The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[SnailyBoy]

All you have done is repeat yourself and continue to ignore the fact there is no procedure to follow regarding monetary settlements after an EU member decides to leave the EU.

 

That's because you're wrong. There is a procedure, it's all part of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, as per Article 50.

 

 

Why do you find it so difficult to accept?

[Litotes]

The UK has committed to pay into a scheme (the EU), if it withdraws early, then it still has liabilities to that scheme.

[L00b]

That's because you're wrong. There is a procedure, it's all part of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, as per Article 50.

 

 

Why do you find it so difficult to accept?

It’s a sterile and redundant topic.

 

The first act of David Davis, during his tenure as DExEU Minister, was to agree Barnier’s 3-point EU negotiations agenda, 1 of which was to agree the UK’s financial liability and amount.

 

If the U.K. reneged on paying the £40bn, the ITC case would be a slam-dunk for that very reason.

 

End of, whatever Lockdoctor may think or opine about it.

[RJRB]

Bojos brother Jo has quit government, saying there should be a peoples vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46155403

 

gonna be interesting round the Johnson family table at christmas

 

If the wind changes,Boris might begin to agree with his dad and their Joe.

I know that Joe was always a remainer ,but he has tried to back the referendum result as demanded by a few contributors on this forum.

Most Remainers are more convinced than ever that Brexit will damage our country ,whether it’s the May version(which no one is backing) or the no deal version which is only supported by the extremists.

So why is May so intransigent in refusing to even consider a vote by the electorate on the most important issue for many years.

I am afraid that personal ambition and stubbornness is leading our country to the brink .

[Lockdoctor]

That's because you're wrong. There is a procedure, it's all part of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, as per Article 50.

 

 

Why do you find it so difficult to accept?

I have already stated the amount of 40 billion was agreed between the EU and the UK during the withdrawal negotiations. Why can't you understand there was no procedure to follow to come up with the actual figure of 40 billion. My original point is that the UK are not liable for the 40 billion, if the withdrawal agreement is not concluded because 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2018 at 19:04 ----------

 

It’s a sterile and redundant topic.

 

The first act of David Davis, during his tenure as DExEU Minister, was to agree Barnier’s 3-point EU negotiations agenda, 1 of which was to agree the UK’s financial liability and amount.

 

If the U.K. reneged on paying the £40bn, the ITC case would be a slam-dunk for that very reason.

 

End of, whatever Lockdoctor may think or opine about it.

How can the UK reneged on paying the £40bn, if the EU and UK don't conclude a withdrawal agreement when it was the EU who first stated 'nothing is agreed until to everything is agreed' ?

[SnailyBoy]

I have already stated the amount of 40 billion was agreed between the EU and the UK during the withdrawal negotiations. Why can't you understand there was no procedure to follow to come up with the actual figure of 40 billion. My original point is that the UK are not liable for the 40 billion, if the withdrawal agreement is not concluded because 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'

 

Lol, you must be a parody account.

[tinfoilhat]

I have already stated the amount of 40 billion was agreed between the EU and the UK during the withdrawal negotiations. Why can't you understand there was no procedure to follow to come up with the actual figure of 40 billion. My original point is that the UK are not liable for the 40 billion, if the withdrawal agreement is not concluded because 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2018 at 19:04 ----------

 

How can the UK reneged on paying the £40bn, if the EU and UK don't conclude a withdrawal agreement when it was the EU who first stated 'nothing is agreed until to everything is agreed' ?

 

Legal document vs political soundbite????

 

 

Hmmmm.

[Litotes]

I have already stated the amount of 40 billion was agreed between the EU and the UK during the withdrawal negotiations. Why can't you understand there was no procedure to follow to come up with the actual figure of 40 billion. My original point is that the UK are not liable for the 40 billion, if the withdrawal agreement is not concluded because 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2018 at 19:04 ----------

 

How can the UK reneged on paying the £40bn, if the EU and UK don't conclude a withdrawal agreement when it was the EU who first stated 'nothing is agreed until to everything is agreed' ?

 

Surely, no withdrawal agreement, no withdrawal?

The UK population will not accept a no deal exit. This is not what the democratic vote wanted [sic].

[Lockdoctor]

Surely, no withdrawal agreement, no withdrawal?

The UK population will not accept a no deal exit. This is not what the democratic vote wanted [sic].

By not accept, do you mean marching in London like those who opposed the Iraq war did and those who marched in London calling for another referendum did?

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2018 at 20:12 ----------

 

Legal document vs political soundbite????

 

 

Hmmmm.

unsigned legal document = unsigned EU withdrawal agreement

[L00b]

How can the UK reneged on paying the £40bn, if the EU and UK don't conclude a withdrawal agreement when it was the EU who first stated 'nothing is agreed until to everything is agreed' ?

It was May who first said that.

 

The irony of the EU27 returning that to her face recently, was delectable