The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[I1L2T3 10]

 

After leaving we shall be taking nothing out and putting nothing in. We shall surrender our claim on common assets and abdicate our responsibility for shared liabilities.

There's no "scorched" anything and I am very keen that we shall be a good neighbour.

The EU are just manufacturing a bargaining chip. It will quietly disappear once the real negotiations start.

 

I have made no attempt to present my opinions as facts.

You can obviously see the difference between me saying what I think will happen and economists' modelling being presented as if it were empirical data.

 

You stated that we owe nothing as a fact.

 

It's not a fact. It's not true.

 

The EU budget is rolling forward all the time and planned 5-10 years in advance. In several weeks we are giving 2 years notice to dynamite a hole in a 7 year budgetary plan which until we give notice we are fully committed to.

 

If we damage the budget we damage our neighbour. Simple as that.

 

As for arguing we'll put nothing in and take nothing out. Another prediction (or maybe fantasy) about something you can't possibly know about presented as fact. Again........

 

As I've said many times we're at the business end now. Fantasies and wishlists don't work any more.

[unbeliever 10]

You stated that we owe nothing as a fact.

 

It's not a fact. It's not true.

 

The EU budget is rolling forward all the time and planned 5-10 years in advance. In several weeks we are giving 2 years notice to dynamite a hole in a 7 year budgetary plan which until we give notice we are fully committed to.

 

If we damage the budget we damage our neighbour. Simple as that.

 

As for arguing we'll put nothing in and take nothing out. Another prediction (or maybe fantasy) about something you can't possibly know about presented as fact. Again........

 

As I've said many times we're at the business end now. Fantasies and wishlists don't work any more.

 

 

You make a good point about the financial difficulties caused to the EU organisation by our departure. But the law (the facts) is determined by the treaties.

[999tigger 10]

Legally I'm pretty sure that is absolutely what we can do.

It's not impossible that we might do otherwise if it's clear that we'd hurt our European friends by doing so.

 

Legally? Are you an EU lawyer?

[unbeliever 10]

Legally? Are you an EU lawyer?

 

The EU courts have no jurisdiction here. I'm referring to law regarding international treaties.

I'm not an expert on that either but I have spent a fair amount of time reading on this matter over the last couple of years.

[Flexo 10]

If we own a share of the debt, then we surely also own a share of the assets.

They're not offering division of assets, only debts.

It's nonsense. They're just manufacturing a fake bargaining chip.

 

Hi! Welcome to another day of posting stuff on the Internet. It's sunny outside!

 

What assets are they then?

 

You think pension liabilities are "a fake bargaining chip"?

 

You should conduct these negotiations. It would harness that energy that drives you to spend so much of your time posting on the internet about it. It would be very entertaining

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2017 at 11:48 ----------

 

The EU courts have no jurisdiction here. I'm referring to law regarding international treaties.

I'm not an expert on that either but I have spent a fair amount of time reading on this matter over the last couple of years.

 

LOL, the treaty being the articles of the EU? Where we agree that the ECJ has jurisdiction? If not, please name the treaty to which you refer.

[999tigger 10]

The EU courts have no jurisdiction here. I'm referring to law regarding international treaties.

I'm not an expert on that either but I have spent a fair amount of time reading on this matter over the last couple of years.

 

Except the UK is bound by the ECJ until it leaves. Are you suggesting we just leave and then say you cnat force us becayse we are a sovereign nation?

 

It tends to be in the UKs interest to keep to international agreements because failing to do so would set a precedent for other countries that have treaties and dealings with us. reputauib abd respecting due process counts for a lot.

 

The Uk will also be interested in what the ramifications are with our relationship with the EU after we have left. Livng in a bubble isnt going to do us any good or if thats what we want then it wont be without its consequences. the Uk is much less well positioned to do this than the US. Anyway im happy to see what the constitutional and EU experts say.

[unbeliever 10]

Except the UK is bound by the ECJ until it leaves. Are you suggesting we just leave and then say you cnat force us becayse we are a sovereign nation?

 

It tends to be in the UKs interest to keep to international agreements because failing to do so would set a precedent for other countries that have treaties and dealings with us. reputauib abd respecting due process counts for a lot.

 

The Uk will also be interested in what the ramifications are with our relationship with the EU after we have left. Livng in a bubble isnt going to do us any good or if thats what we want then it wont be without its consequences. the Uk is much less well positioned to do this than the US. Anyway im happy to see what the constitutional and EU experts say.

 

I'm going to talk to you because you're expressing the same thoughts as the other one, but you appear to be an adult.

 

The ECJ can't really rule on our withdrawal from its jurisdiction. They might issue a ruling but it doesn't mean anything.

 

The reality is that international treaties can be withdrawn from unilaterally by either side at any time.

In international terms, the final word on this whole matter is the Lisbon treaty. As long as we're in compliance with that treaty as written nothing we do can reasonably be described by anybody as unlawful.

As I say I don't think it will come to that, as I fully expect that this claim will be dropped.

[El Cid 221]

In May 2016 before the referendum the Bank of England forecast growth of 2.3%, so the UK is performing less well than forecast.

Is that because the forecast was too optimistic, or uncertainty in the economy slowing it down?

[NigelFargate 10]

The EU courts have no jurisdiction here. I'm referring to law regarding international treaties.

I'm not an expert on that either but I have spent a fair amount of time reading on this matter over the last couple of years.

 

The function of the ECJ is to adjudicate on matters which fall within the remit of the EU treaties, nothing more, nothing less.

[999tigger 10]

I'm going to talk to you because you're expressing the same thoughts as the other one, but you appear to be an adult.

 

The ECJ can't really rule on our withdrawal from its jurisdiction. They might issue a ruling but it doesn't mean anything.

 

The reality is that international treaties can be withdrawn from unilaterally by either side at any time.

In international terms, the final word on this whole matter is the Lisbon treaty. As long as we're in compliance with that treaty as written nothing we do can reasonably be described by anybody as unlawful.

As I say I don't think it will come to that, as I fully expect that this claim will be dropped.

 

I think this is fantasy land. yes we can unilaterally withdraw but it would be chaos and do us great damage. The ECJ can rule and if we choose to ignore it fine, but that has one of the most law abiding nations in the world throwing diplomatic relations and its reputation for respecting international agreements down the toilet. We then have to deal with these people after or doesnt that matter?

 

Its clear we have liabilities because we are more like joint owners or shareholders than simple club members.

Have just looked at a few articles on the calculation and can see why we will have to pay something.

I think I will wait and see what the constitutional experts, analysts and EC lawyers have to say.

 

I dont mind if you talk to the other one im not invested in this thread.

Edited February 4, 2017 by 999tigger

[I1L2T3 10]

I think this is fantasy land. yes we can unilaterally withdraw but it would be chaos and do us great damage. The ECJ can rule and if we choose to ignore it fine, but that has one of the most law abiding nations in the world throwing diplomatic relations and its reputation for respecting international agreements down the toilet. We then have to deal with these people after or doesnt that matter?

 

Its clear we have liabilities because we are more like joint owners or shareholders than simple club members.

Have just looked at a few articles on the calculation and can see why we will have to pay something.

I think I will wait and see what the constitutional experts, analysts and EC lawyers have to say.

 

I dont mind if you talk to the other one im not invested in this thread.

 

So, so true. Having fought two world wars striving for stability in Europe the extreme Brexiters want the UK to destabilise the continent.

 

They actively want to damage the EU and the countries in it. They want the EU to collapse to validate their beliefs. Unreal.

[unbeliever 10]

So, so true. Having fought two world wars striving for stability in Europe the extreme Brexiters want the UK to destabilise the continent.

 

They actively want to damage the EU and the countries in it. They want the EU to collapse to validate their beliefs. Unreal.

 

I have stated multiple times I wish the best for our European friends, but I think the project can only be saved by far greater integration and I want no part of it.