Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

BATNA

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: BATNA

Postby dls » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:46 pm

Obviously, such rates are dependent upon the eventually subjective views of the market makers, but I do not see how a failure to pay a divorce bill conjured from hot air will mke a great difference.

Describing it as the divorce bill makes an improper omparison. Divorces have rules and precedents. This has none.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: BATNA

Postby diy » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:32 pm

Other's have left versions of the EU, did they have to pick up the tab?
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:36 pm

Theresa and Claude get married. Theresa and Claude buy a house, with a mortgage. Theresa meets Nigel. Theresa and Claude get divorced. Who pays the mortgage?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: BATNA

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:39 pm

atticus wrote:Theresa and Claude get married. Theresa and Claude buy a house, with a mortgage. Theresa meets Nigel. Theresa and Claude get divorced. Who pays the mortgage?

Won't that depend on the T&C?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10017
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: BATNA

Postby tph » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:03 pm

atticus wrote:Theresa and Claude get married. Theresa and Claude buy a house, with a mortgage. Theresa meets Nigel. Theresa and Claude get divorced. Who pays the mortgage?


The most amicable solution would be to sell the house and split the proceeds. If Claude want's to keep the house to himself he will need to pay the mortgage on his own!
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:14 am

Theresa and Claude join a commune and agree to pay a shedload of money on the basis of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." As time goes on they realise that they are being shafted by the commune's leaders and decide they want to leave. Do they just clear out and live independently or must they keep paying into the commune, perhaps for decades? No formal agreement on leaving has been signed by either party other than that they negotiate with each other if they want to.

A more interesting comparison is between the alleged racist nationalist populist slight majority Brexiteers v the liberal, financially superior remainders in the matter of British independence from the EU as compared with the alleged racist nationalist populist slight majority SNP wanting independence from GB while, interestingly, appearing to want to then surrender that independence to the EU. I find it most interesting, personally, that I am an ardent believer in Brexit but I find the SNPs approach to their own independence, at least as far as Nicky The Fish goes, contemptible. A conundrum I am working on although it's likely to remain unresolved for a long time. I have no answers on that comparison. It is further complicated by my Scottish roots.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:12 am

shootist wrote:Theresa and Claude join a commune and agree to pay a shedload of money on the basis of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." As time goes on they realise that they are being shafted by the commune's leaders and decide they want to leave. Do they just clear out and live independently or must they keep paying into the commune, perhaps for decades? No formal agreement on leaving has been signed by either party other than that they negotiate with each other if they want to.

Isn't the better answer to depose the leaders?

A more interesting comparison is between the alleged racist nationalist populist slight majority Brexiteers v the liberal, financially superior remainders in the matter of British independence from the EU as compared with the alleged racist nationalist populist slight majority SNP wanting independence from GB while, interestingly, appearing to want to then surrender that independence to the EU. I find it most interesting, personally, that I am an ardent believer in Brexit but I find the SNPs approach to their own independence, at least as far as Nicky The Fish goes, contemptible. A conundrum I am working on although it's likely to remain unresolved for a long time. I have no answers on that comparison. It is further complicated by my Scottish roots.

Could it be that Scotland have not bought into the myth about all these rules imposed on us by Brussels? Or perhaps they simply don't care if their bananas are bendy or not.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10017
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: BATNA

Postby miner » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:36 am

shootist wrote:.... I find it most interesting, personally, that I am an ardent believer in Brexit but I find the SNPs approach to their own independence, at least as far as Nicky The Fish goes, contemptible. A conundrum I am working on although it's likely to remain unresolved for a long time..... It is further complicated by my Scottish roots.


Well, that makes two of us, then!

i like the idea mooted by some that in addition to those qualifying residents in Scotland, anyone with a Scottish birth certificate should also be allowed to vote in any referendum on independence.

I see that the Scottish parliament, which very properly called a halt to proceedings yesterday (= Wednesday, 22nd March) during its referendum discussions, but did not emulate the Westminster parliament which I understand got back to normal Commons business today, and isn't apparently resuming its proceedings on that until next Tuesday.

My wife pointed out that maybe it's because Nicky the Fish is such an attention-seeker that she sees that she won't get the attention she seeks on their Referendum vote until then because the media attention is currently on the sickening and tragic event in Westminster yesterday. Maybe my wife is right, maybe not, but the action of the Holyrood parliament in not resuming what it was doing yesterday until next Tuesday seems rather bizarre.

Theresa May has made the UK's approach to such terrorism and murders very clear, and one might have reasonably expected the Scottish parliament to follow her very determined example in not succumbing to terrorism by re-establishing "business as normal" with the corresponding immediacy.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: BATNA

Postby miner » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:40 am

Hairyloon wrote:
Isn't the better answer to depose the leaders?

Then all you get is "more of the same" - except perhaps not in your idealized dream-world.

Could it be that Scotland have not bought into the myth about all these rules imposed on us by Brussels?


Dream on.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: BATNA

Postby diy » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:24 am

Its very simple to me at least.

If we undertake to fund some project, it was surely done on the basis of some benefit or return on investment. If we are to continue to benefit and have committed obligations (implied or otherwise) to fund, we should continue to fund. If however, we are no longer able to benefit then we should cease to fund.

In business and home life "projects" get cancelled, if the benefits are no longer there.

It may of course be entirely appropriate that the costs and benefits gradually fade out.

I haven't read anything to suggest that the EU treaties have a liquidated damages clause.

There is also a secondary consideration. Despite EU law, since the brexit vote, EU funded or influenced projects have been busily excluding British firms and Institutions on the basis of Brexit. We have not yet turned off the tap of money or served notice to quit. When we do, I expect we shall continue to fund our commitments for the 2 years notice/exit process we must serve. The financial contribution made, without benefit should be taken into account.

Personally I'd argue that this was our tapering off.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest