EU demands 44 billion to start trade negotiations

[WTFH]

One of the items listed in the detailed list was the cost of moving the regulators.

The UK has stated they are happy for them to remain where they are, and it is the EU that wants them to move/states they must move[#1].

So,
1. Is it acceptable or fair, that the UK is asked to pay for them and,
2. Should the UK pay for it?


Source #1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...n-paper_en.pdf

That's your interpretation of a draft document.
As you will know from having studied that document, it does not say that the the UK must pay the cost of moving the regulators, as you falsely claimed it did.

Here are some examples based on what it actually says:
UK MEPs currently rent/own housing in Brussels and Strasbourg. The cost of cancelling the rental agreements on those properties, or organising and selling them should be met by the UK.
I suppose you consider that unfair.
UK MEPs currently employ secretaries, translators and other ancillary workers in Brussels and Strasbourg. If you know much about Belgian law (that's the sovereign law of Belgium, as each EU country has control of their sovereign laws), you'll know that their employment laws for people who are made redundant are very favourable to the employee. As such, making a Belgian unemployed is quite costly and those costs should be met by the UK.
I suppose you consider that unfair, too.

...but never let the facts get in the way of your rant.

[Bean]

That's your interpretation of a draft document.
As you will know from having studied that document, it does not say that the the UK must pay the cost of moving the regulators, as you falsely claimed it did.

Snip

...but never let the facts get in the way of your rant.

Tell you what, use the find/search function and look for the following;

"5 This should include, for example, the cost related to the termination of contracts for housing agencies that have to move as a consequence of the withdrawal, the costs related to the move itself and the costs related to installation in the new location."

Now tell me again how i'm falsely claiming what again? How do you interpret the above?

Perhaps it would be better for you to read evidence when presented rather than skim-read?

I suppose you consider that unfair.

...but never let the facts get in the way of your false claims of false claims

[WTFH]

Tell you what, use the find/search function and look for the following;

"5 This should include, for example, the cost related to the termination of contracts for housing agencies that have to move as a consequence of the withdrawal, the costs related to the move itself and the costs related to installation in the new location."

Now tell me again how i'm falsely claiming what again? How do you interpret the above?

Perhaps it would be better for you to read evidence when presented rather than skim-read?

I suppose you consider that unfair.

...but never let the facts get in the way of your false claims of false claims

Yes, point 5 is what I referred to in my answer above. If you read the words of my response you'd see it was quite clear.

Termination of housing contracts? Yup, I answered that one, but you chose to see "housing contracts" as meaning something other that contracts for housing.

Read, then respond. Not the other way round. Choosing to snip out parts of my post so that it appears to say something different shows the type of person you are.

Here's the bit you snipped out:

Here are some examples based on what it actually says:
UK MEPs currently rent/own housing in Brussels and Strasbourg. The cost of cancelling the rental agreements on those properties, or organising and selling them should be met by the UK.
I suppose you consider that unfair.
UK MEPs currently employ secretaries, translators and other ancillary workers in Brussels and Strasbourg. If you know much about Belgian law (that's the sovereign law of Belgium, as each EU country has control of their sovereign laws), you'll know that their employment laws for people who are made redundant are very favourable to the employee. As such, making a Belgian unemployed is quite costly and those costs should be met by the UK.
I suppose you consider that unfair, too.

Back to you with your false claims.

[sal]

Who cares as long as the demanded sum is in £, by the time it's due the pound will be so devalued that it will be like 15bn Euro, which May already agreed to pay. Fire up the printing press and let them have it.

[Bean]

Yes, point 5 is what I referred to in my answer above. If you read the words of my response you'd see it was quite clear.

Termination of housing contracts? Yup, I answered that one, but you chose to see "housing contracts" as meaning something other that contracts for housing.

Read, then respond. Not the other way round. Choosing to snip out parts of my post so that it appears to say something different shows the type of person you are.

Here's the bit you snipped out:

Back to you with your false claims.

Did you miss
"the costs related to the move itself and the costs related to installation in the new location.""


Did you also miss my first post part of;
"The UK has stated they are happy for them to remain where they are, and it is the EU that wants them to move/states they must move"


Let's see if I can simplify it further for you;
The UK doesn't want to make anyone currently working in those offices redundant.
The UK doesn't want or need to move those offices physical locations
The UK is not forcing anyone to cancel any rental agreements
The UK is not forcing anyone in those offices to do any of that, which you stated (which is exactly why I snipped it, i.e. strawman)

The EU have stated, as their positions, in their paper previously linked - that they must/want them to move.

So, back to you with your false claim of false claims

[WTFH]

Let's see if I can simplify it further for you;
The UK doesn't want to make anyone currently working in those offices redundant.
The UK doesn't want or need to move those offices physical locations
The UK is not forcing anyone to cancel any rental agreements
The UK is not forcing anyone in those offices to do any of that, which you stated (which is exactly why I snipped it, i.e. strawman)

The EU have stated, as their positions, in their paper previously linked - that they must/want them to move.

So, back to you with your false claim of false claims

Hold on, you are saying the UK does not want to make any UK MEP staff unemployed?
You are saying that the UK MEPs are not going to leave Brussels or Strasbourg?

You claimed that moving housing is only about moving regulatory bodies from the UK to the EU, but anything to do with moving the UK MEPs out is "strawman".
You are either deranged or a troll.

[Bean]

Hold on, you are saying the UK does not want to make any UK MEP staff unemployed?
You are saying that the UK MEPs are not going to leave Brussels or Strasbourg?

You claimed that moving housing is only about moving regulatory bodies from the UK to the EU, but anything to do with moving the UK MEPs out is "strawman".
You are either deranged or a troll.

Do MEPs work as regulators?
IS that considered moonlighting, allowed, - or are you just chatting rubbish?

I specifically posed questions in my first post in this thread about moving regulators,

you then added in other fluff (MEPs!?), which I didn't ask about.

Perhaps you need to take a few deep breaths, have a coffee and read posts thoroughly?

HTH BIDI

[WTFH]

I specifically posed questions in my first post in this thread about moving regulators,

you then added in other fluff (MEPs!?), which I didn't ask about.

Perhaps you need to take a few deep breaths, have a coffee and read posts thoroughly?

HTH BIDI

OK, Let me read the first sentence of your post...

One of the items listed in the detailed list was the cost of moving the regulators.

I simply pointed out that "one of the items listed" did not mention "the cost of moving the regulators". It mentioned the cost of moving. You added the word "regulators".
If you had said it was the "cost of moving spaceships" and I said "but the document doesn't mention spaceships, it just talks about cancelling housing contracts and relocating", would you still be whining on about spaceships?

You deliberately added a word in, claiming it was listed in the document, then have based all your ranting on that one word. So, you made up your straw man argument, then you are so focused on trying to win an argument based on a word you added that you've lost the plot.

[Bean]

OK, Let me read the first sentence of your post...



I simply pointed out that "one of the items listed" did not mention "the cost of moving the regulators". It mentioned the cost of moving. You added the word "regulators".
If you had said it was the "cost of moving spaceships" and I said "but the document doesn't mention spaceships, it just talks about cancelling housing contracts and relocating", would you still be whining on about spaceships?

You deliberately added a word in, claiming it was listed in the document, then have based all your ranting on that one word. So, you made up your straw man argument, then you are so focused on trying to win an argument based on a word you added that you've lost the plot.

More rubbish.

Use the search function for that word - I'll give you a hint - it's in the Annex 1, section 2.2

They EU are wanting them included in the liabilities - let me break it down for you:

-Section 1 of the doc, refers to Annex 1 (So those regulator bodies are included in the settlement)
-Section 2 of the doc, refers to "(5) The specific costs related to the withdrawal process.5"
-Notation 5 states "5 This should include, for example" - so it's not an exhaustive list, but the example relates to moving costs
-and here's a link to show it is an EU-led move; Europe's drug regulator prepares for Brexit disruption as it plans moving headquarters from London to EU | The Independent

You are off-form today

The only person strawmanning is yourself, now - would you care to directly answer my original 2 questions yet?

1. Is it acceptable or fair, that the UK is asked to pay for them and,
2. Should the UK pay for it?

[BlasterBates]

1. Is it acceptable or fair, that the UK is asked to pay for them and,
2. Should the UK pay for it?

Of course it is. The UK has decided to leave the EU so these regulatory institutions need to move.

Therefore the UK should pay.

Blame the leave voters not the EU, they're the ones who've caused this mess.