You will get the deal the EU 27 want. UK is not leading that negotiation.

No, they'll get the deal we agree to. They can't have their cake and eat it now can they?

Yes they can, because the clock is ticking and the wto conditions that don't include services are at the end of the path.

Whatever happens, UK will have to pay its commitments, but it could be way harder for UK if EU cut access to the city , euro clearing and passporting services. You can act like if the final deal is what you wanted since the beginning for internal purposes but I don't think anyone will be fooled.

tommy1808 wrote:

The space between is where the UK can negotiate. The technique is known as pre-commitment, and fairly common in negotiations.

Best regards
Thomas

So we are in agreement, the difference between the two values is something that has to be negotiated and cannot be mandated by the EU.

Olddog wrote:

Yes they can, because the clock is ticking and the wto conditions that don't include services are at the end of the path.

Whatever happens, UK will have to pay its commitments, but it could be way harder for UK if EU cut access to the city , euro clearing and passporting services. You can act like if the final deal is what you wanted since the beginning for internal purposes but I don't think anyone will be fooled.

Bottom line is that the EU will be moving their financial services out of the UK, the only question is how long, but my bet is that the plan will be no longer than 10 years irrespective of whether the UK re-joins the EU. Even if Brexit does not happen in 2019, a change in the UK financial Market for EU services is coming, the financial collapse and its response along with the Greek Bail Out shows the divide between the UK and the continent, talks of change started before Brexit and with the UK out, it will only accelerate, those in the UK who think differently are avoiding the approaching wall.

Article 50 will be adjusted after this to make it more efficient, having all financial services dominated by one EU member will be regarded as a failed strategy and must be changed, the formula and commitments for paying of a exit bill will be solidified, having to wait for one side to agree a formula will be another failed strategy, certainty is needed, the rights of citizens and the role of the ECJ will also be updated to ensure more certainty and fairness.
Overall the changes post Brexit will ensure that Article 50 is much more robust and certain for those who would wish to try it.

Financial and trade markets do not tolerate a vacuum, adjustments will be made regardless of WTO or special deals, those who dwell in fear and have no faith in their populations to adjust are usually the cause of more harm than good. Remainers and Leavers have said they respect the vote to leave and the UK must leave, rather than looking forward to the world outside of the EU they remain fixated. The EU is a known entity, all the stalling presently taking place is the work of those who reject the vote and are hedging their bet's - Leavers and Remainer Politicians - the EU on the other hand are ready for the UK to leave.
The bigger challenge is to beef up the systems required for trade, investments and financing outside of the EU, these services exist but are marginalized.
If the population see them working on getting these services ready for 2019 I believe they will be more amenable to some accommodations with the EU.

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The space between is where the UK can negotiate. The technique is known as pre-commitment, and fairly common in negotiations.

Best regards
Thomas

So we are in agreement, the difference between the two values is something that has to be negotiated and cannot be mandated by the EU.

No one mandates anything, but since the UK stands to lose more from a no deal result the EU has significantly more leverage.

Remember that after the vote most voices within the leave sector and the government refused to pay anything.

LAH1 wrote:

I just noticed this report by the Office of National Statistics as per the BBC. It seems that rather than leaving in droves some EU citizens are actually wanting to stay.

It would be fair if you also show the number of British people applying for EU citizenship (which also happens). Also note that the number of people compared to those living/working in the UK is rather limited thus when 100,000 opt to leave against 20,000 who applied to stay, the net outlfow will be 80,000.

Olddog wrote:

You will get the deal the EU 27 want. UK is not leading that negotiation.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

No, they'll get the deal we agree to. They can't have their cake and eat it now can they?

No, you get the deal or both the EU and UK can live with or no deal at all. What the deal will be is still pure speculation.

BTW Olddog, it's actually EU 27 + 1 or 2 regional governments.

LJ wrote:

LAH1 wrote:

I just noticed this report by the Office of National Statistics as per the BBC. It seems that rather than leaving in droves some EU citizens are actually wanting to stay.

It would be fair if you also show the number of British people applying for EU citizenship (which also happens). Also note that the number of people compared to those living/working in the UK is rather limited thus when 100,000 opt to leave against 20,000 who applied to stay, the net outlfow will be 80,000.

I don't think the number applying for EU citizenship is in question. I merely posted these numbers to show that it wasn't simply a one way street. I am also interested in the German figures, the highest increase here. I would have naturally thought they might be the lowest considering the circumstances of their own country being one of the richest in the EU and one where presumably they could get work easily if they wanted.

So these numbers are for person applying for citizenship, how do they calculate the numbers of persons via freedom of movement, most may not want to be citizens, just looking for better options including work. Do they calculate based on tax records, claiming of government benefits, employer records?

Dano1977 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Most Germans would leave the EU when given a choice. But that does not mean that they will support a special deal for the UK.

We don't want a special deal - We want a non punitive fair deal.

You want to avoid any previous commitment, any future obligation, and keep all the special inner conditions.

You want to eat the cake and have the cake, simply selfish and arrogant, as usual, UK.

Jayafe wrote:

You want to avoid any previous commitment, any future obligation, and keep all the special inner conditions.

You want to eat the cake and have the cake, simply selfish and arrogant, as usual, UK.

Article 50 which is a EU construct states that financial obligations cease on departure, it abides no future obligations or commitments, as stated in my earlier post I expect the EU to change that section of the article going forward.

The EU is a special grouping of countries, the terms of membership is clear, the terms of access to the grouping by non-members is clear, the terms of access by limited members is also clear, therefore it is irrelevant what the UK wants, it is up to the EU to decide what access they will grant.
The question Europeans should be asking is how much of their hard earned togetherness they are willing to sell to the UK, make no mistake about the negotiations, the UK as the party leaving are attempting to buy EU access and services, they cannot demand anything of the EU, the EU either sells or they don't.
The EU will increase individual country budget allocations or reduce some services as a condition of the UK departure, the UK will have to negotiate individual countries or trade groups. The EU is unique, no other such grouping exist elsewhere in the world, most others are for trade, security or both.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

No, they'll get the deal we agree to. They can't have their cake and eat it now can they?

This expression doesn't make much sense, but anyway, aren't you the ones having the cake (Brexit) and wanting to eat it (keep as much benefits from the EU as possible) ?

Brexit: Big business and banks are dominating formation of Brexit warns report
Exclusive: New research indicates 'corporate bias' threatens to drown out the voice of ordinary people

Brexit is being shaped by big business and banks while the interests of ordinary people are being drowned out, a damning new report has concluded.

The analysis of lobbyist activity exposes how big corporations and the finance sector are dominating back-room discussions with negotiators in both London and Brussels.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 13131.html

What else is new

Not sure why it is a shock to anyone, the "elites" whether politicians or business have been ignoring the masses for a long time, they were finally able to get a vote on the subject of the EU and the rest is not yet history, time will tell.
I disagree on the domination section, no question on the UK side the business interest are in control, on the EU side the politicians still hold sway, hence the divorce bill being the biggest item on their plate, freedom of movement as it relates to the border in Ireland is minor compared to the level of trade between the UK and EU.

What is interesting about this is they do not state how they are going to get the EU to agree to this, unless it is at whatever price the EU charges

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41064314

par13del wrote:

What is interesting about this is they do not state how they are going to get the EU to agree to this, unless it is at whatever price the EU charges

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41064314

Because if the EU doesnt agree, the UK will then leave the EU. Oh wait...........

Jayafe wrote:

Because if the EU doesnt agree, the UK will then leave the EU. Oh wait...........

Precisely, it is not up to Labour , so how can they promise not to leave the Customs Union?

One can only hop that the EU does disagree with this. The period of uncertainty has to end asap. It is in the best interest of the UK to not extend this period of doubt any longer. Who is going to invest in UK until the long term solution with the EU is clear?
A firm interested in being in the common EU market - no
A firm interested in being outside the common EU market - no

And it also means the UK won´t be free to make new trade deals with third countries as long as they are not clearly out of the common market.

par13del wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Because if the EU doesnt agree, the UK will then leave the EU. Oh wait...........

Precisely, it is not up to Labour , so how can they promise not to leave the Customs Union?

They talk about extensions. Might be one more year, might be ten. It seems Labour are into pre-election mode already.

In any case:

The problem for the UK is they have an illusion. They still think it is a negotiation between equals, while when you compare the UK to EU 27, the gorilla in the room is the EU...

Olddog wrote:

The problem for the UK is they have an illusion. They still think it is a negotiation between equals, while when you compare the UK to EU 27, the gorilla in the room is the EU...

And they somehow think being out of the EU can have a better deal with the EU than the one they had being a member of the EU...

Imho the problem is that they still think that the negotiations will go on until a solution is found or the EU is tired and gives in. When in reality Hard Brexit will come in 2019 with the time for different solutions ending around the end of Q3/2018.

Jayafe wrote:

And they somehow think being out of the EU can have a better deal with the EU than the one they had being a member of the EU...

Ahhh no, the people who voted out believe that they will be better off outside the union, if they are delusional it is only the fault of their leaders who either created the illusion, or ignored their concerns based on what they see / saw in their every day lives.
The leaders on the other hand are basically scared sh**** to leave the union, so are putting up all kinds of options to the voters as if the referendum vote is pending, maybe DC and Co should have tried this approach versus Project Fear.
In any event, as stated by all logical thinkers, whatever deal the UK get's from the EU is entirely dependent on the EU and how much they are willing to sell and or sacrifice principles to accommodate the UK without other members getting p****.
I agree that they are wasting time, probably the strategy is to let Mar-2019 arrive with nothing agreed to, no infrastructure put in place so that they can look at the electorate and say we need more time to get you to adjust your vote, I mean get more transitional agreements in place.

For the UK, the real problem is that the EU have accepted brexit, and they're going to mitigate the damage to the EU as much as possible, if necessary at the UK's expense. They have a right and indeed a duty to their citizens to get the best possible deal for themselves. And that's that. They have no obligation or interest in making brexit easy or profitable for the UK, which is after all soon to become an economic competitor as well as a political rival.
It's quite strange that some brexiters are amazed that the EU is refusing to disadvantage itself for the UK's convenience.

The whole damned thing wants scrapping (IMHO). Brexit was sold to us by Big Media and its billionaire owners, a gurning fool at the head of UKIP and a complete tissue of lies through whoch the truth could not be seen.

As this is unlikely, then Labour's policy is the adult in the room. Make Brexit as soft as possible for BOTH sides. The EU depends on the UK too. European companies trade in London and also trade with British banks and companies. If we are to have Brexit, make it as advantageous as possible for both sides by taking the time necessary and treating it as special circumstances.

To do anything else invites chaos on both sides as the EU loses part of its stability and the UK its biggest trading partner.

I doubt that solution is still possible. What the UK asks is a transition so they can continue as usual while trying to screw EU with new trade deals.As I heard on the radio (BFMBusiness) the UK is basically asking EU to bend over so it will be easier to screw us....

Wait until folks start looking at financial realities, one small example that UK folks can investigate for themselves, look at how much money the treasury get's from tariffs on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries. Check the rates for some of those products and compare them to what is charged for the same goods coming from the EU.
Labour's policy is understandable as they are not in government, however, when one looks at the millions who voted out it does appear to be risky strategy to say that so many people were misled, or delusional or just plain sold a bill of goods. In the last election even though the Tories lost their majority in the house they did increase their vote count, so if so many people were led up the garden path, why did Labour not win the election outright, they were never the party for leave, even though the leader said he would respect the referendum vote.

Olddog wrote:

I doubt that solution is still possible. What the UK asks is a transition so they can continue as usual while trying to screw EU with new trade deals.As I heard on the radio (BFMBusiness) the UK is basically asking EU to bend over so it will be easier to screw us....

At present the UK cannot make trade deals outside of the EU, if they were to accept a transition period, is it your position that during that period they should still be barred from making their own deals?
If that's the case, what would be the purpose of the transition period?

But that transition period is asked by the UK for the UK. Where is the EU interest?

You can only have a transition if you know the final goal.

Olddog wrote:

But that transition period is asked by the UK for the UK. Where is the EU interest?

Hence my question, what would be the purpose of the transition period, it was not specific to the UK.
Once outside of the EU, the UK would no longer have access to trade negotiations taking place, so the ability to influence what the EU is doing would be minimal, institutional knowledge of the EU inner workings is a given as a ex member, nothing either side can do about that unless a non-disclosure clause is required.
If the UK cannot negotiate deals during the period, it simple penalizes them for what gain, which is my question, continued access to the common market, customs union, etc etc.
I honestly do not know.

seahawk wrote:

You can only have a transition if you know the final goal.

Being outside the EU?

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

But that transition period is asked by the UK for the UK. Where is the EU interest?

Hence my question, what would be the purpose of the transition period, it was not specific to the UK.
Once outside of the EU, the UK would no longer have access to trade negotiations taking place, so the ability to influence what the EU is doing would be minimal, institutional knowledge of the EU inner workings is a given as a ex member, nothing either side can do about that unless a non-disclosure clause is required.
If the UK cannot negotiate deals during the period, it simple penalizes them for what gain, which is my question, continued access to the common market, customs union, etc etc.
I honestly do not know.

Part of being out of the EU is building legislation, agencies and facilities for all the new organisms that will handle everything that was previously handled as per EU legislation. Patents, meds, customs, etc. It is a MASSIVE work that takes years, not only to start working, but also to have all the legal coverage consolidated and adapted to the new reality. Whatever the final deal is, the UK will not be ready in 2019, hence the transition period. And the EU is not stupid, the same way that while leaving they are not allowed to settle down external trade agreements, if a transitional "grace" period is granted to allow the island to get its facilities working, the same blocking policy also applies.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can only have a transition if you know the final goal.

Being outside the EU?

That is easy to have, in fact there is no need to negotiate at all.

Jayafe wrote:

Part of being out of the EU is building legislation, agencies and facilities for all the new organisms that will handle everything that was previously handled as per EU legislation. Patents, meds, customs, etc. It is a MASSIVE work that takes years, not only to start working, but also to have all the legal coverage consolidated and adapted to the new reality. Whatever the final deal is, the UK will not be ready in 2019, hence the transition period. And the EU is not stupid, the same way that while leaving they are not allowed to settle down external trade agreements, if a transitional "grace" period is granted to allow the island to get its facilities working, the same blocking policy also applies.

Which transition is the issue, none of the UK "talkers" have been too specific, for example there has been talk of a financial services transition period, now others are talking about the customs union, no one so far has said remaining as a EU member for a transitional period, hence the have cake eat too mantra.
Legislation for the most part is being dealt with by the acceptance of all EU law into UK law at Mar-2019, I think that's the lazy way out for all the politicians, but it is at least cloaked in the guise of providing certainty for EU / UK citizens and business houses. If the politicians were involved in drafting all the laws required of an independent nation maybe, just maybe, the process of Brexit would be more focused versus the noise presently being heard. Reality is that most local laws previously existed, just need to be "dusted off" and updated to modern times, whether it is by EU standard is another question.
Honestly don't see how the UK being able to negotiate trade deals during the transition period hurts the EU, but I'm willing to do more research. I accept the UK could get a trade deal with a non-EU nation much faster than the EU simply because you are dealing with one versus multiple countries, additionally, UK standards will ultimately change, hence the reason why in my opinion, the transition period for trade related issues does not seem viable. If the UK decides to accept GE crops, the borders need to ensure such are not shipped into the EU.

All EU law into local law is already how things work, there is no EU law as such, each country has a local law made to comply with this or that EU directive. Sometimes with significant differences, that's also why there are EU courts.

As for a transition period where the UK keeps what it likes and scraps the rest, that's not going to happen. If it's just that new directives won't apply but everything else stays as of now, then the EU could accept, but Brexiters, I doubt it (even the proposed transition period, in fact).

par13del wrote:

Honestly don't see how the UK being able to negotiate trade deals during the transition period hurts the EU, but I'm willing to do more research.

Because while on the transition period the UK still benefits from the privileges of being part of the EU, so still kind of a "temporary member of the EU" upon his request (they ask for it as they admit they are not ready to leave). And the EU members are not allowed to negotiate individual trade deals by theirselves.

If you are in, you can not negotiate. If you are out you can. That's the law. Whatever is no out, it's in, with it advantages and disadvantages.

Quite simple logic, the cake thing

If there is any transition deal I'm sure it will be paid, so no free benefit as if they are still a member.
However, it does make you wonder where the soft Brexit comes from as the 3 options are clear, In, Out or Norway model.

The Fun part is that the uk is trying to ask the same deals for the Uk than EU trade deals. Like if UK = EU27

Olddog wrote:

The Fun part is that the uk is trying to ask the same deals for the Uk than EU trade deals. Like if UK = EU27

Trade between the EU and the UK will be a huge source of revenue going forward, imagine the financial impact of the increased tariff rates from the preferential EU rates to WTO or at least the rates that both sides now charge on non-EU goods? The EU needs the increased revenue to offset UK contributions and the UK needs the revenue to build its economy independently.
Ease of trade is the only thing that makes any kind of sense right now, but regardless, the invisible border has to disappear, good thing for all concerned is that the UK is still an island and the access points are limited and more easily patrolled, imagine a mainland EU member leaving the union withe massive land borders to multiple countries.

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The Fun part is that the uk is trying to ask the same deals for the Uk than EU trade deals. Like if UK = EU27

Trade between the EU and the UK will be a huge source of revenue going forward, imagine the financial impact of the increased tariff rates from the preferential EU rates to WTO or at least the rates that both sides now charge on non-EU goods? The EU needs the increased revenue to offset UK contributions and the UK needs the revenue to build its economy independently.
Ease of trade is the only thing that makes any kind of sense right now, but regardless, the invisible border has to disappear, good thing for all concerned is that the UK is still an island and the access points are limited and more easily patrolled, imagine a mainland EU member leaving the union withe massive land borders to multiple countries.

- What also needs to be avoided is the UK having a privileged deal with the EU, deals with 3rd parties, to in the end act as a middle point for other countries to export to the EU shipping via UK. With the British just sitting in between counting money. Kind of UK style actually..........

-The UK is 2 islands actually, not one, with a land border with the EU.

Jayafe wrote:

- What also needs to be avoided is the UK having a privileged deal with the EU, deals with 3rd parties, to in the end act as a middle point for other countries to export to the EU shipping via UK. With the British just sitting in between counting money. Kind of UK style actually..........

-The UK is 2 islands actually, not one, with a land border with the EU.

No need to worry on that score, the increase in revenue for both sides is too great for the EU to allow Ireland to function as a middle man, hence the reason why the hard border has to come but the EU does not want to be the one mandating the change which will the affect agreement that bought peace to north and south.
Now can someone be creative and state that ports in Ireland cannot be used as a first port of entry into the EU????? let's see how creative folks can get.

That would be funny, can't wait to see Irish's opinion (and expenses). But denying that would be Irish fault, so EU fault, so UK prevails and suffers as the good guy in the room as well. The circus goes on, lots of fun waiting for us!

par13del wrote:

Trade between the EU and the UK will be a huge source of revenue going forward, imagine the financial impact of the increased tariff rates from the preferential EU rates to WTO or at least the rates that both sides now charge on non-EU goods? The EU needs the increased revenue to offset UK contributions and the UK needs the revenue to build its economy independently.
Ease of trade is the only thing that makes any kind of sense right now, but regardless, the invisible border has to disappear, good thing for all concerned is that the UK is still an island and the access points are limited and more easily patrolled, imagine a mainland EU member leaving the union withe massive land borders to multiple countries.

You're not seriously arguing that going to WTO rates will be beneficial for both EU and UK? Trade will go down and thus no financial benefit will take, moreover as prices of goods go up and either profits may come down thus less income tax or the end user must pay more and thus can buy less.

LJ wrote:

You're not seriously arguing that going to WTO rates will be beneficial for both EU and UK? Trade will go down and thus no financial benefit will take, moreover as prices of goods go up and either profits may come down thus less income tax or the end user must pay more and thus can buy less.

Rates will not be the preferential rates of a EU member, whether it is WTO rates is up to the negotiators, but rates should rise as membership ceases..
Trade with other nations outside the EU is not in decline and their rates are higher than the EU rates. In the short term prices have to rise, the cost of expanding border infrastructure has to be paid. EU goods entering the UK will have to receive additional inspections, ditto on the EU side, this infrastructure has to be funded, as the UK standards deviate from the EU, this will be even more critical.
The citizens in the UK are expecting to save money by not contributing to the EU, raising taxes to fund border infrastructure will not be palatable, especially if an agreement is made to pay some divorce bill, which also has to come from somewhere, you don't really believe that a country which has debt and is running a deficit has billions of dollars just sitting there waiting to be spent?
Building trade with the rest of the world will take time, in the long term as trade outside the EU increases one would expect prices to come down, but the short term I would expect increases, especially from smaller vendors who may not want to invest in the additional "measures" that would be required to export to the UK.

par13del wrote:

LJ wrote:

You're not seriously arguing that going to WTO rates will be beneficial for both EU and UK? Trade will go down and thus no financial benefit will take, moreover as prices of goods go up and either profits may come down thus less income tax or the end user must pay more and thus can buy less.

Rates will not be the preferential rates of a EU member, whether it is WTO rates is up to the negotiators, but rates should rise as membership ceases..
Trade with other nations outside the EU is not in decline and their rates are higher than the EU rates. In the short term prices have to rise, the cost of expanding border infrastructure has to be paid. EU goods entering the UK will have to receive additional inspections, ditto on the EU side, this infrastructure has to be funded, as the UK standards deviate from the EU, this will be even more critical.
The citizens in the UK are expecting to save money by not contributing to the EU, raising taxes to fund border infrastructure will not be palatable, especially if an agreement is made to pay some divorce bill, which also has to come from somewhere, you don't really believe that a country which has debt and is running a deficit has billions of dollars just sitting there waiting to be spent?
Building trade with the rest of the world will take time, in the long term as trade outside the EU increases one would expect prices to come down, but the short term I would expect increases, especially from smaller vendors who may not want to invest in the additional "measures" that would be required to export to the UK.

Don't forget the 300+ million GBP that can now go to the NHS every week! As a former UK resident and Voter (voted to stay), the UK voted to leave the EU and I hope the UK gets what it wants, a very hard exit! The UK's negotiating position, at the present time, is absurd. For the UK to even think they will get the same or better deal as being in the EU is just laughable. I certainly understand not "showing your hand" at first, but at some point you have to get serious about the negotiations.

Good luck!

We reject the €100 billion bill.

EU Brexit negotiators were left “flabbergasted” after their British counterparts launched a legal deconstruction of the so-called “Brexit bill” Wednesday as the Brussels talks headed for an increasingly acrimonious impasse, EU sources have told The Telegraph.

British negotiators spent three hours launching a painstaking, line-by-line rebuttal of the EU’s demands for €100bn divorce settlement to the barely concealed fury of EU negotiators.

"There was total amazement,” the EU source said, “Everyone was completely flabbergasted that this young man from Whitehall was saying that the EU's preparation on the financial settlement was 'inadequate'. It did not go down well."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08 ... dismantle/

I would like to see a breakdown of this bill.

What obligations we have under current treaties and directives

Dano1977 wrote:

We reject the €100 billion bill.

EU Brexit negotiators were left “flabbergasted” after their British counterparts launched a legal deconstruction of the so-called “Brexit bill” Wednesday as the Brussels talks headed for an increasingly acrimonious impasse, EU sources have told The Telegraph.

British negotiators spent three hours launching a painstaking, line-by-line rebuttal of the EU’s demands for €100bn divorce settlement to the barely concealed fury of EU negotiators.

"There was total amazement,” the EU source said, “Everyone was completely flabbergasted that this young man from Whitehall was saying that the EU's preparation on the financial settlement was 'inadequate'. It did not go down well."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08 ... dismantle/

I would like to see a breakdown of this bill.

What obligations we have under current treaties and directives

So they reject the EU methodology but refuse to put forward a their own.... basically the UK say they don't have any post-Brexit obligations.

That's fine, as long as they don't want much from the post-Brexit trade deal.

So they reject the EU methodology but refuse to put forward a their own.... basically the UK say they don't have any post-Brexit obligations.

Negotiators applying "5 years old logic", nice.

Let´s not pay. Let´s go for hard Brexit. Let´s have fun...

JJJ wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

We reject the €100 billion bill.

EU Brexit negotiators were left “flabbergasted” after their British counterparts launched a legal deconstruction of the so-called “Brexit bill” Wednesday as the Brussels talks headed for an increasingly acrimonious impasse, EU sources have told The Telegraph.

British negotiators spent three hours launching a painstaking, line-by-line rebuttal of the EU’s demands for €100bn divorce settlement to the barely concealed fury of EU negotiators.

"There was total amazement,” the EU source said, “Everyone was completely flabbergasted that this young man from Whitehall was saying that the EU's preparation on the financial settlement was 'inadequate'. It did not go down well."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08 ... dismantle/

I would like to see a breakdown of this bill.

What obligations we have under current treaties and directives

So they reject the EU methodology but refuse to put forward a their own.... basically the UK say they don't have any post-Brexit obligations.

That's fine, as long as they don't want much from the post-Brexit trade deal.

The demand apparently came on 4 sheets of A4 paper. - I had more paperwork when I bought my house, and that didn't cost €100 billion - the paperwork filled two lever arch files.