Honour our commitments on leaving the EU ? Sod off...

[^woody^]

Apparently, there is nothing in the EU Treaty to say that we owe jack.

 

[JohnD]

Apparently

well that's very convincing. Where did you hear it?

 

[^woody^]

Where did you hear it?

I didn't hear it. It's in that little thing known as the Treaty on European Union. Or should that be it's not in there? Have read through them - its several Treaties, but you can narrow your research just to the well known "Article 50" of the Lisbon Treaty.

Anyway the point is there is no actual obligation written down, inferred or agreed to anywhere regarding any member state paying to leave.

What the UK is actually be asked to pay, is what it would have paid had it stayed in. This is so the EU are not faced with a shortfall, which in turn causes other states to make up, or the usual sponger states to get less.

The making up of the difference is what the likes of Germany and France are not keen on.

 

[JohnD]

I'm sure that will work out fine.

 

[^woody^]

You've not found anything but a meme then?

 

[JohnD]

have you told Theresa yet, that she doesn't have to pay anything? And all she will lose is the goodwill of the worlds largest and nearest trading group.

 

[^woody^]

I've Whatsapped her and told her to read this thread. Leave it to me.

 

[noseall]

I've Whatsapped her and told her to read this thread. Leave it to me.

She may not have told you, or any other plebs for that matter, but those in (real) power want the UK to stay in the EU. Hence all this smoke and mirrors rhetoric about 'transition period' and £8 billion per year sweeteners to keep our foot in the door.
Who's crazy idea was it to leave the EU in any case?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Woody is correct, to a degree (Did I just say that? )
Theoretically, at the end of the Article 50 process the UK could walk away without paying anything.........BUT (a big 'but') there would be consequences.

Now, Article 50 doesn't say anything about money or rights or obligations. So, in this interpretation, the UK would not be required to pay anything if there were to be no withdrawal agreement, because the treaty itself says nothing about any such payments......
An in-depth report on this debate, issued by the House of Lords, acknowledges that there are "competing interpretations" on what the UK should pay, but it reaches the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at all.....
it warns that there would be a price to pay.....
The EU itself could not bring a case against the UK at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, because it is not a sovereign state.
But the remaining 27 member states - acting either individually or collectively - could in theory appeal to the ICJ, or to another relevant international tribunal. They would want their money back.....
No deal on money would mean "no deal" on any of the other issues being negotiated under Article 50, such as the rights of citizens and the future of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic....
Walking away with no agreement would also do significant reputational damage to the UK - if we can't trust you on past obligations, EU officials would argue, why should we trust you on future ones?...
That is why the British government says it wants a deal and it accepts that it does have financial obligations to meet....
In conclusion, it is easy to say - in isolation - that the UK has no legal obligation to pay anything at all. But the reality is that such a provocative move would cause far more problems than it would solve.
Most leading Brexiteers acknowledge that, and accept (with varying degrees of reluctance) that the UK should pay something as a gesture of goodwill. On the EU side it is seen as rather more than that - it is a prerequisite for any deal to succeed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41635217

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yet another viewpoint from the Government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41655195

and from foreigners so obvously not as trustworthy as the Government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41652416

 

[JohnD]

And yet some of the maddest Brexiteers drool at the prospect of "no deal"

Theresa aroused their desires by holding out the possibility to them.

The Torygraph still dangles it as a desirable outcome.

Incompetence, prevarication and constant disagreement among the cabinet jockeying for position when Theresa is knifed keep the danger alive.

The DUP has announced it will vote against such a thing, which will tip Theresa's government into defeat and collapse.

 

[^woody^]

It's happening people. Deal with it

 

[noseall]

It's happening people. Deal with it

Not really though is it Woods.

 

[transam]

Tis the germans and the french who will have to foot the bill to make up the short fall when the U.K leaves

so all this caper about talking with the 27 EU states is a nonsense tbh

in reality the deal / talks are with the French and Germans

 

[^woody^]

Not really though is it Woods.

It's inevitable, no ifs or buts, maybe just a when.