Brexit: May's EU deal not binding, says David Davis

[JohnD]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42298971

Seemingly he thinks that all the effort and time has been completely pointless.

It's possible that this is because he thinks that things are not going as he foretold.

"The UK's Brexit negotiator David Davis has described the deal struck by Theresa May to move to the next phase of talks as a "statement of intent".

He said it was not "legally enforceable" and if the UK failed to get a trade deal with the EU then it would not pay its divorce bill.

But he stressed that the UK was committed to keeping a "frictionless and invisible" Irish border.

And it would "find a way" to do this if there was a "no deal" Brexit."

Ha ha! He means that if there is no deal, he will get a deal that includes free trade! So "no deal" means "my deal"

I wonder if his inability to grasp reality is a handicap to his being as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Does he have the sense to understand that if UK refuses to deliver what they say, they won't get anything out of the EU27?

It must be terrible being an EU27 negotiator trying to get some sense out of this idiot. What a shame we, the taxpayers and citizens of the UK, are paying his wages (and for the private jets which he insists the RAF provide).

Omnishambles of Chaos.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

I'd quit worrying. You can't change anything bleating on the internet.

 

[Brigadier]

He said it was not "legally enforceable" and if the UK failed to get a trade deal with the EU then it would not pay its divorce bill.


.......................


Does he have the sense to understand that if UK refuses to deliver what they say, they won't get anything out of the EU27?

There is no legal basis for the "divorce bill": it is a negotiated amount, payable as a goodwill amount contingent on getting something acceptable in return.
In short, it works both ways.

 

[SirGalahad]

There is no legal basis for the "divorce bill": it is a negotiated amount, payable as a goodwill amount contingent on getting something acceptable in return.
In short, it works both ways.

I thought the divorce bill was the amount of the UK outstanding commitments to the EU budget. If you say there is "goodwill" are you suggesting we are paying over the odds to sweeten a trade deal in our favour, why else would we pay more than what we committed to pay?

 

[Notch7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42298971

Seemingly he thinks that all the effort and time has been completely pointless.

It's possible that this is because he thinks that things are not going as he foretold.

"The UK's Brexit negotiator David Davis has described the deal struck by Theresa May to move to the next phase of talks as a "statement of intent".

He said it was not "legally enforceable" and if the UK failed to get a trade deal with the EU then it would not pay its divorce bill.

But he stressed that the UK was committed to keeping a "frictionless and invisible" Irish border.

And it would "find a way" to do this if there was a "no deal" Brexit."

Ha ha! He means that if there is no deal, he will get a deal that includes free trade! So "no deal" means "my deal"

I wonder if his inability to grasp reality is a handicap to his being as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Does he have the sense to understand that if UK refuses to deliver what they say, they won't get anything out of the EU27?

It must be terrible being an EU27 negotiator trying to get some sense out of this idiot. What a shame we, the taxpayers and citizens of the UK, are paying his wages (and for the private jets which he insists the RAF provide).

Omnishambles of Chaos.

Since nothing is agreed until everything is agreed what he says seems correct.

In any case it was the EU that said divorce bill, rights and Ireland had to be agreed first before trade talks start. If the divorce bill doesnt unlock a sensible agreement over trade talks what choice is there but the renege on the divorce bill? In reality the EU dont want to negotiate so no trade deal will be agreed until the the very end anyway.

 

[Notch7]

I thought the divorce bill was the amount of the UK outstanding commitments to the EU budget. If you say there is "goodwill" are you suggesting we are paying over the odds to sweeten a trade deal in our favour, why else would we pay more than what we committed to pay?

It has nothing to do with outstanding committments or any legal requirement and everything to do with the EU wanting to extract large amounts of money because the UK is such an important net contributor and Germany dont want to make up the shortfall.

 

[JohnD]

In reality the EU dont want to negotiate

You mean, they will tell us what options are available, and we can choose the one we like best.

Is that news? We've known it for years.

Which option did you think you were voting for?

Outcomes

• JohnD
• 18 Aug 2016
• 1

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The 'divorce bill' may be wrapped up in the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' comment. It is a withdrawal agreement, not an agreement on 'what if'. But if UK defaults on its financial obligations to EU, it will lose loads of international respect and goodwill. UK has agreed those financial obligations.
So while the 'divorce bill' might be described as not legally binding, only an inept politician would consider it as not morally binding.

If the ECJ considers the divorce bill before the Brexit date, it still has jurisdiction.

It argues first that the UK is liable in principle for a share of the EU’s budget commitments and pensions of EU officials. Second, the European Court of Justice may well have jurisdiction over the UK’s financial obligations arising out of its membership in the EU. It first considers the UK’s liability, and then the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam...igations-arising-out-of-its-eu-membership.pdf

Could we walk away without paying a Brexit ‘divorce bill’?
The Lords’ EU Financial Affairs Committee reports that the “strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong”. If negotiators fail to agree on a political financial settlement, it could become a legal case in the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict. However there have been suggestions that this international arbitration solution would be preferable to a political settlement.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

Some more evidence of the government's ineptitude and wishful thinking. Hammond has yet to find the money::

Has the Government already made provision for any payment?
In its latest forecast issued at the time of the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility assumed that any savings on our annual contribution would be recycled into UK public expenditure. No explicit provision was made for any exit payment.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

 

[noseall]

The dumb Quitters were told, but could not see it coming. We are leaving the EU, woopeee! Except that we are still going to be obeying their laws, there will still be free movement of people, we are still going to pay them billions and are still being bossed about by the EU.

Except that now we can't even have a say.

Thanks, Dumb quitters. What a fooking mess!

 

[Roger928]

What a fooking mess

Exactly what you deserve.
dumb remoaners

 

[noseall]

Exactly what you deserve.

Sums you up perfectly Rog.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

DD thinks he is in the pick 'n mix shop:

But Mr Davis said he wanted a "bespoke" deal with the EU and was aiming for "overarching" agreement with no tariffs, that included the service industries - which are a key part of the British economy.
Referring to some of the EU's trade deals, he said: "We'll probably start with the best of Canada, and the best of Japan and the best of South Korea and then add to that the bits that are missing which is the services."

However, his perception of the agreement differs markedly from others view of it:

But the Irish government said that as far as it was concerned the agreement signed on Friday between the EU and the UK was binding.

"The European Union will be holding the United Kingdom to account," the Irish government's chief whip told RTE.

"My question to anybody within the British government would be, why would there be an agreement, a set of principled agreements, in order to get to phase two, if they weren't going to be held up? That just sounds bizarre to me," Joe McHugh told RTE Radio's This Week.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42298971

 

[Brigadier]

I thought the divorce bill was the amount of the UK outstanding commitments to the EU budget. If you say there is "goodwill" are you suggesting we are paying over the odds to sweeten a trade deal in our favour, why else would we pay more than what we committed to pay?

There is no legal basis for UK paying anything.
There may be strategic or pragmatic considerations.

As for"paying over the odds to sweeten a trade deal" (if that is the case), that is a cost-benefit decision for the negotiators. Which means your understanding of "over the odds" may be incorrect.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The agreement on Friday was a pre-requisite for moving onto the next stage. It was not dependent on the outcome of that forthcoming negotiation.
DD is talking Brexitese.

On another point, why did TM have to go to EU to obtain an agreement? I thought DD was the person delegated to conduct discussions.
Was he not prepared or briefed properly?

If my boss sent me to do a job, then he had to come and do it himself, I suspect I would be getting a roasting.

 

[JohnD]

DD does not have a reputation for hard work or competence.

Remember the comments when he turned up to meet a well-prepared, detail-obsessed, fact-laden EU delegation with nothing in his briefcase but a ham sandwich?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nti-brexit-camp-in-negotiations-idUSKBN1A213Z

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-underprepared-david-davis-michel-barnier-eu

He later lied to us and Parliament, claiming that analysis papers had been prepared in excruciating detail. When called upon to show them he admitted they did not exist.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chaperones-to-stop-secret-paper-leaks-david-davis-x75xckjz6

He's a bluffing gasbag, full of nothing but wind and self-importance.