Will France be the next nation to leave the EU?

I never said we would. I was referring to the fact that neither Greenland nor Scotland never had member-state status and therefore that neither would negotiate their 'exit' from the EU directly.

 

Since however you have brought the issue up, I do think that it ought to be made clear to the Scots that, if they do opt for independence, the rest of the UK will be entitled to its fair share of any joint assets and that any subsidies to Scotland would stop forthwith. There should be no wishful thinking on the part of the Scots that they can have their cake and eat it (I think I have heard that phrase before somewhere).

 

 

I got the impression that Scotland was asking for home rule and just called it "independence" because it sounds better. If they're still using Sterling they're hardly independent.

Anyway we digress. I don't think either analogy works very well. You're right about Greenland, but it's the only close precedent I could think of.

I'm aware that we may choose to continue to participate in some collective programs. That's not the same thing as to say that we obliged to continue paying into programs and organisations that we're leaving.

But for the semantics, it very much is, for the sake of continuity of effort and effect: remember that May hasn't guaranteed government funding to match EU grants beyond 2020, she needs time to replace the EU funding schemes with the UK's own funding - and I doubt that she'd get much of them in place and running by 2020 (the year the UK is scheduled to get the last EU rebate back, provided it leaves in 2019 as planned).

 

You can call it whatever you want for fan service purposes, on either side of the Brexit fence: "obligation", "participation", "divorce bill"...same difference for the recipients, here and across the EU.

The report indicates that there will be a negotiation over the EUs many liabilities. It does not express an opinion on the legality or righteousness or probability of success of the EU's claim.

Well, I haven't heard much said in here or by the British media about the UK's share of EU pensions.

 

I wonder why that is (I gave a hint with '20 years' in an earlier post...now, I take it that it's been either overlooked, or studiously ignored )

But for the semantics, it very much is, for the sake of continuity of effort and effect: remember that May hasn't guaranteed government funding to match EU grants beyond 2020, she needs time to replace the EU funding schemes with the UK's own funding.

 

It makes a big difference to me that we have a choice.

I think the repeal bill will take care of this by saying that in the first instance everything will be directly transposed. This bill will be big and complicated and a perfect opportunity for the Lords to show their usefulness.

 

You can call it whatever you want for fan service purposes, on either side of the Brexit fence: "obligation", "participation", "divorce bill"...same difference for the recipients, here and across the EU.

Well, I haven't heard much said in here or by the British media about the UK's share of EU pensions.

 

I wonder why that is (I gave a hint with '20 years' in an earlier post...now, I take it that it's been either overlooked, or studiously ignored )

 

I know. That's a lot. I don't like the idea of the UK paying the EU to then pay the pensions. We could simply take on the liability for UK EU pension payments.

They're rather exorbitant, but we should have thought of that before agreeing to them.

 

 

Do our supposed obligations to the EU in this area stem from the treaties? Or are they unlinked, simple obligations under contract law?

Well, I haven't heard much said in here or by the British media about the UK's share of EU pensions.

 

I wonder why that is (I gave a hint with '20 years' in an earlier post...now, I take it that it's been either overlooked, or studiously ignored )

 

The pensions issue has been mentioned in just about every British media article I have looked at in relation to the UK's 'liabilities'.

 

Sadly, we may end up having to contribute to the huge pension pots accrued by the likes of Kinnock and Mandelson - and Clegg too.

The pensions issue has been mentioned in just about every British media article I have looked at in relation to the UK's 'liabilities'.

Ah, so is that the Brexit side of the SF debate belatedly agreeing with what I have been asking unbeliever to acknowledge over the last page and a half, with great difficulty?

Sadly, we may end up having to contribute to the huge pension pots accrued by the likes of Kinnock and Mandelson - and Clegg too.

Don't forget Farage's, Nuttall's, the LePen's (senior and daughter) <...>

 

I see it this way (still not a lawyer).

 

As a matter of general principle, if we have made financial obligations to organisations or individuals, which we are currently paying though the EU, we should see that they're paid. Much of this spending would have come under routine review before too long anyway and when that time comes we can undertake our own review and consider whether we want to continue the funding.

 

What we should not do is hand a big cheque to the EU, with no control over what they spend it on.

We may have made collective financial promises to people though our EU membership. We should keep our promises directly.

Any direct obligations to the EU, financial or otherwise, are terminated the moment we leave.

Ah, so is that the Brexit side of the SF debate belatedly agreeing with what I have been asking unbeliever to acknowledge over the last page and a half, with great difficulty?

Don't forget Farage's, Nuttall's, the LePen's (senior and daughter) <...>

 

 

I was responding to your statement that: 'Well, I haven't heard much said in here or by the British media about the UK's share of EU pensions', whereas in reality the British media have referred frequently to the pensions issue with reference to Brexit 'liabilities'.

 

Regarding EU pensions, they are yet another example of the profligacy of the EU. Why are the pension provisions so generous? The reason is that the EU has a history of laxity with regard to budgetary spending (for example, expenses scandals of various kinds have frequently been uncovered (and not just those involving right-wing MEPs - these are small beer in comparison with the swindles involving the CAP and the structural funds) but very little has been done about them).

I was responding to your statement that: 'Well, I haven't heard much said in here or by the British media about the UK's share of EU pensions', whereas in reality the British media have referred frequently to the pensions issue with reference to Brexit 'liabilities'.

Let's see some links showing that frequency, if you please. I think I saw it mentioned in the FT once, perhaps once more in the Guardian (at the same time) and that's it.

 

Now I don't proclaim to be omniscient, but I follow current affairs and daily news pretty close, so if it had been in and on the news a lot I think I'd have noticed it.

Regarding EU pensions, they are yet another example of the profligacy of the EU. Why are the pension provisions so generous? The reason is that the EU has a history of laxity with regard to budgetary spending (for example, expenses scandals of various kinds have frequently been uncovered (and not just those involving right-wing MEPs - these are small beer in comparison with the swindles involving the CAP and the structural funds) but very little has been done about them).

I think someone is letting the green eyed monster cloud their understanding and judgement here. Same as private sector employees griping about NHS and other public sector employees.

 

But let's be fair to the debate: let's have some links to the information you're basing your opinion on, so we can contrast and compare, before we comment about how 'generous' EU pensions are - or not, as the case may be. What says you?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/20/marine-le-pen-front-national-headquarters-raided-by-police

 

Police raid party HQ,Le Pen and party lies about why they are there.

Edited February 20, 2017 by chalga

Do we have financial commitments to the EU, which are not derived from these treaties which will have ceased to apply to us?

 

I'm actually asking. People I trust and respect on this matter are telling me that this exit fee is nonsense.

 

I seriously doubt that we would have demanded billions of pounds from Scotland had they left. I would never have supported such a thing.

 

1. Are they actually lawyers though? the UK wont pay anything it isnt required to. Why are you so obsessed by it?

 

2. If you go back and look then there was considerable discussion at the time of the scottish referendum about liabilities and division of assets. there was a lot of talk about making them take their share of the national debt.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2017 at 18:09 ----------

 

The pensions issue has been mentioned in just about every British media article I have looked at in relation to the UK's 'liabilities'.

 

Sadly, we may end up having to contribute to the huge pension pots accrued by the likes of Kinnock and Mandelson - and Clegg too.

 

Why shouldnt we have to end up contributing to pensions that were granted at the time we were members? The number ive seen for the full liability is 29 billion euros, so its a share of that subject to the actuaries, accountants, lawyers and politicians reaching an agreement. We would still be paying that in or out. Theres still a lot to be decided, but its much smaller compared to the amount of liabilities.

I seriously doubt that we would have demanded billions of pounds from Scotland had they left. I would never have supported such a thing.

 

Err, they would have been expected to take their share of the national debt which is worth billions. Is that not the same thing?

Or 60 if you can count.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2017 at 11:09 ----------

 

 

No it won't. And the EU is nearly 60.

 

Sorry Mr smug...I bet you had to go change your pants after your googling.