Generation Brexit

This is a matter of responsibility!

Manuela Cristiano
Manuela Cristiano | Jun 30, 2017 | in Breaking Up/Paying Up

The UK should pay what it is required to because it has to respect its obligations. This is a matter of respecting the commitments made, which involve thousands of communities, businesses, projects for which money has already been allocated. It is not difficult to imagine how many problems would create an interruption of such projects. As the President of the European Council also said, "It's not about money, it's about rules".

edited on Jun 30, 2017 by Manuela Cristiano

Matthew Matossian Jun 30, 2017

If the UK is sovereign, to argue that it 'has' to meet any obligation or commitment would be difficult to enforce. The UK will make a series of choices in the direction of it's interests only. This may mean that some commitments and projects will be put on the back burner or even sacrificed entirely. The only deals that will survive will be the ones of mutual interest.

Danial Alam Jun 30, 2017

It comes down to what jurisdiction (if any) the ECJ will have in the UK. Every third country so far has accepted the jurisdiction of the ECJ on areas of EU policy (or EFTA Courts). UK Courts could enforce the decision of the ECJ against the government as they have done in the past. This would change if the UK was no longer under such jurisdiction.

Manuela Cristiano Jul 1, 2017

I am not talking about enforcing anything. These projects were settled for both the UK and the EU, so I think it's in the UK's interest as well going on to finance that kind of activities. As I said before, it's not a matter of who has to give money to whom. Perhaps if the point of view was shifted, the issue would be easier to solve! In my opinion, it's a matter of guaranteeing people that they are not gonna lose anything, in terms of opportunities or benefits.

View all replies (2)