Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

I won't get over-involved in historic situations as I prefer to look forwards, not backwards. But just taking Pierre's first point. Nigel Farage was claiming as recently as 2017 that there would be no divorce bill. We now know that that is false. As an MEP, if he didn't know this then I suspect many others didn't either. And who can forget it taking a Brexit Secretary some two years to understand the importance of the Calais-Dover crossing for UK trade?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b09e5f6cce7a5b

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I won't get over-involved in historic situations as I prefer to look forwards, not backwards. But just taking Pierre's first point. Nigel Farage was claiming as recently as 2017 that there would be no divorce bill. We now know that that is false. As an MEP, if he didn't know this then I suspect many others didn't either.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b09e5f6cce7a5b

I get a bit fuzzy about the whole....time being linear...thing.

But as I recall, July 2017, was after all the months in 2016........

It was stated in all literature that U.K. would have to pay into the EU for any future relationship.....

That said.. I concede, there appears to be no mention of a “divorce bill” with the EU, I would argue it’s semantics, but l’ll concede when I have to, on that one point.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I won't get over-involved in historic situations as I prefer to look forwards, not backwards. But just taking Pierre's first point. Nigel Farage was claiming as recently as 2017 that there would be no divorce bill. We now know that that is false. As an MEP, if he didn't know this then I suspect many others didn't either. And who can forget it taking a Brexit Secretary some two years to understand the importance of the Calais-Dover crossing for UK trade?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b09e5f6cce7a5b

The basis of the EU claiming a "divorce" bill was we had previously agreed a 5 year budget. If that is the case then if the budget had been set for 20 years, would we be liable for another 15 years on top. That would be just silly.


How could we really disagree with anything in that budget? It's not really allowed to disagree with Germany/France. There is nothing in the budgets than set out who is going to provide what money. That is in separate rules which are linked to being a member of the EU. The budgets specify money that would come back to the UK, but now it won't. For those reasons alone there is no real legal basis for most of the "divorce" bill.


All sorts of things create delays with the Dover-Calais crossing. EG weather, strikes, problems with the Eurotunnel. Everything carries on. It won't be a total blockade of any sort. Any delays in lorries for the continent getting into the UK, will be doubled when they return. That will create a lack of available lorries in the EU as they will be held up in the UK. It will add 1 or 2 days to each return journey. Similar to a bad weather situation.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The basis of the EU claiming a "divorce" bill was we had previously agreed a 5 year budget. If that is the case then if the budget had been set for 20 years, would we be liable for another 15 years on top. That would be just silly.

How could we really disagree with anything in that budget? It's not really allowed to disagree with Germany/France. There is nothing in the budgets than set out who is going to provide what money. That is in separate rules which are linked to being a member of the EU. The budgets specify money that would come back to the UK, but now it won't. For those reasons alone there is no real legal basis for most of the "divorce" bill.

All sorts of things create delays with the Dover-Calais crossing. EG weather, strikes, problems with the Eurotunnel. Everything carries on. It won't be a total blockade of any sort. Any delays in lorries for the continent getting into the UK, will be doubled when they return. That will create a lack of available lorries in the EU as they will be held up in the UK. It will add 1 or 2 days to each return journey. Similar to a bad weather situation.

The exam question was: What do we know now that we didn't know in June 2016. A Brexit Secretary has fessed up that he didn't get the importance of Dover-Calais until recently and we now know that despite their denials until recently, there will be a divorce bill. The article I linked to listed some 100 other things.

How significant the above two issues are is a separate question entirely which doubtless people will have different views depending on their viewpoints and knowledge.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The exam question was: What do we know now that we didn't know in June 2016. A Brexit Secretary has fessed up that he didn't get the importance of Dover-Calais until recently and we now know that despite their denials until recently, there will be a divorce bill. The article I linked to listed some 100 other things.

How significant the above two issues are is a separate question entirely which doubtless people will have different views depending on their viewpoints and knowledge.

So where was the basis for the "divorce" bill set out before the vote? It's just a relatively made up number. with no basis in law. The agreement to a "divorce" bill was just made to try and smooth over an agreement with the EU. It is usual to set out the costs of ending an agreement when the agreement is started.


What was or wasn't known in June 2016, couldn't possibly have been known beforehand, as it depends on what, if any, agreement can be made with the EU. The rest of the EU will also have problems, but they are under the impression that we will give in to any, and all of their demands.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So where was the basis for the "divorce" bill set out before the vote? It's just a relatively made up number. with no basis in law. The agreement to a "divorce" bill was just made to try and smooth over an agreement with the EU. It is usual to set out the costs of ending an agreement when the agreement is started

What was or wasn't known in June 2016, couldn't possibly have been known beforehand, as it depends on what, if any, agreement can be made with the EU. The rest of the EU will also have problems, but they are under the impression that we will give in to any, and all of their demands.

Leading Brexiters were stating as fact in 2016 that there would be no divorce bill. We've subsequently learnt that this is wrong regardless of whether or not a transition phase is successfully agreed by the UK Parliament.

Due to the divided UK position and the superior size of the EU, many Leavers are now wising up to the fact that the statement "They need us more than we need them" was a a little misleading. I fear Leavers are in for a disappointing few years if they expect the balance of power to change. As I said back in 2016, sorry, but size matters in negotiations. That's why your local corner shop can't match your local supermarket's prices.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

As I said back in 2016, sorry, but size matters in negotiations. That's why your local corner shop can't match your local supermarket's prices.

If you're going to compare (or use as an analogy) supermarkets with the EU, it simply reinforces my belief we'd be better off without either

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Carth

If you're going to compare (or use as an analogy) supermarkets with the EU, it simply reinforces my belief we'd be better off without either

And yet France, with an economy run on local business rather than huge chains is set to overtake the UK in terms of GDP rankings.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

We also know that Theresa May is useless. I defy anyone to argue with that !

Lets put the vote on that on hold until we can get clarification

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Mr K

We also know that Theresa May is useless. I defy anyone to argue with that !

She is only useless if she has a 2nd referendrum, before the 1st is carried out.

She's useless because while everyone is concentrating on Brexit the rest of our infrastructure,social,welfare and health is gradually eroding away.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

She's useless because while everyone is concentrating on Brexit the rest of our infrastructure,social,welfare and health is gradually eroding away.

I thought we had various Government ministers/departments looking after that stuff.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

She's useless because while everyone is concentrating on Brexit the rest of our infrastructure,social,welfare and health is gradually eroding away.

Like this..

https://www.hsj.co.uk/nhs-long-term-...024043.article

https://www.gponline.com/gp-contract...rticle/1521574

And this..

https://www.theguardian.com/social-c...er-social-care

And this..

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-public-policy

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/65369...w-to-get-help/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...iversal-credit

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I thought we had various Government ministers/departments looking after that stuff.

With a limited supply of money and limited legislative timetable Brexit is affecting their ability to do these things.

Wasted time/resources planning for a no deal scenario despite it not being Government policy to seek that outcome.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...costing-brexit

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I thought we had various Government ministers/departments looking after that stuff.

I'm sure the Brexit elite are pleased that you believe that. The reality is somewhat different, as we've seen with the drone legislation being stopped, to take one of many examples.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

She's useless because while everyone is concentrating on Brexit the rest of our infrastructure, social welfare and health is gradually eroding away.

This cartoon sums it up quite nicely.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Brm5nHEHVVQ/