Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
keithisco

Opening gambits in EU / UK exit negotiations;

570 posts in this topic

The "Brexit" thread has become too unwieldy and is little more than a sounding board for re-hashing the Leave / Remain arguments. This I believe is a diversion from actually focussing on the reality of the various aspects of the negotiations that have now begun and I would like this thread to focus on the details - in so far as we can discern them - and to comment on the "Divorce" bill. .

The opening gambits have been played with triggering Article 50 (it is irrelevant whether you were pro or con this event because it is now the reality) and I would like to hear comments on where the Michel Barnier "formula" for coming to a 60Bn Euro figure comes from?

Various vague insights quote planning strategies agreed previously - some several years ago - others from the EU wish list of spending on developing poorer members of the EU27,

Today Francois Hollande (echoing Frau Merkel's comments) tells us that until the EU is guaranteed this sum up-front then they will not even begin to negotiate trading terms and relationships... from my reading of Article 50 then parallel talks are invoked, with the EU27 not being able to demand otherwise.

I also hear time and again that in the view of the EU 5 Presidents, the UK is not even allowed to START trade negotiations with 3rd countries until we have actually left! This is a nonsense, not based on any treaty obligations, so would it not be beneficial to the UK to announce which countries we ARE negotiating with from a business perspective.

1. Do we immediately agree to pay up - based on the EU infamous accounting principles?

2. As a soon to be ex-member do our commitments to funding poorer EU27 nations end on Exit day?

3. Will the EU27 negotiators simply throw a "hissy fit" if we don't agree, and refuse to start trade negotiations?

4. Is the whole exercise doomed from the start due to posturing?

5. Should we simply say "enough is enough - you don't want to seriously negotiate - so we will wash our hands of all aspects of the EU"?

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. Should we simply say "enough is enough - you don't want to seriously negotiate - so we will wash our hands of all aspects of the EU"?

To say that would imply that the UK and the rest of the EU are equals.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think #5 would be the best solution. I mean they want you guys to PAY to leave? That's just foolishness.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

5. Should we simply say "enough is enough - you don't want to seriously negotiate - so we will wash our hands of all aspects of the EU"?

To say that would imply that the UK and the rest of the EU are equals.

So... if one side will not negotiate then what do you propose as an alternative to move things forward? Does the UK remain in limbo or does it say "there is no advantage in wasting effort on a zero sum game of politics" and move on with 3rd country trading negotiations?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, keithisco said:

So... if one side will not negotiate then what do you propose as an alternative to move things forward? Does the UK remain in limbo or does it say "there is no advantage in wasting effort on a zero sum game of politics" and move on with 3rd country trading negotiations?

I don't know... does the EU not want to negotiate? I think they do, but they are combined, larger and stronger than the UK and as such dictate the manner in which the UK extricates itself from the EU. Its not a equal negotiation... never was going to be and that IMO is the problem. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

I think #5 would be the best solution. I mean they want you guys to PAY to leave? That's just foolishness.

It's not. There are valid contracts. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

It's not. There are valid contracts. 

Of course it is. Half the reason for the exit vote was cause they were paying disproportionally compared to the other countries. Now you think they should pay to leave as well? That's madness.

Even worse, no one in the EU is allowed to trade with them till they pay it? As if that's some punishment? They are nearly entirely self sufficient. And that's WITH being constantly robbed by the EU.

If I were them I'd remind the EU that they need the UK more then the UK needs them. Heck Id become as crass as the EU and demand the same payment before the UK considers trading with EU members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Of course it is. Half the reason for the exit vote was cause they were paying disproportionally compared to the other countries. Now you think they should pay to leave as well? That's madness.

Even worse, no one in the EU is allowed to trade with them till they pay it? As if that's some punishment? They are nearly entirely self sufficient. And that's WITH being constantly robbed by the EU.

If I were them I'd remind the EU that they need the UK more then the UK needs them. Heck Id become as crass as the EU and demand the same payment before the UK considers trading with EU members.

Yes, they should. 

First: I don't agree with your assessment of the EU. It's not punishment, it's fulfilling current contracts. If you want to opt out of a contract, you need to negotiate the terms. No biggie.

 

The EU will be fine without Britain. Better with, but still fine without. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FLOMBIE said:

Yes, they should. 

First: I don't agree with your assessment of the EU. It's not punishment, it's fulfilling current contracts. If you want to opt out of a contract, you need to negotiate the terms. No biggie.

 

The EU will be fine without Britain. Better with, but still fine without. 

A contract that was pushed upon the people who never had a say in joining to begin with. A contract that evolved into much more then originally proposed, again with no say from the people. To top it off a contract that on the face of it is so ridiculous even main stream media couldn't convince enough people to vote to remain. 

They have paid far more then their fair share already. There is an entire world out there to trade with. The EU should stop pretending that the UK owes them anything. They should just be happy with what they have stolen already. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A contract that was negotiated with the elected government of said country. I don't follow your twisting, mate. 

The UK owes the EU to fulfill its contracts. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a fair assessment. The EU is not some kind of stick up kid praying on the UK. They want out, fine, but then deal with the terms. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, keithisco said:

The "Brexit" thread has become too unwieldy and is little more than a sounding board for re-hashing the Leave / Remain arguments. This I believe is a diversion from actually focussing on the reality of the various aspects of the negotiations that have now begun and I would like this thread to focus on the details - in so far as we can discern them - and to comment on the "Divorce" bill. .

The opening gambits have been played with triggering Article 50 (it is irrelevant whether you were pro or con this event because it is now the reality) and I would like to hear comments on where the Michel Barnier "formula" for coming to a 60Bn Euro figure comes from?

Various vague insights quote planning strategies agreed previously - some several years ago - others from the EU wish list of spending on developing poorer members of the EU27,

Today Francois Hollande (echoing Frau Merkel's comments) tells us that until the EU is guaranteed this sum up-front then they will not even begin to negotiate trading terms and relationships... from my reading of Article 50 then parallel talks are invoked, with the EU27 not being able to demand otherwise.

I also hear time and again that in the view of the EU 5 Presidents, the UK is not even allowed to START trade negotiations with 3rd countries until we have actually left! This is a nonsense, not based on any treaty obligations, so would it not be beneficial to the UK to announce which countries we ARE negotiating with from a business perspective.

1. Do we immediately agree to pay up - based on the EU infamous accounting principles?

2. As a soon to be ex-member do our commitments to funding poorer EU27 nations end on Exit day?

3. Will the EU27 negotiators simply throw a "hissy fit" if we don't agree, and refuse to start trade negotiations?

4. Is the whole exercise doomed from the start due to posturing?

5. Should we simply say "enough is enough - you don't want to seriously negotiate - so we will wash our hands of all aspects of the EU"?

While we have triggered Article 50 it takes a further two years to leave the EU. Therefore we should have 24 months of contributions left to pay before we are out. That is fair, not Britain being cheated. However, the dodgy accounting rules used by the EU mean we actually have 33 monthly contributions to go. Two years and nine months. What's that about?

We both need to treat each other fairly and I'm quite sure the UK can be difficult if the EU tries it on with us.

They export to us more than we export to them. We also provide intelligence and military forces. We have the power here not them. I'm not saying lets shaft them unless they try to shaft us. We need a good relationship with them so the key is to get both sides treating the other fairly. 

Edited by RabidMongoose
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I don't know... does the EU not want to negotiate? I think they do, but they are combined, larger and stronger than the UK and as such dictate the manner in which the UK extricates itself from the EU. Its not a equal negotiation... never was going to be and that IMO is the problem. 


No, Negan the EU does not negotiate.   Bullies never do.   

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

A contract that was negotiated with the elected government of said country. I don't follow your twisting, mate. 

The UK owes the EU to fulfill its contracts. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a fair assessment. The EU is not some kind of stick up kid praying on the UK. They want out, fine, but then deal with the terms. 

I think I need to clear up a misunderstanding here. Whilst we are in the EU (I.e. until we actually leave in 2 years max) we will pay the usual contributions - that is not an issue. What is an issue is the ADDITIONAL 50 - 60 Billion Euros they are demanding to fund their pet projects AFTER we leave. There are no signed contracts involved, our agreements to contribute to their continuing spending after that period is surely dependent on our continuing membership of the club?

I think what is also missing from this demand are the sums that are owed to the UK from EU institutional buildings and edifices owned outright by the EU that have increased in value exponentially in some cases, and so the EU owes the UK Capital Gains in that respect.

The requirement to continue paying into the gravy-train pension pots for UK Nationals working for the EU is also nonsensical. Pensions are frozen at the point of leaving (as with any other business) with no more payments made.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no misunderstanding. The EU is an ongoing progress. And therefore anyone who is seceding needs to off a compensation for everything that is already set in motion.

 

That said, I know that there are sound arguments on both sides. I'm just not arguing from your side here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

There is no misunderstanding. The EU is an ongoing progress. And therefore anyone who is seceding needs to off a compensation for everything that is already set in motion.

 

That said, I know that there are sound arguments on both sides. I'm just not arguing from your side here. 

We shall have to disagree FLOMBIE. Whether we are talking about ongoing projects or not. The UK is only committed to pay until it leaves because the other projects that the UK is involved with are only open to EU States - which we shall not be of course.

If the EU wishes to offer the UK continuing involvement then it will be for it to make the approach as a request (removing the requirement to be a EU State of course) - not as a demand. We shall also have removed the jurisdiction of the EU Courts so the EU itself will have no recourse to demand a legal settlement as it is NOT a legal entity (State)... yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's why this, among other points, will have to be negotiated. Like I said - I see valid points on both sides of the argument.

The EU is a legal entity. Why?`Because it was given this status by its founding members. This is the current school of thought on this subject. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"The E.U. is a legal entity"

In which case perhaps our first move should be to ask Brussels for full and complete set of financial accounts for say....the last 20 years. How forthcoming do you think they would be?

Edited by itsnotoutthere
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's rather interesting, that every figure obsessed with destruction of EU is somehow financially tied with Moscow. Almost like there's a pattern of sorts there... but, apparently, it's way too hard to see it. 

 

Personally, I don't see a problem in countries deciding to go out EU, I see huge problem in the obvious fact it's not being done out of right reasons. 

EU could, should and probably will be reshaped, so that every member is happier with it (gradually, expecting overnight miracles usually leads into disappointment). Leaving it is fine too.

But being hysterically overjoyed with attempts of destruction of an Union that is desired by many is economically unfounded, politically suicidal (in the long or not so long run, in particular UK case) and mentally unsound. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

It's rather interesting, that every figure obsessed with destruction of EU is somehow financially tied with Moscow. Almost like there's a pattern of sorts there... but, apparently, it's way too hard to see it. 

 

Personally, I don't see a problem in countries deciding to go out EU, I see huge problem in the obvious fact it's not being done out of right reasons. 

EU could, should and probably will be reshaped, so that every member is happier with it (gradually, expecting overnight miracles usually leads into disappointment). Leaving it is fine too.

But being hysterically overjoyed with attempts of destruction of an Union that is desired by many is economically unfounded, politically suicidal (in the long or not so long run, in particular UK case) and mentally unsound. 

Have no idea what any of the above means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Have no idea what any of the above means.

I'm sorry for your condition. 

Go in peace and sin against common sense no more. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I'm sorry for your condition. 

Go in peace and sin against common sense no more. 

No need to be rude.

Ok. Can you explain what you mean by 

"every figure obsessed with destruction of E.U. is somehow financially tied to Moscow"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

"The E.U. is a legal entity"

In which case perhaps our first move should be to ask Brussels for full and complete set of financial accounts for say....the last 20 years. How forthcoming do you think they would be?

Let's rather hear your argument on why the EU is not a legal entity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

Let's rather hear your argument on why the EU is not a legal entity. 

I didn't say it wasn't. You said it was.

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, it was easily implied. You put it out there like it's a daft claim. 

Edited by FLOMBIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.