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 atticus » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:26 pm

In business (and in home life) cancellation of a project can have consequences.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19546
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: BATNA

Postby diy » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:50 pm

But we aren't being allowed to cancel the project. We are being (it would appear) obliged to continue to fund the project without the benefits. Nobody seems to be suggesting the projects will be stopped and we must pay what we owe for the liabilities.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby dls » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:09 am

The EU has huge value in assets bought in part with our money. The divorce analogy suggests we get a share.

I cannot quite see the logic of the divorce analogy. Nor is it the breaking of a partnership or a club.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12136
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: BATNA

Postby diy » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:21 am

It is starting to seem clear what the negotiation will be around.

Money Talks
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby tph » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:54 am

dls wrote:I cannot quite see the logic of the divorce analogy. Nor is it the breaking of a partnership or a club.


I think a paid subscription to a range of benefits would be more accurate. We were never wedded to the EU in the same way as some of the other members.

Where in the EU constitution does it say we have to make payment upon leaving?
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby atticus » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:02 am

Money doesn't talk, it swears.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19546
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: BATNA

Postby dls » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:59 am

Kier Starmer is at it again this morning on the BBC. 'Any deal is better than no deal'
He is not stupid, so the is he dishonest? He can of course say 'I do not believe that any deal which will in fact be offered will be worse than no deal'. But he didn't. It is cheap and manipulative. He turns his own presumption of EU benificence into a rule of logic. It is shameful.

I go on about this because I care about what they say. I have no initerest in the idiocies promoted by UKIP and the ruder branches of the Tory party.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12136
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: BATNA

Postby diy » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:03 am

To me article 50, point 2 is clear on the status of obligations, treaties and benefits.

There is either a deal or no deal. no deal = no money.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby tph » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:17 am

The reality is that in certain areas a deal will have to be struck regardless of the rhetoric on both sides. Whether this forms an overall deal or a series of side agreements will depend on how both sides want to dress it up.
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: BATNA

Postby atticus » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:25 am

Keir Starmer is almost certainly right, in the circumstances of what "no deal" would actually mean.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19546
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron