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

[Brigadier]

Perhaps he needs a login to GD, and a decent data package.

 

[JohnD]

he'd do better to look for a job within his abilities.

Perhaps he could write humorous fiction for the Daily Wail.

It's a shame Theresa looked for the best Brexiteer she could find, and it was him.

At first EU27 thought Britain's lack of preparation was a cunning ruse.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-un...p-david-davis-michel-barnier-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

It wasn't.

No plan until sometime next year, says Davis
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...be-published-until-february-at-earliest-video

 

[JohnD]

Is David Davis any use?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...mpact-of-leaving-eu-with-no-brexit-deal-video

 

[SirGalahad]

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.

Isn't this a contradiction?

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/

The EU hasn’t officially asked for any particular sum of money, but does say that “the United Kingdom must honour its share of the financing of all the obligations undertaken while it was a member”.

 

[SirGalahad]

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.

Alex Barker and George Parker of the Financial Times says of the same negotiations that the UK will assume liabilities “worth up to €100bn” (£88bn). However, he says that the net figure (after deductions for payments made to the UK) could fall to less than half of that – “with the UK side pressing for an implied figure of €40-45bn” (£35-£40bn).

They were pretty much spot on.

Which is why I was surprised that your earlier post about paying a goodwill amount. It seems the EU was asking for the UK to honour its commitments to the current budget and only then could they negotiate a trade deal. Its a spurious argument that it has no legal basis - as it wasn't a question of legality.

It was you want to negotiate a trade deal on non WTO terms then pay what is owed and then we can begin talks. If we simply said no and walked away we would owe nothing and trade on WTO terms which would be the cliff edge approach.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

. If we simply said no and walked away we would owe nothing and trade on WTO terms which would be the cliff edge approach.

We would still be in default of commitments made prior to Brexit.

 

[SirGalahad]

We would still be in default of commitments made prior to Brexit.

Which they would not be able to enforce I think. But then we would trade under WTO which I have already mentioned would be a catastrophe for the economy - anyone who argues differently either a) doesn't understand the issue or b) betting on disaster capitalism.

 

[Brigadier]

............... then pay what is owed .........

...which is where you are operating under the wrong impression. Legally, UK does not owe anything.

And, like i have said before, UK may offer to pay something, to smooth further negotiations.


If you think about it logically, if the UK actually owed money, that figure would be accountable, exact, and would have been explicitly stated by Barnier, would it not?

 

[noseall]

Legally, UK does not owe anything.

Baffling then why we agreed to pay anything in view of what the quitters were trumpeting......"they need us more than we need them...."

Untitled

• noseall
• 17 Jan 2015
• 3

 

[SirGalahad]

...which is where you are operating under the wrong impression. Legally, UK does not owe anything.

And, like i have said before, UK may offer to pay something, to smooth further negotiations.


If you think about it logically, if the UK actually owed money, that figure would be accountable, exact, and would have been explicitly stated by Barnier, would it not?

I have finally read up on this and it's untested waters. There is case for payment and a case for non payment - it would have to be resolved in the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. So I will leave that issue to legal minds.

I think the UK was muddled, they were testing the waters for non payment and also getting a deal. Also the UK had no real vision of what Brexit entailed, in fact nor did the EU. All of this is uncharted territory.

All that matters is the relative power of each side in the negotiations.

 

[noseall]

All that matters is the relative power of each side in the negotiations.

Recent events have clearly indicated where the greater power lies.

 

[Brigadier]

I have finally read up on this.........

Fook me: you're not David Davies, are you?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Which they would not be able to enforce I think. ...

...
If the ECJ considers the divorce bill before the Brexit date, it still has jurisdiction.https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam...igations-arising-out-of-its-eu-membership.pdf
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

 

[SirGalahad]

Fook me: you're not David Davies, are you?

No I'm a boring b*stard. Read too many journals and articles for my own good.

My current reading is WAMSR - Waste annihilating Molten Salt Reactors.

 

[SirGalahad]

As I mentioned above - this would have to go to court for arbitration - there are strong arguments on both sides. So arguing either position is technically Schrodingers Brexit. lol