In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
charles posted
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

We are cancelling the contract.

and, like any other cancelled contract, penalty paymenst will be due.


Nope. Only cancelled contracts which state that penalty payments apply
on cancellation.

Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.

--
*Constipated People Don't Give A Crap*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
charles posted
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

We are cancelling the contract.

and, like any other cancelled contract, penalty paymenst will be due.


Nope. Only cancelled contracts which state that penalty payments apply
on cancellation.

Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.


They're confiding in you? I had no idea you were so influential.

--
Jack

On Friday, 23 June 2017 07:07:32 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
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?

Seems logical but what do you mean by EU organisations ?

We wanted to leave the EU (the logically-challenged among us) so we
can't expect to keep the benefits.

Like teh benifits of paying for the upkeep of a building in central london or haing to supply high priced , transport, meals, drinks, security for that building. If the EU wish to kepe the building we can charge them rent, or sell it off, but we don't know who owns it.

On Friday, 23 June 2017 14:19:36 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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 it will be subject to negotiation. No point in having talks is
nothing can be changed.

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.

Which means the EU would also partially own any projects in the UK which
they funded or part funded - of which there are many.

Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

That would depend on what is stated oin the contract and would also apply to contracts in the UK so the EU would also have to homour contracts it's not just a one way thing.



Maybe the divorce payment is to end the contracts early?

That could be the general idea but maybe such contracts won't need to be cancelled as that would depend on the contributers.

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
charles posted
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

We are cancelling the contract.

and, like any other cancelled contract, penalty paymenst will be due.


Nope. Only cancelled contracts which state that penalty payments apply
on cancellation.

Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.


They're confiding in you? I had no idea you were so influential.

You really think they've be talking about how much we have to pay the EU
after leaving if there were no legal reasons for this?

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.


They're confiding in you? I had no idea you were so influential.

You really think they've be talking about how much we have to pay the EU
after leaving if there were no legal reasons for this?

If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you have
to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal reasons
for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

At a guess I would say our negotiators talking about things like "If the
UK wants to continue to be part of the European Medicines Agency, we'll
have to sort out the financial side of that." But that's very different
from "We've got to pay them EUR100m to leave!"

--
Jack

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.


They're confiding in you? I had no idea you were so influential.

You really think they've be talking about how much we have to pay the EU
after leaving if there were no legal reasons for this?

If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you have
to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal reasons
for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

True. Far better to believe the bar room lawyers on here.

At a guess I would say our negotiators talking about things like "If the
UK wants to continue to be part of the European Medicines Agency, we'll
have to sort out the financial side of that." But that's very different
from "We've got to pay them EUR100m to leave!"

You seem to be making things up as you go along.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you have
to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal reasons
for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

True. Far better to believe the bar room lawyers on here.

Of which group you are a leading representative? Certainly you haven't
been able to post any useful information.

--
Jack

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you have
to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal reasons
for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

True. Far better to believe the bar room lawyers on here.

Of which group you are a leading representative? Certainly you haven't
been able to post any useful information.

I'm not the one saying such and such a contract isn't legal and can be
ignored. You are. Without any knowledge whatsoever.

I think it is fair to assume if the EU's demands for monies to be paid
after we leave had no legal basis, even our rather incompetent negotiators
would know this.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you have
to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal reasons
for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

True. Far better to believe the bar room lawyers on here.

Of which group you are a leading representative? Certainly you haven't
been able to post any useful information.

I'm not the one saying such and such a contract isn't legal and can be
ignored. You are.

Simple lies. I haven't said anything of the kind.

All I have said is that the *only* relevant official agreement whose
text is in the public domain - article 50 of the Treaty - does not
specify any penalty payments whatsoever. I have invited you and others
to cite them, but no dice. All I get is ******** like:
I think it is fair to assume if the EU's demands for monies to be paid
after we leave had no legal basis, even our rather incompetent negotiators
would know this.

Maybe they do but they haven't confided in you yet.

--
Jack

On 26/06/17 15:01, Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.


They're confiding in you? I had no idea you were so influential.

You really think they've be talking about how much we have to pay the EU
after leaving if there were no legal reasons for this?

If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you have
to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal reasons
for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

At a guess I would say our negotiators talking about things like "If the
UK wants to continue to be part of the European Medicines Agency, we'll
have to sort out the financial side of that." But that's very different
from "We've got to pay them EUR100m to leave!"

No. In essence almost none of these pan European institutions are
actually part of the EU.

Membership of e.g. CERN will be unaffected.

Brexit is quite simple. No more overarching legal powers by the EU in
Britain, no more ECHR no more uncontrolled immigration.

That's all people want. And control of our traditional seas would be
nice too.

If it costs us free trade and ability to get into the EU without a
passport - hang on I had a passport last time I went to France anyway -
so what? 5% on French wine means we get New Zealand cheaper.




--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
I'm not the one saying such and such a contract isn't legal and can be
ignored. You are.

Simple lies. I haven't said anything of the kind.

All I have said is that the *only* relevant official agreement whose
text is in the public domain - article 50 of the Treaty - does not
specify any penalty payments whatsoever. I have invited you and others
to cite them, but no dice. All I get is ******** like:

Ah. Right. Because you can't find something it doesn't exist.

I think it is fair to assume if the EU's demands for monies to be paid
after we leave had no legal basis, even our rather incompetent
negotiators would know this.

Maybe they do but they haven't confided in you yet.

But have to you?

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/06/2017 14:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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 it will be subject to negotiation. No point in having talks is
nothing can be changed.

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.

Which means the EU would also partially own any projects in the UK which
they funded or part funded - of which there are many.

Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

But the value of the resulting infrastructure will remain entirely
within the EU (for any project outside the UK) - we will have paid for a
share of it and that share should be due back to us when we leave, as
the EU is retaining the benefit of the project, not us.

Is the EU going to continue to fund ongoing projects in the UK?

Maybe the divorce payment is to end the contracts early?

The EU should have a responsibility to minimise the costs to the UK by
restructuring the projects, cutting them back if necessary or
re-organising funding - they have had sufficient warning to do so and
should not be continuing to incur additional costs for the UK. You can
be pretty certain that they are not cancelling the projects, just
expecting the UK to continue to pay, despite no longer having an
interest in the outcome.

Even if there are cancellation costs that we must pay our share of, we
should have a counter-claim for our share of the value to date of each
project - as they could claim against the much smaller value of EU
funded projects within the UK.

Just like a divorce or a business break up, pooled assets as well as
commitments should be shared.

SteveW

On 26/06/2017 18:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/06/17 15:01, Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Odd our negotiators don't seem to know that.


They're confiding in you? I had no idea you were so influential.

You really think they've be talking about how much we have to pay the EU
after leaving if there were no legal reasons for this?

If you think you know what they're talking about, and why, all you
have to do is post your inside information here. And post the legal
reasons for it. Nobody I've asked has yet done so.

At a guess I would say our negotiators talking about things like "If
the UK wants to continue to be part of the European Medicines Agency,
we'll have to sort out the financial side of that." But that's very
different from "We've got to pay them EUR100m to leave!"

No. In essence almost none of these pan European institutions are
actually part of the EU.

Membership of e.g. CERN will be unaffected.

Brexit is quite simple. No more overarching legal powers by the EU in
Britain, no more ECHR no more uncontrolled immigration.

That's all people want. And control of our traditional seas would be
nice too.

Spot on, though I do feel the EHCR is there to stop government excesses.

If it costs us free trade and ability to get into the EU without a
passport - hang on I had a passport last time I went to France anyway -
so what? 5% on French wine means we get New Zealand cheaper.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The EU should have a responsibility to minimise the costs to the UK by
restructuring the projects, cutting them back if necessary or
re-organising funding - they have had sufficient warning to do so and
should not be continuing to incur additional costs for the UK. You can
be pretty certain that they are not cancelling the projects, just
expecting the UK to continue to pay, despite no longer having an
interest in the outcome.

They've had plenty warning? Remind us when article 50 was finally signed?

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/06/2017 23:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The EU should have a responsibility to minimise the costs to the UK by
restructuring the projects, cutting them back if necessary or
re-organising funding - they have had sufficient warning to do so and
should not be continuing to incur additional costs for the UK. You can
be pretty certain that they are not cancelling the projects, just
expecting the UK to continue to pay, despite no longer having an
interest in the outcome.

They've had plenty warning? Remind us when article 50 was finally signed?

They knew from the day after the referendum!

SteveW

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The EU should have a responsibility to minimise the costs to the UK by
restructuring the projects, cutting them back if necessary or
re-organising funding - they have had sufficient warning to do so and
should not be continuing to incur additional costs for the UK. You can
be pretty certain that they are not cancelling the projects, just
expecting the UK to continue to pay, despite no longer having an
interest in the outcome.

They've had plenty warning? Remind us when article 50 was finally signed?

And remind us when it takes effect and remind us who specified the
notice period in A50.
--
bert

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 26/06/2017 23:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The EU should have a responsibility to minimise the costs to the UK by
restructuring the projects, cutting them back if necessary or
re-organising funding - they have had sufficient warning to do so and
should not be continuing to incur additional costs for the UK. You can
be pretty certain that they are not cancelling the projects, just
expecting the UK to continue to pay, despite no longer having an
interest in the outcome.

They've had plenty warning? Remind us when article 50 was finally
signed?

They knew from the day after the referendum!

Someone else deciding to move the goalposts. The government could have
signed article 50 very soon after the referendum if they'd chosen to. But
chose not to since they had absolutely no plans for Brexit. But you expect
the EU to do things in the UK's favour.

--
*Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.