Brexit negotiations hit the rocks with the size of the Brexit divorce bill the key issue.
The Independent reports: Britain is ‘backtracking’ on its Brexit divorce bill commitments, moans Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator warns.
My response: Hooray for the UK!
Michel Barnier said he was “disappointed” by the UK position and publicly warned the British team it should go back to the drawing board after it presented a legal analysis arguing that Britain owed far less than the Commission believed.
“So there’s a moral dilemma here: you can’t have 27 paying for what was decided by 28, so what was decided by 28 member states, that has to be borne out by 28 member states right up to the end, it’s as simple as that.
The UK says it wants to go through the Brexit bill line-by-line to work out what it owes the EU, but the EU says spending commitments already agreed to during the current budget round should simply be honored.
David Davis told the House of Commons earlier this week that he had “significant differences” with the EU on the Brexit divorce bill and that the two sides were taking “very different legal stances”.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said the final divorce bill could be around £55bn. Mr. Davis has dismissed reports the UK secretly agreed on a bill of up to £50bn. Others suggested the divorce bill could reach £92bn.
The so-called divorce bill has caused controversy for months. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson faced criticism in July for suggesting the EU could “go whistle” if they expected the UK to pay any money to leave.
EU Hucksters
The Sunday Express explains Why EU will NEVER get its £90bn Brexit divorce bill.
EU negotiators were said to have been left “flabbergasted” after British lawmakers told them there was little or no legal basis for their £90billion claim. A young civil servant reportedly left EU negotiators “open-mouthed” with a line-by-line “technical” demolition of the demand.
Tory grandee John Redwood said last night that there was no legal basis for the demand. He also said Mr Davis had no right to authorise it without parliamentary approval.
“Article 50 is clear,” he said. “Once a state leaves it has no further rights and benefits, and no further duties or obligations. It is of course true the treaty does not prevent the EU accepting a payment volunteered by a departing state if it wished to pay one. However, the UK could not make such a payment legally under our own law and system for controlling public spending.”
The former Welsh secretary, who voted for Brexit, said ministers have “absolutely no authority to make one-off additional payments to the EU. The only way Mr. Davis could authorize a leaving payment would be to put through an Act of Parliament specifically authorizing such an ex gratia payment. I can’t see many Conservative MPs wanting to vote for that.”
Eurosceptics on both sides of the house said MPs were likely to vote down any demand deemed “excessive” – even those who had voted Remain.
Mr Rees-Mogg said: “Almost certainly there will have to be a vote. The money has to be voted through by Parliament and with MPs facing the fury of voters, it cannot be too much money.”
Fellow Brexiteer and Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: “Any deal will have to go through Parliament and if its seen in any way excessive then it won’t go through.”
Referring to an ICM poll which found that two-thirds of voters would find paying anything over £10 billion “unacceptable”, he added: “That polling data gives you a ballpark figure of what the British public would find acceptable. We buy more from the EU than we sell, we aren’t charging them for access to our market so what possible reason would they have to charge us for access to theirs unless they want to cost Europeans their livelihoods?
“The British public won’t accept a punishment payment. No MP in their right mind would vote for that, whether they are Brexiteers or Remainers. The EU is talking about multi-billion pound payments in line with the entire NHS budget. The electorate won’t stand for it.”
Labour MP Kate Hoey, who also voted Leave, agreed. She said: “If you give up your membership of a leisure or social club, you don’t have to carry on paying for the staff pensions after you’ve left.”
Journalist Blasts Bexit Divorce Bill
He surprised others on the news panel show Dateline after the three other correspondents relentlessly criticised David Davis and the British negotiating team.
Mr. Burns also hit out at Michel Barnier’s “frankly insulting” tone towards Britain and warned Jean-Claude Juncker that he was “sitting on a volcano”.
John Fisher Burns, who previously worked for the New York Times, delivered a stunning rebuke as the lone voice defending Britain’s approach to Brexit on a BBC show.
“Barnier’s position seems to be a combination of Napoleonic hauteur and fairground hucksterism,” said Burns.
MPs Threaten to BLOCK any Big Brexit Divorce Bill
The Daily Mail reports MPs Threaten to BLOCK any Big Brexit Divorce Bill.
MPs are threatening to block any big divorce bill Theresa May tries to agree with the EU. The warnings underline the scale of the challenge the government faces if it signs up to paying large sums of money to Brussels. The EU has made clear it wants up to £100 billion to settle the UK’s ‘liabilities’ when we leave the bloc.
Eurocrats have insisted the principles of the financial divorce must be agreed before they will start talking about trade talks – effectively attempting to hold the UK to ransom.
There are claims ministers might be willing to consider a figure closer to £50billion to end the stand-off- although Brexit Secretary David Davis has dismissed that as ‘total rubbish’.
Even a significantly lower payment could be a serious problem for the government, with leading Eurosceptics insisting an Act of Parliament would be needed to authorize handing over the cash.
Former Cabinet minister John Redwood said he did not believe many MPs would vote in favor of such a payment.
‘The only way UK Ministers could authorize a leaving payment would be to put through an Act of Parliament specifically authorizing such an ex gratia payment. I can’t see many Conservative MPs wanting to vote for that,’ he told The Sun.
Labour MP Kate Hoey added: ‘I suspect a lot of MPs would in principle vote against any excessive payment.
‘I would vote against paying a big bill unless I could be convinced that all the money we have paid in over many years had been taken into account first.‘But my quick calculations suggest that the British public would be expecting to pay very very little, if anything at all.’
My Take
The UK owes the EU nothing. £10 billion would be a generous offer.
The EU may stall, and stall and stall. Another possibility is the UK agree may agree to a lengthy transition period in which the UK keeps paying EU dues. Those dues could mount up.
To avoid such stalling tactics, The best thing to do is simply leave and pay nothing, then revoke EU fishing rights and threaten to lower corporate taxes. Then and only then will negotiations make any sense.
Unfortunately, the nannycrats still act as if they have the upper hand. The sooner the UK ends that delusion, the better.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Did the EU bureaucrats miss the memo from the Brits, or are they just ignoring it?
“We’re outta here!”
LikeLike
Lawyersforbritain are a group I support. A new website is due, their analysis is thorough. There is no legal basis for an exit payment but the UK may contribute as a matter of “tidying up”.
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/
Contributions: https://www.gofundme.com/lawyersforbritain
LikeLike
A couple of weeks ago there was a meeting in Brussells (about 3hrs I was told) where a young British Civil Servant in DfXEU (Dept. For Exiting the EU) presented a break down of expected UK obligations to a group of the great and the good of the EU.
The EU people were apoplectic when told what would/would not be considered and especially from someone “so young”. They were very rattled afterwards.
The EU is forcing no payment as the result rather than sticking to actual cost.
Any payment less than the latest EU demand looks like a defeat for the EU.
WHO IS ADVISING THEIR STRATEGY?
There is no legal basis for any payment and after March 2019 the ECJ is out of the picture.
Going to the Hague might be an idea but the EU have been told by their own advisors there is no legal basis for an exit bill.
I think the exit could be a straw that breaks the back of markets as VAT and tariffs applied both ends will hit trade volumes, values and employment. UK is 3rd largest export market for Germany and I believe 2nd net largest.
LikeLike
The summary of our Analysis of the UK’s potential financial liabilities says:-
Formal negotiating guidelines issued by the European Commission to the United Kingdom on 12 June 2017 state that any financial settlement between the UK and the EU “should respect in full the financial obligations resulting from the whole period of the [UK’s] membership in the Union.” The EU’s approach clearly represents the most extensive possible liabilities for the net bill. In fact there is no credible legal argument either for a liability on the UK to contribute to the EU’s pension fund deficit, or for any liability to contribute to the EU’s ongoing programmes after Brexit day on 29 March 2019. The following conclusions can be drawn:-
(1) The EU’s principal claim appears to be that the UK is obliged to contribute to the EU’s budget, including substantial elements of it representing forward commitments to ongoing programmes, for a period of roughly two years after withdrawal. This claim is devoid of merit as a matter of international law. For the EU’s “Own Resources Decision” and its “Multiannual Financial Framework” are legally subordinate to the EU treaties, have no binding force in law independently of the treaties, and therefore cease to impose any legal obligation on the UK on the date when the Treaties themselves cease to apply to the UK under Article 50 TEU.
(2) The EU’s second claim relates to the large deficit of its staff pension scheme. The UK could not in any event be liable for a share of that without also having a claim on a corresponding share of the assets of the EU, if a process of valuing the EU’s assets and liabilities and then making or receiving a balancing payment on exit were to be undertaken. However, there is no general practice in international law of States making or receiving balancing payments representing the net assets or liabilities of an international organisation when the join or withdraw from the organisation. Moreover no such balancing payments have in fact been made when Member States (including the UK itself) joined the EEC/EC/EU. It is therefore difficult to see any credible basis upon which the UK could be said to be obliged to make any net payment when it leaves.
(3) The European Investment Bank stands in a rather different position, since the Member States including the UK have paid up capital to this organisation which stands in its books. There is a compelling argument that the UK on EU exit is entitled to the return of its paid up capital and to a corresponding share of the accumulated reserves of the EIB.
(4) The adjudication of these claims does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ECJ under the EU treaties, or under the jurisdiction of the ICJ under its Statute. However, in view of the strength of its legal position, there would be no disadvantage in the UK agreeing that these claims (and the UK’s cross-claims) be referred to adjudication in front of a neutral international tribunal. This might be a possible way of unblocking any impasse which might otherwise arise in the negotiations with the EU if theseclaims cannot be resolved by agreement, as well as demonstrating the good faith of the UK in being willing to pay sums that may be legally owed.
LikeLike
UK will contribute, but not to the amount currently demanded, to meet legitimate obligations.
Junker at all are scared stiff they will have to cut back on spending in Brussells and run a tight ship.
Other posturing shown to be so:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/31/eu-threats-kick-britain-europol-brexit-exposed-posturing/
LikeLike
UK will pay or will pay dearly for not paying.
LikeLike
That sort of thinking led to WW2 and is indicative of the Fascist EU.
Nothing has changed. No lessons learnt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really have to wonder if you are not a triple agent troll. Your comment is so obviously counterproductive and antagonistic that it almost has to be designed to lower respect for EU, something that will be very hard to achieve given that it is owed none and credited with little.
LikeLike
That is any extortionist’s position.
LikeLike
EU may be thinking like that right now. Let them. IMO, this will help bring more Remain into Leave fold. A good beginning for UK!
LikeLike
Ideally the Brits should tell what the EU to do with their “Brexit Bill” as it takes little imagination to picture the results. The problem with attempted blackmail is that it never ends. Refuse to pay and let the EU do their worst. The EU needs the UK far more than the UK needs the EU. On trade alone, any attempt to make the Brits “pay” for the supposed intransigence would work against the economic interest of many Eu members. Start importing from other countries not in the EU and watch Brussels howl. But you can’t fix stupid.
LikeLike
Crysangle, it is a deep seated attitude that led to conflict in the past and millions murdered. It illustrates why some would want to leave the “EU gang”.
Not much has changed and those espousing such attitudes should examine their conscience.
LikeLike
Jealousy and loyalty are like a mistress and a wife.
LikeLike
leave now… tungsten steel exit.
poland, hungary and the csech republic will follow.
let the eu27 (- these 3) deal with the 10 million MENA economic migrants that merkel invited in with the taxes of their bottom 90%
LikeLike
Whether Merkel gets re-elected as the least dirty shirt in the laundry, or if she gets tossed out — she is in no position domestically to threaten other states for non-compliance.
Last we saw her, she was ducking to avoid rotten vegetables being hurled at her by CSU supporters (her own party).
LikeLike
Last week the EU threatened Poland (and two other member states) with “fines and penalties” if they didn’t accept the number of illegal immigrants decreed by Brussels. Before that “diplomacy” was finished, the Netherlands also said they weren’t going to take the immigrants that Brussels demanded (I haven’t heard whether Brussels made similar fines and penalty threats against the Dutch).
Makes one wonder: if Poland just ignores the silly threats from Brussels, then what? Will Brussel’s mighty army pound Warsaw with stinky cheese? Or will they send Poland into a Russian or Chinese trade bloc?
It should be mentioned the only two actual militaries in the EU are in England and Turkey — neither of which seems likely to come to Brussels aid.
Italy has had it with illegal immigrants. Greece doesn’t have the money to take them. Austria and Croatia have said no chance. Add Poland and Netherlands as of last week.
If all these countries, fed up with decrees from unelected bureaucrats who won’t take their own medicine, decide not to comply — what recourse does Brussels have? An unelected club of Belgium, France and Germany is going to alienate the entire rest of the continent?
Duck while you are thinking about that — angry Germans are throwing rotten vegetables at Angela Merkel during her own election rallies.
LikeLike
Eastern Europeans are held by the balls.
An EU representative has said, basically, future EU money will go to good EU countries.
The inference was “do as told or get no handouts”. Poland et al need the money.
Netherlands – do the Dutch exist any longer or just part of greater Germany or dissolved into the EU?
LikeLike
As Merkel has been told explicitly (when she wasn’t ducking veggies thrown at her by CSU supporters) — German industry needs Netherlands and Poland a lot more than they need Merkel.
Even if she survives election (its a crap shoot, she might be the least dirty shirt in the laundry) — she is in no position to enforce any Brussels threats. Best case, she leads a “grand coalition” that won’t agree on anything. Most likely, the CSU lets her serve a couple months to save face and then replaces her.
As for Eastern European states… perhaps England would be better off stopping any gratuity that they were going to send to Brussels, and use it to expand / open new markets in Eastern European states instead. There isn’t a thing Brussels could do about it.
A free trade bloc of disgruntled ex-EU members would be a VERY powerful economic force, not to mention German business would jettison Merkel in a heartbeat (they are leaning that way already).
Poland “needs the money”… from someone, but it doesn’t have to be Brussels. London, Beijing, (or less likely) Istanbul, and Ryhad are all possibilities. China is chomping at the bit to expand their One Road initiative into Europe. Poland connected to China would put Germany in a box.
LikeLike
the CSU is not a political party where the tomato was thrown
your knowledge of German politics is less than zero
LikeLike
So is mine…I cannot find anything I can relate to there…maybe it just doesn’t exist !
LikeLike
vooch is just an annoying commenter… nothing more
Trump won the election, defeated the fugly felon, and Soros hired an army of web trolls and antifa terrorists to try to execute a Saddam Hussein-like “scorched Earth” policy.
Saddam ended his temper tantrum at the end of a noose. Maybe Soros will see justice someday too
LikeLike
Clueless comments.
Where do you live? Do you have ever been in Europe? Do you watch FOX only or listen only to certain radio shows?
CSU LOL you really meant the far right (former Commies) in parts of East Germany, right?
LikeLike
Junker called on Blair to intercede. BIG MISTAKE.
Blair is intensely disliked in the UK and now totally irrelevant. He’s damaged goods and whatever he says swathes of the country will believe the opposite. He’s known as Tony Bliar, or Phoney Tony by millions.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJWYDzlXkAIaQwJ?format=jpg
LikeLike
Last from me – perfect example of Fascism.
“Negotiations with the UK are demonstrating the sheer power of the EU,” it says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/08/triumphant-brussels-likens-brexit-third-reich/
I came across one bragging how the EU had humiliated Switzerland. The heart of the EU is Rotten indeed.
Google “The Rotten Heart of Europe”.
LikeLike
haha.. had gto check the story, found it on RT – that’s the russian tv station?
https://www.rt.com/news/402257-merkel-hit-tomato-campaign/
LikeLike
I’m not sure if it was a fruit or a vegetable that CSU supporters threw at her. I don’t know if that is the proper way to register discontent, although she has been deliberately tone deaf to established methods of criticism — acting like she doesn’t need German voter support.
Fruit or veggie projectiles, she is not liked. She might “win” as the least dirty shirt, but it would be a grand coalition that wouldn’t agree on much of anything. If Merkel doesn’t put Germany over Brussels, the CSU would almost be forced to replace her to get a smaller functioning coalition. Whomever is Chancellor, he/she won’t be able to ignore German voters as Merkel has.
I suspect England and/or China might offer Poland a LOT of aid money, allowing Poland to ignore Brussels decrees. A pan-Europe “free trade bloc” (what the EU was supposed to be) that excluded Brussels could gain a lot of support very fast.
China would expand its One Belt initiative, “surround” Russia for trade purposes, and gain leverage over Europe all in one move.
England could anchor a true free trade bloc that most people in Europe thought they were getting.
Lots of diplomats (especially EU) talking about a post-Brexit tariff war… I don’t see it going beyond threats. The EU is very very vulnerable
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the UK is so divided about Brexit that it undermines any kind of rational negotiating policy. The EU can just play to the anti-Brexit crowd in the UK and undermine the government. There are even MPs in the conservative party who are opposed to leaving the EU.
If Theresa May tries to leave the EU without some serious show of trying to negotiate a deal her government would be brought down overnight in a confidence vote.
LikeLike
The English have zero leverage; zero
Rump England is going to be amusing to see
Ulster, Scotland, and Wales Soverign States within the EU
LikeLike
Aren’t we warned about leverage ?
Sovereignty in EU is the same as piloting an aircraft from the toilet compartment… not a good idea but you’re in the right place to experience the effect.
LikeLike
Wales voted LEAVE, big time.
Same for Cornwall.
Scotland now hardening to Leave except Sturgeon who is behind the trend.
LikeLike
They EU people are just stupid if they think they can “make” the UK pay a single penny they don’t want to. The UK can walk away from this any time they choose. And the EU better figure that out.
LikeLike
Not stupid at all. There are so many anti-Brexit devotees in the UK who support the EU that they might just be able to use enough fear tactics to force the UK government to cave.
LikeLike
Look at the 2nd tier.
The MILITARY voted LEAVE.
No joke, top brass told UK current and ex servicemen to vote LEAVE.
That is why Cameron crapped himself.
No support from UK ARMED FORCES.
Investigate that.
No UK Gov can survive without the Forces. None.
Don’t screw with the Royal Navy, Army and Air Force personnel.
If they say NO, it’s NO.
You won’t read that in the EU press.
LikeLike
If this was French there would be no case brought by the EU.
As it’s US it’s fair game.
Foreign success – Google, Intel, Apple, Facebook – will always be targeted.
Airbus wants Boeing and US Space corporations etc.
DON’T TRUST THEM AN INCH.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/09/google-launches-fightback-against-record-22bn-brussels-fine/#comments
LikeLike
i like the headline
“MPs Threaten to BLOCK any Big Brexit Divorce Bill”
i would have thought that to do any thing less would be considered
a dereliction of duty from MPs
the operative word there should be “PROMISE” AND not “THREAT”
LikeLike
UK will pay or will pay dearly for not paying.
NO nation can afford to leave the EU, and any nation doing so will suffer massive economic losses and permanent declines not only in living standards but in their international position as well. Europe’s market is simply too big, and too valuable to other players around the world to get good options outside the EU.
It is not remotely in the EU’s interests to give the UK, or anyone else a good deal to leave. That has been confirmed since back when GREXIT was, briefly, a popular notion. The costs to malcontents need to be raised as high as possible. The EU’s position as stated has been entirely concerned with protecting the rights and standing of their citizens thus far, and will remain so.
France and Germany would prefer the UK to stay in, both to avoid the disruptions of exit, and the even greater disruptions to follow from the disintegration of the UK proper as Scotland leaves and Ulster ulcerates. That said, if the UK leaves it will undoubtedly be a priority of the EU to force much of Britain’s financial services industry to evacuate the UK and onshore to the EU. Frankfurt – here we come (by the way nice RE play). This will to a significant degree make up for lost exports to the UK on net.
Simply put, the EU can say “Us or them” to international capital flows, and much of those will out of self-interest have to choose the EU. The EU can survive very well without the UK; not as well as with the UK in, but the EU can no longer afford UK obstruction to effective further federalism, either. The biggest gain to the EU from the UK sinking its own boat will be the greater possibility of common institutional effectiveness which follows. Everyone in Europe understands this, including others less sympathetic to tighter federalism. This isn’t simply about the economics, its about the institutional future. The EU sees a path it likes, and the major obstacle in the way, Britain, has declared that it wishes to commit suicide. “Take yourself to the devil, and quickly please,” has been the near exact response.
Will BREXIT happen?? NO
It’s odds on that the UK will climb down. BREXIT barely passed: it is absurd to even think of an act of international transition of this kind happening when close to half the population of the UK opposes it. The costs and pitiful outcomes for the UK will be abundantly clear once British negotiators are thoroughly humiliated over the course of the next six-twelve months and come home empty handed at best – because that is what is certain to result. The larger question is will the EU give the UK generous terms to climb down. There is where hubris can play hob. Too much is in play to handicap that.
The UK will be coming to the EU hat in hand to end this, later or sooner. And they deserve to do so. And they will, at the least, likely have to concede most of the exceptions which they extorted in the past simply to remain in the Club.
Poland? Allow me to yawn or briefly laugh.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
I find Boris Johnson’s idiom, “Go Whistle!” very amusing.
LikeLike