|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
United States43968 Posts
On June 21 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
If the UK owes nothing, aren’t they still required(per the cited agreement above) to provide a budget and breakdown showing they owe nothing? It would seem like a sensible thing to do when negotiating.
Does Mexico regarding the wall?
Either way David Davies is pretty swamped at the moment. We're going to approach this from a position of incompetence in the secure knowledge that the EU can't take what we don't have.
|
On June 21 2017 01:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
If the UK owes nothing, aren’t they still required(per the cited agreement above) to provide a budget and breakdown showing they owe nothing? It would seem like a sensible thing to do when negotiating. Does Mexico regarding the wall? Either way David Davies is pretty swamped at the moment. We're going to approach this from a position of incompetence in the secure knowledge that the EU can't take what we don't have.
Well I don't think Brexit negotiations are going to go anywhere until a new PM is in place, Davis is too busy trying to build up support for his own bid to be PM and trying to trip up Boris wherever he can meanwhile May has no authority what so ever and has made the UK look stupid.
Once the new PM is in place with an actual plan then Davis or a new EU negotiator can focus solely on that job and we can get things done. Every day May sits in number 10 is wasted.
|
On June 21 2017 01:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
If the UK owes nothing, aren’t they still required(per the cited agreement above) to provide a budget and breakdown showing they owe nothing? It would seem like a sensible thing to do when negotiating. Does Mexico regarding the wall? Either way David Davies is pretty swamped at the moment. We're going to approach this from a position of incompetence in the secure knowledge that the EU can't take what we don't have.
Did Mexico suddenly become part of the US and then leave? This isn’t some crazy outlandish theory. When leaving a long term agreement, the process of untangling the parties is negotiated. Both sides need to come to the table with what a proposal of what that separation will costs both sides. If the number the UK reached is zero, then the UK just needs to show its work like a good math student.
|
On June 21 2017 01:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 01:31 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
If the UK owes nothing, aren’t they still required(per the cited agreement above) to provide a budget and breakdown showing they owe nothing? It would seem like a sensible thing to do when negotiating. Does Mexico regarding the wall? Either way David Davies is pretty swamped at the moment. We're going to approach this from a position of incompetence in the secure knowledge that the EU can't take what we don't have. Did Mexico suddenly become part of the US and then leave? This isn’t some crazy outlandish theory. When leaving a long term agreement, the process of untangling the parties is negotiated. Both sides need to come to the table with what a proposal of what that separation will costs both sides. If the number the UK reached is zero, then the UK just needs to show its work like a good math student.
We already pay every year to be a member of the EU and are still paying that should have covered most obligations.
|
As for pensions and so forth, aren't they normally funded over time as the liabilities are incurred? You pay into the pension fund as long as you're employing the person. If they stop working for you (as they would if they were EU employees and the UK left) then you stop paying into the pension fund. Either way though, the kind of numbers being thrown around by EU politicians are astronomical. We're not talking about settling unfinished business and settling contracts, we're talking about the entire annual budget of the NHS. If they wanted a few hundred million (on top of what they're already getting while we stay) that'd be one thing. £70b though is a joke. Even if the government had that kind of money, and it doesn't, it would be political suicide to send it abroad.
Yes they're funded over time. The EU has a large pension deficit due to the low interest rates though. The EU hasn't increased premiums to make up for the shortfall.
On June 21 2017 01:41 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 01:37 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2017 01:31 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
If the UK owes nothing, aren’t they still required(per the cited agreement above) to provide a budget and breakdown showing they owe nothing? It would seem like a sensible thing to do when negotiating. Does Mexico regarding the wall? Either way David Davies is pretty swamped at the moment. We're going to approach this from a position of incompetence in the secure knowledge that the EU can't take what we don't have. Did Mexico suddenly become part of the US and then leave? This isn’t some crazy outlandish theory. When leaving a long term agreement, the process of untangling the parties is negotiated. Both sides need to come to the table with what a proposal of what that separation will costs both sides. If the number the UK reached is zero, then the UK just needs to show its work like a good math student. We already pay every year to be a member of the EU and are still paying that should have covered most obligations.
Except a lot of the obligations are still some years in the future and those will have to be settled as well. It's not as simple as 'we're paying now so that should cover it'.
To expand on this a little: there are two indicators for every expenditure: A commitment to pay a given sum and a payment, the actual disbursement of money. These two indicators aren't necessarily in the same year. If part of the commitment isn't paid out the year the commitment is made the rest of the payment is deferred to following years. So even if the UK leaves in 2018 some of the commitments they made are still standing and have to be paid in the following years.
|
United States43968 Posts
EU members give money to EU. EU spends money on things to the benefit of EU members. If you're not a member then you don't get the benefits but you don't have to give the money. Questions like Acrofales "who will pay the salary of the EU employees in the UK if the UK leaves" seems to miss the fact that those guys don't work for the UK. If the EU wants to keep employing them they can. If they want to fire them they can. If the UK wants to hire them after the EU fires them they can. But it's not a UK obligation, never has been. There is no relationship between them and the British government.
But sure, the UK will have to come up with a list of specific obligations it does have and work out how to settle them. There will certainly be some. Not 70 billion pounds of them, but some.
|
On June 21 2017 01:41 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 01:37 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2017 01:31 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
If the UK owes nothing, aren’t they still required(per the cited agreement above) to provide a budget and breakdown showing they owe nothing? It would seem like a sensible thing to do when negotiating. Does Mexico regarding the wall? Either way David Davies is pretty swamped at the moment. We're going to approach this from a position of incompetence in the secure knowledge that the EU can't take what we don't have. Did Mexico suddenly become part of the US and then leave? This isn’t some crazy outlandish theory. When leaving a long term agreement, the process of untangling the parties is negotiated. Both sides need to come to the table with what a proposal of what that separation will costs both sides. If the number the UK reached is zero, then the UK just needs to show its work like a good math student. We already pay every year to be a member of the EU and are still paying that should have covered most obligations.
Maybe you read my post which cites the official standing of the EC on the contents of the final financial settlement that is aspired.
To reiterate:
30. The Agreement should therefore contain:
(a) A calculation of the global amount that the United Kingdom has to honour in order to settle its financial obligations toward the Union budget, all institutions or bodies established by the Treaties, and other issues with a financial impact. The global amount may be subject to future annual technical adjustments.
(b) A schedule of the annual payments to be made by the United Kingdom and the practical modalities for making these payments.
(c) Transitional rules to ensure control by the Commission (or, where applicable, another body responsible under Union law before the withdrawal date), the Court of Auditors, OLAF and the power to adjudicate of the Court of Justice of the European Union for past payments/recovery orders to United Kingdom beneficiaries and any payments made to United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date to honour all legal commitments (including possible loans) authorised by the responsible entity before the withdrawal date.
(d) Possible arrangements in relation with legal commitments or future legal commitments made towards United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date (e.g. concerning the managing authorities for the payment of United Kingdom beneficiaries).
(e) Specific rules to address the issue of contingent liabilities assumed by the Union budget or specific institutions or bodies or funds (such as loans made by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund).
All in all the parties might agree on a methodology how to calculate the balance first and afterwards a sum will emerge.
Everything before that is posturing, kinda akin to plaintiff and defendant delivering their version of the story in their opening statement.
|
United States43968 Posts
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit.
|
On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit.
First of, I have to say I kind of agree with the fact that the UK has been a net contributor so logically there can't be that many projects in which they owe money.
But of course both parties need to sit down and agree on which posts it's reasonable for the UK to pay (and vice versa, what is it reasonable that the EU pay for).
However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt.
Sure you can vote on if you want to pay your debt it but what your essentially voting on is if you are willing to default as a country because essentially that is what you are doing if you don't pay. And defaulting as a country is, well it's not great if you take Argentina as an example.
This is precisely why I think the posturing is such an incredibly dumb idea. It's simply exceeding bad politics to rile up everyone before the negotiations are done because then the task of explaining to the voters why it's now a good idea to pay might be overwhelming and then you'll suffer political chaos when you have to push it through either way.
Withdrawing is going to be an incredibly complex process even without adding populism and to much politics for it.
Some things are probably going to be a very clear (paying pensions for British citizens who have worked all their life in the UK for an EU institution, funding an infrastructure project in the UK or on the other hand funding future infrastructure projects in mainland Europe), others like research funding is going to be more contentious and for things like EU debt it's probably going to be a real battle.
But it's still much better to go in and tell the public that were going to negotiate these things and come out with a fair deal instead of doing another "350 million quids a week to the NHS".
|
On June 20 2017 22:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 22:06 xM(Z wrote:On June 20 2017 16:15 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote:On June 19 2017 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 19 2017 15:00 xM(Z wrote:
a point can still be made here about the internalization of the problem at a muslim community level. I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks (and that would be ignoring all the most recent attacks which were all committed by individuals reported by members of their community) I fail to see how a campaign by white British people to terrorize the Muslim community is meant to be the trigger to creating unity and solidarity between the white British and British Muslim communities. Consider the inverse. How many terrorist attacks in your community would it take for you to decide that it's in your interests to work with the terrorists? I'm thinking that each attack would make it less likely. Yet your plan relies upon exactly that, attacking the Muslim community until they're eager to work closely with us and oppose any who hate us. to call it solidarity is a stretch(i wouldn't mind it if the british muslims would give white brits the finger after they solve the problem within their ranks(we, at least in principle, assumed there is one here) and honestly i didn't get that far with my thought process(relevancy issues). This argument starts with a false pretext, namely you seem to think that driving a car into innocent muslims will cause radical terrorists to repent and see the errors of their ways. How the hell do you figure that bit? Anyway, just for the hell of it, I switched "western" and "muslim" in the rest of your text, I hope you still agree with what you wrote? Show nested quote +i was limiting the argument to the western community, to the effects of the attack on them(would they try harder to fix their problem or not + Show Spoiler +i read the examples of proactive western people gave here but taking into account that in that London example, their efforts were rendered useless(the attack still happened) by foul politics and/or policies and not knowing if that's the exception rather than the rule, wanting/wishing more of that can't be bad ). as for your second argument, i guess it depends on the degree of guilt(perceived or actual) placed upon the targeted community(history has examples: it took japanese 2 nukes until they started working with the terrorists). to limit the reply to your context, if my community would be guilty, i would suck it up and pay the piper even if indirectly responsible. i admit, i'd rather you wouldn't terrorize me but if that is what it takes, if that reaction is a must, then it's understandable. also, i don't see how you, equating all muslims (after an attack) as terrorists helps you here; all you need is a couple of terrorists and the rest of them(from the same community) to do nothing. By doing so, my aim was to illustrate how entirely empty of any substance your post was. I think it communicates that quite clearly. the argument followed from a pre-agreed hypothesis+ Show Spoiler +Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks
(il)legalities aside, communities have various ways to put pressure on their members. if there's a chance for that pressure to yield results, you take it and it's a win.
i'm not arguing that one should try and trigger that would-be-beneficial-response from the muslim community via terrorist attacks, but here you are, it is done and now you're quantifying possible/probable effects.
the rest is a disagreement on the (theoretical)premise.
@thatotherdude - i wont even ...
|
United States43968 Posts
On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt.
That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval.
|
On June 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt. That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval.
And unless parliament approves it's back to the drawing board.
|
United States43968 Posts
On June 21 2017 03:01 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt. That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval. And unless parliament approves it's back to the drawing board.
If Parliament rejects it then not only is it back to the drawing board, it's election time and a whole new set of people get to go to the board and have a go from the British side.
|
On June 21 2017 03:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 03:01 Artisreal wrote:On June 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt. That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval. And unless parliament approves it's back to the drawing board. If Parliament rejects it then not only is it back to the drawing board, it's election time and a whole new set of people get to go to the board and have a go from the British side.
Well, if its this parliament yes but I wouldn't be suprised if its a new parliament by then and im not sure a brexit bill would count as a confidence vote.
|
On June 21 2017 02:39 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 22:12 Acrofales wrote:On June 20 2017 22:06 xM(Z wrote:On June 20 2017 16:15 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote:On June 19 2017 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 19 2017 15:00 xM(Z wrote:
a point can still be made here about the internalization of the problem at a muslim community level. I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks (and that would be ignoring all the most recent attacks which were all committed by individuals reported by members of their community) I fail to see how a campaign by white British people to terrorize the Muslim community is meant to be the trigger to creating unity and solidarity between the white British and British Muslim communities. Consider the inverse. How many terrorist attacks in your community would it take for you to decide that it's in your interests to work with the terrorists? I'm thinking that each attack would make it less likely. Yet your plan relies upon exactly that, attacking the Muslim community until they're eager to work closely with us and oppose any who hate us. to call it solidarity is a stretch(i wouldn't mind it if the british muslims would give white brits the finger after they solve the problem within their ranks(we, at least in principle, assumed there is one here) and honestly i didn't get that far with my thought process(relevancy issues). This argument starts with a false pretext, namely you seem to think that driving a car into innocent muslims will cause radical terrorists to repent and see the errors of their ways. How the hell do you figure that bit? Anyway, just for the hell of it, I switched "western" and "muslim" in the rest of your text, I hope you still agree with what you wrote? i was limiting the argument to the western community, to the effects of the attack on them(would they try harder to fix their problem or not + Show Spoiler +i read the examples of proactive western people gave here but taking into account that in that London example, their efforts were rendered useless(the attack still happened) by foul politics and/or policies and not knowing if that's the exception rather than the rule, wanting/wishing more of that can't be bad ). as for your second argument, i guess it depends on the degree of guilt(perceived or actual) placed upon the targeted community(history has examples: it took japanese 2 nukes until they started working with the terrorists). to limit the reply to your context, if my community would be guilty, i would suck it up and pay the piper even if indirectly responsible. i admit, i'd rather you wouldn't terrorize me but if that is what it takes, if that reaction is a must, then it's understandable. also, i don't see how you, equating all muslims (after an attack) as terrorists helps you here; all you need is a couple of terrorists and the rest of them(from the same community) to do nothing. By doing so, my aim was to illustrate how entirely empty of any substance your post was. I think it communicates that quite clearly. the argument followed from a pre-agreed hypothesis + Show Spoiler +Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks ; if you disagree with it, don't bother(the argument doesn't work). (il)legalities aside, communities have various ways to put pressure on their members. if there's a chance for that pressure to yield results, you take it and it's a win. i'm not arguing that one should try and trigger that would-be-beneficial-response from the muslim community via terrorist attacks, but here you are, it is done and now you're quantifying possible/probable effects. the rest is a disagreement on the (theoretical)premise. @thatotherdude - i wont even ... Oh I get it now. You think that British Muslims aren't doing enough to report potential terrorists, despite that the Manchester bomber was reported by his own parents. Therefore you believe that it is beneficial for terrorist attacks to occur on the muslim population in order to increase report rates. Am I right, or am I wrong? Why can't you just say this in plain English? Instead of putting the points behind spoilers and talking about fingers and nuking Japan and nattering about some sort of conspiracy theory by the government to let terrorist attacks occur and other gobbledygook.
|
United States43968 Posts
On June 21 2017 03:10 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 03:04 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 03:01 Artisreal wrote:On June 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt. That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval. And unless parliament approves it's back to the drawing board. If Parliament rejects it then not only is it back to the drawing board, it's election time and a whole new set of people get to go to the board and have a go from the British side. Well, if its this parliament yes but I wouldn't be suprised if its a new parliament by then and im not sure a brexit bill would count as a confidence vote.
I would be.
Which manifesto promise vote are the government going to lose in order to trigger an election? Bearing in mind that this is a coalition government and all manifestos have been rendered invalid due to no absolute victor. They have no obligation to hold any votes on manifesto promises.
Failing that, are they going to lose a vote of no confidence? Without Sinn Fein taking their seats? And without any Tory rebels because they wouldn't ever rebel in a vote of no confidence?
You're in for five years of Tories unless they get voted down on a Brexit bill. That is the only condition under which they fall. And even then, they get to choose whether to accept a proposal and bring it to a vote. The proposals that damage them never get voted on.
|
On June 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt. That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval.
Fundamentally debt is just an agreement between two parties (or persons) on that one of them owes the other one something. Normally this is enforced by some higher authority (the courts) if the two parties disagree but between countries there is no higher authority to refer too. In theory you could ask an impartial instance to mediate like in a claims court and both agree to abide by their decisions but I doubt it's in anyone's interest even if you could find something that both has the gravity to do so and that is truly impartial.
Anyway, say there is a number reached in negotiations between the UK and the EU. The UK parliament votes on this number and find that it's to high (for political reasons) but the EU obviously doesn't agree.
If there were two citizens in some country involved the case would then go to the courts.
But what will happen instead is that the UK can either a) try to renegotiate the sum which is likely basically saying we can't pay this debt (for political reasons) or b) the UK can ignore paying without renegotiation.
If a new deal is not made the EU will see it as the UK refusing to pay their debt which is, and since it's countries were talking about, basically defaulting on their debt.
They can then either try to size the money (through tariffs) or simply stop dealing the UK. The rest of the world watching will of course also evaluate the situation and generally not honoring agreements or being very difficult to negotiate with for political reasons is not good for a country which will be looking to reforge international trade treaties.
Since "debt" is just a word used to describe something which there are really no rules for when it comes to countries what the British parliament wants to call it doesn't really matter. Once the government appointed negotiators are done and the PM decides to bring it to a vote it is for all intents and purposes a debt in the eyes of the EU.
Of course, "we can't pay that" is a solid negotiating tactic when it comes to debt regardless of the reasons so there's probably a possibility to lower the amount if the EU senses it would otherwise get nothing.
But any political problems getting it through should be solved beforehand in order to avoid a situation which can only be interpreted as extreme weakness from the UK.
Which brings me back to my original point, it's a bad idea to rile up your voters to much because if you don't want to default and lose face internationally you are going to have to explain why paying X is a good idea to them at some point and it could turn out to be a political disaster.
Or you could just go "yolo" and hard Brexit but that's basically defaulting on the EU regardless if they think you owe them money and it would have very real consequences for a lot of normal people so let's hope that won't happen.
|
Thread moved on and they just called in 3 patients so I won't have time to finish this. Suffice to say that Kwark has yet to learn to actually read a post, understand the points raised in said post, and then argue the points raised in that post instead of ascribing fictional arguments to the opposition which are then easily shoot down.
|
United States43968 Posts
On June 21 2017 03:29 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt. That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval. Fundamentally debt is just an agreement between two parties (or persons) on that one of them owes the other one something. Normally this is enforced by some higher authority (the courts) if the two parties disagree but between countries there is no higher authority to refer too. In theory you could ask an impartial instance to mediate like in a claims court and both agree to abide by their decisions but I doubt it's in anyone's interest even if you could find something that both has the gravity to do so and that is truly impartial. Anyway, say there is a number reached in negotiations between the UK and the EU. The UK parliament votes on this number and find that it's to high (for political reasons) but the EU obviously doesn't agree. If there were two citizens in some country involved the case would then go to the courts. But what will happen instead is that the UK can either a) try to renegotiate the sum which is likely basically saying we can't pay this debt (for political reasons) or b) the UK can ignore paying without renegotiation. If a new deal is not made the EU will see it as the UK refusing to pay their debt which is, and since it's countries were talking about, basically defaulting on their debt. They can then either try to size the money (through tariffs) or simply stop dealing the UK. The rest of the world watching will of course also evaluate the situation and generally not honoring agreements or being very difficult to negotiate with for political reasons is not good for a country which will be looking to reforge international trade treaties. Since "debt" is just a word used to describe something which there are really no rules for when it comes to countries what the British parliament wants to call it doesn't really matter. Once the government appointed negotiators are done and the PM decides to bring it to a vote it is for all intents and purposes a debt in the eyes of the EU. Of course, "we can't pay that" is a solid negotiating tactic when it comes to debt regardless of the reasons so there's probably a possibility to lower the amount if the EU senses it would otherwise get nothing. But any political problems getting it through should be solved beforehand in order to avoid a situation which can only be interpreted as extreme weakness from the UK. Which brings me back to my original point, it's a bad idea to rile up your voters to much because if you don't want to default and lose face internationally you are going to have to explain why paying X is a good idea to them at some point and it could turn out to be a political disaster. Or you could just go "yolo" and hard Brexit but that's basically defaulting on the EU regardless if they think you owe them money and it would have very real consequences for a lot of normal people so let's hope that won't happen.
That's just not right.
David Davis has no more power to put the UK 20b in debt than I do.
I'm sorry but the thing you are saying is factually untrue. The UK Parliament and the EU are negotiating and no obligation is created until both parties accept the agreement. The UK government will try to represent the interests of the UK Parliament such that whatever agreement is brought before the Parliament ought to be acceptable but it certainly cannot accept it on their behalf because it isn't one of the two parties and the question of whether the UK government has the authority to act on behalf of the UK Parliament regarding Brexit has been conclusively decided in the negative by the courts.
You can continue to not believe this if you like but you're talking utter bollocks. The authority of government ministers in this case has been clearly defined, if the EU decided to accept a promise of 20b from David Davis while knowing that he spoke on behalf of himself and not the UK then they're welcome to try and collect it from him. What they cannot do is claim that they believed he was speaking on behalf of the UK because it has already been clearly stated that he is not.
This whole hypothetical situation in which the EU says "David Davis told us we'd get paid so we're going to try and collect from the UK" and then runs around telling every other country that the UK defaulted because it wouldn't honour David Davis' suggestion is utterly absurd. The credit and reputation of the UK would be in no way impacted because it was clearly established by all parties ahead of time that David Davis was not empowered to create a debt for the UK. The only thing that would be damaged is the reputation of any nation stupid enough to try. Which of course none of the EU nations are which is why this whole hypothetical is extremely silly.
|
On June 21 2017 03:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 03:29 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 02:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 21 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
Either way, the EU will have to pitch to the acceptable range of the Conservative party, and that's not much. The weakness of the UK government really ties their hands in terms of negotiations. The Conservatives will not hold a vote they'll lose on Brexit. However I think you credit political capital far to much. If there is a number, say 20 billion or something like that which is reached because both parties think it's agreeable then that's that. As the agreement is struck it effectively becomes debt. That's not how it works. The number would be a component of a Brexit bill which would be debated by Parliament. The UK courts have ruled that the government lacks the authority to make Brexit agreements without Parliamentary approval. The government has not been empowered to execute Brexit, only to negotiate a potential agreement and bring a bill to Parliament for approval. Fundamentally debt is just an agreement between two parties (or persons) on that one of them owes the other one something. Normally this is enforced by some higher authority (the courts) if the two parties disagree but between countries there is no higher authority to refer too. In theory you could ask an impartial instance to mediate like in a claims court and both agree to abide by their decisions but I doubt it's in anyone's interest even if you could find something that both has the gravity to do so and that is truly impartial. Anyway, say there is a number reached in negotiations between the UK and the EU. The UK parliament votes on this number and find that it's to high (for political reasons) but the EU obviously doesn't agree. If there were two citizens in some country involved the case would then go to the courts. But what will happen instead is that the UK can either a) try to renegotiate the sum which is likely basically saying we can't pay this debt (for political reasons) or b) the UK can ignore paying without renegotiation. If a new deal is not made the EU will see it as the UK refusing to pay their debt which is, and since it's countries were talking about, basically defaulting on their debt. They can then either try to size the money (through tariffs) or simply stop dealing the UK. The rest of the world watching will of course also evaluate the situation and generally not honoring agreements or being very difficult to negotiate with for political reasons is not good for a country which will be looking to reforge international trade treaties. Since "debt" is just a word used to describe something which there are really no rules for when it comes to countries what the British parliament wants to call it doesn't really matter. Once the government appointed negotiators are done and the PM decides to bring it to a vote it is for all intents and purposes a debt in the eyes of the EU. Of course, "we can't pay that" is a solid negotiating tactic when it comes to debt regardless of the reasons so there's probably a possibility to lower the amount if the EU senses it would otherwise get nothing. But any political problems getting it through should be solved beforehand in order to avoid a situation which can only be interpreted as extreme weakness from the UK. Which brings me back to my original point, it's a bad idea to rile up your voters to much because if you don't want to default and lose face internationally you are going to have to explain why paying X is a good idea to them at some point and it could turn out to be a political disaster. Or you could just go "yolo" and hard Brexit but that's basically defaulting on the EU regardless if they think you owe them money and it would have very real consequences for a lot of normal people so let's hope that won't happen. That's just not right. David Davis has no more power to put the UK 20b in debt than I do. I'm sorry but the thing you are saying is factually untrue. The UK Parliament and the EU are negotiating and no obligation is created until both parties accept the agreement. The UK government will try to represent the interests of the UK Parliament such that whatever agreement is brought before the Parliament ought to be acceptable but it certainly cannot accept it on their behalf because it isn't one of the two parties and the question of whether the UK government has the authority to act on behalf of the UK Parliament regarding Brexit has been conclusively decided in the negative by the courts. You can continue to not believe this if you like but you're talking utter bollocks. The authority of government ministers in this case has been clearly defined, if the EU decided to accept a promise of 20b from David Davis while knowing that he spoke on behalf of himself and not the UK then they're welcome to try and collect it from him. What they cannot do is claim that they believed he was speaking on behalf of the UK because it has already been clearly stated that he is not. This whole hypothetical situation in which the EU says "David Davis told us we'd get paid so we're going to try and collect from the UK" and then runs around telling every other country that the UK defaulted because it wouldn't honour David Davis' suggestion is utterly absurd. The credit and reputation of the UK would be in no way impacted because it was clearly established by all parties ahead of time that David Davis was not empowered to create a debt for the UK. The only thing that would be damaged is the reputation of any nation stupid enough to try. Which of course none of the EU nations are which is why this whole hypothetical is extremely silly.
Not what I said at all.
I said that if the negotiations conclude and the government of the UK puts the matter to a vote the amount voted on is essentially debt until it's renegotiated.
The fact is that (like all countries) the UK has appointed a government to act on their behalf which includes international negotiations with other countries and organisations. These parties will negotiate in good faith (through David Davis as a proxy) and come to an agreement.
It's then the UK governments job to make sure that agreement passes through parliament.
Whatever national laws the UK have doesn't matter from an international perspective at all.
If Parliament wants to have final say on what happens they should handle the negotiations themselves, if the appoint government to handle the negotiations they should also divest the power to actually accept the proposed deal.
This is how most countries handle it and it's internationally expected that whoever you are dealing with can actually seal the deal (and no, I am of course not talking about David Davies here). That is if you are dealing with the UK government you expect them to make the decision and if they can't you should be dealing directly with Parliament.
Which is why it's fine if whatever deal that is made passes the vote but it is not fine if it doesn't go through just because the UK has a weird national system since international relations doesn't care about that.
Simply put, if you and your mate agree that he owes you 20 quid for the pints from last weekend (both have a pretty hazy memory) you don't really care if he comes back and says he can't pay because his girlfriend forbids him to pay you because you were dealing with him and not the girlfriend in the first place. And if he is so whipped he isn't allowed to settle the tab you should have been talking to his girl in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
