Not quite true, he has said we have 2 weeks if we are going to talk trade this year, considering that would take us up to the end of November he's being pretty realistic, they aren't going to get a lot of trade talks done if we still are arguing about the bill in December. Of all the things him and Davis have come out with that is fairly realistic looking at dates.
Yeah, I'm objecting to the timetable we agreed - exit bill then talks on trade.
The bill we pay will depend on what trade deal we get - if later talks aren't agreeable we'll end up tearing up the whole agreement and walking away.
Unless the EU insists we enact a bill to confirm the payments
She isn't really anything apart from in it for herself and she sees this as the best way of clinging onto power.
As for Boris I think he has managed to disgrace himself enough that he could be thrown out and no longer need to be part of the "collective responsibility", he IMO has tainted himself enough even within his own party.
Doesn't that leave him clear to stand as leader, as things get worse?
Registered: Oct 2010 Posts: 33316 - Threads: 426 Location: london
Quote:
Matt wrote on 10-11-2017 01:58 PM
Yeah, I'm objecting to the timetable we agreed - exit bill then talks on trade.
The bill we pay will depend on what trade deal we get - if later talks aren't agreeable we'll end up tearing up the whole agreement and walking away.
Unless the EU insists we enact a bill to confirm the payments
TBF despite all our posturing at the end of the day we need a trade deal more than them , we'd be better off just paying the brexit bill ( a fair bill, not strapped over a barrel) and then getting on with the hellish job of our future. this brinksmanship serves no-one and will cost us more in the long run than not IMO. if we have prior obligations then we should pay them. However we should also have the fruits of any obligation we pay for.
TBF despite all our posturing at the end of the day we need a trade deal more than them , we'd be better off just paying the brexit bill ( a fair bill, not strapped over a barrel) and then getting on with the hellish job of our future. this brinksmanship serves no-one and will cost us more in the long run than not IMO. if we have prior obligations then we should pay them. However we should also have the fruits of any obligation we pay for.
I'm not sure we can get the trade deal we need, services make up a large part of our GPD and I can't see the EU continuing our banking passport unless we agree to be bound by the EU courts.
Conversely, the EU sells a lot of goods into the UK so they'll want to protect their interests.
And I can't see £10b or £100b exit bill making any difference to either of those points.
And let's not forget how the EU has operated in the past, when referendums don't go their way.
I think I'm right in recalling Ireland and The Netherlands both voted against signing treaties and there have been hurried negotiations on all sides to agree a compromise.
Cue second referendum, votes give the right result, off we go again.
The difference is the UK's only referendum was the nuclear option, but I'm still wondering when EU modus operandi might kick in.
Registered: Oct 2010 Posts: 33316 - Threads: 426 Location: london
Quote:
Matt wrote on 10-11-2017 02:14 PM
And let's not forget how the EU has operated in the past, when referendums don't go their way.
I think I'm right in recalling Ireland and The Netherlands both voted against signing treaties and there have been hurried negotiations on all sides to agree a compromise.
Cue second referendum, votes give the right result, off we go again.
The difference is the UK's only referendum was the nuclear option, but I'm still wondering when EU modus operandi might kick in.
Off the top of my head the Lisbon treaty and i can't remember the other one but yes, sounds about right.