Britain is leaving the EU

[FriendlyFire]

And there is nothing there to support exit or post exit claims for alimony.

The divorce bill amount was made up by some journalist, it is likley to be much less
Someone has to pay for Farage MEP pension.

And I assume you will want to complete any EU projects currently in progress Scotland and Ireland. Like roads and infrastructure. As for the future budget comittments and projects it would depend on if the UK wants a hard brexit or soft brexit. Iam guessing this is part of the negosiations and politics

 

[Arakhor]

You're talking to Edward, FF. To him, "hard" and "soft" terms are Remain misinformation.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Someone has to pay for Farage MEP pension.

That is the least of our concerns.

I think it best for the UK Treasury to merely pay pensions for UK MEPs and UK nationals serving in the EU Commission etc at UK rates direct.
And by the way, Nigel's pension should reflect the proportion of time he was working as an MEP not include the time he spent with other employers.

I have very similar views as to George Osborne's entitlement to a full pension for being an MP when he is being paid to edit the Evening Standard.

And I assume you will want to complete any EU projects currently in progress Scotland and Ireland. Like roads and infrastructure.

Once again the UK Treasury can pay the contractors direct for work undertaken within the UK after the Brexit date.

You're talking to Edward, FF. To him, "hard" and "soft" terms are Remain misinformation.

They are, and their meaning seems to vary according to the particular political point to be scored. One moment "hard Brexit" seems to mean leaving without having
equal access to the single market, another time it is without having an all encompassing agreement, and another time without having any agreement at all.

And as for "soft Brexit", this seems to vary from a Norway like arrangement, to remaining within the single market, to doing whatever the EU wants.

It is simply not meaningful to consider the future using such undefined terms; and the opinion polls on "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit" are completely worthless.

 

[Arakhor]

It is simply not meaningful to consider the future using such undefined terms; and the opinion polls on "hard Brexit" or "soft Brexit" are completely worthless.

That's an apt definition of the entire fiasco, but when the Government refuses to tells us anything useful and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to Parliament for even the merest scrutiny, the press just aren't going to say nothing at all, even if coverage is filtered through the neo-imperialist fantasies of the Telegraph or the usual poisonous inanities of the Mail.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That's an apt definition of the entire fiasco, but when the Government refuses to tells us anything useful and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to Parliament for even the merest scrutiny, the press just aren't going to say nothing at all, even if coverage is filtered through the neo-imperialist fantasies of the Telegraph or the usual poisonous inanities of the Mail.

Best not to read them at all, I read the dead tree format of the "1"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(newspaper)

for my daily dose of Ian Birrell.

 

[Cheetah]

The uncertainties around the settlement bill are simply down to that there are several different components which can each be negotiated on.

Here's The Economist's summary of the bill:

As you can see, the rebates, assets and EU projects in the UK comes to something like €10 to €20 billion. The liabilities are larger, but there's lots of details to discuss on each part.

 

[EnglishEdward]

If I was a member of a golf club, I might have a vote in whether the club spent x over the next five years building a new clubhouse.

But If I decided to leave by giving due notice and cancelling my direct debit, then I cease to be a member once
my subscription has expired and I am not liable to pay for the new clubhouse that I and my family will never use.

The golf club has a number of possible choices:

(a) cancel the new club house
(b) increase subscriptions for remaining members
(c) recruit new members to replace me
(d) take out a loan
(e) downscale the new club house
(f) extend the build program over an extra year to spread the expenditure out; or
(g) some combination of the above.

The EU has formally had two years, and informally two years and nine months, notice
of the UK's departure. That is plenty of time for the EU to re-schedule its plans and accounts.

The concept that the EU can continue with planned spending as if the UK was still a member
(and a net contributor to boot) after the effective Brexit day 31 March 2019 and then expect
the UK to continue to pay for what it will no longer benefit from, is simply quite absurd.

 

[Takhisis]

The concept that the EU can continue planning spending as if the UK was still a member
(and a net contributor to boot) after the effective Brexit day 31 March 2019 and then expect
the UK to continue to pay for what it will no longer benefit from, is simply quite absurd.

Strawman.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Strawman.

Thank you. I have corrected my previous post.

 

[Cheetah]

If I was a member of a golf club, I might have a vote in whether the club spent x over the next five years building a new clubhouse.

But If I decided to leave by giving due notice and cancelling my direct debit, then I cease to be a member once
my subscription has expired and I am not liable to pay for the new clubhouse that I and my family will never use.

I suppose, in this allegory of yours, that the subscription time actually goes in five-year intervals. Theoretically, that is -- Since no one expected anyone to leave the golf club, no one took the time to write down the exact rules for how long a subscription lasts!

So there are at least two valid interpretations at the moment: (1) Since the club always planned and budgeted in five-year intervals, each subscription period is five years; or (2) each subscription is a running one, and ceases immediately after the cancellation period, once a member leaves.

The notice of cancellation gives a two-year period to discuss what those rules really are though. All the choices you list are possible, but since your signature is also on all the contracts of the golf club, there's a strong argument that you're still partially responsible for the costs, which should add several new choices.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I suppose, in this allegory of yours, that the subscription time actually goes in five-year intervals. Theoretically, that is -- Since no one expected anyone to leave the golf club, no one took the time to write down the exact rules for how long a subscription lasts!

So there are at least two valid interpretations at the moment: (1) Since the club always planned and budgeted in five-year intervals, each subscription period is five years; or (2) each subscription is a running one, and ceases immediately after the cancellation period, once a member leaves.

The notice of cancellation gives a two-year period to discuss what those rules really are though. All the choices you list are possible, but since your signature is also on all the contracts of the golf club, there's a strong argument that you're still partially responsible for the costs, which should add several new choices.

Your analysis is good.

My view is that (2) is appropriate and the position is simply that the planning cycle is longer than the committed subscription period.

My preferred approach would have been to have David Cameron send the letter invoking article 50 the day after the referendum with
the announcement that the Leave date would be 31 March 2017. Now in that circumstance the EU would have a good moral claim
for payment of that part of the expenditure that could not readily be cancelled or re-sheduled for the remainder of the two years.

Let us suppose Company A had ordered 10 aircraft from Company B for one billion pounds. A slump in the aviation industry then occurred.
Company A cancelled its order. Company B would have a claim, but an English court would not be likely to award it the full billion pounds.
Its award would reflect the costs that Company B had already occured, those costs that Company B had not yet incurred and could
be readily avoided would not be payable. In much the same way the EU can review its already planned expenditure and reduce that.
If Company B decided it would ignore the cancellation and incur full costs, a court would be unlikely to award for any nugatory expenditure.
The EU has the ability, and arguable a fiscal duty, to its members (whether leaving or not) to review its plans and adjust them accordingly.

 

[AdrienIer]

Yeah the UK signed deals when it was in the EU and now doesn't want to honor them. Sorry but that's not how it works.

 

[Takhisis]

an English court would not be likely to award it the full billion pounds.

An English court has no jurisdiction over this.

 

[uppi]

Let us suppose Company A had ordered 10 aircraft from Company B for one billion pounds. A slump in the aviation industry then occurred.
Company A cancelled its order. Company B would have a claim, but an English court would not be likely to award it the full billion pounds.
Its award would reflect the costs that Company B had already occured, those costs that Company B had not yet incurred and could
be readily avoided would not be payable. In much the same way the EU can review its already planned expenditure and reduce that.
If Company B decided it would ignore the cancellation and incur full costs, a court would be unlikely to award for any nugatory expenditure.
The EU has the ability, and arguable a fiscal duty, to its members (whether leaving or not) to review its plans and adjust them accordingly.

Any court would still award a penalty amount over the actual costs that have occurred for breaking the contract. Which is fair, because company B has paid some opportunity costs in accepting this contract (maybe it declined another contract because it assumed its factories would be occupied). You cannot go around and break contracts and then just assume to just pay the costs that have already occurred. There have to be penalties or otherwise nobody would have any security in planning. And company B would sue for the whole amount, even if they knew they are unlikely to get it, because there is no point in preemptively reduce the claim they legitimately have and if the judge is exceptionally sympathetic, there is a small chance they would get it.

It is the same here: The EU is going into the negotiation demanding the whole amount the UK is liable for. They know that they might not get it and will have another team making plans for that, but since the UK position is not particularly strong (they need the agreement much more than the EU does), there is no point in not demanding the full amount.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Your analysis is good.
My view is that (2) is appropriate and the position is simply that the planning cycle is longer than the committed subscription period.

With the provision that you still want access to the Club house and to use most of the facilities and benefits of the Club but not remain a member
Like I said divorce settlement will depend on Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit. You could also take a dump and pee all over the Club house just dont expect to get favourable terms afterwards

 

[really]

These comparisons to clubs and companies are not relevant (but do explain the Brexiteers approach to and understanding of the EU)

The UK made commitments to the other members of the EU that it would fund these things. Has there been any indication that the British government intends to break those commitments?

 

[Silurian]

If I was a member of a golf club, I might have a vote in whether the club spent x over the next five years building a new clubhouse.

But we are also the owner of the golf club.

The club only had six holes when it opened.
We bought the fields next to our house with Denmark and Ireland and pooled ownership with the existing owners.
We have a nice view over the 9th hole.
Now there are 18 holes, a 9 hole pitch and putt and a driving range.

The 10th hole was added by Greece and has some good water features but is expensive to maintain.

Since we are the joint owner we have joint liabilities.
When we bought our fields the lawyers who drafted the legal agreement assumed that we would always want to use the common play area, so no agreement was made about distribution of liabilities if we no longer wanted to play.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Any court would still award a penalty amount over the actual costs that have occurred for breaking the contract.

We have not broken any contract. We have simply used our legal right to enact a section of the contract which allows us to extract ourselves ‘nicely’ from said contract.
There is no provision in A50 for a ‘divorce payment’ and so, therefore, no such payments will have be made. Legally we do not owe a penny.

Politically is another matter and I do expect some sort of payment to made in connection with the ‘moral obligations’ if you like and also in connection with trade and other agreements.

Perhaps something like this: We pay a one off £10bn (our normal annual net payment) and then we direct a part of our £12bn pa foreign aid budget towards eastern Europe (both EU countries and potential EU countries).
Say that’s £2bn pa for 10 years.
The UK can say – look, we only paid £10bn (not £50bn) for the French farmers etc. The EU can say - look how we punish miscreants like the UK with a £30bn divorce bill. Everyone is happy.

And I have no doubt lawyers are busy right now re-writing A50 to include a divorce settlement (for a future ‘Lisbon’ equivalent).


From the Telegraph:
'Britain will not have to pay a penny to leave the European Union' - peers hand Theresa May major boost ahead of Brexit talks

Britain is not under any legal obligation to pay cash to the European Union after Brexit, a cross party committee of peers has found.

The European Commission has threatened to force the UK to make payments worth £50billion over four years after leaving as part of a “hefty” exit bill.

But House of Lords EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee said in a report published today that “under international law the UK will not be legally obliged to contribute to the EU budget if an agreement is not reached at the end of Article 50 negotiations”.
The report is a boost for Theresa May, the Prime Minister, who has been criticised for saying that she is prepared to walk away from the EU with no trade deal if talks did not progress satisfactorily.

The Article 50 process envisages a withdrawal agreement being reached within two years.

The report was published based on legal advice from senior lawyers including Paul Hardy, the EU legal adviser to the House of Lords, who spent four years as a legal and policy adviser to the European Commission.
<snip>
It added that Article 50 "allows the UK to leave the EU without being liable for outstanding financial obligations under the EU budget, unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which resolves this issue.

“EU Member States may seek to bring a case against the UK for the payments of outstanding debts under principles of public international law, such as acquired rights, but international law is slow to litigate and hard to enforce.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ave-pay-penny-leave-european-union-say-peers/

 

[really]

English contract law is a funny thing - I wouldn't be depending on it to argue against having a debt to the EU.

A contract doesn't have to be set in stone like an international treaty. A spending and contribution plan agreed by an appropriate person can be a contract. The difference again is that this isn't some golf club arguing about a commitment a member made - it is between countries who presumably want to maintain friendly relations between themselves afterwards.

A random thought I had over the weekend - If merely pointing out that Gibraltar isn't automatically included in any future negotiations and that Spain and every other country has a veto prompted war talk - how will the British establishment approach talks with Mercursor if Argentina brings up the Falklands? Send an aircraft carrier without any aircraft to the islands?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Some interesting postings. I am not going to debate each of them line by line.

In my opinion, there is a clear distinction betwen liabilities for past expenditure and the inevitable resultant legal
obligations such as paying pensions for employees, and for planned future expenditure that can readily be reduced.

Now I dare say that the UK may continue to contribute to certain items such as contributing to Greece hosting
so many migrants/refugees, but that is likely to be on an ongoing line item basis and assisting Greece direct.