The E.U Commision's

Status
Not open for further replies.
......it is not my job, .....
You're right... It's not your job.
Glad you agree with me. :rolleyes:


............. But if my professional organisation was aware of my online behaviour it would not be acceptable.....
You said it (y)
It is why I post incognito. It is also why I do not claim any professional reputation or expertise to give my opinions any added credibility.

But I am pleased to see some of you are paying attention. :ROFLMAO:
 
Odd that concept of leaving the golf club, and having to carry on paying, yet not having an rights to the assets that you're being asked to pay for.

The EU (commission that is) knew that we were going to leave, well before we actually handed in our notice. On the same basis, there are a lot of people that are linked to the EU bureaucracy (and the commissioners and EU leaders themselves) that are saying to everyone that will listen, that we have agreed to certain projects up to 2020, and we should expect to continue with that support, and I can understand that thought process. But although there has been no formal demand for a "divorce" payment, as it's being suggested by various EU commissioners, I would think it's reasonable to consider that one will eventually be served on us.

What puzzles me, is the idea that's being bandied about that we also owe for pensions and all sort of other costs that anyone leaving their company, wouldn't be asked to pay for.

Apparently, the person that drafted article 50, admits that he screwed up not making the process more specific in terms of ongoing costs and commitments.
 
What puzzles me, is the idea that's being bandied about that we also owe for pensions and all sort of other costs that anyone leaving their company, wouldn't be asked to pay for.
If those EU staff were solely for the use of UK, who should pay their termination costs, or pension costs if they are pensioned off, or their pension costs when they do retire, having worked solely for the UK in EU?
 
Ooh, I think you're agreeing with me, but without wishing to appear so.

So as new countries join the EU, and are then given funds etc, should it be repaid by them at a future date. We've paid in enough money to argue that if we are being asked for membership termination costs, then maybe we should ask for some of the assets we've contributed to as well.
 
Ooh, I think you're agreeing with me, but without wishing to appear so.
Do not forget that UK's ex-MEPs will be entitled to a pension as well, paid for by EU. So will their staff.

So as new countries join the EU, and are then given funds etc, should it be repaid by them at a future date.
Que?:?:

We've paid in enough money to argue that if we are being asked for membership termination costs, then maybe we should ask for some of the assets we've contributed to as well.
In a divorce, between two parties, the assets as well as liabilities are divided.
Brexit is not a divorce. UK is voluntarily leaving a club of 28 members which will continue to exist after UK has left, but with 27 members.
Did you not read my earlier post?
 
In a divorce, between two parties, the assets as well as liabilities are divided.
Brexit is not a divorce. UK is voluntarily leaving a club of 28 members which will continue to exist after UK has left, but with 27 members.
Did you not read my earlier post

I most certainly did, but whilst you keep saying that it's not a divorce, why do those asking for a an exit payment, seem to be asking for a divorce type settlement, ie ongoing maintenance payments. You keep telling us it's not a divorce, but you're not the one in charge, so you have no say in what type of settlement it is. It's just initial negotiating tactics, and it'll work itself out in the fullness of time.

I've always said that we'd end up paying something to get out, but still keep access to the single market; but I'll let you give it a label if you want.
 
.....

I've always said that we'd end up paying something to get out, but still keep access to the single market; but I'll let you give it a label if you want.
You are confusing the two different payments,
1. The "exit" bill as you and the press have termed it, is more of a severance payment to meet previously agreed costs, (eg previously agreed participation in projects) and expected future costs (eg staff termination/relocation costs/pensions)

2 Any future participation in the single market will require a "trading licence fee", if you like. The two are different and separate.

But discussion about the second cannot begin until the first is formulated/negotiated and settled.
 
The leaked minutes ;)

The 100 bn euro bill represents what the EU believes the the UK has already committed to funding . The UK government believes that it should be off set
against the value of EU assets ,which are in effect part owned by the UK ;)

which would bring the bill down to 60 bn euros ;)

Typically Ireland , France & Germany have demanded that the UK's share of EU assets should not be included in the Brexit settlement
 
Transam has leaked the minutes of the "blame the EU for everything, to make Theresa look good" committee.

We haven't seen a proposal from the EU yet.
 
Transam has leaked the minutes of the "blame the EU for everything, to make Theresa look good" committee.

We haven't seen a proposal from the EU yet.

not the case as I stated in the 1st post the leaked minutes are from the E.U commision in Brussels ;)

last time there was a leak this big noah built the ark ;)
 
we know you haven't been allowed into the EU meetings since you took a corner too fast with your trolley and the urn spilled on the carpet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top