UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[Noradin]

No, they have agreed to pay into the EU budget whilst they were members, the UK does not control how the budget is spent. The EU pays salaries and pensions and if as some people state they are a separate legal entity (their argument to deny UK a share of assets) then they are solely responsible for all the liabilities.

Unless other entities agreed to be responsible for those liablities. Entitities such as the UK.

[Huehuecoyotl]

No, they have agreed to pay into the EU budget whilst they were members, the UK does not control how the budget is spent. The EU pays salaries and pensions and if as some people state they are a separate legal entity (their argument to deny UK a share of assets) then they are solely responsible for all the liabilities.

So if Scotland were to secede, and there were building programs planned in Scotland for 5 years ahead, with contracts signed by the UK government, your position is that Scotland wouldn't be required to pay a penny towards them? The rUK would have to stump up the entire cost?

Just wondering if your position is consistent and fair, or just a bit of "stick it to the foreigners" jingoism.

[Rockyreg]

So if Scotland were to secede, and there were building programs planned in Scotland for 5 years ahead, with contracts signed by the UK government, your position is that Scotland wouldn't be required to pay a penny towards them? The rUK would have to stump up the entire cost?

Just wondering if your position is consistent and fair, or just a bit of "stick it to the foreigners" jingoism.

I think your analogy is slightly mixed up and not at all like the situation we have with the UK and the EU but I will answer it. No, not at all, I would expect Scotland to pay for them. I would not expect Scotland to pay upfront anyway but only when the projects actually go ahead.

However, let me ask you this. If Scotland were to secede, would you expect them to take on a share of the national debt in proportion to the population share? Would you also expect them to 'receive' a share of the UK's assets also in proportion to population share? I would expect both to happen as its is the only fair way to do it.

All I am saying is at this stage it would be a mistake for the UK to agree to a figure on the total financial settlement. I would (and I think they are doing it) is to see what they feel they are legally obliged to cover and offer only that. Anything else will be subject to the rest of the negotiations.

[dribbles]

If Poland leaves/gets kicked out of the EU in the next few weeks and as it receives annually roughly what the UK pays in, would the EU insist it pays £100bn to Poland to honour ongoing commitments? No didnt think so.

Anyway currently until agreement, all the UK owes the EU in full and final payment is 126 tonnes of nuclear waste.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-nuclear-deal

“It might just be a reminder that a boatload of plutonium could end up at a harbour in Antwerp unless an arrangement is made,” one nuclear expert told the FT.

[Lollis]

If Poland leaves/gets kicked out of the EU in the next few weeks and as it receives annually roughly what the UK pays in, would the EU insist it pays £100bn to Poland to honour ongoing commitments? No didnt think so.

Anyway currently until agreement, all the UK owes the EU in full and final payment is 126 tonnes of nuclear waste.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-nuclear-deal

“It might just be a reminder that a boatload of plutonium could end up at a harbour in Antwerp unless an arrangement is made,” one nuclear expert told the FT.

Nothing more fun than using potentially dangerous nuclear blackmail to get what you want.

[Ravenblade]

Man, these Brexit talks are going to take ages now. They should just kill these six wing-clipped ravens and speed up the talks by say, a conservative ballpark figure of like, one trillion times.

[Rockyreg]

Nothing more fun than using potentially dangerous nuclear blackmail to get what you want.

So the EU can warn Britain that UK access to radioactive isotopes could be affected. This is crucial to the treatment of cancer which could affect millions of UK (and EU citizens living in the UK) and you presumably are happy with this?

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/eu-...dical-isotopes

[draykorinee]

So the EU can warn Britain that UK access to radioactive isotopes could be affected. This is crucial to the treatment of cancer which could affect millions of UK (and EU citizens living in the UK) and you presumably are happy with this?

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/eu-...dical-isotopes

False equivalency, ones an open threat by the UK government one is a warning of consequences that actually aren't under EU control, the fact they're just agreeing with other warnings from Non-EU organisations further exemplifies how much of a false equivalency that is.

[Lollis]

So the EU can warn Britain that UK access to radioactive isotopes could be affected. This is crucial to the treatment of cancer which could affect millions of UK (and EU citizens living in the UK) and you presumably are happy with this?

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/eu-...dical-isotopes

I'm not happy with either situation, my post was sarcasm. I guess I should have added cliffhanger fullstops.

[Rockyreg]

False equivalency, ones an open threat by the UK government one is a warning of consequences that actually aren't under EU control, the fact they're just agreeing with other warnings from Non-EU organisations further exemplifies how much of a false equivalency that is.

If you read both articles it was actually EU officials that made the 'threat' whereas it was only an 'expert' that mentioned about shipping nuclear waste to Europe, not the UK Government. And that was in reation to the EU saying that after Brexit the ownership of nuclear waste from other european countries currently in the UK would be transferred to the UK therefore it would be the UK's problem.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not happy with either situation, my post was sarcasm. I guess I should have added cliffhanger fullstops.

Didn't read like sarcasm to me, just another attempt at UK bad, EU good.

[draykorinee]

If you read both articles it was actually EU officials that made the 'threat' whereas it was only an 'expert' that mentioned about shipping nuclear waste to Europe, not the UK Government. And that was in reation to the EU saying that after Brexit the ownership of nuclear waste from other european countries currently in the UK would be transferred to the UK therefore it would be the UK's problem.

- - - Updated - - -



Didn't read like sarcasm to me, just another attempt at UK bad, EU good.

No, the EU did not issue any threat but repeated a warning from non eu organisations. I don't think you bothered to read the article.

[Rockyreg]

No, the EU did not issue any threat but repeated a warning from non eu organisations. I don't think you bothered to read the article.

The article stated 'EU Officials warned'. Feel free to point where it says the UK government warned/threatened.

[draykorinee]

The article stated 'EU Officials warned'. Feel free to point where it says the UK government warned/threatened.

It says eu warned not to dismiss the concerns raised by a British organisation.