Canadian here, it says the divorce deal is non binding until parliament agrees on a withdrawal agreement.
Technically isn't no deal the defacto agreement if no other deal is made?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
EU says no to further (short) Brexit delay, gives damming info about the negotiations.
- Thread starter Sqrt
- Start date
Canadian here, it says the divorce deal is non binding until parliament agrees on a withdrawal agreement.
Technically isn't no deal the defacto agreement if no other deal is made?
From your own source:
" The calculations are an estimate of the UK's commitments to the EU "
If you want to split hairs, yes the current defined divorce bill would be "void", as not agreed upon. The debt on which the divorce bill is based however would still be present, and will have to be paid some way by the UK if they hope to do any kind of trade and diplomacy with any country.
Yes.
No one with a valid argument has ever gone "I'll only discuss it in PMs" and "Check my post history for answers to your questions".
In terms of a pure legal vacuum devoid of all worldly context and only concerned with the letter of the law, the divorce bill being legally binding is a "don't know", not a definitive "no" as you've falsely claimed.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...oid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill
https://fullfact.org/europe/no-deal-divorce-bill-legally-obligated-pay/
In the real world, if we ever want to trade with the EU again, we will have to pay the divorce bill - which is the same as saying we will definitely pay the divorce bill.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ish-border-backstop-theresa-may-a8852756.html
You're not even an entertaining troll and you can't argue you for shit. Go crawl back under your bridge.
It's a culmination of many many fuckups that have stacked up over the decades.
"The divorce bill is not binding until parliament approves the withdrawal agreement."
The very first fucking line:
Where's your "definitely won't have to be paid" you've been bleating on about?
The thing is no deal is a withdrawal agreement when all other agreements have failed. As soon as No deal takes affect, the divorce bill becomes binding.
I didn't say that something may not have to be paid but that's different
Aye, but that doesn't mean that there are no obligations or liabilities. It's just that one of the things that the existing withdrawal agreement does is quantify those obligations in a way that's agreeable to both sides. If the agreement doesn't get voted through parliament, that doesn't mean those obligations cease to exist, it's just that the quantum would need to be renegotiated.
The very fact that the EU and the UK have sat down and quantified the obligations on both sides (and thus the net position) is evidence that those obligations exist. What hasn't been evidenced is anything to suggest that the UK parliament not signing the withdrawal agreement somehow renders those obligations void.
So again, do you have any evidence to support your claim that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK would have no financial obligation to the EU?
The divorce bill is just a list of what the UK still owes. Deal or no Deal, that debt doesn't change.
Which we will inevitably decide is the right thing for the country after shit hits the fan and all any brexiteers will have achieved is weakening our position from what we previously had (which all can agree was more than fair/allowed the UK to push the boundaries of what was acceptable behaviour as a EU member state)
But brexiteers don't like logic
Really? I could have sworn that you said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ish-border-backstop-theresa-may-a8852756.html
EU says it would not open talks with UK after no-deal Brexit until it agrees to divorce bill and Irish backstop
Yeah, about this. The last time a country was "made an example of" was after WW1, that didn't pan out too well did it? Having an angry, humiliated country on your doorstep won't be good for Europe . Humiliate the idiot politicians, not the people or the country.
Well that's just what will happen in a default no deal position. The obligation comes from having to renegotiate, rebudget, or going to trial for contract breaches.
So are you saying that if the UK is humiliated (which it should be), it will go Nazi?
I'd risk it and if that's the threat then the UK deserves everything it gets and more.
The far right have already started to join Tory associations in seats with moderate members to deselect them. Dominic Grieve is just the first and most visible.The far right are going to drag the Tories kicking and screaming to fascism unless the center right rank and file wakes the fuck up and starts paying attention to party politics.
It's a precarious situation because the left vote in the UK is usually split leading to parliamentary majorities for Tories with as little as 30% of the primary vote. I'm not saying that a descent to Nazism is inevitable or even that the OP is right and that it's Europe's fault (it's not) but there's sure as fuck a viable path to dragging the Tories and the country towards it.
So what your saying is, the distinction is completely pointless and your carrying on like this because?
Because I keep getting quoted, getting called a troll and being told I'm saying things that I never did. Again, we went through all of this the first few pages.
Your posts are such an encapsulation of how people get easily brainwashed and have zero critical thinking skills. Spewing total bullshit or trolling for the sake of it is not being smart. No wonder so many people bought the Brexit lie.
Maybe it's because you are, you are (or you completely don't understand the situation and throwing around "facts" that are in fact wrong), and your literally being told for things you did say. You may be able to gaslight your friends and family, but your quotes are what you actually typed... No twisting or misattribution required.
The problem is you've not yet shown you really understand the situation or what you're talking about. Or you do, but have been caught showing you were wrong, and are now afraid to admit it
And its the "until we will" that has been a real conversation driver. But its something I did clarify in the first couple pages.
Maybe tomorrow you can read through the thread with fresh eyes.
Well, for their defense: they're technically right, the divorce bill as it exists right now only goes into effect if the UK parliament votes for it as part of the deal.
They've just been splitting hairs because everyone says "divorce bill" when they talk about the existing debt, and said bill technically isn't binding as long as it wasn't voted in. The debt will still be there.
I'd suggest to move on from that topic.
And surely you know it's a pointless clarification? As many other posters have pointed out regarding how nano-thin you're splitting the hair.
So you say that we will have no obligation to pay the divorce bill and according to your other post and your link, this is until parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which (to my limited knowledge I must admit) a no deal brexit constitutes an agreement between the UK/EU and the agreement is "aight, we're done effective immediately". Deal made, done, concluded. Divorce bill becomes binding.
If that is not the case, as I have admitted that I am not certain that no deal is effectively an agreement, then the divorce bill is not an obligation until that time which we look to make a new trade deal with the EU, which I imagine will be in the very same meeting or if not, the following one after a deal/no deal brexit occurs.
So it's either immediate or if not very shortly after. So when you say
you literally mean for all of 5 minutes. So it's a disingenuous statement at best. People are calling you out on it because of how ridiculous it is that you have chosen this pedantic hill to die on.
It is absolutely the first thing the EU would demand before sitting down and discussing trade. No idea why this is so hard for one member to understand.
Let me try this once more, with feeling.
I think the EU will grant the UK a long extension rather than no deal because they do not want to find themselves in a situation where the status of the UKs financial obligations is unknown or up in the air.
Now hopefully that is a good enough clarification of my first post that has been oft quoted in this thread. You can go nuts on that if you want.
I think the EU will grant the UK a long extension rather than no deal because they do not want to find themselves in a situation where the status of the UKs financial obligations is unknown or up in the air.
Now hopefully that is a good enough clarification of my first post that has been oft quoted in this thread. You can go nuts on that if you want.
There was a march in London recently in support of Remain, reportedly over 1 million in attendance. Very civil, very peaceful.
I doubt that'll be the case in the event of any post-no-deal marches/protests... 10,000 riot police officers on standby apparently.
I don't know much about Brexit but the little I do know is that this is terrible. It makes me as an American feel more grateful for only having to deal with Trump for one or two terms. Yes I know he has long-lasting effects because of his appointments to the courts and everything else, but Brexit just seems so wild.
The UK's relationship with EU has been fundamental for so long that I have to imagine this entire situation would be similar to the US suddenly voting to rewrite its constitution with nothing but bad shit for itself.
The UK's relationship with EU has been fundamental for so long that I have to imagine this entire situation would be similar to the US suddenly voting to rewrite its constitution with nothing but bad shit for itself.
You can post it a dozen times but you won't ever be correct. The EU won't extend the deal because of any financial obligation aspect, as they know they will get their money regardless.
Yeah the price is a major barrier to me at the moment as well. Might just crack and do it soon regardless though. I'm so frustrated that I'm going to be losing my birth right of European freedom of movement. I used to travel to mainland Europe all the time with ease.
If that were the case they wouldn't have been making financial preparations in the case of a no deal. They absolutely will extend it because then our obligations are guaranteed without further mediation.
I don't think an extension would be granted purely on that basis. The UK has to do a deal at some point with the EU, and the EU has already said the Irish border and any financial obligations would need to be settled before that deal.
No, we're slipping again. It's a factor I think, not the only reason.
What a fucking embarrassment. Aside from anyone's preference whether they should leave or not. The British politicians are so bad.
Not really the same though. The Brits always were a disruptive force in the EU (remember Iraq? Afghanistan?) and have been lamenting their membership pretty much since they joined. Tbqh the loss of FoM sucks but this has been a long time in the making and I'm actually kinda glad they are (probably) out for some time before they return on equal terms to other members instead of having their own way in everything.[/QUOTE]
Stupid American here and even I know that "financial preparations" means luring businesses in the UK to make them move to Europe. Heck, it's just plain smart to prepare to a financial storm as if preparing for a nuclear winter, especially when your opponent looks very incompetent.
I don't even live in the UK, but it's frustrating as hell to watch. The fact that seemingly everyone who pushed for it are also leaving the country makes it even more nonsensical.
So without the deal the UK still has to deal with all the stuff they don't like sooner or later, while getting absolutely nothing positive in return. I guess that prospect might finally turn people to May's deal