telstarbox
Established Member
There's a lot of discussion in the news about the prospects or otherwise of agreeing a deal before March 2019. What do you think *will* happen? (as opposed to what do you think should happen) - vote here.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit - Deal or No Deal?
- Thread starter telstarbox
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I think we'll get option two but it will only emerge at the very last minute, and there will probably be a few heart in mouth moments when, e.g., MEPs or a particular member state threaten to veto it. It's just how major EU decision making works.
I too think it will end up as option two, but with a pretty unsatisfactory final arrangement and a lot of attempts at face-saving for May and her happy band of Brexiteers. What I'd really like to see is the EU just tell Britain to get stuffed.
Why on earth would you want to see that happen?
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,910
I wish!
What will probably happen is that May will loose her nerve, cough up billions and still end up with no or a bad deal.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
It seems clear many Brexit supporters have never gone through a divorce. We are the ones who have been caught cheating and will have to pay up to maintain the kids. They seems to assume the spurned wife will just walk away with a couple of pairs of shoes rather than extract her pound of flesh. Deluded.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,910
Bad analogy.
Divorces are settled in court when in dispute.
If the EU were silly enough to attempt legal action to settle our payments, they would not only be whistling for the 100billions figure, they would be whistling for about half the 20billions we have offered.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Hang on. I thought we weren't paying them anything and all the money would go to the NHS.......................
BTW it isnt a bad analogy at all. The situation we are in is exactly like a divorce - perhaps you have been lucky and avoided them. Negotiations take place before going to court. Hopefully a deal is done. Often it isnt. Then the court must decide. The negotiation period is turgid, long winded, often petty and unpleasant. oh and expensive. Very expensive.
You don't just run to court and say: decide.
According to the Daily Heil if there is no deal in place in 12 months time May has told the negotiators that we will just walk away. Brexiters will be turning cartwheels, the EU negotiators would probably just shrug their shoulders.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,910
Not so sure German exporters will do the same!
RichmondCommu
Established Member
German exporters are prepared to put the EU before a trade deal with the UK. This may come as a surprise to some forum members but by and large the German population really couldn't careless about Brexit.
They will. We represent a significant market, and they would notice the loss or our business. But they'd get over a temporary 12% drop in sales rather quickly.
Walk away ....and then what?? Of course without a deal in place, we will still be trading with Europe on WTO terms....thats the default position.
I forgot, the rest of the world pretty much exists because they have to export goods to the UK.
I admire your optimism.....but the effects we are already seeing are probably based on the fact that there will be no deal. No rational big business would simply wait for the day we actually leave to decide on what they were doing.
To be fair its a small sample so far.....but I agree with the sentiment of your post.
Indeed. I read the results so far as being people having misread the question and it being what they want and not what they think will happen. Maybe I am too pessimistic. Ha ha.
I had to think hard for a minute then as to what a no brexit brexit was......and its now given me a headache !!
SteveP29
Member
Any court of law would judge in favour of the comittments we already have and have already contracted to pay.
None of this standing with your legs apart, hands on hips inviting someone to have a free kick at your bollocks to show how tough you are just looks ridiculous and is ultimately unhealthy.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,794
If the likes of Boris, Raab, Rees-Smug, IDS, Redwood and so on play it hard enough for long enough, and in the end Brexit is woolly-fluffy-soft then they can go back to their hard-line supporters and UKIP and say "we tried our hardest for you", even if deep-down the sensible side of them knows a hard Brexit would be a disaster for Britain. Of course, should it be a no-deal senario, just you remember, all you Brexit fans, that none of the mentioned are particularly poor and all can leave our shores at a whim to live a long and prosperous life - the Caymen Isles is nice at this time of year and I don't think their taxes are sky-high either. So they are in a no lose situation thanks to the Brexit vote.
As for the poor sods at Vauxhall who won't be working after Christmas...what's Farage's message to them (or is he too busy sucking up to Trumpton?)?
nlogax
Established Member
Correct. This continuing idea that it's enough to wave two fingers at the EU while stood atop the Dover cliffs and refusing to pay anything we owe because, 'hey, we're British and we're leaving'.. it's based in bizarre, arrogant and fantastical dreams of Brexiteers who find reality too hard to grasp.
When all is said and done as part of the inevitable final deal (because I don't think even the UK would be so stupid as to just walk away), the country will pay what it owes, or most of it.
If only because demonstrating that the UK will walk away from its obligations doesn't exactly help our bargaining position with the rest of the world.
Talk of 'commitments' and 'obligations' in the above few posts somewhat misses the point. These are not easily-definable terms, and it is not always easy to distinguish between obligations of the EU and obligations of the member states.
For any 'court of law' (actually more likely an international arbitration panel) to make a ruling, it would need to identify where and how the UK has entered into a binding obligation to make a payment. The starting point is that Article 50 contains nothing about exit payments and clearly provides for the treaties to cease to apply on departure.
So where might a UK commitment have come from? The member states have agreed a multi-year funding framework (i.e. a contributions budget) which expires in 2020. I think there is a decent argument, rooted in basic fairness, that the UK should see out the remaining years of that funding framework. This is what lies behind T-May's suggestion that we continue paying during the beginning of our transition period.
There are also good arguments to say that the UK should pay for the ongoing costs (e.g. pensions) of British MEPs and Commissioners, who were only entitled to those pensions because the UK was a member of the EU and entitled to appoint those individuals.
It is far less clear that the UK should pay for things like expected CAP and regional development payments which have been budgeted beyond the multi-lateral funding framework. These are not UK commitments at all, but EU commitments. The EU's argument is that any future commitments made by the EU should be shared between the EU27 and the UK. This does not appear to have a basis in law - see the House of Lords committee opinion on this - and is really a consequence of the EU making pledges before calculating how they will be paid for in the next multi-year funding framework. It is conceivable that we might agree to contribute to these, but there would need to be a cost-benefit analysis done as to whether the payments were worth the benefits that we derive by way of trade deals.
I happen to think that it would not actually be too difficult to justify some of these payments, which is why I think the EU is starting to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to talk about the benefits which we may receive in exchange for payments. They gambled on a strategy of trying to force the UK to agree to large voluntary payments upfront. T-May's weakness is actually perversely damaging to the EU, because she simply cannot come back to the country and say that she has voluntarily spent billions with nothing in return.
The parties need to agree the easy wins (pensions, etc), declare 'sufficient progress', and just agree to come back to the divorce bill later. The EU could, I'm sure, recover quite a lot of their desired funds through transition period payments and/or EFTA-style contributions to programmes.
For any 'court of law' (actually more likely an international arbitration panel) to make a ruling, it would need to identify where and how the UK has entered into a binding obligation to make a payment. The starting point is that Article 50 contains nothing about exit payments and clearly provides for the treaties to cease to apply on departure.
So where might a UK commitment have come from? The member states have agreed a multi-year funding framework (i.e. a contributions budget) which expires in 2020. I think there is a decent argument, rooted in basic fairness, that the UK should see out the remaining years of that funding framework. This is what lies behind T-May's suggestion that we continue paying during the beginning of our transition period.
There are also good arguments to say that the UK should pay for the ongoing costs (e.g. pensions) of British MEPs and Commissioners, who were only entitled to those pensions because the UK was a member of the EU and entitled to appoint those individuals.
It is far less clear that the UK should pay for things like expected CAP and regional development payments which have been budgeted beyond the multi-lateral funding framework. These are not UK commitments at all, but EU commitments. The EU's argument is that any future commitments made by the EU should be shared between the EU27 and the UK. This does not appear to have a basis in law - see the House of Lords committee opinion on this - and is really a consequence of the EU making pledges before calculating how they will be paid for in the next multi-year funding framework. It is conceivable that we might agree to contribute to these, but there would need to be a cost-benefit analysis done as to whether the payments were worth the benefits that we derive by way of trade deals.
I happen to think that it would not actually be too difficult to justify some of these payments, which is why I think the EU is starting to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to talk about the benefits which we may receive in exchange for payments. They gambled on a strategy of trying to force the UK to agree to large voluntary payments upfront. T-May's weakness is actually perversely damaging to the EU, because she simply cannot come back to the country and say that she has voluntarily spent billions with nothing in return.
The parties need to agree the easy wins (pensions, etc), declare 'sufficient progress', and just agree to come back to the divorce bill later. The EU could, I'm sure, recover quite a lot of their desired funds through transition period payments and/or EFTA-style contributions to programmes.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,910
Quite correct.
The problem for the EU is that they amount to about £10billions after our final annual instalment as a member.
The telephone numbers being used by the EU have no LEGAL basis and are a crude attempt at blackmail for a trade deal.
Now that Barnier has announced there will be no trade deal for years, if at all, the blackmail cash can be taken off the table.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
The fact is no one is quite sure what that payment amounts to. Not us, not the EU.
However the simple fact remains that the EU hold the power in these negotiations, despite what the Mail and Epxress suggest.
We do need them more than they need us. They know business will relocate back inside the EU, they know the service and financial sector can be tempted away from London ( see Goldman Sachs comments) and our economic power reduced because of this, they know EU farmers (especially in Ireland) stand to make a killing once our agri products are tarrifed out of the market ( watch lamb) and by the fact we import much of our food from the EU. They know that if we leave we still have to meet their rules to sell our products into their market.
What do we have to negotiate with? What is our BATNA?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Deal or No Deal....Is this something that Noel Edmonds had connections with?
- Status