Brexit Betrayal



Let’s hope that one never has a chance to go to print. :grin:


Looks like no deal is good for the Dutch people, they need to send us a cheque for helping create those extra jobs !


“And it is most useful when the crock of shit our representatives are selling us as a plate of foie gras is so horrible we can’t hold our nose and eat it anymore.”

:rofl::rofl: Love that line.


Part of the Electoral Commission rules. I can’t remember where I heard about it, but it is definitely the case.


Downing Street rejects EU claim the UK will have to pay full £39bn Brexit bill in no-deal. Spox said in no-deal, agreement on bill “would fall away” but UK would meet legal obligations.


Why would be pay anything above our prearranged commitments. We have close to no commitments if we leave with no deal. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed - EU morons. We should give them the smallest amount we must give them if we get a no deal, which is preferably nothing.


Plus you have to take into account the EU assets which the UK owns as well, given that we have paid for them


What are those assets?

This argument has been made to me before, the suggestion it is like a marital divorce… but that has no standing imo


We have funded all the EU buildings and we have a significant stake in the ECB

  • The European Union had €153.7 billion of assets at the end of 2015. As far as we know, the existing available ‘Brexit bill’ calculations have considered only a small subset of these assets.
  • There are €41 billon assets which can be considered as a kind of EU ‘accumulated wealth’: cash (€21.7 billion), property (€8.7 billion), available-for-sale financial assets (€9.6 billion) and other assets (€1.0 billion). A share of this should probably be apportioned to the UK upon Brexit .
  • The outstanding amount of loans granted by the EU was about €56 billion at the end of 2015. These loans do not constitute a ‘net wealth’ because they are fully matched by EU borrowing, and the interest rate charged by the EU is practically the same as the EU’s borrowing cost. However, if EU borrowing is considered as a liability which should be apportioned to the UK on Brexit, then EU loans should also be apportioned to the UK as an asset .
  • The place of pre-financing (€45.2 billion) in the Brexit bill is ambiguous . Some of it may essentially “pre-cover” part of the UK’s liabilities for future expenditures agreed while it was still a member. However, it is still very difficult to say how much of an impact this will have on the final bill.
  • The final main category of EU assets, receivables and recoverables (€10.3 billion), may not be considered as assets in the Brexit bill calculations, because they are practically composed of the budget contributions that member states failed to pay by the end of 2015.


The government are now talking about extending article 50 for a few week, according to the BBC


I think you could make a fair argument for a split of the cash, but unlikely for the property.

Nothing in rules says we are entitled to EU assets, but equally nothing suggests we owe them anything either.

The best use of that argument is to retort we owe the EU anything.


If the UK is liable for a share of the EU liabilities, then the UK is entitled to it’s share of EU assets, simple


Yep I agree with that…


They will need legislation for that



Our spineless parliament might oblige.



They really can’t afford to let us leave. But equally they can’t afford to let us stay.

In fact, this frivolous lawsuit is prima facia evidence that the EU oligarchs in Brussels are officially scared of what’s coming in May’s European Parliamentary elections.

The future of the EU actually hangs in the balance on this frivolity. That tells you just how desperate things really are for the current leadership of the rapidly disintegrating European Union.


Why we will get no deal Brexit:

Game theory: Prisoner’s dilemma. It is human nature to prioritise self preservation before the good of the collective.

Remain MPs did not all vote for Cooper’s amendment, which could have thwarted Brexit because they did not want to risk the wrath of their constituents and they wanted to preserve their seat. Instead they were hoping that their colleagues’ votes would be enough. In other words, let others do the dirty work and be absolved from liability. Self preservation first.


I hope you are correct. Conservatives that will not follow Brexit should be de-selected by the party.