Should the UK pay a divorce bill from the EU ?

[noseall]

If the EU haven't made provision, then it is none of our concern.

It is if it's our legal obligation to do so.

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

It is if it's our legal obligation to do so.

Can you show us where it says that we have a legal obligation to pay the pensions of EU employees?... I know that you will have a link for us all to see.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Because we were paying their salaries..(On the EU side that is)

The EU pays their salaries, the EU is their employer

You are contradicting yourself!

But no matter.

If I use an Ad agency for my own advertising, and the contract includes the employment of several additional staff to handle my work, and no other work, it is eminently sensible that if I stop using that Ad agency, I would be liable for the termination costs of those staff that were employed solely for my work.

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

That would depend on the agreed contract.. It would be expected that you would be in a fixed term with the option to extend if you wished. If you wished to terminate to contract early, then you would expect to pay a penalty. If there were no terms on exiting the contractearly, then you would be free to walk away at any time you liked

We do pay for EU employees through our contributions but do not employ them, just like my customers ultimately pay for my employees but do not employ them.. Where is the contradiction?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

That would depend on the agreed contract.. It would be expected that you would be in a fixed term with the option to extend if you wished.

It should be obvious to anyone (even the diehard Brexiteers) that membership of the EU is not a fixed-term contract.

If you wished to terminate to contract early, then you would expect to pay a penalty.

As membership of the EU is not a fixed-term contract, it is obviously a permanent and open-ended arrangement. Thus any exiting of that arrangement is an early termination, and you must expect to pay for any and all previously contracted obligations.

If there were no terms on exiting the contractearly, then you would be free to walk away at any time you liked

As you, and your Brexiteer friends, like to fantasise about the red tape of the EU, do you really think that there would be no "exit terms"?
Maybe you should study Article 50, instead of writing nonsense, lies, and fantasy on social media.
I doubt if you will. You will keep banging on, and on, in the vain hope of persuading someone that you are right.

We do pay for EU employees through our contributions but do not employ them, just like my customers ultimately pay for my employees but do not employ them.. Where is the contradiction?

Are you still trying to weasel your way out of your own contradiction?

 

[motorbiking]

You are contradicting yourself!

But no matter.

If I use an Ad agency for my own advertising, and the contract includes the employment of several additional staff to handle my work, and no other work, it is eminently sensible that if I stop using that Ad agency, I would be liable for the termination costs of those staff that were employed solely for my work.

I really hope your day job isn't contract negotiations.

You'd have no liability unless you'd TUPE'd staff to the ad agency in the first place.

Ad Agency provides you a service for a term, with a fee, How it delivers it is its problem. If said ad agency allowed you to terminate for convenience, then its not your problem when you do and it is landed with costs.

Hopefully the ad agency would have anticipated that you might want to terminate its services rather that pay forever and in doing so, write appropriate termination clauses (a bit like article 50) in to the contract setting out the costs/fees and notice period required. Thus giving it time to restructure its business.

Anyway there is no need for analogy...

"Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all"

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I really hope your day job isn't contract negotiations.

You'd have no liability unless you'd TUPE'd staff to the ad agency in the first place.

Ad Agency provides you a service for a term, with a fee, How it delivers it is its problem. If said ad agency allowed you to terminate for convenience, then its not your problem when you do and it is landed with costs.

Hopefully the ad agency would have anticipated that you might want to terminate its services rather that pay forever and in doing so, write appropriate termination clauses (a bit like article 50) in to the contract setting out the costs/fees and notice period required. Thus giving it time to restructure its business.

Anyway there is no need for analogy...

Precisely, the analogy of a commercial firm performing a service for a fixed term does not do the relationship of EU membership justice. As I said, EU membership is not a fixed-term contract.

"Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all"

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf

It is a shame you did not include the following sentences from your link:

It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context. Given the legal and political void that would be created by a disorderly exit, we share the Government’s view of the advantages of achieving a negotiated agreement. This is particularly the case given the provision in Article 50 for a withdrawal agreement to take account of the framework for an exiting state’s future relationship with the Union. If the Government wishes to include future market access on favourable terms as part of the discussions on the withdrawal agreement, it is likely to prove impossible to do so without also reaching agreement on the issue of the budget.

The Brexit option was sold (and continues to be so) on a clear and unambiguous access to the single market/customs union post Brexit.

If there is not a negotiated settlement on the "divorce bill" then any future relationship with the EU is in jeopardy.
Therefore if Boris Johnson wants the EU to whistle, Breixt will be a disorderly and chaotic exit.
Maybe that is why David Davis spent less than an hour in the second round of Brexit negotiations, and without any supporting paperwork.
Perhaps you would care to weigh up the costs of a negotiated settlement and the costs of a disorderly and chaotic Brexit?

 

[motorbiking]

Right - so we all agree.
We owe nothing.
We may agree to pay a contribution for continued access to the benefits. Or we might not.

There is no legal basis for a "settle your account and then we'll talk about the cost of access" stance.

Your last 4 out 5 sentences - are just opinion.

 

[noseall]

There is no legal basis for a "settle your account and then we'll talk about the cost of access" stance.

Isn't there?

Irrespective, there is a (financial) common sense reason for paying.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Right - so we all agree.
We owe nothing.

If no agreement is negotiated within the two years and if the EU does not allow us further time, then we could agree, we leave in a disorderly and chaotic way, owing nothing, cooperating on nothing, etc, etc.

We may agree to pay a contribution for continued access to the benefits. Or we might not.

So make a stab at the costs and benefits of settling our account.

There is no legal basis for a "settle your account and then we'll talk about the cost of access" stance.

Similarly, there is no legal basis (but maybe a moral basis) for us walking away, in a disorderly and chaotic way, owing nothing. The only higher, jointly recognised authority is the UN.
It is all about negotiation, for a future relationship, which is more important (and always has been) for us than for the EU.
We can pay the money and take the choice, or not, as we choose. If we choose to not pay for our legally arranged contracts, what price our standing in the world afterwards. We would be on a par with third world countries. It would not be the first time UK has defaulted on its debt.
This would explain why David Davis turned up at the second round of negotiations without any paperwork, and only stayed less than one hour.
Has this been the 'Hard Brexit' that Theresa May has been planning all along? Just let the time run out? Then walk away pleading incompetence?

Your last 4 out 5 sentences - are just opinion.

The last three out of five sentences were just reflecting today's press speculation.
The other two sentences have been the meat of our discussion.

 

[transam]

Divorce bill

they generally get messy , divorcing 27 at the same time well complicated?

dare say him again needs to be careful his missis does not divorce him ?

she will not be getting the washing machine that's for sure

 

[Ihavenojob]

Divorce bill

they generally get messy , divorcing 27 at the same time well complicated?

dare say him again needs to be careful his missis does not divorce him ?

she will not be getting the washing machine that's for sure

What's with the washing machine, can't he perform?

 

[motorbiking]

If we owe nothing, how can we be in default, if we pay nothing?

No deal does not automatically mean we crash out in chaos, the core block of the EU are highly dependent on trade with the UK. We'd also be free to trade as we pleased with whoever we pleased set taxes as we please and gear up massively as a global competitor, having at least £15bn to invest a year on the task.

 

[JohnD]

the core block of the EU are highly dependent on trade with the UK.

Wrong.

the core block of the EU are slightly dependent on trade with the UK.

the UK is highly dependent on trade with the EU.

 

[motorbiking]

The core block all export more to the Uk than we do to them. We do overall export more to the whole EU, but that's not the basis of my claim.

The data is all available and this excludes factors such as the rotterdam effect. (export to EU hubs, which are destined outside the EU