RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Anyone who simply wants out no matter there being no deal in place is on a par with flat earth advocates or anti vaccers, they get a vote but they're not worth listening to

Denouncing those with extreme views by pronouncing extreme views.

What is extreme about saying it's not worth listening to people so stupid they think we can just walk away? There simply can't be one aspect they'd have close to sufficient grasp of

Wanting WTO is nowhere near believing the earth is flat or being anti-vaccine. If you think it is the vortex has swallowed you.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Facts such as their refusal to bother obeying EU law so often in the past. Status affects credit. I doubt we'd have much bother in the future if we just sat back and waited for the EU to prove the debts and attempt to get us to settle.

The question of what we owe isn’t EU law, it’s international law. We’ve already agreed the process to get to and the final figure on what we owe, ie our liabilities that we’ve previously agreed to whilst voting members of the EU. The debts/liabilities don’t need to be proven, we’ve already agreed them!!
When France break EU law they pay a fine. They don’t just get let off.
I think the EU is highly flawed but these claims that it’s rigged/ruled/dictated to by France and/or Germany have no basis in fact and just distract from the very real flaws of the EU.

Is it agreed now it's international law?

I don't agree with the idea of not honouring one's debts, but I thought there was still a chance it was enforceable by an EU court but only if we don't leave the EU

From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Denouncing those with extreme views by pronouncing extreme views.

What is extreme about saying it's not worth listening to people so stupid they think we can just walk away? There simply can't be one aspect they'd have close to sufficient grasp of

Wanting WTO is nowhere near believing the earth is flat or being anti-vaccine. If you think it is the vortex has swallowed you.

It is fairly atrocious and there are many more concerns beyond the WTO problems

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The question of what we owe isn’t EU law, it’s international law. We’ve already agreed the process to get to and the final figure on what we owe, ie our liabilities that we’ve previously agreed to whilst voting members of the EU. The debts/liabilities don’t need to be proven, we’ve already agreed them!!
When France break EU law they pay a fine. They don’t just get let off.
I think the EU is highly flawed but these claims that it’s rigged/ruled/dictated to by France and/or Germany have no basis in fact and just distract from the very real flaws of the EU.

Is it agreed now it's international law?

I don't agree with the idea of not honouring one's debts, but I thought there was still a chance it was enforceable by an EU court but only if we don't leave the EU

From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

What actual court would hear the case?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Is it agreed now it's international law?

I don't agree with the idea of not honouring one's debts, but I thought there was still a chance it was enforceable by an EU court but only if we don't leave the EU

From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

What actual court would hear the case?

No idea. I suppose BBD could put a business case together for the RR politics board to adjudicate.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

What actual court would hear the case?

No idea. I suppose BBD could put a business case together for the RR politics board to adjudicate.

Only if I get to ban Junker and Farage.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
What actual court would hear the case?

No idea. I suppose BBD could put a business case together for the RR politics board to adjudicate.

Only if I get to ban Junker and Farage.

Have a chat with Cameron. He’ll give you some tips on how to best achie.....ah, no, hang on.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The question of what we owe isn’t EU law, it’s international law. We’ve already agreed the process to get to and the final figure on what we owe, ie our liabilities that we’ve previously agreed to whilst voting members of the EU. The debts/liabilities don’t need to be proven, we’ve already agreed them!!
When France break EU law they pay a fine. They don’t just get let off.
I think the EU is highly flawed but these claims that it’s rigged/ruled/dictated to by France and/or Germany have no basis in fact and just distract from the very real flaws of the EU.

Is it agreed now it's international law?

I don't agree with the idea of not honouring one's debts, but I thought there was still a chance it was enforceable by an EU court but only if we don't leave the EU

From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

Here's J R-M on it:

". . the House of Lords in a report in March 2017 made clear that, in the event of no financial settlement under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, we would owe nothing under UK, EU or international law. As the committee is dominated by distinguished Europhiles, its report has achieved an unchallenged authority."

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Is it agreed now it's international law?

I don't agree with the idea of not honouring one's debts, but I thought there was still a chance it was enforceable by an EU court but only if we don't leave the EU

From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

Here's J R-M on it:

". . the House of Lords in a report in March 2017 made clear that, in the event of no financial settlement under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, we would owe nothing under UK, EU or international law. As the committee is dominated by distinguished Europhiles, its report has achieved an unchallenged authority."

That’s a very JRM interpretation of the Lords’ findings - it wasn’t as clear cut as that. Also, other bodies say differently. Love that JRM has decided that in this case the Lords have ‘unchallenged authority’. When they disagree with him he has a slightly different way of describing them. As with all all arch-leavers and arch-remainers, he’s lost all sense of proportion.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

Here's J R-M on it:

". . the House of Lords in a report in March 2017 made clear that, in the event of no financial settlement under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, we would owe nothing under UK, EU or international law. As the committee is dominated by distinguished Europhiles, its report has achieved an unchallenged authority."

That’s a very JRM interpretation of the Lords’ findings - it wasn’t as clear cut as that. Also, other bodies say differently. Love that JRM has decided that in this case the Lords have ‘unchallenged authority’. When they disagree with him he has a slightly different way of describing them. As with all all arch-leavers and arch-remainers, he’s lost all sense of proportion.

Fuck knows then! Of course, until the EU bollocks our House of Lords performed its proper function at the head of our legal process. I just want out with total independence and no links to any form of the EU decision process. That IS Brexit. Anything else is 2nd best.

It amuses me to think of what would be said if we were not in the EU and someone was trying to make the case for joining. It would be somewhat difficult, I suspect. Let's face it we narrowly avoided joining the euro, yet there were those who suggested there was a genuine case for doing so.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Is it agreed now it's international law?

I don't agree with the idea of not honouring one's debts, but I thought there was still a chance it was enforceable by an EU court but only if we don't leave the EU

From what I’ve read.....and it’s not that much as it has all got far too boring and acrimonious for me and what I did read was a while ago.....the ‘divorce bill’ as part of the withdrawal agreement isn’t covered, but that which the UK has committed to the EU budget is covered by international law (all one and the same really). That we’ve agreed the process and formula by which the divorce bill was agreed and agreed a figure would also weaken our case if the EU did take legal action.

What actual court would hear the case?

It's mildly irrelevant which court would hear the case - that would only affect whether we paid the £39bn or not. If we decided not to, I don't think anyone could force us, short of invading.

What would be relevant is the next time a chunk of our sovereign debt comes up for refinancing, no bugger would lend to us, as we'd have a recent history of not paying our debts on the whim of the people. It doesn't matter if we could be forced to pay in court, or if it's technically legal - what matter is that our nation is billions upon billions in debt with revolving accounts that need regular refinancing and if we are perceived to have defaulted, then we can wave goodbye to getting a decent interest rate for a generation. We'd lose more than £39bn just in interest rate hikes.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Here's J R-M on it:

". . the House of Lords in a report in March 2017 made clear that, in the event of no financial settlement under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, we would owe nothing under UK, EU or international law. As the committee is dominated by distinguished Europhiles, its report has achieved an unchallenged authority."

That’s a very JRM interpretation of the Lords’ findings - it wasn’t as clear cut as that. Also, other bodies say differently. Love that JRM has decided that in this case the Lords have ‘unchallenged authority’. When they disagree with him he has a slightly different way of describing them. As with all all arch-leavers and arch-remainers, he’s lost all sense of proportion.

Fuck knows then! Of course, until the EU bollocks our House of Lords performed its proper function at the head of our legal process. I just want out with total independence and no links to any form of the EU decision process. That IS Brexit. Anything else is 2nd best.

It amuses me to think of what would be said if we were not in the EU and someone was trying to make the case for joining. It would be somewhat difficult, I suspect. Let's face it we narrowly avoided joining the euro, yet there were those who suggested there was a genuine case for doing so.

What in the blazes does I just want out mean?

We currently are participant to a significant multilateral agreement, but even if we fully leave we'll only set about signing new agreements which means we'll not be free to act as we want

Also that's only your version of Brexit, my ballot paper only mentioned the EU, it didn't mention the single market, the customs union, Erasmus and so on

Digby wrote:What in the blazes does I just want out mean?

We currently are participant to a significant multilateral agreement, but even if we fully leave we'll only set about signing new agreements which means we'll not be free to act as we want

Also that's only your version of Brexit, my ballot paper only mentioned the EU, it didn't mention the single market, the customs union, Erasmus and so on

I want us to be a completely independent country again with all that it usually means. That's what I understood leaving the EU and all its restrictions to mean. The ballot paper did not mention staying in anything. My version of things sees us gaining from competing with the EU in the world market once restrictive practises no longer apply.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:What in the blazes does I just want out mean?

We currently are participant to a significant multilateral agreement, but even if we fully leave we'll only set about signing new agreements which means we'll not be free to act as we want

Also that's only your version of Brexit, my ballot paper only mentioned the EU, it didn't mention the single market, the customs union, Erasmus and so on

I want us to be a completely independent country again with all that it usually means. That's what I understood leaving the EU and all its restrictions to mean. The ballot paper did not mention staying in anything. My version of things sees us gaining from competing with the EU in the world market once restrictive practises no longer apply.

The only way to be independent is to also be isolationist, else you'll be making compromises, and often ones that bind

And the ballot paper mentioned only leaving the EU, which we could do and still remain in the single market and customs union. There are of course a variety of views on the best way to leave but none of them are specifically supported by the referendum

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:What in the blazes does I just want out mean?

We currently are participant to a significant multilateral agreement, but even if we fully leave we'll only set about signing new agreements which means we'll not be free to act as we want

Also that's only your version of Brexit, my ballot paper only mentioned the EU, it didn't mention the single market, the customs union, Erasmus and so on

I want us to be a completely independent country again with all that it usually means. That's what I understood leaving the EU and all its restrictions to mean. The ballot paper did not mention staying in anything. My version of things sees us gaining from competing with the EU in the world market once restrictive practises no longer apply.

The only way to be independent is to also be isolationist, else you'll be making compromises, and often ones that bind

And the ballot paper mentioned only leaving the EU, which we could do and still remain in the single market and customs union. There are of course a variety of views on the best way to leave but none of them are specifically supported by the referendum

You are independent by making your own choices. Being in the customs union and/or single market doesn’t enable that - not by whilst outside the EU, anyway. Being independent doesn’t mean not making any deals, it means being the sole arbiter of which deals you want to make.

You don’t vote for what is on the ballot paper. You vote for what is in a manifesto and what is said during a campaign. The problem being that there really wasn’t a Leave manifesto. However, I think it was obvious that by voting leave you voted for an end to the freedom of movement - so no single market - and, to a lesser extent, the ability to sign our own free trade deals - which means no customs union. Moreover, as the EU repeatedly state, both are central planks/pillars of the EU and I’d argue that if you remain in them you haven’t really left the EU. All you’ve left is the room from where they are directly influenced. Finally, that strap line that was so central to the Leave campaign ‘taking back control’ - there is no way you can stay in the single market or the customs union and claim you’ve achieved/satisfied that.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I want us to be a completely independent country again with all that it usually means. That's what I understood leaving the EU and all its restrictions to mean. The ballot paper did not mention staying in anything. My version of things sees us gaining from competing with the EU in the world market once restrictive practises no longer apply.

The only way to be independent is to also be isolationist, else you'll be making compromises, and often ones that bind

And the ballot paper mentioned only leaving the EU, which we could do and still remain in the single market and customs union. There are of course a variety of views on the best way to leave but none of them are specifically supported by the referendum

You are independent by making your own choices. Being in the customs union and/or single market doesn’t enable that - not by whilst outside the EU, anyway. Being independent doesn’t mean not making any deals, it means being the sole arbiter of which deals you want to make.

You don’t vote for what is on the ballot paper. You vote for what is in a manifesto and what is said during a campaign. The problem being that there really wasn’t a Leave manifesto. However, I think it was obvious that by voting leave you voted for an end to the freedom of movement - so no single market - and, to a lesser extent, the ability to sign our own free trade deals - which means no customs union. Moreover, as the EU repeatedly state, both are central planks/pillars of the EU and I’d argue that if you remain in them you haven’t really left the EU. All you’ve left is the room from where they are directly influenced. Finally, that strap line that was so central to the Leave campaign ‘taking back control’ - there is no way you can stay in the single market or the customs union and claim you’ve achieved/satisfied that.

Quite. In the build up to the referendum, Cameron made it clear that 'leaving' meant leaving the EU and all its influences. The fear-mongers emphasised it. Of course, they did not think they'd lose. They just peddled it as a fear factor.

And yet, plenty of leave voters wanted a Norwegian/ Swiss / Canadian style Brexit.

Mind you, plenty also voted leave as a FU to Cameron, because theyre really not accustomed to having their vote actually matter.

Which Tyler wrote:And yet, plenty of leave voters wanted a Norwegian/ Swiss / Canadian style Brexit.

Mind you, plenty also voted leave as a FU to Cameron, because theyre really not accustomed to having their vote actually matter.

But Switzerland and Canada aren’t in the single market and customs union, and Norway aren’t in the customs union.

They're also not out of everything and completely independent.
Remain voters formone thing, and one things only; Leave was a broad church that were now being told meant one thing and one thing only, despite the campaigns saying the precise opposite of that, and voters voting for different things

Mellsblue wrote: You are independent by making your own choices. Being in the customs union and/or single market doesn’t enable that - not by whilst outside the EU, anyway. Being independent doesn’t mean not making any deals, it means being the sole arbiter of which deals you want to make.

t.

That’s sort of true, and a position I'm not wholly unsympathetic toward, and yet given the reality of it all it's also easy to note it's semantics

Which Tyler wrote:They're also not out of everything and completely independent.
Remain voters formone thing, and one things only; Leave was a broad church that were now being told meant one thing and one thing only, despite the campaigns saying the precise opposite of that, and voters voting for different things

Thus we find even groups such as ERG can't agree on what brexit means, other than brexit

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You are independent by making your own choices. Being in the customs union and/or single market doesn’t enable that - not by whilst outside the EU, anyway. Being independent doesn’t mean not making any deals, it means being the sole arbiter of which deals you want to make.

t.

That’s sort of true, and a position I'm not wholly unsympathetic toward, and yet given the reality of it all it's also easy to note it's semantics

It’s not semantics, it’s central to the whole thing.

Which Tyler wrote:They're also not out of everything and completely independent.
Remain voters formone thing, and one things only; Leave was a broad church that were now being told meant one thing and one thing only, despite the campaigns saying the precise opposite of that, and voters voting for different things

Canada and Switzerland are not in the single market or customs in union. That’s unarguable and that is what we were discussing. Leave was a broad church but to argue that leavers wanted Canada or Switzerland is to argue that the UK should be out of the single market and customs union. See my earlier response to Diggers that, to my mind, the Leave campaign was pretty explicit that leaving would involve no customs union or single market.
As for independence, as far as I’m aware nobody, even the ERG, has ever suggested isolationist policies. Canada has a deep FTA with the EU, something even most hard Brexiteers want - that’s their idea of independent. The Swiss have a plethora of bilateral agreements with the EU and it’s a closer relationship but the Swiss have an a la carte agreement not a blanket single market and/or customs union membership.
Remain is also a broad church. There are those who want the status quo, those who want the Euro and those who want a federal Europe. Luckily for Remainers they’ve never had to decide amongst themselves which they want.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest leave were perfectly clear we would be leaving the customs union and single market

The problem comes as you could also perfectly reasonably say they were clear we'd stay in the customs union and single market given how clear they were we'd get a good trade deal

As WT noted leave hit many notes to secure as many votes as possible, now they're significantly more limited about what's on offer, which is one reason there's increased pressure for a 2nd referendum

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:What in the blazes does I just want out mean?

We currently are participant to a significant multilateral agreement, but even if we fully leave we'll only set about signing new agreements which means we'll not be free to act as we want

Also that's only your version of Brexit, my ballot paper only mentioned the EU, it didn't mention the single market, the customs union, Erasmus and so on

I want us to be a completely independent country again with all that it usually means. That's what I understood leaving the EU and all its restrictions to mean. The ballot paper did not mention staying in anything. My version of things sees us gaining from competing with the EU in the world market once restrictive practises no longer apply.

And here is the ultimate problem eith the referendum, no one knows what it actually meant. Leave the EU means many different things. There should have been a plan for what that actually meant so voters could k ow exactly what they were voting for.