Please can someone explain? Will we pay if we leave EU without a deal?

[HappydaysArehere]

With all this talk of billions of pounds which we are supposed to owe if we leave and talk of continuing to pay after we leave, I am in the dark. If we walk away with no deal will we pay anything like the amounts talked about? If we are able to do that surely the EU will be big losers as well as us! I am at a loss. Grateful for your input as I am bewildered. I voted to remain but must say the shenanigans being played by the EU are showing them as more like the Mafia than a democratic institution.

Please, as requested, point to where Article 50 enshrines any future payments?

Your entire diatribe falls down on this point alone, amongst many others.

It doesn’t, and the poster dealt with the idea that purely legal requirement is the only relevant factor in this case - it isn’t. What is also relevant is what is required for us to leave under A50 on terms that won’t be very detrimental to the UK economy, as well as increasing our ability to secure future trade deals both within and without the EU. That includes a demonstration of acting in good faith, recognising existing commitments, recognising the negative impacts of leaving the EU on the EU27 and recognising their legitimate desire to have those mitigated at the same time as we are seeking mitigation for the potentially damaging effects of exit on our own economy, particularly from non-tariff barriers.

If we leave in an orderly, structured way that doesn’t decimate industries with complex cross-border supply chains, surely we will be better positioned to take advantage of the golden uplands of WTO rules (that no one else in the world wants)?

Yep.

Put it this way. Suppose you run a nursery. Suppose you decide to close the nursery - firing all your staff and leaving people in the lurch on childcare. You might be able to do all that perfectly legally, but if three months later you open another nursery in the same town ain’t no one going to trust you. Because human relationships are about informal networks of trust as much as they are about the letter of the law.

It’s the same here. The madder Brexiteers want us to torch all our bridges (and our centuries-built rep for being sensible, cautious, fair, phlegmatic, reliable...) and don’t seem to realise that it will be impossible to replace that.

Or, to use Mumsnet vernacular:

AIBU? YABVU.

@Pansiesandredrosesandmarigolds and @JassyRadlett have it right. This isn’t a game we play once but many times.

In game theory it’s called an infinitely repeated prisoners dilemma. We do not defect. We cooperate. It’s how business is done.

So where does this leave us? Clearly a country still divided. And one possibly to become a backwater if the extremists take us over the edge.

I do believe LeaveHQ is correct in its analysis - and surprise I’m a Remainer. We will be completely screwed as a nation under WTO rules with the EU.

I’m not even convinced anything but CU membership is possible. CETA would be just as bad as WTO because of NTBs.

Anyone still disagree on that point?

@Spinflight

@Spinflight you have demonstrated once again the ignorance and lack of capacity to grasp complex issues. I know it can be hard even for experienced people.

You are unfortunately very typical. As was @M4Dad.

It’s sad really. We need a good debate based on the facts and the way things work and how they will break. Like what Leave HQ produces. I don’t agree with their reasoning for leaving but their analysis is thorough.

Thanks Olivia!

I think, sometimes, that people get scared by how mathy and complicated game theory can get. 90% of it can be summed up as ‘don’t shit where you eat’.

@Pansiesandredrosesandmarigolds

Yep, pretty much. But it took someone batshit crazy like Nash to frame it into a concept for simple people like me ...

Anyway, I am increasingly convinced Brexit is not going to happen. It will get reversed. Either A50 will lapse without us having fulfilled our constitutional obligations or we will formally revoke it. But there's just no way a country with the good sense of the UK is going to let this train wreck happen. Have you read the Three Knights Opinion? Click the link. Section 2 is the conclusion ... Hard to argue with so at least there seems to be a way out.

We will still be damaged but not irretrievably. Europe is still a lot less well organised structurally and legally than the UK.

The Tories will take a decade to recover from this. I just hope someone controls Corbyn's Marxist plan.

Therefore, if Parliament were to refuse to give legal effect to the terms of a withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union, or were to refuse to authorise withdrawal in the absence of any agreement, the notification given by the United Kingdom of its intention to leave the European Union could be treated as having lapsed (since the constitutional requirements required to give effect to that intention had not been met), or could be unilaterally withdrawn. Article 50 cannot have the effect of ejecting a Member State from the European Union contrary to its own constitutional requirements.

And now this affront to democracy from David Davis.

Smells of desperation. Suppose not really an issue as the UK must fulfil its constitutional obligations to leave. Only Parliament is sovereign in the UK and can do that ...

Funny how when brexiteers complained about the fact they had zero say in eu decisions, we are told we elected someone, who voted for someone else, who has a vote once in a while....and that is democratic and fine, but mp’s not getting 3 votes on the same subject isn’t??

¯\(ツ)/¯

Two definitions of democracy?

You are aware Olivia, that 'Flexit' that Peter North bases his new found online career on, was trashed across the academic board? (Not the Canadian porn star by the way.....though 'Flexit' could indeed be a new line for him)

Or let me ask another way, is there any school of economics that supports 'Flexit'? Happy to be corrected on this, as he and his father were only brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago (he seems a very popular guy in remainer land), and Id hate to be on the end of your "well-educated white woman " tongue lashing. (Actually I wouldnt, hate it that is, it merely explains why your references to "I worked in Greece as an economic adviser to the Troika ... And in Spain: same role.", are in the past tense. Come to think of it, as are pretty much Greece and Spain.)

But whilst you are here, and its a fabulous opportunity for all of us to ask your expertise, whats your view on the MTO's and the shitfest that surrounds them?

Just harking back (one assumes inconveniently) to the crux of this thread and the A50, its a tad naive, to think Article 50 was merely agreed over a pie and a pint. The points raised about financial commitments, were indeed a key influence over the then subsequent decision to agree a 2 year period. Knowing there was not a cat in hells chance they would have got approval to tie member states to either budgetary periods or a set 4 or 5 year notice period, 2 years was agreed and passed. Part of the intention of the 2 years was indeed to meet existing financial obligations for that period.

(I understand it was generally accepted that any further contributions would indeed be incommensurate to a member state not then receiving any future benefit from said contributions).

The EU currently either rely entirely on the UKs goodwill to agree any extended period, or go to Parliament and ask for an enforced extended notice period. Olivia, why do you believe the EU parliament will agree an enforceable extended notice period now, (which will then apply to all member states) whereas they point blank refused at the time of Lisbon?

PS Insincere apols if part of this post appears rude, Im a mere pigshit thick brexiteer who is attempting to talk your language.

PPS Dont spend too long on this, I may not bother popping back. Poor concentration levels and all that.

"You are aware Olivia, that 'Flexit' that Peter North bases his new found online career on, was trashed across the academic board?"

I think you'll find that Peter North is widely pilloried and laughed at from across the political and academic spectrum Caroline, on the rare occasions that anyone takes any interest.

You'd get more sense from the porn actor. :D

Peter North is an idiot who spends all his time on twitter talking about what a disaster Brexit is turning out to be but then admits he would still vote for it. His father is a tiny bit better, but not much. They are classic examples of Brexiters who had a very fixed idea of what they believed Brexit should look like and are now put out that there seem to be 1001 other versions of it.

However, in between their agitating, they do bring up some valid points about the practical issues arising from a "cliff-edge" Brexit that do need to be addressed.

He isn't alone, there's a whole host of bloggers and the like whose actual purpose is to provoke a response from someone vaguely important or well known. Ditto columnists and pointless celebrities. The latter generally hoping for a critical mass rather than anyone of import.

Hence they write a great deal with the mere intention of saying mean and preferably inaccurate things about as many public figures as possible.

They then consider themselves important as someone important is 'debating' with them if there is a response.

Whilst almost everyone is wise to this there is the occasional minor academic who takes umbrage and gets reeled in.

Hence the maxim, don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk. :D

Once you recognise the style it makes it much easier to filter out the noise.

@Carolinesbeanies

You are aware Olivia, that 'Flexit' that Peter North bases his new found online career on, was trashed across the academic board?

Not really no. As I indicated I read his posts and his papers because they are well researched and tend to be factual, so great to learn from. I don't usually subscribe to his opinions because I don't believe there is a good reason to leave the EU.

Facts are one thing - don't care where they come from as long as they are well ... factual. Opinions I can form myself.

Or let me ask another way, is there any school of economics that supports 'Flexit'?

What is this? I have searched Pete's blogs and he has used the word once since he has started his blogs - in May 2016.

I've heard of a Flexit clause in loan agreements which resemble Material Adverse Change ("MAC"), but that's not likely what you mean.

But whilst you are here, and its a fabulous opportunity for all of us to ask your expertise, whats your view on the MTO's and the shitfest that surrounds them?

By MTO you mean an outfit like the WTO? Multilateral Trade Organisation? What shitfest are you referring to? And why would we care?

The EU currently either rely entirely on the UKs goodwill to agree any extended period, or go to Parliament and ask for an enforced extended notice period.

I think you have things backwards. The UK is in the asking position here. We are the ones who will be relatively more damaged if there is no 'transition period' as it is now being called.

*In particular: Euratom and aviation as the 2 most oft cited examples.

Olivia, why do you believe the EU parliament will agree an enforceable extended notice period now, (which will then apply to all member states) whereas they point blank refused at the time of Lisbon?

Not aware of what was refused or not at the time - I'll defer to your understanding.

My understanding that the Leave clause was introduced as an afterthought and not much time spent on it because leaving the EU was not something anyone contemplated. This doesn't sound unreasonable; I'm not sure it matters.

Why things are different now in my view: well, a member state has expressed its intention to leave by A50 notification. And there appears to be a realisation that 2 years is not enough to agree Phase 1 divorce terms and - one hopes - a Phase 2 Heads of Agreement for the future relationship, which will include trade but also many other things. But there will be no time to enter into an agreement between now and March 2019, nor does A50 contemplate this. There appears to be widespread confusion that an agreement including trade will happen between now and then - a) not contemplated b) no time.

Why would the EU Parliament agree? Well, the EU27 must realise that the UK is an economy and a political and military entity that is and will continue to be useful to the EU27 citizens and so cooperation is beneficial. This is the game theory point I made earlier.

What is still politically unclear is what form a 'transition' will take. Easiest is clearly an 'extension' of A50 but the uproar from Brexit lot feels hard for May to manage.

PS Not sure I've addressed much here so - please clarify your ask. Your questions don't appear to me to be in the 'thick as pigshit' category so I appreciate your contribution.

@BowlingShoes

I would not characterise Pete as an idiot. Use him for what he is worth and reject the rest.

In fact, everything he says of a factual nature has been validated by others 'in the know' as it were - for example Sir Ivan Rogers.

Here's a great link of Sir Ivan answering questions to Parliament's Treasury Committee: Pete North suggested this be looked at so I did and am thankful.

@BowlingShoes

Actually ... I'd like to know what Pete has written that you believe should qualify him as an idiot.

I can see many reasons why one would do that for example in the case of many of our politicians - eg our beloved Liam Fox who as Trade Minister once said he was going to negotiate 27 different trade agreements with the EU27 ...

Olivia because he blogs almost daily complaining about virtually everything to do with Brexit, but then still says he would vote for it, eg
peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/i-dont-like-this-brexit-but-i-will-live.html?m=1

It's like those Brexit voters who would want to go ahead with Brexit even if their close family members lost their jobs. Brexit at any cost....

@BowlingShoes

You can disagree with the style - many on here deplore mine, for example. And you can disagree with the inconsistencies in his opinions.

I agree with you on the latter; don't care about the former.

But ... I'm not sure that qualifies him as a fool. You can still learn a lot from his type. I certainly have.

And this is rare: most Brexiteers are not armed with facts. The main rationale appears to be some thin argument about 'taking back control' without really understanding what that means or the impact something like this could have on daily life.

In or out of the EU, the UK will be EU rule and regs takers. No choice ...

Just watched David Davis update Parliament here.

Is it just me or does he come across as casual? More of a sales guy than a technocrat?

He doesn't appear to have a grasp of issues and sequencing. Vague replies. Unicorn type promises.

Love to hear other views.

:)

So Olivia you've based your trolling style on a troll that doesn't even have a cave?

Sorry to piddle in your cornflakes.

Lmao

Are you accusing olivia of being a troll?

Isnt troll hunting a big no no on mumsnet

@Rufustherenegadereindeer1

Maybe it’s just me again but I can’t understand this spinflight woman’s drivel.

What is she saying? The words are English but the way they’re put together doesn’t make much sense.

Is this a feature of Brexiteers that they can’t express themselves?