|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10566771)
There is no commitment, check the WA, it is never mentioned. The UK has commitments for budget items such as pensions etc, it has ongoing payments for continuing membership of certain programmes, if forced to leave these programmes some will require negotiation as to repayment of capital value etc. There is disagreement over the total amount due, the division of capital assets and the duration, timing and extent of payments. Some suggest as low as £6-12B, others up to £39B, but these are still matters unsettled. In such matters payments are made after agreement on the above. If the WA is. It signed, then smaller piecemeal agreements will be need to be negotiated and signed. I would imagine, in the fraught circumstances, this might take several years as they are used as bargaining chips by both sides. https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-8039 Failure to keep the commitment will be characterised by some as a soverign default, and while the markets are mixed on whether it would be in the normal sense, these are not normal times. Whether skipping out on it's obligations has a negative effect on the UK's debt rating remains to be seem. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/op...ony-2019-06-14 JAS |
Some suggest as low as £6-12B, others up to £39B, but these are still matters unsettled. [/QUOTE]I'm sure big Phil will iron this all out for you when it comes time to negotiate the trade agreement. But I'm sure he won't try and screw you as badly as Trump.[/QUOTE] A lot of people assuming Trump will still be in office and therefore in a position to screw the U.K. post Brexit. He can only serve 2 terms remember... |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10566819)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...plan-0l7hn85hh DUP anger over new Brexit deal plan Senior Unionist politicians are to meet Boris Johnson today amid claims that the prime minister is seeking a deal with Brussels that could split Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The new EU trade commissioner, Phil Hogan, said that the penny was “finally dropping” in London that the only alternative to a whole UK backstop was to come up with specific arrangements for Ulster. But any move to place a trade border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is a red line for the Democratic Unionist Party, which vetoed the proposal when it was first mooted by the European Commission in 2017. “Mr Johnson has made a proposal in the last few days talking about an all-Ireland food zone,” Mr Hogan told The Irish Times. He is the Irish farm commissioner and a known critic of Brexit. That is certainly a clear indication of divergence between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the EU, and the rest of the UK. This is the first time that this has been spoken about by a British prime minister where they are prepared to accept some level of divergence. If we can build on that we certainly might get closer to one another in terms of a possible outcome.”........ During talks in Brussels last week David Frost, the prime minister’s lead negotiator, discussed ways that a backstop could be “democratised” to ensure that Northern Ireland had a say in regulations that applied to it. “Any deal must involve the abolition of the anti-democratic backstop,” a British spokesman said. The emphasis on “governance” of a backstop has reignited EU hopes that a backstop that is only specific to Northern Ireland is the government’s planned alternative. The question of an all-Ireland food standards zone is critical because farm and food products account for the bulk of cross-border trade in terms of volume. If a solution can be found it could unlock a wider deal........ 59% of Tory Members are OK with Northern Ireland being hived off in order to facilitate the rump of the UK leaving the EU. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...hows-1.3929348 JAS |
It will be interesting to see if the ERG are willing to throw their "unionist" chums overboard to get their brexit at any cost. Meanwhile....... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9099156.html |
Originally Posted by Avionker
(Post 10566829)
Some suggest as low as £6-12B, others up to £39B, but these are still matters unsettled. But I'm sure he won't try and screw you as badly as Trump.[/QUOTE] A lot of people assuming Trump will still be in office and therefore in a position to screw the U.K. post Brexit. He can only serve 2 terms remember...[/QUOTE] True, but for every year you wait you're paying WTO terms with them. Same with EU, China etc etc. The big guys will all be negotiating from a position of strength. How long can you hold out and how much pain can you take? |
Originally Posted by Avionker
(Post 10566829)
A lot of people assuming Trump will still be in office and therefore in a position to screw the U.K. post Brexit. He can only serve 2 terms remember... Doesn't really matter who is in the White House, I'd expect any American President to put the interests of the USA above the interests of the UK... https://www.theguardian.com/politics...or-trade-talks |
Originally Posted by Avionker
(Post 10566829)
A lot of people assuming Trump will still be in office and therefore in a position to screw the U.K. post Brexit. He can only serve 2 terms remember...
|
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
(Post 10567091)
Subtly, very subtle.😄
|
I'd still like to know how you can have *just* an all Ireland food standards border.
Where is the immigration control that we are 'taking back' ? Or are we going to let the Republic control who travels through their territory into NI? |
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10567116)
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10566845)
Firstly, having withdrawn the Whip from the remainers who rebelled, he has the political capital to threaten to do the same to those in the ERG who demur. Meanwhile....... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9099156.html |
The prime reason is that JC whipped nearly 250+ Labour MPs to vote against the deal, even though many agreed with it and Labour had, and has, no disagreements with it, only the political agreement which is non-binding and open to amendment. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10567174)
The prime reason is that JC whipped nearly 250+ Labour MPs to vote against the deal, even though many agreed with it and Labour had, and has, no disagreements with it, only the political agreement which is non-binding and open to amendment. Now, if Johnson comes back miraculously, with a new deal he want to sell to Parliament, which the remaining Tory MPs will support 100% what will the opposition parties do? Vote for it, or prolong the agony. I'm afraid that again, because of our parliamentary, extremely adversarial, frankly kindergarten system, I know the answer. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10567174)
The prime reason is that JC whipped nearly 250+ Labour MPs to vote against the deal, even though many agreed with it and Labour had, and has, no disagreements with it, only the political agreement which is non-binding and open to amendment. A fractured, dysfunctional Conservative party. They caused Brexit with their stupid bloody referendum, because they were running scared of the UKIP. They screwed up the whole negotiating process with their arrogance and ignorance. They called an unnecessary election leaving them beholden to the DUP. And now they won’t own the mess they created, oh no, now it’s everyone else’s fault. Idiots. |
Indeed, how dare they ask the people. You wont catch the EU doing that again... |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10567267)
Indeed, how dare they ask the people. You wont catch the EU doing that again... |
The Solution After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another? Bertolt Brecht |
I think this one is far more relevant at the moment.
THOSE WHO TAKE THE MEAT FROM THE TABLE Teach contentment. Those for whom the contribution is destined Demand sacrifice. Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry Of wonderful times to come. Those who lead the country into the abyss Call ruling too difficult For ordinary men. |
Is that my imagination, or is that the French throwing the entire Benn Act under the bus as a political trick they will ignore? https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...thames-no-deal Grauniad: ”France’s minister for Europe, Amélie de Montchalin said a no deal was now “highly possible”. She added that a Brexit extension request by the UK would not be accepted under the “current conditions” and the the EU27 would deal with the UK prime minister and not parliament. She said: “We first have to receive a formal ask. Governments talk to the commission, that’s the way it works. There is no such thing, for example, as parliament asking for an extension. Those who have the legitimacy to represent a country are those who sit at the table of the European council. “If – and that’s a big if, it seems … we try to follow what’s happening in the UK – but if there is such an ask, we have always said that ‘time for time’ is not an option. So if there is a change in the political scene – a new government, the announcement of elections, something that makes us think the landscape of the discussions is changing – then we will consider an extension. “I cannot tell you now what might be decided now in such a situation on a night in Brussels in October,” the French minister added. “As we have said, under current circumstances, the answer is no: if nothing changes, we have always said time alone is not a sufficient reason [for another extension]. We cannot commit today, because we have no concrete scenarios yet.” |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:18. |
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.