The Brexit Thread

[NarrowBandFtw]

Yeah, it's already changed now that the actual implications of leaving are setting in...

That's merely your assumption and the agenda pushed by every anti-brexit news source the UK has. Doesn't make it true in the least.

 

[f2wohf]

No, they were offered an extension in exchange for a bribe in a deal that has not been ratified and now cannot be ratified without a parliamentary vote. The current draft exit bill also still confirms March 2019 as the date:

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/dec/11/theresa-may-statement-brexit-mps-commons-davis-seeks-to-heal-rift-with-ireland-over-brexit-deal-politics-live

So while there has been talk of an extension being on the table, right this second there is no such thing officially.

You know the definition of a bribe right?

I stopped reading there.

May asked for an extension, she wasn’t proposed.

Use the proper words in the proper context if you want to discuss.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...asks-eu-for-two-year-brexit-transition-period

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

You know the definition of a bribe right?
I stopped reading there.

Yeah I'll give you as much of my time in return when you conveniently focus on word definitions rather than the fact that no extension exists officially at this point in time.

Here's a more apt word for you then: extortion.

 

[f2wohf]

Yeah I'll give you as much of my time in return when you conveniently focus on word definitions rather than the fact that no extension exists officially at this point in time.

Here's a more apt word for you then: extortion.

1) May asks for an extension (because it makes that Brexit happens when she’s not PM anymore which is convenient for her).
2) UE says ok if you pay us what you owe and you committed to.
3) The extension (as the payment of 39 billion) are in the cards and the details still being polished, hence it is not signed but nonetheless the most likely option at this stage.

NarrowBand calls it extortion and bribery. You should work at the Hawks, you have the same understanding of the law than they do. You could arrest Macron and Merkel for extortion as they did with Pravin.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

UE

That typo is the most useful part of your post ironically, I agree, the EU is pretty much one letter away from becoming the UAE

Lemme help you out here with proper definitions:
extortion
ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/
noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats

Note how it does not preclude situations where the money may have been committed to in the past, it is quite simply the practice of obtaining something through threats. If you don't believe the various direct threats made by EU officials of how there will be no deal unless x or no deal unless y, including the payment in question, constitute threats I can't help you.

It absolutely is extortion, right down to the letter of the dictionary definition. Threats were made, money will (probably) be paid as a result.

 

[f2wohf]

That typo is the most useful part of your post ironically, I agree, the EU is pretty much one letter away from becoming the UAE

Lemme help you out here with proper definitions:
extortion
ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/
noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats

Note how it does not preclude situations where the money may have been committed to in the past, it is quite simply the practice of obtaining something through threats. If you don't believe the various direct threats made by EU officials of how there will be no deal unless x or no deal unless y, including the payment in question, constitute threats I can't help you.

It absolutely is extortion, right down to the letter of the dictionary definition. Threats were made, money will (probably) be paid as a result.

UE: Union Européenne in French.

Every negotiation is extortion according to you then. When I negotiate a contract and say I’ll give you this for this, it is extortion?

You forgot a very convenient word in the legal definition of extortion, the obtaining must undue or illegal, which makes all the difference.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

the obtaining must undue

Which it is, the EU has no legal standing over a non-member and that is exactly what the UK will become.

Now from a more practical point of view: sure, nobody is holding a gun to the weakling May's head either and it takes two to tango. It's a real pity that those in charge of brexit have no desire whatsoever to see it come to pass nor any balls to fully commit to an independent Britain.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Yeah, it's already changed now that the actual implications of leaving are setting in...

Nonsense. Follow the YouGov tracker on whether it "was right or wrong" to leave the EU. Barely moved despite the relentless 24/7 left-wing propaganda of the BBC (which is the British version of the SABC), Channel 4 etc.

Also on last night's vote (I do hope all the Tory rebels are deselected when the next election comes around). They're all just Lib Dems in disguise.

Remainers' newfound love for parliamentary democracy would be a little more convincing if they weren't defending a Brussels bureaucracy that is entirely devoted to weakening parliamentary democracy.

https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/941088096980004865

Rebel Remainer Booze Up to Celebrate Defeating Government

The Tory rebel Remainers celebrated defeating the government and provoked fury among colleagues by downing glasses of white wine in the Pugin Room following the vote. Rebel ringleaders Anna Soubry, Antoinette Sandbach, Heidi Allen and Bob Neill got the party started, jubilantly scrolling through Twitter on their phones before they were joined by Nicky Morgan and chief Brexit-hater Dominic Grieve, who was applauded on his way in. The festivities went down like a cup of sick with fellow Tory MPs, one of whom commented: “If I did what they did and started quaffing champagne afterwards I would expect to be deselected”. Another watching MP said of the raucous Remainer party: “Just when the polls had started to turn these sh*ts hand the momentum back to Labour”. A Number 10 aide hit back at Soubry’s claim to have put party before country: “Total rubbish for the Remainers to say they have put country before party. All they’ve done is damage the UK’s position going into the negotiations”. Stephen Hammond has already been sacked from his job as party vice-chairman tonight, expect there to be local consequences for the other rebels too…

 

[f2wohf]

Which it is, the EU has no legal standing over a non-member and that is exactly what the UK will become.

Now from a more practical point of view: sure, nobody is holding a gun to the weakling May's head either and it takes two to tango. It's a real pity that those in charge of brexit have no desire whatsoever to see it come to pass nor any balls to fully commit to an independent Britain.

What legal standing is the EU claiming?

I mean May is clearly avoiding the Brexit, at least delaying it after having been a hawk in it. She completely changed her strategy recently.

 

[C4Cat]

Nonsense. Follow the YouGov tracker on whether it "was right or wrong" to leave the EU.

According to this pdf from that site: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...nvud/YG Trackers - EU Tracker Questions_W.pdf

45% think it was wrong to leave the EU vs 42% who think it was right. Compared to this time last year when the position was reversed. Thanks for proving my point. 64% think the government is doing a terrible job negotiating an exit. 42% think the UK will be economically worse off vs 25% who think it will be better off. In fact, in every question asked, the majority think the UK will end up worse off. So I maintain, if the vote happened today, now that people understand the implications better, remain would win

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

What legal standing is the EU claiming?

Not them, you implied there's some sort of enforceable legal standing by hinting the payment is not undue:

You forgot a very convenient word in the legal definition of extortion, the obtaining must undue or illegal

If there's no legal standing there's no enforcement of previously signed agreements / contracts and the UK is perfectly within its legal rights to just refuse to pay. Again making the point that legally the payment is undue and represents extortion given that it is in response to threats.

I mean May is clearly avoiding the Brexit, at least delaying it after having been a hawk in it. She completely changed her strategy recently.

Nah she's just showing her true colours, she's never been for brexit and only paid it lip service to placate the masses. Her anti-brexit conviction is just coming through in her actions more clearly as time passes.

 

[f2wohf]

There is obviously a legal standing, the commitments made by the UK which is part of budgets voted, pensions agreed.

We will have the detail of the commitments once the amount is agreed.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-brexit-bill-and-the-law-of-treaties/

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

There is obviously a legal standing, the commitments made by the UK which is part of budgets voted, pensions agreed.

We will have the detail of the commitments once the amount is agreed.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-brexit-bill-and-the-law-of-treaties/

Per your link, the House of Lords and UK Government in general disagrees with you and that blogger that there is legal standing. The reality is the EU won't seek legal recourse if the UK just refuses to pay anything, they will stick to threats and revenge in negotiations as recourse, nothing more i.e. extortion tactics.

 

[f2wohf]

Per your link, the House of Lords and UK Government in general disagrees with you and that blogger that there is legal standing. The reality is the EU won't seek legal recourse if the UK just refuses to pay anything, they will stick to threats and revenge in negotiations as recourse, nothing more i.e. extortion tactics.

Obviously they disagree, that is their only negotiation tool...

When a supplier tells me I’m late to pay him, I challenge the validity of the payment to earn time even though I perfectly know I owe him. It’s simply how business works.

The fact is that the House of Lords opinion doesn’t stand in law.

Are you in the EU’s inner circles to be so sure that the EU won’t use legal recourses? I’m pretty sure the members states don’t want a 40 billion unexpected shortfall in their budget and will make everything to get it back.

Again, this has nothing to do with extortion. This is negotiation, the U.K. is using the same strategy: we won’t pay if we don’t have a trade deal.

If this is extortion, I’m a professional at it and spend my days extorting!

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

When a supplier tells me I’m late to pay him, I challenge the validity of the payment to earn time even though I perfectly know I owe him. It’s simply how business works.

and if you flatout refuse to pay he takes you to court, which court do you expect the EU to drag the UK to? They won't want to rely on a UK court, an EU court won't have any jurisdiction post brexit and the ICJ doesn't have any teeth to enforce anything.

I imagine they are at least smart enough to know this and will therefor avoid seeking legal recourse and stick to more effective methods.

 

[f2wohf]

and if you flatout refuse to pay he takes you to court, which court do you expect the EU to drag the UK to? They won't want to rely on a UK court, an EU court won't have any jurisdiction post brexit and the ICJ doesn't have any teeth to enforce anything.

I imagine they are at least smart enough to know this and will therefor avoid seeking legal recourse and stick to more effective methods.

International arbitration? That's actually what is used the most to solve issues related to international treaties and it is enforced.

If I flatout refuse, the supplier negotiates, he doesn't take me straight to court because court is expensive and lengthy in every single country I can think of.

Edit: Arbitration has actually been used several times in the recent years for EEZ and territorial conflicts, I have no doubt that it will be much easier for a debt.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

International arbitration?

Arbitration requires / implies both parties are willing to submit to the process in order to get a third party decision on a dispute.

If either party refuses to even submit to arbitration it is kind of a non-starter. The kind of UK government that would tell the EU to get f-ed they won't see a cent, would also be the kind of government that will laugh at the suggestion of arbitration in the matter.

Not that the UK has such a government as we know of course, instead they have a bunch of bremoaners dragging their feet.

 

[f2wohf]

Arbitration requires / implies both parties are willing to submit to the process in order to get a third party decision on a dispute.

If either party refuses to even submit to arbitration it is kind of a non-starter. The kind of UK government that would tell the EU to get f-ed they won't see a cent, would also be the kind of government that will laugh at the suggestion of arbitration in the matter.

Not that the UK has such a government as we know of course, instead they have a bunch of bremoaners dragging their feet.

Then recover it on increased custom duties. I'm sure the UE will know how to convince the WTO.

If you're in a dispute and refuse arbitration, you're the one acting in bad faith.

 

[f2wohf]

EU leaders urge PM May for Brexit clarity

EU leaders are asking Theresa May for more clarity over the country’s future trade talks as the bloc prepares to pave the way for the next stage of Brexit talks at a summit in Brussels.

Mark Rutte, prime minister of the Netherlands, called on the UK government to “make up its mind” over what kind of future relationship it was seeking after 2019.

“[Theresa May] is holding her cards close to her heart on the next phase and this is probably a wise negotiating tactic. But of course, having now hopefully passed the mark of phase one, we need from her to understand how she sees this future relationship. It is now for the UK to make up its mind”, said Mr Rutte.

The EU27 are preparing to draw up their guidelines for the second stage of Brexit talks by March 2018. Leaders are also expected to sign off on “sufficient progress” during a two-day summit in Brussels tomorrow.

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, said she “welcomed” progress on Brexit “but there are still open questions”.

There are good chances we start with phase two” said Ms Merkel.

Mr Rutte said it was now “necessary is we put the handshake on last Friday in a legally binding text”.

“I think we need an Article 50 text as soon as possible”, he said.

Following the House of Commons decision to give MPs a vote on any Brexit deal last night, EU leaders warned the bloc would not renegotiate an agreement made with Mrs May if parliament decide to reject it in 2019.

“I really believe that to think that Theresa May will negotiate something, we will negotiate something and then again Theresa May will go back to Westminster is not good for the position of the negotiations”, said Xavier Bettel, prime minister of Luxembourg.

Christian Kern, Austria’s outgoing chancellor, said the Brexit deal would be “a very big and important contract and international agreement would be approved by the Austrian parliament and this is exactly the situation we are going to see in the UK. So I don’t see any additional obstacles”.

https://www.ft.com/content/7f9875ed-1fa7-33c4-9f9c-018e526dc31c

 

[FoXtroT]

What exactly is in the deal they plan on ratifying tomorrow?

A quick summary would be great.