Because they see that Britain is intent on economic, fiscal and social dumpin

Why can’t the UK take the same approach to corporate taxation as Ireland and Luxembourg ?
Macron is on a tour of Eastern Europe trying to persuade them to stop sending their workers to France and undercutting the French by using Polish etc contracts and paying Polish wages and taxes, fat chance as they are following EU law.

Edukator everyone is more competitve than France, “enjoy” the CGT organised strikes there are going to be many and violent too. What we saw under Hollande is just a warm up.

As for the Brexit Bill the only slate are our annaul contributions (less rebate) until April 2019, that’s the point. The UK has asked the EU to explain it’s LEGAL basis for the exit bill and they won’t as there isn’t one. You quoted a figure and used the word “slate” as though it’s written down. That’s the EUs problem they only wrote down that obligations / benefits terminate on A50 exit.

Someone hacked Damien Green MP’s Twitter and was trolling Barnier over the legal (nor not) basis of the bill. Look the French (and other EU press) have been happy to play the game of fooling their readers that somehow the UK is going to provide a pot of gold so they don’t have to pay up. Wrong wrong wrong.

Hacker Asks Barnier Reasonable Questions About Brexit Bill

@igm the EU’s offer to UK citizens is not better, they are generally older amd retired and spending their money in generally poorer areas of Europe like Spain, Italy or rural France. Also those working are generally in higher skilled better paying jobs than equivalent in the UK. The EUs offer also did not allow them to move anywhere within the EU. Also no small matter of 3m people vs 1m. The UK made a very generous offer.

I don’t click order-order.

Time will tell who’s right about whether the UK pays off its slate. Watch this space. I’ll put the odds of the UK not paying anything at 27:1 against.

Fair enough. Someone hacked the MPs account and Tweeted to Barnier to please explain the LEGAL basis of the “Brexit Bill”

I’ll put the odds of the UK not paying anything at 27:1 against.

Given that we know the UK will pay something, I would suggest avoiding bookmaking as a career

What do you call a slate that also has the estimated price of future drinks for you and for your mates (tab pro ratered)?

Look out EU, The Donald is coming after you and the Common Agricultural Policy 8)

40% of EU budget is farming subsidies btw !!

http://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-attack-on-spain-olives-threatens-eus-hallowed-farm-subsidies/

This made me laugh in a sort of omg way ..

Earlier this year, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan quipped: “The European Union pays enough subsidies to fly each cow in Europe around the world first class and still have money left over.”

Edukator a big chunk of the “exit bill” is our budget contributions to April 2019 plus the EU want us to pay beyond that for programmes such as EU funded UK Uni research – both of these we already said we would cover. So of course we are going to pay something, we are going to oay what we legally owe. Whether we pay beyond that is a matter of discussion. Personally as we run a trade deficit I would NOT pay anything under any transition arrangement. No need. However I suspect there may be some payments there but fairly limited and will be netted off against things like our EIB capital of £8bn. Public opinion is that any amount which totals £10bn is too much.

Still nothing on the irish border ?

And not going so well in Japan, is it ?

Srictly/factually speaking (excuse me Kelvin and NW)

So of course we are going to pay something, we are going to oay what we legally owe. Whether we pay beyond that is a matter of discussion

The HoL concluded that on balance there is no legal obligation, hence the whole bill is subject to discussion and therefore should be an integral part of the complete discussions – unless you have swallowed the EU narrative hook, line and sinker. But that would be very silly, given we are all aware of the precedent.

Still nothing on the irish border ?

Given that neither the EU not the UK have a solution, its a bit unfair to expect Jambas have an answer. Plus the EU positioning paper rules out unilateral arrangements, so all looks a bit challenging. Good job no one is proposing an answer here before getting into the trade negotiations

From nos amis

Any attempts at bespoke deals between the UK and Irish governments may meet opposition within the EU from those wanting sanctions against the UK, feeling that the (cherry-picked) benefits to the UK are not accompanied by any fulfilment of obligations. The Interlaken Principles41 make clear that the EU will a) prioritise internal integration over relations with non-member states and b) the EU will always safeguard its own decision- making autonomy. The Principles declare that any relationship with the EU must be based on a balance of benefits and obligations. Non-member states will not be able to choose what aspects of EU integration they particularly favour. As such, prospects for a bespoke, tariff- free Northern Ireland-EU cross-border trade arrangement appear slim, whilst a continuing Common Travel Area is in jeopardy, with all the possible ramifications outlined above

and guess where they place it in the agenda??

40% of EU budget is farming subsidies btw !!

What did it used to be before CAP reform? “40%” sounds great as a snapshot figure but what is the trend? Where are the butter mountains, the wine lakes etc of the past?

Of course the EU protects agriculture and its products – around half of EU land is farmed.

Now unless, Brexiteers are happy to throw UK farmers into the shit, it will have to spend money to protect them too. So what’s your solution?*

Tell you what, why not have 27 (or the way it’s looking, 28, not including Turkey who are joining next year I suppose) competing individual protectionist agricultural policies working against one another. See how much that costs us all.

*No need to answer. “Someone else” will solve that difficult question for you. Because it’s always someone else that will come up with a solution to the problems Brexit is causing. Brexiteers have hardly owned a single solution to the problems they’ve caused.

hands up if you are a russian stooge

Given that neither the EU not the UK have a solution,

Not the EUs problem is it, the UK wants out, so it is for the UK to come up with a red white and blue border. That happens to meet international standards.

You caused this s*** time for the Brexiteers to come up with some answers.

The CAP….
I live among the type of community that has benefited from this remarkable level of ” protectionism”. Agricultural land trades at £10k per acre and any Accountant who deals with Farms (as mine does) will tell you this has no medium term ROI, what it has done is raise the capital value of most Farms 8 fold in twenty years (most land was purchased at around £1200 an acre back in the day) – so this allows them to borrow 8 times the “value” of land at £10k an acre and you think Banks are highly leveraged? Bear in mind that many Farms income is 50% CAP? You start to realise how big that particular house of cards is? Add in Donald chicken/Beef/Corn and NZ/Aus tariff/quote free Lamb you start to realise why the NFU is twitchy – yet most Farmers voted for Brexit? You really can’t make this stuff up

It’s very much a problem for the EU, that’s why they have it in the first priority list. Unless of cause, that decision was merely tactical. Surely not?

Be careful how you use the term “you” please.

Public opinion is that any amount which totals £10bn is too much.

Jamba – £10bn was the maximum people turn out to be willing to pay per annum for continued access to the single market. Which probably questions their intelligence as I’m sure you will agree.

That said it is a lot less than £350m per week.

On the hacked MPs thing, Conor Burns is claiming he was hacked and someone is trolling Barnier too. Except it sounds like Conor may be fibbing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/28/uk-us-trade-could-be-derailed-in-at-least-19-ways-after-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

More good news, so Brexiteers your solution please.

THM as you have now decided to join the brexiteers “you” is the right term, There was nothing democratic in the referendum so don’t start on that crap please. Democracy requires one fact the truth, without it is nothing more than sophistry.

Jamba – did you read the article you linked to?

Look out EU, The Donald is coming after you and the Common Agricultural Policy

As for UK farmers, they voted for an end to CAP subsidies, I’m inclined to let them have an end to subsidies.
Happy to buy elsewhere.

THM as you have now decided to join the brexiteers “you” is the right term,

Have I? Ooh, how nice, I am part of a majority again, When do I get the T shirt?

There was nothing democratic in the referendum so don’t start on that crap please

Of course not, nothing remotely democratic in letting the great unwashed have a say is there. Whereas, ignoring them and calling them thick…..

Democracy requires one fact the truth, without it is nothing more than sophistry.

Fancy words but you may want to check their definitions before (ab)using them in public too often.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4836166/Is-prolific-anti-EU-Twitter-user-really-Russian-stooge.html

im surprised that the mail is admitting that pro-brexit twitter bots are russian

We can afford UK farm subsidies. Just as we could afford CAP. The figures aren’t big compared to other areas of state expenditure really. That whole “40% of EU budget” sounds big (was 70% before UK led reforms), but don’t forget that the EU budget is only, what, 1% of the money spent by national governments? All the big money spending is still done by national governments. Sovereignty and all that…

So our unprepared cowboys apparently spent three hours picking over the EUs detailed four pager on the bill. (Delicious irony there.). That must have been fun. Given they have done no prep how did they eek it out for three hours. Pour Guy must have missed his lunch. No wonder he was so cross

eek out

Eek!!

LOL

“pour Guy” – Freudian?

r a big chunk of the “exit bill” is our budget contributions to April 2019

The EU reckon it’s up to 2020 as that’s what Cameron signed up to, the UK say that it wasn’t legally binding.

epared cowboys apparently spent three hours picking over the EUs detailed four pager on the bill

Yeah anyone’s grumpy after a 3hr PowerPoint!

As the UK desperately try and wriggle out of paying any money, don’t we just look less attractive to future trading partners? at any point we could cause huge disruption by unilaterally pulling out and then arguing bitterly over what we owe & refusing to pay any compensation, all because our MPs have stoked up nationalism such that they are backed into a corner by the right wing press.

The same with Davis agreeing to the EUs schedule on day 1 of the talks, then spending the next 2 months whining that he wants simultaneous trade talks.

The great global Brexit Britain trade adventure we are all embarking on is never going to work if the rest of the world thinks we might throw a hissy fit at any minute & we’ll need them more than ever as we are doing a good job of alienating our nearest neighbours & biggest trading partner by far.

No they have agreed to pay the bill – despite no legal obligation (HoL) – in order to facilitate future trade arrangements. This is no part of a sensible due diligence process that her than merely bending over and lubing up!

Good for them. Someone has been doing some homework! Phew!

in order to facilitate future trade arrangements

And everyone (not just the EU) is waiting to see how we intend to handle pulling out of our current trade arrangements (including honouring commitments made) before starting serious talks about any new trade arrangements. Tick, tock…

No they have agreed to pay the bill

So why is jambs saying 2019? If we’ve said we will

I suppose Davis agreeing to the schedule then changing his mind shows that were liable to renege on promises on a whim!

I still think that it’ll be around 40bn, as that will cover our contributions for the next 7 year cycle.
And even tho Poland, France etc are pushing for more Barnier being more reasonable.
Is that gonna wash at home tho?
If we want a transition obviously we’d have to pay in during that period (that is obvious right?)

I imagine it’ll be a game of hide the subsidy, as the gov cut up the payments & try and call them something else.

Either way countries looking at making future trade deals with us will be very wary !

teamhurtmore – Member
No they have agreed to pay the bill – despite no legal obligation (HoL) – in order to facilitate future trade arrangements. This is no part of a sensible due diligence process that her than merely bending over and lubing up!

Just looking to see that announced or have they agreed in principle to pay a bill but not yet agreed on the amount?
I’ll appreciate the HoL has a legal opinion on this but they are not the final or ruling party to this are they.

You can always tell when Dacre is getting worried and frustrated:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4838768/ANDREW-PIERCE-EU-chief-negotiator-Michel-Barnier.html

Apols for Mail link etc.

despite no legal obligation (HoL)

Was that a British HoL opinion? Would an opinion from, say, Greece come to the same conclusion?

Not saying it’s wrong of course and it’s probably less propaganda-ish than an order/order article, but it is a legal opinion from a not dis-interested group – pinch of salt needed.

martinhutch – Member
You can always tell when Dacre is getting worried and frustrated

You’ll have to summarise, if I click on it I’ll need a shower

Sorry back at work today, will post the link later.

Mike correct, they are not and they received conflicting opinion as the link will show, Their conclusion was “on balance” but it’s not clear cut either way.

IGM – as above.

I find the Parliamentary research briefings helpful as they give good updates and summarise ctte findings on both sides of the argument. If you got there, you will find the report re the legal aspects. If you can wait, I will post tonight on train home 😉

**** hell I was a staunch EU supporter til I read that piece in the mail.
That’s the problem with the EU too many people looking in the mirror.

You’ll have to summarise, if I click on it I’ll need a shower

Just going all out to play the man rather than the ball is the clean version. Similar to the state of the argument when you get ad homs on here.

From Politco.eu

Latest from the negotiations: Noises from both sides are pessimistic. The Telegraph reports “total amazement” from the EU side after “British negotiators spent three hours launching a painstaking, line-by-line rebuttal of the EU’s demands” for between €60 and €100 billion. The atmosphere in the room, report Charlie Cooper, David M. Herszenhorn, Maïa de La Baume and Simon Marks, was “very tense,” with British negotiators reacting angrily to the idea they aren’t “serious” about the talks.

Absolutely what the UK side should be doing. A detailed line by line rebuttal of the EU extortion attempt. I can well imagine the EU are somewhat stunned. They have no responce as their demands have no legal basis. Sky News has it right too, the EU are demanding a “Brexit Bill” based on 4 vague pages of frankly nonsense

http://news.sky.com/story/eu-negotiators-incapable-of-flexible-brexit-talks-uk-officials-believe-11013133

So if you keep saying it does it make it true? It’s been your line all along and we all know how negotiations go if you don’t have an open mind.