OK, we’re either going to cave and hand over the cash or refuse and the talks are going to go down the pan.
Pass the popcorn someone, watching the UK self-destruct is going to be fun. Just wish I were not watching from the inside.
BTW did anyone with better French catch exactly what Barnier said in response to the question - I only really caught the “oui” on the end.
No trade talks anyway, just a discussion on what sort of trading relationship the UK once out would like to have with the EU. Proper trade talks start once the UK leave’s. If there is no extension to the article fifty period then its over to WTO while trade talks proper take place. Fox is apparently hoping to cut and paste all the current EU trade deals worldwide, but these include quotas on some stuff, these quotas would have to be agreed before the UK can implement anything. People like Fox, Johnson, IDS, Mogg, all like to make it sound so easy, but obviously it isn’t.
What I don’t understand is why the EU haven’t publicly said exactly how much the bill is, Barnier spouting off in front of the press like he did today helps no-one.
48 billion apparently plus 10 billion a year for the extension to article fifty. Problem is its a game both sides have to win.
Now is that the real cost or did you just make it up?
After a moment of shuffling and fiddling with specs: “Ma reponse est oui”
Thanks, I can hear it clearly now.
Not sure if that is knowing or just because the loudspeakers that I have on the computer at home are way better than the rubbish in the boxes at work which are typically whatever the manufacturer put in and are generally barely good enough to go “beep”.
He seemed to be listening to the translation through his earpiece which is slightly odd because I thought he speaks English pretty fluently.
Notwithstanding your 
it seems to now be the “official” EU figure as reported in Le Figaro
The 10billion (was that £ or €, I can’t remember) per year was never the offer for the divorce bill anyway - it was the offer for access during the transition period. Some of it might have been marked off against ongoing commitments but not all.
I don’t now why the EU negotiator hasn’t made public the detailed bill the UK will be asked to pay to meet contractual obligations, but I don’t doubt that the figures have been made available to the UK team, even supposing they haven’t already been worked out by the Treasury back-room boys.
The point seems to be that Davies’s team wants to know what they’ll get in return, and the EU team aren’t prepared to negotiate on this until the points of principle have been settled: citizens’ rights; Ireland border; agreed financial reckoning.
It beggars belief that the answer to this conundrum wasn’t well-known even before the referendum was called, it seems pretty obvious to me that these issues would be top of anyone’s list if we were going to leave.
Perhaps those who’ve ached for Brexit didn’t much care what sort of shambles would ensue from leaving, because their own interests wouldn’t be affected. I’d bet a penny in the pound that none of the most ardent Brexiteers in politics have much invested in the United Kingdom or its people. They swim in murkier ponds.
Apparently at a meeting many moons ago, Junker told whoever he was with that the UK’s future liabilities were around 48 billion euros. The UK government under Cameron signed up to various liabilities covering a seven year period, plus there are also an awful lot of Brits working within the EU on behalf of the UK, all will need redundancy packages plus future pension entitlements. There are also commitments to various overseas developments which the EU is undertaking in Africa. The twenty billion to cover the two year transitional period is what May offered on top of the other UK financial commitments.
In the next few days or so the UK government will agree to pay around fifty billion, will state the EU wanted a hundred billion but May refused and knocked them down to fifty billion. Bit like Thatcher with the rebate that unbeknown to her the other members of the EEC had already agreed to offer her, she came back treating it as a hard won victory. Its fine having democracy when the people who offer themselves up to the vote are actually capable of doing the job they are voted in to do, but when they are absolutely useless it all ends in a bit of a mess.
But that’s politics isn’t it? Just like promising “more” money for a project when funds were already going that way but making it sound like new or increased funding.
It beggars belief that we went into the referendum with no planning or analysis and the whole thing was fought with bluster, lies and exaggerations on one side and Fear Uncertainty and Doubt on the other.
Watched Dyson on Marr this morning, blokes made an awful lot of money out of Hoovers but when it comes to other various stuff, he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. Seems to me with the brexitaires, its drag out the pub landlord, some loony economist or Dyson, who then come out with the same old rubbish.
I really don’t think that he has Trevor.
Oops sorry, Vacuum cleaner’s.
Judging by his comments about labour flexibility he would happily have his entire workforce on minimum wage zero-hour contracts.
His disagreements with the EU are well known.
The Leave side did not expect to win nor Remain to lose the referendum, so no change to the status quo was expected. Therefore what was the point in investigating an alternative outcome, so “unlikely” that it would have been “a waste of taxpayers money”
The point would have been to have had informed debate rather than the shambolic mess that actually happened.
But you are right - it wasn’t in Leave’s interest to point out how awful leaving would be for the economy and not having hard evidence to the contrary they could carry on unashamedly with their “it will all be so easy” rhetoric and the government (specifically Cameron I suspect) was too arrogant to consider failure.
he’s made money from Dysons. Hoovers have got nothing to do with him.Besides, he should keep his mouth shut. He doesn’t give a stuff about the UK which is why he has offshore accounts and moved his vacuum cleaner manufacturing company to Malaysia, putting UK people out of jobs. His vacuum cleaners are overpriced plastic shite too.
Do we not call a vacuum cleaner a hoover anymore, or is it that we can only call a Hoover a hoover? Do families all over the world now shout such things as get the Electrolux out or get out the Shark, or maybe, get out the Dyson or the Karcher or that cheap Chinese thing in the cupboard. Far easier to call them all hoovers.