Calculates?
Its already been agreed between Westminster and Brussels. And the UK WILL pay.
Sunderland gets what it voted for...
- Thread starter ban-all-sheds
- Start date
Its already been agreed between Westminster and Brussels. And the UK WILL pay.
Sponsored Links
The divorce bill was part of the Withdrawal agreement negotiated by Theresa May and as such was only a provisional agreement to pay subject to the Withdrawal agreement being approved by Parliament.
As you know Parliament rejected Theresa Mays Withdrawal agreement by a historic majority.
Wrong.
The divorce payment is separate and was agreed in December 2017. However, the ratification of the WA may have a legal bearing regards our obligation to pay up the amount agreed.
Pragmatists agree that a flat refusal to pay ANY money would be politically damaging to the UK's future trading partners, with the UK being seen as untrustworthy.
What will happens if the withdrawal agreement isn’t ratified?
If the withdrawal agreement isn’t ratified the financial settlement will not become legally binding. It isn’t clear what then happens to the outstanding financial commitments.
It seems probable that politics and economic considerations will lead to the UK and EU negotiating an alternative settlement. The Government’s view is that it has financial obligations that it will meet and not doing so could see the UK portrayed as an unreliable partner. Future collaboration between the UK and EU could be difficult if the EU feels that the UK hasn’t settled its account.
There have been attempts to look at the issue from a strictly legal perspective: what would the UK legally be obliged to pay if there is no withdrawal agreement? A Lords Committee heard a range of views, but concluded that without a withdrawal agreement, under EU law, the UK could leave without accepting any liability for outstanding financial commitments although they also said that the political and economic consequences of doing so “are likely be profound.” The Government’s opinion is that the UK has legal obligations that it will meet. The Treasury has said that the issue would either have to be settled through a negotiated settlement or through the courts. Both the Lords Committee and the Institute for Government have said that the EU may seek redress through international courts if the UK refuses to make payments, but the process may be slow and outcome hard to predict.
In other words - the UK WILL pay.
Last edited:
Wrong again! negotiations to leave the EU began in March 2017 the divorce payments come under the heading of financial settlement.
In September 2018 Barnier conceded that any divorce payments be linked to a trade agreement with the UK.
No deal No Cash!
What you have cut and pasted above is just a set of opinions from various interested parties which have no legal standing.
The information you have posted is also well out of date or didn't you know that the so called Withdrawal agreement was rejected by the UK parliament.
I have noted that you have quoted the Institute for Government which is a remainer funded website which tries to pass itself off as an official government information outlet
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
That is demonstrably false. Why do you continue to push BS?
I have pointed out the Governments own legal opinion is that No Deal wouldn't categorically mean we do not have to pay - it will be open to legal redress.
No one can say for certain either way. That is the only correct position to hold.
Because it suits some agendas to be so, as well as it being "other peoples' money".
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
I quoted one line from a comment on that page which is why I referenced it, the quote was not from the IOG.
Second they do not pose to be an official Government website - another one of your statements devoid of fact.
Can you provide evidence it is remainer funded?
The IOG won the award for the UK Think Tank beating off the IOFS. Also they seem way more transparent in their funding sources.
http://whofundsyou.org/
Any surprise the ones with the lease transparency are all Right Wing claptrap promoters and just this week the Institute of Economic Affairs was giving a formal warning for breaking rules by the Charities Commission for a report it wrote on Brexit -
"Specifically, the commission finds that the report and its launch sought explicitly to change government policy on an issue unrelated to the charity’s purposes – furthering education – which constitutes a breach of the commission’s guidance on political activity and campaigning," the regulator said in a statement.
I have noted that you have posted zero links that contradict what was stated .
The information is relevant and up to date. There is no material out there that contradicts the bold italics I posted. Vinty won't find any either because he knows that it is true.
Last edited:
I cant see any possibility of a no deal -if time runs out then article 50 could be revoked.
Even if time runs out, the EU have been know to 'stop the clock' -when it suits them.
I guess there will be either a deal worse than we currently have or a peoples vote.
So the payment whether due or not in event of a no-deal is academic.
Even if time runs out, the EU have been know to 'stop the clock' -when it suits them.
I guess there will be either a deal worse than we currently have or a peoples vote.
So the payment whether due or not in event of a no-deal is academic.
......Will be paid .
Last edited:
A No Deal (a disorderly Brexit) may be contrary to EU constitutional law.
EU constitutional law requires an orderly transition
https://constitution-unit.com/2017/04/11/can-the-brexit-clock-be-stopped/
https://constitution-unit.com/2017/04/11/can-the-brexit-clock-be-stopped/
a law that works both ways?
What exactly was stated that
In the event of a no deal the UK is under no obligation to pay anything, the Government's own legal opinion confirms this but they admit that this could be challenged in court.
In other words no one really knows what the position would be until it was tested in a court of law.
The IOG received millions from lord Sainsbury' who is an arch remainer.
I don't need to cut and paste links, did Barnier in September 2018 concede that the divorce payments had to be linked to a trade agreement with the UK ,true or false,
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
