UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[Deleted]

This meeting is part of the negotiations, no? One would imagine that any shared paperwork would have been distributed to both sides prior to the meeting so that it could be discussed/referenced there, rather than waiting for the UK team to read through it all while the EU negotiators twiddle their thumbs.

No my implication was that the UK just does whatever the EU tells them.

- - - Updated - - -

The UK position is very clear and simple,

Brexit means brexit.

No jurisdiction over the UK from the ECJ

Oh it won't sign up to the UPC then?
Oh wait it will.

Ministers have claimed the UPC is separate to the EU but only EU members can sign it and the European Court of Justice is the final court of appeal.

But its totally not a part of the EU.

It doesn't matter how big a pile of toilet paper Barnier brings to the table when after more than a year the EU still can't give an exact figure of a divorce cash payment they want from the UK. How long do they need?

It's not particularly helpful to argue sums, when the question is how to calculate it.

the EU is still spending too much time worrying about bent bananas when the funding that enables their very existence is at risk.

Yes, the EU would collapse if it lost about 5% of its budget.

[dribbles]

Oh it won't sign up to the UPC then?
Oh wait it will.

But its totally not a part of the EU.

It's not particularly helpful to argue sums, when the question is how to calculate it.

Not sure why you are bringing such a tiny issue up, your European bent banana moment perhaps? but British participation in UPC if a Brexit divorce fee cannot be agreed is by no means certain.

So the sum is kind of crucial, nothing is agreed unless everything is agreed, talks will go nowhere without an EU proposal so how much? Again they have had more than a year, how long do they need? Perhaps they are so incompetent and don't know/will never know. Too busy banning incandescent bulbs I expect....

[Kallisto]

Dribbles, still believes the whole bendy banana myth. That shows how little he actually knows about EU and only voted Brexit for some stick it to the Germans 70 years after the war ended.

[Noradin]

That was literally the first thing I noticed, even before the demeanor of each side. One side is clearly prepared, with large folders of materials that they will likely be referencing during their discussions.

The other...well one guy looks like he at least remembered to bring a notebook : |

It's a dictionary.

[Huehuecoyotl]

It's a dictionary.

Does it say;

Brexit (noun): Brexit.

[Deleted]

but British participation in UPC if a Brexit divorce fee cannot be agreed is by no means certain.

No they said they were joining the UPC After the vote to leave the EU, and the Vaunted ECJ red line.
Problem? - the ECJ is the Superior court to the UPC.
Those circles cannot be squared.

[Noradin]

Does it say;

Brexit (noun): Brexit.

Probably
I suspect it also defines the terms 'EU' and 'UK' in a similarily precise manner.

[Rockyreg]

Why is everybody reading so much into a bloody photograph. Whos to say just after the photo was taken the UK didn't unleash a massive fucking stash of paperwork from their briefcase? Not to mention the EU is having to consider the opinions of 27 nations so its natural they would require more reference material. Its all very silly.

Can we not all just be happy that finally negotiations are getting started and we can start to put this behind us and get on with life?

[draykorinee]

Why is everybody reading so much into a bloody photograph.

Because dribbles wrote anther nonsense post? Otherwise no one would have mentioned it.

[Rockyreg]

Because dribbles wrote anther nonsense post? Otherwise no one would have mentioned it.

Wasn't really just responding to this thread, it was as much comment on the 'melee' it caused yesterday in the news.

[dribbles]

Because dribbles wrote anther nonsense post? Otherwise no one would have mentioned it.

Not really nonsense, just couldnt understand after so much time why the EU hasn't presented their divorce bill. After all they want agreement that we pay before trade agreements can be discussed. Turns out the British side might be responsible for the delay in quite a cute way really if you want a proper Brexit.

EU says: Now we need to talk about how much money we need from you.
UK says: Can't be arsed we will come to that in a year or two. Tea anyone?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/404709...-divorce-bill/

Nice tactic.

[Pann]

Not really nonsense, just couldnt understand after so much time why the EU hasn't presented their divorce bill. After all they want agreement that we pay before trade agreements can be discussed. Turns out the British side might be responsible for the delay in quite a cute way really if you want a proper Brexit.

EU says: Now we need to talk about how much money we need from you.
UK says: Can't be arsed we will come to that in a year or two. Tea anyone?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/404709...-divorce-bill/

Nice tactic.

Hmm, it would appear that Dominic Cummings was onto something when he called David Davis "thick as mince".

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/polit...-a3590086.html

[Huehuecoyotl]

Not really nonsense, just couldnt understand after so much time why the EU hasn't presented their divorce bill. After all they want agreement that we pay before trade agreements can be discussed. Turns out the British side might be responsible for the delay in quite a cute way really if you want a proper Brexit.

EU says: Now we need to talk about how much money we need from you.
UK says: Can't be arsed we will come to that in a year or two. Tea anyone?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/404709...-divorce-bill/

Nice tactic.

Their "tactics" are almost as pathetic as the posts you keep making. If the EU are stating that the bill needs to be a certain level, and have detailed documentation to explain how they came to that number, then a proper negotiating team would be looking at the basis of the numbers, and producing rational arguments why certain things should be excluded, or reduced. Like grown-ups.

Turning around and saying they aren't going to even talk about them just makes us look like amateurs, and antagonises the very people we are supposed to be negotiating with. That isn't going to make it quicker or easier to get to a final position. And we HAVE to pay a sum when we leave, that is obvious to any rational person. The budgets for EU projects are set years in advance, and we have signed off for them as part of the EU. That isn't something we can just walk away from without a significant impact on our reputation not just with EU countries but with the entire world. You want to start negotiating trade deals with other countries with a reputation as a country that does not respect its fiscal responsibilities?

It might play well with the Sun to make this sort of stand, or with brain-dead "screw the foreigners" Brexit types, but in the real world this makes us look worse by the day. And worse, it eats into the time available to get the massive number of genuine issues dealt with. Issues that will cause Brexit to be even more painful and damaging to this country than it already will be. We cannot afford to waste time on grandstanding.

[Mormolyce]

@dribbles - can I be really serious for a moment?

The joke in your avatar doesn't work.

[Rockyreg]

Their "tactics" are almost as pathetic as the posts you keep making. If the EU are stating that the bill needs to be a certain level, and have detailed documentation to explain how they came to that number, then a proper negotiating team would be looking at the basis of the numbers, and producing rational arguments why certain things should be excluded, or reduced. Like grown-ups.

Turning around and saying they aren't going to even talk about them just makes us look like amateurs, and antagonises the very people we are supposed to be negotiating with. That isn't going to make it quicker or easier to get to a final position. And we HAVE to pay a sum when we leave, that is obvious to any rational person. The budgets for EU projects are set years in advance, and we have signed off for them as part of the EU. That isn't something we can just walk away from without a significant impact on our reputation not just with EU countries but with the entire world. You want to start negotiating trade deals with other countries with a reputation as a country that does not respect its fiscal responsibilities?

It might play well with the Sun to make this sort of stand, or with brain-dead "screw the foreigners" Brexit types, but in the real world this makes us look worse by the day. And worse, it eats into the time available to get the massive number of genuine issues dealt with. Issues that will cause Brexit to be even more painful and damaging to this country than it already will be. We cannot afford to waste time on grandstanding.

But these are the tactics I would expect of our government, it would be a disgrace to just sign up to whatever the EU feel is due. For example the part where it says 'EU’s lack of detail over the legal basis for their financial demands'. Would you not want the UK government to ask such a question or do you think the UK should just blindly pay what the EU demands without the EU providing sufficient evidence that that figure is due? You keep hearing how the UK is unprepared in comparison to the EU yet it appears they themselves have not even got to this point as yet.

Once it is established what is legally owed (and also owed to the UK) then the UK can choose to pay more if it wants depending on the nature of the future trade relationship the EU is willing to grant which is dependent on further talks.

You say this position makes the UK look bad, I would say the UK capitulating and just blindly agreeing to vast sums of money at this early stage would make us look far worse.

[Kiri]

But these are the tactics I would expect of our government, it would be a disgrace to just sign up to whatever the EU feel is due. For example the part where it says 'EU’s lack of detail over the legal basis for their financial demands'. Would you not want the UK government to ask such a question or do you think the UK should just blindly pay what the EU demands without the EU providing sufficient evidence that that figure is due? You keep hearing how the UK is unprepared in comparison to the EU yet it appears they themselves have not even got to this point as yet.

Once it is established what is legally owed (and also owed to the UK) then the UK can choose to pay more if it wants depending on the nature of the future trade relationship the EU is willing to grant which is dependent on further talks.

You say this position makes the UK look bad, I would say the UK capitulating and just blindly agreeing to vast sums of money at this early stage would make us look far worse.

To be honest, we don't know who is how prepared at all, due to things happening behind closed doors. Both sides are likely just saying that due to a) a difference in priorities (EU is money first, then talk, UK vice versa) b) pushing the blame away.

[Slant]

But these are the tactics I would expect of our government, it would be a disgrace to just sign up to whatever the EU feel is due. For example the part where it says 'EU’s lack of detail over the legal basis for their financial demands'. Would you not want the UK government to ask such a question or do you think the UK should just blindly pay what the EU demands without the EU providing sufficient evidence that that figure is due? You keep hearing how the UK is unprepared in comparison to the EU yet it appears they themselves have not even got to this point as yet.

Once it is established what is legally owed (and also owed to the UK) then the UK can choose to pay more if it wants depending on the nature of the future trade relationship the EU is willing to grant which is dependent on further talks.

You say this position makes the UK look bad, I would say the UK capitulating and just blindly agreeing to vast sums of money at this early stage would make us look far worse.

Lack of detail over the legal basis? How about the UK agreed to the EU's budget and thus created the obligations itself? Usually when you enter a contract it's really, really hard to later go "Nah, don't want to pay anymore..."

[Rockyreg]

To be honest, we don't know who is how prepared at all, due to things happening behind closed doors. Both sides are likely just saying that due to a) a difference in priorities (EU is money first, then talk, UK vice versa) b) pushing the blame away.

Very true, how do you prepare/negotiate and more importantly agree an exit bill when the future trading arrangements are unknown? I think the only way to do it is to to run through all available future trading scenarios and agree a formula for each option.

Same with the NI border and citizens rights, these can all be different depending on what happens to the final trading arrangement.

I'd be interested to see what the EU and rest of the 27 deem 'sufficient' progress on these matters. The logical thing would be to start with the trade arrangements and work from that but its understandable why the EU would not want to do that.

[Mayhem]

Very true, how do you prepare/negotiate and more importantly agree an exit bill when the future trading arrangements are unknown? I think the only way to do it is to to run through all available future trading scenarios and agree a formula for each option.

Same with the NI border and citizens rights, these can all be different depending on what happens to the final trading arrangement.

I'd be interested to see what the EU and rest of the 27 deem 'sufficient' progress on these matters. The logical thing would be to start with the trade arrangements and work from that but its understandable why the EU would not want to do that.

The logical thing for the UK... as they don't want to pay obligations they've already agreed on but instead want to negotiate trade before agreeing on paying what they already agreed on.

[Rockyreg]

Lack of detail over the legal basis? How about the UK agreed to the EU's budget and thus created the obligations itself? Usually when you enter a contract it's really, really hard to later go "Nah, don't want to pay anymore..."

Yeah thats fine and the UK would agree to pay that. But if the £85billion is true that around 10 years of net contributions for fucks sake, its this that they need to provide a legal basis for.