Brexit discussion thread II

murphthesmurf · 19-10-2017 12:01PM

Firblog wrote: »

I know I'm going to regret this, but however...

These I believe were the main arguments for Brexit...

The main one was immigration, right or wrong people identified the the unrestricted immigration from Europe to the UK as a factor that was making their live less tolerable, reducing their standard of living. (Yes I'm aware of the large immigration from outside the UK)

Now before you all start howling about how much the immigrants from the rest of the EU contribute to the economy and how stupid/racist/xenophobic it was for people to vote exit for this reason, just think; why did they believe immigration was 'bad'? Was it that their schools were over crowded? Was it that the doctors surgeries were over crowded? Was it that the NHS seemed to be creaking at the seams? (yes they knew that there are many staff in the NHS from Europe) Was it that some blamed unemployment on Johnny foreigner taking their jobs? Was it that alot felt like foreigners in parts of their own country (parts much bigger than kilburn)?

The next most influential reason was, I believe, the constant divergence of UK interests from those of the political establishment in the EU. I've read many of you contributors on here refer to the belief that many politicians in the rest of the EU believe that they will be better off without the UK, that it will be an end to constant arguments about policies / further integration etc. Well that constant arguing in Europe, where it was reported back in the UK that the UK was not being listened to time after time just wore alot of people down; its hard to be a member of a club if you believe that your views are never listened to.

3rd reason is the fault of the British politicians, and I believe the same fault is widespread in politics in most of the west. There was a huge groundswell of belief among ordinary people who believe/believed that no matter who they voted for, people who didn't make any positive difference to their lives would get into government. Successive governments ignored their concerns about immigration, the state of services, lack of employment in their areas, continued giving more and more power to Brussels, and their lives/living standards kept getting worse. Something had to be done - something had to be done, Leave the EU? here's something lets do that.. A referendum was a novel thing, they didn't have to vote along party lines, hence the 'kicking' that was delivered in the labour heartlands, and the falling back into line during the election..

4th: The sight of all the refugees coming into the EU, with Merkel exhorting more to come, the proposed imposition of quotas on countries, so that the perceived issues with 1 above would be made even worse.

5. The European Political Elite: The intransigence of the EU, Cameron went to the EU, requesting some very modest changes by the EU, and was given a good kicking, the only thing they didn't do was make him wave a piece of white paper at the press when he stepped off the plane..

So there you go, there're the main reasons why I believe brexit won the popular vote, I hope you note, there isn't an economic reason among them. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Its not the economy stupid

Discuss

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe. You can debate how much of this is the EU's fault, but perception is everything.
Merkel announcing that the world can live in Europe will imo be the end of the EU. Just look who the Austrians just voted in, who came close to ruling France, the rise of the right within Germany itself.
Britain never felt like a part of the EU, British people are generally disliked in most if not all EU countries. Someone commented earlier about the reaction from a swastika flag being raised in Norway, like it or not if it were not for the UK and later the US those flags would still be there across the EU. That is how a lot of British people think, we liberated them and they can't stand us.

First Up · 19-10-2017 12:16PM

murphthesmurf wrote:

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe. You can debate how much of this is the EU's fault, but perception is everything.

Will perceptions change when it sinks in that leaving the EU won't make any difference?

Sam Russell · 19-10-2017 12:17PM

First Up wrote: »

Will perceptions change when it sinks in that leaving the EU won't make any difference?

Well, not in a good way.

First Up · 19-10-2017 12:24PM

Sam Russell wrote:

Well, not in a good way.

No doubt that myth will be replaced by some other.

ambro25 · 19-10-2017 12:30PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Merkel announcing that the world can live in Europe will imo be the end of the EU.

Except, she didn't (and has since slammed the door shut. Hard.)

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Just look who the Austrians just voted in, who came close to ruling France, the rise of the right within Germany itself.

Except, Marine didn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination, however strenuous.

As for Pegida/AfD, surely the German GE and its results are not that far back in collective minds already?

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Britain never felt like a part of the EU, British people are generally disliked in most if not all EU countries.

Except, they're not.

Unless they happen to be your typical lager-swilling, obscenities-shouting, uneducated imbeciles on an away-match or stag/hen trip, of course. In which case, they're no more disliked than their German, Irish, Polish, etc. equivalents.

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Someone commented earlier about the reaction from a swastika flag being raised in Norway, like it or not if it were not for the UK and later the US those flags would still be there across the EU.

Corrected for accuracy. If the Channel hadn't been in the way in 1940, you'd have had a Swastika floating on St Paul just the same.

In some respects, it could said that this goes quite some way to explain an enduring element of cultural imbalance between EU continentals and EU islanders.

Brits we know (friends, colleagues, etc.) still don't really/truly "get" why our dog eats out of a Swastika-emblazoned porcelain plate (period, authentic, 'made in Berlin' 1941). Like all our family dogs have through the generations since 1945.

They're just fascinated by the plate. They lack the element of (personal-and-) collective memory to make the cultural connection.

murphthesmurf wrote: »

That is how a lot of British people think, we liberated them and they can't stand us.

They (well, at least you-) are wrong, regrettably. Spend some time on Continental forums and comments sections, and you'd witness at least as much pity/sorrow for the Brits as contempt and, uniformly, commiseration for the 48%.

But there's hope, because-

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe. You can debate how much of this is the EU's fault, but perception is everything.

-on at least that, I agree with you. I mean, who can forget this:

576673f01500002b0073b557.jpeg?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale

demfad · 19-10-2017 12:33PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe.

This is UKIP, RW tabloid and Russian propaganda. They didn't see thousands crossing the Med bound for UK, propaganda told them so. UK is outsode Shengen. Anyone trying to access it were in camps in Calais.

Merkel announcing that the world can live in Europe will imo be the end of the EU. Just look who the Austrians just voted in, who came close to ruling France, the rise of the right within Germany itself.

The RW populist surge in the EU actually declined when people saw the state of Brexit. When Putin is gone and these groups stop receiving Russian cash and benefiting from Russian State propaganda then they will crawl back under their rocks.

There is a huge issue with neo-liberalism since it was introduced by Thatcher/Reagan. Brexit wont cure it, it will just mean the UK will turn into a kind of US/UK corporate state.
Climate change politics economics will naturally bring about the end of neo-liberalism as fossil fuels and the system of mass consumption will have to go. Brexit moves the UK further from this, will cause more inequality and corporate dominence/deregulation.

Jim2007 · 19-10-2017 12:47PM

Sand wrote: »

As it is, EEA membership is likely the most democratic outcome. 48% voted for no Brexit whatsoever. Add in the proportion of the 52% who would accept EEA membership and you have a democratic mandate for EEA membership.

But there is no guarantee at all that their membership of EFTA will be approved - only EFTA members can join the EEA. And there are grave concerns especially in Norway about allowing the UK to join... they don't want a single big member dominating the organisation, let alone for them to start the usual we want exceptions crap.

First Up · 19-10-2017 01:02PM

Jim2007 wrote:

But there is no guarantee at all that their membership of EFTA will be approved - only EFTA members can join the EEA. And there are grave concerns especially in Norway about allowing the UK to join... they don't want a single big member dominating the organisation, let alone for them to start the usual we want exceptions crap.

Ah they'll get in alright but it will be interesting to see what strings are attached. Our three legged Pony won't be the only one dismayed!

murphthesmurf · 19-10-2017 01:23PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Corrected for accuracy. If the Channel hadn't been in the way in 1940, you'd have had a Swastika floating on St Paul just the same.

So you cross out the UK from the liberation of Europe? Yes the channel was a valuable defensive advantage that the rest of Europe did not have, but it is only 20 miles wide and Germany had plenty of ships. They could not cross it until they could significantly decrease the effectiveness of the RAF as their ships would be sunk. Which they failed to do, allowing the British, USA and local resistance forces to counter attack. To cross out the UK from any role in the defeating of the nazis I think demonstrates your perception of the UK. There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

Zubeneschamali · 19-10-2017 01:40PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

First Up · 19-10-2017 01:49PM

murphthesmurf wrote:

So you cross out the UK from the liberation of Europe? Yes the channel was a valuable defensive advantage that the rest of Europe did not have, but it is only 20 miles wide and Germany had plenty of ships. They could not cross it until they could significantly decrease the effectiveness of the RAF as their ships would be sunk. Which they failed to do, allowing the British, USA and local resistance forces to counter attack. To cross out the UK from any role in the defeating of the nazis I think demonstrates your perception of the UK. There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

There was also the small distraction for Germany of preparing to invade the Soviet Union but nobody denies Britain's role in WW2.

The problem is the people who can't see beyond that.

Enzokk · 19-10-2017 02:00PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

So you cross out the UK from the liberation of Europe? Yes the channel was a valuable defensive advantage that the rest of Europe did not have, but it is only 20 miles wide and Germany had plenty of ships. They could not cross it until they could significantly decrease the effectiveness of the RAF as their ships would be sunk. Which they failed to do, allowing the British, USA and local resistance forces to counter attack. To cross out the UK from any role in the defeating of the nazis I think demonstrates your perception of the UK. There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

And this has what to do with Brexit? I mean we can have a interesting discussion about the war and subsequent history, but this really isn't the place for it.

ancapailldorcha · 19-10-2017 02:08PM

Back on topic and cut out the low quality posting please.

demfad · 19-10-2017 02:31PM

Excellent demolition of the default WTO option here:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86194

Summarized here on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nickreeves9876/status/920931806978994176

John

What is so troublesome about this exchange is your seeming reluctance to abandon the notion of the WTO option as a working solution. Yet the WTO Option is a unilateral approach. That means that, if you adopt a bilateral approach, you cannot then argue that this is simply a way of making the WTO Option work, as you seem to be doing. We are talking about two different animals. For the life of me, I don't understand why you are having such difficulty with this idea.

You then ask me why a settlement which "entails some bilateralism" would be impossible to get organised within two years. The problem in giving you a simple answer to this is that you have already restricted the framing of the question. You talk about "some bilateralism", as if you could simply bolt-on a few additions to an agreement and call it a workable settlement. That cannot be the case.

If you want a high level of market access (far more than has the United States or China), then you have no option (short of adopting the Efta/EEA option) but to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement. In one of my previous e-mails, I set out the basic structure and requirements of such an agreement, comprising seven core points without taking into account the "peripherals".

Given the complexity of a comprehensive FTA, it should not require much imagination to realise that this will take some time. International agreements do take time. Based on current experience, it would be unreasonable to expect an agreement to be concluded in less than five years.

You then return to the premise that whatever is agreed should be "kept as simple as possible". Yet I have already addressed this issue. A settlement with the EU, undoing 43 years of economic and political integration, and forging an agreement which will give a similar level of market access to that which we currently enjoy, is not going to be simple. This will be one of the most detailed and complex negotiations ever undertaken with the EU. To expect it to be concluded inside two years is risible.

demfad · 19-10-2017 03:50PM

Another one for reading: https://www.ft.com/content/29476034-abab-3b61-9d75-75dc88eb76b0

UK needs more time due to triggering A50 too early: Here are the options (David Allen Green FT)

More time is needed. This is not to say Brexit will not happen then; that is still the date on which, by automatic operation of law, the UK leaves the EU unless there is an agreement otherwise. That has been the default position since the Article 50 notification was sent on 29 March this year. And as there is currently no sign of an agreement otherwise, that must still be regarded as the most likely outcome.

So, how could there be more time? There are four possible options: revocation, elaborate transition arrangements, an alternative exit date as part of the exit deal and a formal extension of the Article 50 two-year period. Each has their problems, but each solves the problem of time.

Jim2007 · 19-10-2017 04:14PM

First Up wrote: »

Ah they'll get in alright...

That is the problem with the entire British strategy this blinding believe that some how it will all come right in the end because after all they are somehow special...

But there is no reason what so ever why the four small nations should be saddled with having to but up with the UK, simply because they could not sort themselves out wit the EU.

Jim2007 · 19-10-2017 04:21PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Britain never felt like a part of the EU, British people are generally disliked in most if not all EU countries.

Britain never made an effort to be part of the community! And as for being disliked, most people are indifferent to you, your just people from another part of Europe - or perhaps the problem is that you expect us to treat you as something special.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-10-2017 06:30PM

Really Interested wrote: »

What exactly on the 3 issues have the U.K. offered.

So it looks like the only definite thing is that EU citizens won't have to fill all 95 pages on the application form and that maybe won't have to pay the full price.

Everything else is still vague and undefined.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-10-2017 06:53PM

The UK still haven't provided any clarity on what they intend to pay if there's a transition period.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1019/913509-brexit-blog/
Europe’s overriding concern is not the survival of the Tory Party but the protection of the European project itself.

...
The suspicion in Brussels is that London is deliberately holding out because they want to use money as leverage once they get into negotiations on the future trade agreement.

Firblog · 19-10-2017 06:58PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's one common thread throughout this whole reason: nobody voted to leave because of any evidence that immigration was bad. Lots of people voted to leave because of a feeling that immigration was bad, and that it was somehow all the EU's fault.

In large part, that was a conscious strategy on the part of the Leave campaigns. The people running those campaigns aren't stupid - they knew the truth about immigration (that it's a net positive, and that the UK could have controlled it much more than it did without leaving the EU) - but that didn't matter, because the important thing was leaving the EU (because Reasons) and if banging the drum about immigration was a way to achieve that, so be it.

That falls firmly into the category of Euromythology. The UK has been one of the most influential forces in the direction of EU policy since it joined. The problem is that some of the Powers That Be can't cope with the idea of not being able to unilaterally dictate that direction, and don't like having to compromise. Hence, any time EU policy has wavered at all from whatever the UK's interests, that has been portrayed as the European Reich dictating to the poor downtrodden Brit, rather than what it actually is: the realpolitik of achieving consensus among a large group of nation-states with their own interests and agendas.

Ah yes: using referendums (and local elections, and EP elections, and...) as an opportunity to give the government a kicking. Democracy at its most admirable: "I don't care what the consequences of my vote are; I just want to vote against whatever the government want."

The UK's obligations to take in refugees stem from the UN, not the EU. As for quotas, of course the UK would prefer to keep them all in Italy or Greece. But how do Italy and Greece feel about it?

Which goes back to point 2: a dislike of compromise.

Cameron went to the EU and demanded that 27 members reshape the very nature of the Union to suit one member. The EU politely pointed out that that's not how unions work.

That's not intransigence, that's a grasp of reality that's fundamentally missing from the British press's (and political establishment's) worldview.

That's because the Leave campaign breezily announced that there would be no economic downside to exit, and screamed "PROJECT FEAR" loudly at anyone who had the temerity to suggest otherwise.

As such, the proposal to leave was presented as: keep the foreigners from taking your jobs (including the ones you wouldn't dream of doing), take back control from a bunch of foreigners, give the money we're squandering on lazy foreigners to the NHS, and profit massively from the hundreds of countries queueing up to do trade deals with us as soon as we leave - all with no economic downside.

What's not to like?

It's just a pity it was pretty much entirely untrue.

Hey I was just outlining the arguments that were put forward for Brexit at the time, I'm not really looking to argue their merits or lack thereof.

But another one I'm fairly sure contributed, was commentators calling people who had concerns about immigration, racist and xenophobic - as Gordon Brown did - this also spurred alot of people to vote brexit; the only people who seemed to be sympathetic to their concerns were those who were advocating Brexit, so why not vote for them?

There are many on here who less than polite to people who support Brexit, while it isn't going to change people's views and opinions it really doesn't cost anything to be civil when discussing these matters.

Enzokk · 19-10-2017 07:25PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK still haven't provided any clarity on what they intend to pay if there's a transition period.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1019/913509-brexit-blog/
Europe’s overriding concern is not the survival of the Tory Party but the protection of the European project itself.

...
The suspicion in Brussels is that London is deliberately holding out because they want to use money as leverage once they get into negotiations on the future trade agreement.

It seems to me, having seen John Redwood on the Daily Politics where he kept talking about how the EU wants the UK to pay money for a trade deal. Now I may be mistaken but there has been no talks yet about a trade deal so how can they be talking about paying for one? Surely the talks should be about what the UK will pay on what they committed, which they have not done yet. He did say that the UK will pay what they legally committed to.

So if I have it right there seems to be a perception that the EU is talking to the UK about paying for access to the single market. But surely the only costs would be towards contributions for EU institutions that the UK will use, like the EMA or EURATOM. Or are we missing something here?

Firblog wrote: »

Hey I was just outlining the arguments that were put forward for Brexit at the time, I'm not really looking to argue their merits or lack thereof.

But another one I'm fairly sure contributed, was commentators calling people who had concerns about immigration, racist and xenophobic - as Gordon Brown did - this also spurred alot of people to vote brexit; the only people who seemed to be sympathetic to their concerns were those who were advocating Brexit, so why not vote for them?

There are many on here who less than polite to people who support Brexit, while it isn't going to change people's views and opinions it really doesn't cost anything to be civil when discussing these matters.

For those that was against immigration there could have been an element of racism involved, whether they liked it or not. Now we have seen many figures that proves that people from the EU doesn't put undue pressure on the social welfare system in the UK as they pay more for what they take out. But people would still have been complaining about the "Polish that has 6 kids to claim benefits". Ignorance of the truth is no excuse when it comes to racism or xenophobia and this seems to be where most people fell short, even if they don't like to hear it.

In any case those that are convinced that immigration is ruining the UK will not have their minds changed as they are thinking emotionally and not rationally. I am sure smarter people will be able to point out why the areas with the least amount of immigration are the areas that voted in the highest percentage for Brexit, or how the AFD in Germany got their support in the East of Germany where there is the lowest immigration yet that is what AFD main talking points were.

Nody · 19-10-2017 07:30PM

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems to me, having seen John Redwood on the Daily Politics where he kept talking about how the EU wants the UK to pay money for a trade deal. Now I may be mistaken but there has been no talks yet about a trade deal so how can they be talking about paying for one? Surely the talks should be about what the UK will pay on what they committed, which they have not done yet. He did say that the UK will pay what they legally committed to.

So if I have it right there seems to be a perception that the EU is talking to the UK about paying for access to the single market. But surely the only costs would be towards contributions for EU institutions that the UK will use, like the EMA or EURATOM. Or are we missing something here?

UK politics; plenty of Tories have all stood up and loudly declared that they will not pay for access to the EU market and how strongly they will oppose it. Of course the fact EU has never mentioned that in the first place but it makes great headlines for the Sun and Telegraph to show how strong the Tories are against EU and fighting the good fight. Hence fighting shadow windmills is a popular sport in the UK at the moment while the rags cheer them on for their great "victories".

murphthesmurf · 19-10-2017 07:34PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

The Rape of Lucretia · 19-10-2017 07:39PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

How long do you expect British EU retirees to be paid their pensions ? 6 Years ?

Enzokk · 19-10-2017 07:40PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

Where do you get the £50 billion from? As far as I know the EU wants the UK to commit to what they have already committed. They have not talked about an amount precisely because you would get headlines about how the UK will not pay X amount instead of saying we will not pay to what we committed.

Nody · 19-10-2017 07:42PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

Except EU has not mentioned a number; every single number mentioned has been pulled out of a random ass by a rag in the UK for outrage purposes basically. EU has asked for (and not received) UK to state what they are going to actually pay for.

Secondly you forget that UK also has 44 years of pensions that are due from the civil workers in EU for the time they were there. Those pension obligations don't stop out of the blue simply because UK leaves the union. And third and final UK made multiple commitments to funds that were not used up at the time of UK leaving they were however pledged by UK to various programs (to the tune of 30 billion or so currently) that are not tied to the yearly membership fees.

murphthesmurf · 19-10-2017 07:44PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

How long do you expect British EU retirees to be paid their pensions ? 6 Years ?

How long do you think young EU migrants living in UK will be here? A lot work and pay in more than they take as has been stated, but not all. Some will potentially drawing on money from the state for decades to come. The retirees in Spain will be dead in a few years. It works both ways. Plus any living in UK have full access to the NHS, which is a cost Spain does not have.

murphthesmurf · 19-10-2017 07:47PM

Nody wrote: »

Except EU has not mentioned a number; every single number mentioned has been pulled out of a random ass by a rag in the UK for outrage purposes basically. EU has asked for (and not received) UK to state what they are going to actually pay for.

Secondly you forget that UK also has 44 years of pensions that are due from the civil workers in EU for the time they were there. Those pension obligations don't stop out of the blue simply because UK leaves the union. And third and final UK made multiple commitments to funds that were not used up at the time of UK leaving they were however pledged by UK to various programs (to the tune of 30 billion or so currently) that are not tied to the yearly membership fees.

I got the 50 billion from Google. So from what you are saying it sounds like it will be a lot more than 50 billion.

Nody · 19-10-2017 07:48PM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

How long do you think young EU migrants living in UK will be here? A lot work and pay in more than they take as has been stated, but not all. Some will potentially drawing on money from the state for decades to come. The retirees in Spain will be dead in a few years. It works both ways. Plus any living in UK have full access to the NHS, which is a cost Spain does not have.

You mean beyond the fact that it's already linked studues that EU citizens add 1.04 GBP in taxes for every 1.00 GBP they use (and that is for ALL EU citizens inc. those who stay until they die of old age)? You know minor things such as actual facts rather than made up conjunctions such as your claim.

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I got the 50 billion from Google. So from what you are saying it sounds like it will be a lot more than 50 billion.

Depending on who you ask the number is anything between 10/20 billion to 80+ billions. In the end it all comes down to one single question which UK has not answered which is:"Which of your commitments are you going to pay for and how much of said commitment are you going to pay?"

Now UK can say well we made those commitment when we were a EU member but we'll not pay them now; or we should only pay 50% etc. as part of the negotiations with EU but we (and EU) don't know because UK's negotiation team are simply to clueless and directionless to know and commit to anything. They simply have not been given the authority and direction to actually state what they will pay because May's government is in utter and constant chaos and infighting without an agreed vision on how to execute the Brexit which also makes any number quoted now meaningless. Chances are the final number will come mid 2020s after a long drawn out court hearing of some sort or another and not sooner.

Enzokk · 19-10-2017 07:48PM

Nody wrote: »

Except EU has not mentioned a number; every single number mentioned has been pulled out of a random ass by a rag in the UK for outrage purposes basically. EU has asked for (and not received) UK to state what they are going to actually pay for.

Secondly you forget that UK also has 44 years of pensions that are due from the civil workers in EU for the time they were there. Those pension obligations don't stop out of the blue simply because UK leaves the union. And third and final UK made multiple commitments to funds that were not used up at the time of UK leaving they were however pledged by UK to various programs (to the tune of 30 billion or so currently) that are not tied to the yearly membership fees.

You can see why the EU doesn't want to talk numbers, because the headlines is what they want to avoid. Its seems to be working as well as a lot of people are committing to numbers and stating their own red lines on the amount they are willing to support. Even on here posters are commenting on what they feel is supposed to be paid and what is supposed to be whistled at. This is without knowing the complexities that is involved with this, just a random £20 billion is enough number.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments