to pay the 39bn.
If the UK doesn't, there will be consequences.
A scenario doesnt exist, where, upon leaving the EU this payment isn't due. Whether thats with a deal, or with a no deal brexit.
If you want to raise an argument against that with facts feel free..
posted on 18/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 4 seconds ago
I said "seem to think" based on your comments, not acts of clairvoyance. Also you're using a device to communicate that requires electrical power, again not an act of clairvoyance.
Back to the matter at hand, simply put, the UK is obliged to pay the 39bn.
If the UK doesn't, there will be consequences.
A scenario doesnt exist, where, upon leaving the EU this payment isn't due. Whether thats with a deal, or with a no deal brexit.
If you want to raise an argument against that with facts feel free..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but you see I never once disputed what you said
All I’ve said is I can see this divided parliament of ours legally challenging this “divorce agreement” should the UK leave the EU under a WTO arrangement. I genuinely think they will if for no other reason that an attempt to re enter negotiations, try and reduce the amount and also kick it down the road at the same time.
That’s all I’ve ever said.
Legal opinion of a high degree states that we would be obliged to pay. I don’t doubt that. There are many things that can happen between us leaving and actually handing the money over.
posted on 18/1/19
I dont think its worth wasting time with any legal challenge, it will ultimately cost money and while kicking the can down the road might make it anothet governments problem, it will cause yet more harm to the country if possible trading partners think the UK will find ways to wriggle out of obligations.
Reputationaly harmful, very unlikely to have any part of it reduced and likely to incur costs of money and time in challenging it, and likely to incur interest charges.
Face upto it, its a cost of Brexit.
posted on 18/1/19
It may well be and again I don’t dispute the cost of legal proceedings nor do I suggest that any challenge would be successful.
I just believe this divided parliament would have no scruples in trying anything whatsoever and therefore I wouldn’t rule it out so much to a degree I could see them attempting it to deflect from their abject failings and try and insinuate some warped show of strength whereas so far there has been none.
Is all.
posted on 19/1/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/1/19
the £39 billion is a negotiated sum, payable if a withdrawal agreement is applied.
both sides agree that.
both sides have publicly used that statement.
the wording implies that the sum could be different to what we've already committed to in the eu budgets.
it also implies that the sum may not be applicable if there is no deal.
so there is ambiguity, and with ambiguity there is always room for dispute.
obviously, the eu's stance will be that £39 billion (or more with no deal) is payable no matter what.
the uk has received multiple reports from various legal teams with differing opinions on what it's legally obliged to pay, ranging from the full amount, to nothing.
therefore, until the uk decides which course of action to take regarding the £39B, it's a moot point.
we may CHOOSE to pay it. we may CHOOSE to just not pay it. at which point, we either challenge the 'obligation' in court ourselves, or just wait to see if the eu takes us to court over it.
our legal obligations will only be determined when we either start paying ( where payment will be seen as us admitting to our obligation) or when a series of court actions has definitively determined it.
we neither know the full contents of the contracts signed, and legal teams that do have obviously found some potential get-outs. arguing about it on here resolves nothing.
as for consequences of not paying, also completely unknowable, it would depend on the circumstances of how we choose not to pay and the judges ruling statements on any court cases arising from any non-payment. and therefore, also completely pointless arguing about at this point.
posted on 19/1/19
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
the £39 billion is a negotiated sum, payable if a withdrawal agreement is applied.
both sides agree that.
both sides have publicly used that statement.
the wording implies that the sum could be different to what we've already committed to in the eu budgets.
it also implies that the sum may not be applicable if there is no deal.
so there is ambiguity, and with ambiguity there is always room for dispute.
obviously, the eu's stance will be that £39 billion (or more with no deal) is payable no matter what.
the uk has received multiple reports from various legal teams with differing opinions on what it's legally obliged to pay, ranging from the full amount, to nothing.
therefore, until the uk decides which course of action to take regarding the £39B, it's a moot point.
we may CHOOSE to pay it. we may CHOOSE to just not pay it. at which point, we either challenge the 'obligation' in court ourselves, or just wait to see if the eu takes us to court over it.
our legal obligations will only be determined when we either start paying ( where payment will be seen as us admitting to our obligation) or when a series of court actions has definitively determined it.
we neither know the full contents of the contracts signed, and legal teams that do have obviously found some potential get-outs. arguing about it on here resolves nothing.
as for consequences of not paying, also completely unknowable, it would depend on the circumstances of how we choose not to pay and the judges ruling statements on any court cases arising from any non-payment. and therefore, also completely pointless arguing about at this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well well well
Ambiguity it would appear does exist as does the potential prospect of a challenge.
Hmmm
And here are all the self proclaimed “legal” experts all over this thread claiming “facts” whilst completely ignoring the options of legal processes. So much so they have to resort to childish insults. Like that makes them right
I think it’s time to change my energy supplier
posted on 19/1/19
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
the £39 billion is a negotiated sum, payable if a withdrawal agreement is applied.
both sides agree that.
both sides have publicly used that statement.
the wording implies that the sum could be different to what we've already committed to in the eu budgets.
it also implies that the sum may not be applicable if there is no deal.
so there is ambiguity, and with ambiguity there is always room for dispute.
obviously, the eu's stance will be that £39 billion (or more with no deal) is payable no matter what.
the uk has received multiple reports from various legal teams with differing opinions on what it's legally obliged to pay, ranging from the full amount, to nothing.
therefore, until the uk decides which course of action to take regarding the £39B, it's a moot point.
we may CHOOSE to pay it. we may CHOOSE to just not pay it. at which point, we either challenge the 'obligation' in court ourselves, or just wait to see if the eu takes us to court over it.
our legal obligations will only be determined when we either start paying ( where payment will be seen as us admitting to our obligation) or when a series of court actions has definitively determined it.
we neither know the full contents of the contracts signed, and legal teams that do have obviously found some potential get-outs. arguing about it on here resolves nothing.
as for consequences of not paying, also completely unknowable, it would depend on the circumstances of how we choose not to pay and the judges ruling statements on any court cases arising from any non-payment. and therefore, also completely pointless arguing about at this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you read and pull that from?
posted on 19/1/19
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for
It can't be done away with as the Uk has already benefitted and has obligations to it. Theres no cooling off period.
Pure fantasy that it is not due or won't be enforced
posted on 19/1/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 27 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for
It can't be done away with as the Uk has already benefitted and has obligations to it. Theres no cooling off period.
Pure fantasy that it is not due or won't be enforced
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again why do you continue to state these things as fact and that nothing can ever be challenged and indeed successfully challenged.
That makes absolutely no sense. It’s as if you’re staying as fact that this is enshrouded in something akin to the US constitution.
Even that is challenge almost on a daily basis!
Page 4 of 5