in 1602773 20170623 003410 Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/06/2017 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 20:14:30 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
In message , michael
adams writes
Basically until the UK agrees to pay them what they think they're due,
regardless of whether anyone else thinks this is fair or not, they're
not going to negotiate on anything else.

This was the fait accompli which Davis was presented with on Monday
morning.

If you read the article some of the sums being mentioned as compo are
simply staggering i.e 100 billion

It's maybe no wonder a lot of people are trying to play this down.

So the EU position is "Pay us 100 billion or you have to stay in our
cartel (club or whatever)"?

But the 100 billion was just a down payment wasn;t it.
They are just like any other blackmailer.

We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every EU
funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

Is it unreasonable for all EU organisations to be based in the EU?
We wanted to leave the EU (the logically-challenged among us) so we
can't expect to keep the benefits.