Johnson and Brexit

If every 27 country said to Johnson, in English, “Dear Boris, get it into your thick head that we are not going to change the backstop”. Leavers / the pro Brexit media would interpret it as “ EU about to give in on backstop.”or ” If EU don’t give in on backstop it’s all their fault we leave without a deal”.
Not sure how that works.

If the UK decides it's only going to pay £7-9 billion, I can guarantee that international lawyers are going to have a field day (and ratchet up the amount even further) until an amount is agreed. Meanwhile, the UK's credibility on the world stage is diminished. Who on earth wants to lend money to a country which doesn't pay its debts? Combine that with the way the government is treating parliament and the UK is heading towards becoming a third country tin pot dictatorship.

Anybody seen anything of an extra £350,000 per week recently?

£350.000 was for after we had left the EU, not before!! No one will have seen it as we haven't left yet. If the EU can produce audited accounts then of course we will pay! Figures plucked out of the air? we won't, simple as that!
127 countries, all in total agreement on everything for the past three years?!!!! Sounds pretty subservient and suspicious to me, USSR anyone!!? Brussels = Moscow!
It's brilliant to see and hear somebody actually standing up to these beauracratic bullies, instead of being constantly pushed about and humiliated on a par with Greece!. Roll on the day when we're free from these self opinionated overpaid unelected, (rubber stamped) oafs./criminals!

Oh, and add, unaccountable to the last sentence! Expenses comes to mind!!

127 countries? Which ones are they?

Full Facts answer to If we leave with no deal, how much of the divorce bill will we be legally obligated to pay?

We’ve had help answering this question from our friends at the Institute for Government and UK in a Changing Europe.

This is highly uncertain. Experts at UK in a Changing Europe told us that, under international law, it’s not clearly set out that the UK has to pay anything once it has left the EU. However, the EU would be within its rights to take the case to the International Court of Justice. The grounds for this would be the UK’s repeated commitments to pay—this was set out most importantly in the Joint Report of December 2017, which set out principles on a number of issues in the negotiations.

The European Commission said in a statement on January 30 that “the UK would be expected to continue to honour all commitments made during EU membership” in the event of a no-deal scenario.

In addition, UK in a Changing Europe told us that the UK might consider the reputational damage caused by not paying the divorce bill, just as it is about to try and negotiate new trade deals with other countries. It might cause other states to question whether the UK’s word is worth as much as it claims.

fullfact.org/europe/no-deal-divorce-bill-legally-obligated-pay/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content

You show no source for your figures newnanny so it is reasonable to believe they have been conjured out of thin air.

If we do not pay what we owe very few countries will want to deal with us and that includes the EU with whom, whether the Leavers like it or not, in or out of the Union, we will have to have a deal.

newnanny, do you have a link for this statement, please 'Legally we only owe £7-9 billion to cover commitments we made in last pay round and pensions.'

The members of the EU parliament! Audited accounts of course will be paid!

Oh no! Not that one again! The EU has produced audited accounts.

fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

You seem to want to make it sound as though EU accounts are completely out of control. They're not. Every so often UK authorities and individuals, such as Farage, have to pay back money which they have not used for the purpose intended (deliberately or not). It happens with other countries too. It's not uncommon with big companies and authorities.

So how is the government intending to spend this £350,000 per week in the future?

Roll on the day when we're free from these self opinionated overpaid unelected, (rubber stamped) oafs./criminals!

Are you intending on getting rid of our government and the paid puppeteers such as Dominic Cummings?

An anarchy will be interesting, if nothing else.

An idea when the revolution's kicking off?

Just a passing Sunday morning thought.

Isn't it strange the Johnson seeks the backing of the Leavers by playing the buffoon but the backing of the outside world by playing the intelligent, knowledgable man?

The real cost of a no-deal Brexit is not just about the impact on government finances. It is about the almost inevitable disruption to Britains food, medical and fuel supplies, along with the impact on employment, especially in the manufacturing industry.

All the above has been laid out in this governments own "Yellow Hammer documents" leaked to the press last week.

It is all there for anyone to read and think on.

oh Grandad, NOT Project Fear again - silly !

Yes, it is all there for all to see- Project Fear has become Project Fact - just as many experts predicted + a lot worse. But there is nought so blind ...

Jabberwok I have written about this before but will do so again since you probably didn't read my earlier post (not on this thread)

Since 2007 the auditors have given a "clean" (not a term I've ever used when auditing) opinion on the accuracy or reliability of the accounts and that they " represent a true and fair view " (this is a recognised phrase) of the EU's finances and follow the rules of financial reporting.

However each year they find that around 3% of spending was subject to error. Error is not the same as fraud. The UK's Public Accounts Committee of MPs has concluded that the complexities of the rules creates misunderstandings which have contributed to the errors. Errors could occur because spending on as project has not correctly been put put to tender.

You have some other facts wrong too. By my reckoning there are 27 other countries in the EU and not 127 as you stated.

It looks to me as though you are yet another Brexiteer who has been misled/blinded by the Mail or other right wing papers.

I am on holiday so poor internet but I read article today in Daily Express today but I havecread this before. The House of Lords also said legally we owe far less. Attorney General Cox has confirmed.

And after what we have seen of Geoffrey Cox, we will believe every word of what he says won't we.

The Daily Excess - must be true then eh?

oh dear - unbiased 'experts' hey ;) nice

And what do we owe morally when we flounce out in the middle of projects we were involved in?

The Excess tells us that a US trade deal almost signed! Must be true. Great! we now move to a vassal state of Trumpian USA via a trade deal. Our welfare and environmental standards can be torn up. Hooray! Of course the US wants to weaken the EU and boost the $. The US also wants “troops for trade”. So much for independence and sovereignty.

The Excess tells us that a US trade deal almost signed!

And a Political Analyst on twitter has outlined just how a trade deal is achieved in the US. It's a very long procedure,taking years, not months or days.

Trade Deals are only signed at the end of very long and protracted negotiations which cover a huge amount of minute detail on all aspects of the goods to be traded and the methods of trading. We cannot have entered into any trade negotiations with the US while still a member of the EU (and we are still a member of the EU) so there is absolutely no way that the UK an be anywhere near signing a deal with the US.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1163477159308070912.html

Daily Excess 'news, stories are for the benefit of the terminally gullible. As are most Brexit 'good news' stories.

Elegran: 'And what do we owe morally when we flounce out in the middle of projects we were involved in?'

you'd have thought Johnson would understand about divorce a bit better, no?

I think some people's image of a trade deal is simply that two countries agree to sell "stuff" to one another. That's it. Anything, any time, no tariffs, no ifs or buts, no customs paperwork, just turn up with a shipload, unload it, sell it.

It is not that simple. Each country wants to sell to the other, BUT -

Firstly each wants to sell the things it wants the other to buy, and to have the other country sell the things they want to buy. No point having the other country bring in a whole lot of stuff that you make yourself and then refuse to buy your stuff because they make that themselves.

Secondly, each country has its own system of quality control, and its producers have a vested interest in keeping to those same standards. US chickens being washed in chlorine is one example. They believe that removes possible contamination, but our food standards prefer to tackle that at source with animal welfare regulations on hygeine. Our farmers v their farmers.

Thirdly, no-one wants to see prices undercut (for imports, putting homegrown goods at a disadvantage) or hiked up by tariffs (for exports, making goods less attractive to buyers in the importing country) Each side wants their own goods to be at a price advantage.

So each side argues for quotas, for adherence to their regulations (which are different in every country) and for stiff tariffs adding cost to imports of the things they would rather were bought from home producers.

Add to that the wish to be seen as top dog, enforcing the will of the country with the strongest economy and the least need to get an agreement, (that won't be a UK who have just flounced out of a trading consortium, then!) and sheer bullyboy instincts to show those Brits who is boss. The end result is long negotiations with one side giving a little bit, the other side pushing harder on some other point, agreement almost reached then someone pissing off the country's leader about something quite irrelevant so that months of work are undone and it is back to the beginning.

Not something to be achieved in a couple of weeks!

Apart from the clear explanation given by Elegran, we also need to be aware of the incompetent fool Trump and the tantrums he throws. He seems to be able, at a whim, to raise and reduce tarriffs on imported goods, at the moment it is China who are the subject of this childish, economically illiterate behaviour, but what's to say Britain won't be next? Frankly I find it frightening that our economic future is potentially in the hands of a multiple bankrupt who is so inept that he could not even make a profit from a casino. The Daily Express need to reign in their nonsense stories.

Even Boris says a trade deal with the USA will take a year to complete. In the meantime of course we can manage can't we?
Our future lies in the hands of 2 men with a complete lack of morals or honour but worse still both have proved incompetent and inept. Still we'll be independent won't we?