For me, the main problem with what this MP said is not even that she used the "n-word". It's that she was treating a horrible and shameful period of history as something to make light of.
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.
I've never heard of that one. I can remember plenty of tasteless expressions which we used at school, though, things we knew would get us into trouble if the teachers overheard them.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.
Can that be right though? Boris was wholeheartedly agreeing with the following remark from Philip Hollobone MP:
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)
I would be very surprised if we can walk away from our share of pension liabilities.
I thought the EU was arguing that it was an entity in its own right and member states were not shareholders? As such we don't have any claim to its assets but also we don't have any responsibilities to its ongoing liabilities.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
If it gets nasty the UK government will crater and a new government will to to Brussels with a new approach. The idea that the UK government would have the strength to walk away is laughable.
It may have no choice. Are you prepared to pay £100 billion divorce and if you are the voter will not and will do a Boris and tell the EU to 'whistle'
I thought the EU was arguing that it was an entity in its own right and member states were not shareholders? As such we don't have any claim to its assets but also we don't have any responsibilities to its ongoing liabilities.
Well, the existence and shareholding structure of the EIB gives lie to that.
But when countries see secession or break up, they share liabilities. Scotland could not walk away from the UK without taking on its residual share of liabilities.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
In other words, you have made it up.
I presented it as an opinion not a statement of fact.
I thought the EU was arguing that it was an entity in its own right and member states were not shareholders? As such we don't have any claim to its assets but also we don't have any responsibilities to its ongoing liabilities.
Well, the existence and shareholding structure of the EIB gives lie to that.
But when countries see secession or break up, they share liabilities. Scotland could not walk away from the UK without taking on its residual share of liabilities.
So should we claim some assets? If Scotland did go independent, how would it take on existing debt? I'd be a bit pissed off to find out that 10% of the UK government bonds I'd bought had become Scottish government bonds.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.
Can that be right though? Boris was wholeheartedly agreeing with the following remark from Philip Hollobone MP:
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)
The last claim that the EU will not get a bean seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Remainer painting a sensible Brexit statement in Wax Crayons, perhaps, as they so often do :-D ?
BBC:
"He said: "The sums I have seen that they propose to demand from this country appear to be extortionate." "Go whistle seems to me to be an entirely appropriate expression," he added." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40571123
"Go whistle" by Boris refers to the 110bn claims, not the more reasonable numbers.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
I don't think it works like that. The UK and the EU are negotiating - as we speak - over the bill. The only sum that will be officially released will be the negotiated settlement, assuming there is one.
Can that be right though? Boris was wholeheartedly agreeing with the following remark from Philip Hollobone MP:
Since we joined the common market on January 1 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. [...] Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?
So it's now explicit: the EU won't get a bean. (Or is your analysis correct and Boris isn't in the loop?)
I would be very surprised if we can walk away from our share of pension liabilities.
Might a cleaner way of dealing with the pensions issue be for the UK government to mirror the existing EU pension entitlements for Britons working or retired from the EU institutions, and transfer everyone to the new scheme?
For me, the main problem with what this MP said is not even that she used the "n-word". It's that she was treating a horrible and shameful period of history as something to make light of.
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.
I've never heard of that one. I can remember plenty of tasteless expressions which we used at school, though, things we knew would get us into trouble if the teachers overheard them.
Down the pub the other week one of our group was extravagantly relating a funny story and used "and I was off faster than a Jewish foreskin" ... apparently he then looked at me horrified that he'd caused offence ... but I didn't notice because I was too busy laughing!
If it gets nasty the UK government will crater and a new government will to to Brussels with a new approach. The idea that the UK government would have the strength to walk away is laughable.
It may have no choice. Are you prepared to pay £100 billion divorce and if you are the voter will not and will do a Boris and tell the EU to 'whistle'
There would be a big time lag between walking away from the negotiations and actually leaving the EU with no deal. Can you imagine the political chaos that would ensue in that period?
If it gets nasty the UK government will crater and a new government will to to Brussels with a new approach. The idea that the UK government would have the strength to walk away is laughable.
It may have no choice. Are you prepared to pay £100 billion divorce and if you are the voter will not and will do a Boris and tell the EU to 'whistle'
There would be a big time lag between walking away from the negotiations and actually leaving the EU with no deal. Can you imagine the political chaos that would ensue in that period?
No, I can't. Do tell. What 'chaos' would that be and for whom?
A senior EU official authorised to speak about the Brexit bill said that because the bloc is a “legal personality” in its own right member states have given up all claim to its assets even though they paid for them.
The Commission bigwig, who is a top figure in Michel Barnier's negotiating team, stated: "Member states do not have any right to those assets, there’s no shareholding in the EU.
“All of the EU’s assets belong to the EU and that includes buildings and other assets both tangible and intangible, financial and non financial, drinkable and non drinkable.
If that is the case then as tlg86 says then we do not have any responsibilities to the ongoing liabilities.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
In other words, you have made it up.
I presented it as an opinion not a statement of fact.
Why don't you answer my question?
I don't tbink any of them will agree a large Brexit bill. I have yet to hear any British politician say we should.
Indeed it is one reason that we are heading to a "no deal" Brexit. One that we have no plans for according to Boris.
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.
EU citizen rights were supposed to be the easy one. But yes I agree. The money is a haggle. Actually the UK Government is likely to WANT to pay out large sums of money to the EU, to buy influence. It's a partial substitute for having a vote.
The UK government have put forward a serious and workable proposal on citizen rights. In fact it is the only serious work that the UK government has done on Brexit so far. But it isn't the generous offer the government makes it out to be, as it leaves EU citizens with fewer rights than at present and compared with UK citizens and with no guarantees. So the president of the EU parliament says, not good enough, unless you do what I tell you there will be no deal. Even I, as a Remainer who thinks Brexit is nonsense, has a problem with this. It's humiliating.
Which is why, when it comes to the crunch, the Single Market with freedom of movement is going to look somewhat attractive. It's easier and less embarrassing. You get a common set of rules that everyone follows. It's what it is. We don't get a pretend sovereignty where every decision can be vetoed on a whim by Mr Verhofstadt.
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.
EU citizen rights were supposed to be the easy one. But yes I agree. The money is a haggle. Actually the UK Government is likely to WANT to pay out large sums of money to the EU, to buy influence. It's a partial substitute for having a vote.
The UK government have put forward a serious and workable proposal on citizen rights. In fact it is the only serious work that the UK government has done on Brexit so far. But it isn't the generous offer the government makes it out to be, as it leaves EU citizens with fewer rights than at present and compared with UK citizens and with no guarantees. So the president of the EU parliament says, not good enough, unless you do what I tell you there will be no deal. Even I, as a Remainer who thinks Brexit is nonsense, has a problem with this. It's humiliating.
If you put yourself into a negotiation where the other side holds almost all the cards, of course you will be humiliated
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
In other words, you have made it up.
I presented it as an opinion not a statement of fact.
Why don't you answer my question?
I don't tbink any of them will agree a large Brexit bill. I have yet to hear any British politician say we should.
Indeed it is one reason that we are heading to a "no deal" Brexit. One that we have no plans for according to Boris.
And? Cameron made no plans for a Leave win but I'm quite happy with how that's going so far.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
In other words, you have made it up.
I presented it as an opinion not a statement of fact.
Why don't you answer my question?
I don't tbink any of them will agree a large Brexit bill. I have yet to hear any British politician say we should.
Indeed it is one reason that we are heading to a "no deal" Brexit. One that we have no plans for according to Boris.
I agree in regard to the no deal Brexit.
In fact I don't think we should even bother and should spend the coming months planning for no deal.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
What will resonate is that leaving the EU ain't cheap. (And the final figure will no doubt be resolved in court.) One of the many reasons that Leavers are switching to Remain.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
In other words, you have made it up.
I presented it as an opinion not a statement of fact.
Why don't you answer my question?
I don't tbink any of them will agree a large Brexit bill. I have yet to hear any British politician say we should.
Indeed it is one reason that we are heading to a "no deal" Brexit. One that we have no plans for according to Boris.
I agree in regard to the no deal Brexit.
In fact I don't think we should even bother and should spend the coming months planning for no deal.
Which is what I have been advocating for a year, but just today our government admitted to having no plans. They have squandered a year, and look like squandering another.
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.
EU citizen rights were supposed to be the easy one. But yes I agree. The money is a haggle. Actually the UK Government is likely to WANT to pay out large sums of money to the EU, to buy influence. It's a partial substitute for having a vote.
The UK government have put forward a serious and workable proposal on citizen rights. In fact it is the only serious work that the UK government has done on Brexit so far. But it isn't the generous offer the government makes it out to be, as it leaves EU citizens with fewer rights than at present and compared with UK citizens and with no guarantees. So the president of the EU parliament says, not good enough, unless you do what I tell you there will be no deal. Even I, as a Remainer who thinks Brexit is nonsense, has a problem with this. It's humiliating.
If you put yourself into a negotiation where the other side holds almost all the cards, of course you will be humiliated
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
What will resonate is that leaving the EU ain't cheap. (And the final figure will no doubt be resolved in court.) One of the many reasons that Leavers are switching to Remain.
Switching? Wanting to stay?
It's an odd prisoner who won't leave his cell because he will have to make his own sandwiches in the sunshine.
Even as a leaver I can see the irony and humour in that.
But at the moment apples are being compared to guava fruit and literally meaningless figures are being thrown around by both sides. It's like the referendum never finished and it gets frankly tedious.
Completely agree. I feel on a kind of common sense level - most can agree we should pay for stuff we said we would pay for, and for pensions to British civil servants working for EU. We should only pay for things agreed after we leave if we want to - and I suspect we won't.
Some kind of fee to get better access/cover our share of the costs of EU institutions regulating trade which I suspect we will still be using in some way seems reasonable - and the debate should hopefully focus on that.
We aren't going to carry on paying into the CAP for 5 years after we've left I hope!
"EU institutions regulating trade" - or giving up sovereignty, in other words.
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
In other words, you have made it up.
I presented it as an opinion not a statement of fact.
Why don't you answer my question?
I don't tbink any of them will agree a large Brexit bill. I have yet to hear any British politician say we should.
Indeed it is one reason that we are heading to a "no deal" Brexit. One that we have no plans for according to Boris.
I agree in regard to the no deal Brexit.
In fact I don't think we should even bother and should spend the coming months planning for no deal.
So time to start building the necessary customs infrastructure at Dover?
Show johnny foreigner what for. Bit of british steel and theyll go running
RULE BRITTANIA, BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES
Genuine question.
Name any UK politician who would accept a divorce bill of between 60-100 billion to leave the EU.
As I have said for days the amount of the divorce bill will be the defining moment. Boris words were undiplomatic but they could well resonate later this year throughout the UK
Clarke, Umunna, Soubry, Morgan etc they would all pay what ever is demanded.
Have any of them said anything like that?
Not that I recall.
Do you seriously think that when the figure demanded by the EU is finally released they will say get lost, we're not paying that?
In other words, you have made it up.
I presented it as an opinion not a statement of fact.
Why don't you answer my question?
I don't tbink any of them will agree a large Brexit bill. I have yet to hear any British politician say we should.
Indeed it is one reason that we are heading to a "no deal" Brexit. One that we have no plans for according to Boris.
I agree in regard to the no deal Brexit.
In fact I don't think we should even bother and should spend the coming months planning for no deal.
There's a reason why the government (and the Leave campaign before it) never planned for No Deal.
There will be a deal. Ultimately the immovable object will collapse in face of the irresistable force.
For me, the main problem with what this MP said is not even that she used the "n-word". It's that she was treating a horrible and shameful period of history as something to make light of.
To me it's the equivalent of that horrible expression that kids use "sweating like a Jew in a shower" -- that expression might not explicitly use an anti-semitic slur, but the offensive part is that it's making light of something disgusting.
I've never heard of that one. I can remember plenty of tasteless expressions which we used at school, though, things we knew would get us into trouble if the teachers overheard them.
Down the pub the other week one of our group was extravagantly relating a funny story and used "and I was off faster than a Jewish foreskin" ... apparently he then looked at me horrified that he'd caused offence ... but I didn't notice because I was too busy laughing!
Is that 'delightful' expression in common usage amongst your friends or do you think it was the result of careful preparation by your acqaintance?
A senior EU official authorised to speak about the Brexit bill said that because the bloc is a “legal personality” in its own right member states have given up all claim to its assets even though they paid for them.
The Commission bigwig, who is a top figure in Michel Barnier's negotiating team, stated: "Member states do not have any right to those assets, there’s no shareholding in the EU.
“All of the EU’s assets belong to the EU and that includes buildings and other assets both tangible and intangible, financial and non financial, drinkable and non drinkable.
If that is the case then as tlg86 says then we do not have any responsibilities to the ongoing liabilities.
So go whistle.
It's also a rubbish argument.
Firstly, we are shareholders, in our own right, in the EIB. Now, the Articles of Association state that you need to be an EU member to be a shareholder. But that doesn't mean that - on exit - we get stripped of our stake without compensation. In a "No Deal" Brexit, it would almost certainly end up in Court (it is a Luxembourg domiciled entity, so in a national court there), and we would win as we are shareholders in our own right.
Secondly, countries are legal entities in their own right. And when there is secession from a country, or it breaks up, then liabilities and assets are shared around. Take the USSR, the individual Republics took responsibility for pensions for their citizens (albeit Russia took on the, very small, foreign debts of the USSR).
Two years of transition based on continued single market + customs union membership followed by EFTA. That's what we have to go for, isn't it?
We have the figleaf of sovereignty in submitting to the EFTA court rather than the ECJ for Single Market issues, but we will accept ECJ regulation for Euratom, European Aviation Safety Agency and a few other organisations.
Do you think we should pay 60-100 billion to leave
Indeed is anyone on here willing to say they would accept these sums to leave
No. But it's hardly a negotiating triumph to avoid paying that much!
Boris has (through a very well chosen slightly old-fashioned phrase) managed to get people saying good old Boris, when in reality he's demolished a straw man.
At a glance we should be paying pensions and past commitments. That works out to roughly 45 billion, and we get 29.4 back... so about 16 billion net.
I have no problem with 16 billion net
Before any amount is agreed would not the alleged debtor require copies of the fully audited and signed off accounts?
The EU's Court of Auditors has never had any issue with calculating its assets and liabilities. The reason it does not sign off on the accounts is because the level of control on payments is not at a sufficiently high level.
I understand but surely if things get nasty then we are entitled to see where the billions we have paid in over the years has been spent?
If the level of control is insufficient then that is their problem not ours.
If it gets nasty we'll walk away without a deal. Of course, that will have its own serious complications for the UK economy, especially given Dr Fox's current failures to replicate any of the EU's existing trade relationships.
Well, there's certainly a point at which the EU terms become so ridiculous that leaving is the only option left. But realistically, if things go bad, the EU will offer a pretty one-sided deal at the 11th hour, that we will accept at the last minute - it will be similar to the situation in Greece. Without the landslide, the tories will not countenance accepting no deal - it would have a large short term negative effect, and it would be done from a position of weakness rather than strength, it would be the quickest way to hand a majority to Labour.
EU citizens rights is going to be the stickler, not the money.
EU citizen rights were supposed to be the easy one. But yes I agree. The money is a haggle. Actually the UK Government is likely to WANT to pay out large sums of money to the EU, to buy influence. It's a partial substitute for having a vote.
The UK government have put forward a serious and workable proposal on citizen rights. In fact it is the only serious work that the UK government has done on Brexit so far. But it isn't the generous offer the government makes it out to be, as it leaves EU citizens with fewer rights than at present and compared with UK citizens and with no guarantees. So the president of the EU parliament says, not good enough, unless you do what I tell you there will be no deal. Even I, as a Remainer who thinks Brexit is nonsense, has a problem with this. It's humiliating.
If you put yourself into a negotiation where the other side holds almost all the cards, of course you will be humiliated
Interesting comments about Uber. Edinburgh has got itself in a bizarre situation where they refuse to issue more taxi plates. The inevitable consequence is that those plates in existence have become valuable. They are held by dormant companies (don't ask) which change hands at £40k each. Very few taxi drivers can afford this so they do a profit share with those who hold the plate, typically giving 30% or more of their earnings (plus repairs etc) to the plate holder.
It is one of the worst and most incompetent administrative systems I have come across and those who are being ripped off in this way hate Uber with a vengeance. Uber must be regulated like a taxi company, not an internet company. Anything else is completely unfair.
Could you clarify - who are being ripped off ? Do you mean the taxi drivers by the Council?
If so, then they are together monopolists running a dying business model, and we should not pander to them.
The taxi drivers are being ripped off by the holders of the plates and having to meet a completely artificial and unnecessary overhead reducing their already modest earnings.
Comments
But when countries see secession or break up, they share liabilities. Scotland could not walk away from the UK without taking on its residual share of liabilities.
Why don't you answer my question?
BBC:
"He said: "The sums I have seen that they propose to demand from this country appear to be extortionate."
"Go whistle seems to me to be an entirely appropriate expression," he added."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40571123
"Go whistle" by Boris refers to the 110bn claims, not the more reasonable numbers.
A senior EU official authorised to speak about the Brexit bill said that because the bloc is a “legal personality” in its own right member states have given up all claim to its assets even though they paid for them.
The Commission bigwig, who is a top figure in Michel Barnier's negotiating team, stated: "Member states do not have any right to those assets, there’s no shareholding in the EU.
“All of the EU’s assets belong to the EU and that includes buildings and other assets both tangible and intangible, financial and non financial, drinkable and non drinkable.
If that is the case then as tlg86 says then we do not have any responsibilities to the ongoing liabilities.
So go whistle.
Indeed it is one reason that we are heading to a "no deal" Brexit. One that we have no plans for according to Boris.
Which is why, when it comes to the crunch, the Single Market with freedom of movement is going to look somewhat attractive. It's easier and less embarrassing. You get a common set of rules that everyone follows. It's what it is. We don't get a pretend sovereignty where every decision can be vetoed on a whim by Mr Verhofstadt.
Apparently the only man who can save the Conservative Party is Jacob Rees-Mogg.
My only thought is if anyone thinks the answer is Jacob Rees-Mogg, they obviously haven't worked out the question...
In fact I don't think we should even bother and should spend the coming months planning for no deal.
It's an odd prisoner who won't leave his cell because he will have to make his own sandwiches in the sunshine.
There will be a deal. Ultimately the immovable object will collapse in face of the irresistable force.
NEW THREAD
Firstly, we are shareholders, in our own right, in the EIB. Now, the Articles of Association state that you need to be an EU member to be a shareholder. But that doesn't mean that - on exit - we get stripped of our stake without compensation. In a "No Deal" Brexit, it would almost certainly end up in Court (it is a Luxembourg domiciled entity, so in a national court there), and we would win as we are shareholders in our own right.
Secondly, countries are legal entities in their own right. And when there is secession from a country, or it breaks up, then liabilities and assets are shared around. Take the USSR, the individual Republics took responsibility for pensions for their citizens (albeit Russia took on the, very small, foreign debts of the USSR).
We have the figleaf of sovereignty in submitting to the EFTA court rather than the ECJ for Single Market issues, but we will accept ECJ regulation for Euratom, European Aviation Safety Agency and a few other organisations.