of course he is, like Trump, he is making claims nobody agreed on but only himselfQuote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
doesn't matter, the truth will come on Oct 31 when he fails to deliver on his promises :rofl:
Printable View
of course he is, like Trump, he is making claims nobody agreed on but only himselfQuote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
doesn't matter, the truth will come on Oct 31 when he fails to deliver on his promises :rofl:
of course there are over 70B in commitments but Brexitards like Betty, can't even grasp that basic concept so they dream of things that can't possibly happen or existsQuote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
default is REMAIN, and they will find out the hard way on Oct 31 when BoJo will do his 180 after he failed to find a solution for the backstop
going to be fun :banana:
the best thing with Boris is that he is going to discredit GB to the world; everyone is seeing, at least in the EU27, the ridiclous kunts that the Brits are, spoiled brats with unrealistic dermand, throwing tantrums and failing in their commitments
that is going to follow them for decades, precious decades they will need to re-negotiate new trade deals :rofl:
speaking of shooting yourself in both feet and chest :p
Brexit is going to destroy Great Britain, completely, from within and outside
the Empire will collapse on its own stupidity,
like Chernobyl for the USSR, it will trigger the total collapse of the British system, including the Royalty
You are conflating different elements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
There are various ongoing EU commitments; many across a wide range of areas. The withdrawal agreement was a draft agreement that itemises some of the ongoing commitments such as up to the agreed 2020 budget and many other areas such as long term pension payments to EU civil servants... And many other areas.
There is commitment to ongoing agreements. But there is no commitment to an unsigned agreement. Around half, perhaps more, of the 39 billion is up for discussion ; no deal, no payment.
That's what I said. There are commitments. The deal only confirmed those commitments. It will be very hard for the UK to backstep from acklowledging those commitments now. The UK would not have agreed to paying if there was serious doubt about any part of these payments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettyboo
Not quite correct. They expect the UK to continue paying fees and membership monies long after the WA is signed. Meanwhile, we are no longer members, but still not allowed to do trade deals outside the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
Bollox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch
Britain signed a trade deal with South Korea last week. It comes into effect Nov 1st.
we should kick the fooker out of the EU for that alone :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
but Boris and friends, despite pretending otherwise, don't want to leave
Actually, this was a roll over trade deal with SK with one they already have with the EU. Stay up to date Butters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
^ Yep. Posted in this thread 4 days ago.
Post #15120
https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...ml#post3989785
No, it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
The deal did not confirm the commitments because there is no signed deal - you are being very dishonest...
In 25 years of doing International Business the most dishonest, by a very long way, were German companies. I would not give them an inch...
(The best, BTW, were US companies, who always stood by the contracts and worked for mutually beneficial long term relationships.)
The UK would not have agreed to the payments if their commitments would not quite clearly require them. The UK does not give money to the EU out of generosity. Without the contract this will be on the table again and it will end with paying, no doubt. Or it goes to international courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettyboo
You may hope otherwise but that's a delusion, I am confident to say.
Edit: My post may sound harsher than I intended. But it is my opinion.
^ This is my interpretation as well. Previously agreed financial obligations aka commitments. The EU won't entertain a future trade deal with the UK unless these obligations have been met.
There was a lot of discussion about it at the time, with the Boris "go whistle" comment. In the end, whether legally binding or not, the money will have to be paid if the UK want to remain in the important groups such as nuclear, airspace and security. These are not trivial setups and UK could lose out badly trying to go solo in these areas.
Legally binding financial obligations which were part of membership will be met.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Any assumed bribes to stay in the union, or acquire release from it will not. They remain subject to negotiation until a deal is signed.
Britain must settle EU bill even after no-deal Brexit - EU executive
The European Union expects Britain to honour all financial obligations made during its membership of the bloc even after a no-deal Brexit, a spokeswoman for the European Commission said on Monday.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday if Britain leaves without a divorce deal, it will no longer legally owe the 39 billion pounds ($47.88 billion) agreed by his predecessor.
“All commitments that were taken by the 28 member states should be honoured. This is also and especially true in a no-deal scenario where the United Kingdom would be expected to continue to honour all commitments made during EU membership,” spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said.
“Rather than going now into a judicial action threat, I think that it is important to make clear that settling accounts is essential to starting of a new relationship on the right foot, based on mutual trust,” she said, adding London had not formally raised the issue with the EU so far.
Johnson has vowed to take Britain out of the EU on Oct. 31 with or without an agreement to manage the unprecedented divorce and the expected economic fallout.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKCN1VG0YG
You didn't read the previous post did you. Just posted some sabre rattling from the EU. Without the ECJ post brexit, they have zero impact on the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
EU on the brink of recession starting to sound a bit desperate.
All this worried reaction, when they aslo claim nothing has been said by UK. Being led by the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch
Think some people on here actually need to read the relevant part of A50 so they actually know what they are talking about. As in all costs, liabilities, obligations or whatever you want to call them end the day we leave as in legally we owe the EU fuk all on leaving.
^^^ It has company, then.
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9...-could-follow/Quote:
Germany: The German economy shrank 0.1 per cent in the second quarter after anemic 0.4 per cent growth at the start of the year. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth is the technical definition of a recession, and Germany is nearly there, sparking fears of an official recession by the end of the year. Germany is heavily reliant on manufacturing cars and other industrial goods to power its economy. Most of the world — including the United States — is currently experiencing a manufacturing recession. So far, the famously austere German government has been reluctant to spend to stimulate growth.
United Kingdom: The U.K. story is similar to Germany's: Growth contracted 0.2 per cent in the second quarter after a weak 0.5 per cent performance in the first quarter. On top of manufacturing woes, the United Kingdom has seen an investment slump, largely due to uncertainty over Brexit. If Britain leaves the European Union in October without a deal — a "hard Brexit" — the nation is widely expected to enter a recession.
Italy: The Eurozone's third-largest economy has struggled for years and entered a recession last year. And 2019 hasn't been much better. Growth in the second quarter was just 0.2 per cent, and there's concern that will turn negative, as Italy sells some goods to Germany, which is now in worse shape. Italy also struggles from ongoing political crises that make additional economic aid from the government difficult. Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is facing a no-confidence vote in his country's Senate later this month and may have to resign, and Italy's debt is one of the highest in the world.
oh the irony :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
the definition of leaving and the exact date is still to be defined by both parties,
and it won't be Oct 31 :rofl:
I think in essence there were two parts of the sum contained in the defunct Withdrawal Agreement. Firstly, a real obligation for the UK to fulfil it's undisputed obligation for the current EU budget period i.e. up to end of 2020, plus sundries such as the EU pension contributions. This amount was circa 33-40% of the sum offered. The balance was an ex gratia payment towards ongoing EU projects, albeit without any commitment by the EU for the UK to share in the eventual benefits of these projects. The EU GPS equivalent system is an example.
The ex gratia portion was in effect a show of faith by the UK in the belief that the EU would reciprocate in facilitating and fast tracking an eventual free trade deal. The reality is that the UK was going to pay up front for a perceived outcome and losing any form of bargaining leverage to the negotiations.
The situation with the likely 'no deal' is that the ex gratia monies are still available, but would not be released until the FTA was finalised. Nobody would buy a house by paying the whole amount upfront before the foundations are laid. Any contract for goods and/or services always involves a retention, which is precisely what the UK's intention is.
Well summarised PAG.
PAG is correct.
I've been trying to say the same in my last few posts, and added links that detail the frameworks/agreements themselves, but people here just don't want to know the truth, instead endless stating their opinions...
&, as stated by several of us time after time: the EU are going into desperation mode where they will threaten anything and everything to get money. But, when we get to the crux, they are in a very weak position and will be forced to back down. The EU's strongest card is the HoP and the traitors there who are trying to thwart the UK best negotiation tactic - be nice and friendly, but be clear that we are willing to pay large sums of money for what we want (that's the nature of a deal), not for nothing. The entire process, as detailed three years ago by the former Greek minister who has lots of dealings with the EU, is ridiculous and the UK should never had agreed to it. The process should have been very simple: 1) we leave immediately; 2) we spend the two year transition period to put the deals and agreements in pace. Instead, we have spent 3 years doing nothing at all while the HoP try every means possible to stop Brexit.