Brexit Thread III - How to instantly polarise your country without even trying

[Kyriakos]

You couldn't tell from his voice? I never saw him on Richard & Judy, but he certainly didn't do badly in that interview.

That was one bizarre program. The fallout from the Thesmophoriazousae, in early 2000s London

 

[Arakhor]

What has an ancient Greek play got to do with anything?

 

[Kyriakos]

What has an ancient Greek play got to do with anything?

I suppose it was too much to check the plot of said play, and compare with Richard & Judy

 

[Arakhor]

That would have required me to have ever watched Richard & Judy back in the day.

 

[Kyriakos]

That would have required me to have ever watched Richard & Judy back in the day.

Not really; i haven't either, it only requires you to know they existed

 

[innonimatu]

So no, paying your due is not what will make Brit look like idiots, they did the job themselves already.

Second, despite the shrieking conspiracy theorist here, the EU is simply making the UK pay what it's supposed to pay and every other member pays.

There are no legal grounds whatsoever to demand any money from the UK as part of "brexit". The whole process is part of negotiating for the future, not a requirement arising from the existing treaties and the exit process.

 

[AdrienIer]

The EU doesn't ask that money from the UK because of Brexit. It asks it because it's the UK's share of already-voted EU projects. If the UK had stayed in the EU it would have payed that amount too (actually a lot more).

 

[Takhisis]

There are no legal grounds whatsoever to demand any money from the UK as part of "brexit".

The UK government itself begs to differ.

 

[Akka]

There are no legal grounds whatsoever to demand any money from the UK as part of "brexit". The whole process is part of negotiating for the future, not a requirement arising from the existing treaties and the exit process.

=>

The EU doesn't ask that money from the UK because of Brexit. It asks it because it's the UK's share of already-voted EU projects. If the UK had stayed in the EU it would have payed that amount too (actually a lot more).

And I mean, it's just so easily checkable, to not know it is a perfect example of how you're not interested by fact but just by pushing said conspiracy theories.

 

[tjs282]

Yeah, I don't think the UK should risk busting its trading-reputation by arbitrarily cancelling its agreed per-turn payments, 2 turns before the relevant treaties were due to expire anyway...

(Hey, this site is dedicated to the Civ-games, after all...)

 

[Arakhor]

Jacob Rees-Mogg was on the front page of the Express today, complaining that Europe is spoiling Brexit by refusing to resolve the Northern Irish border problem. Even for the Express, that is hysterically over-stated!

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yeah, I don't think the UK should risk busting its trading-reputation by arbitrarily cancelling its agreed per-turn payments, 2 turns before the relevant treaties were due to expire anyway

You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

The fact is that for the UK the relevant treaty expires March 2019 yet the EC27 wants the UK to pay for at least another two year turns.

 

[Arakhor]

Your defence is "we shouldn't have to pay, so there's no legal case to pay"??

 

[Broken_Erika]

Your defence is "we shouldn't have to pay, so there's no legal case to pay"??

I believe the proper legal term for that defense is "Max Bannania" or something.....

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In the general case, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to not be expected to pay for ongoing and continuing costs of an organisation and club once you have left it. If I was a member of some club and we took a vote on whether or not to renovate the clubhouse (which passed), then whichever way I voted I would find it rather unreasonable for them to demand I keep paying my monthly fee until the clubhouse was done, if I had left the club and no longer had access to it. Yeah part of my membership fee would have been going towards the renovations, but.... I've left the club now.

If specific commitments had been made to provide specific funds then that's a different matter of course. But if it's really just a case of "we voted for some things for the organisation to do while we were in it" then it's hardly unreasonable to posit the idea that leaving the organisation removes your ongoing commitment to these things.

 

[uppi]

A more fitting analogy would be a business partnership, in which the business partners share the liabilities of the company. You cannot just get rid of that by declaring you are not a member of the partnership any more, but you need to negotiate what part of the liabilities and assets you take with you when you depart.

 

[Arakhor]

We've agreed to pay anyway, so complaints that we're being forced to pay sound rather histrionic.

 

[tjs282]

The fact is that for the UK the relevant treaty expires March 2019 yet the EC27 wants the UK to pay for at least another two year turns.

If I was a member of some club and we took a vote on whether or not to renovate the clubhouse (which passed), then whichever way I voted I would find it rather unreasonable for them to demand I keep paying my monthly fee until the clubhouse was done, if I had left the club and no longer had access to it.

We can play the analogy game all day, if you like. If I give notice that I'm quitting my job, sure, I don't expect my employer to continue paying me beyond the period of notice. But if I take out a loan from a bank, I also don't get to decide to stop paying it off, just because in the meantime I (accidentally-on-purpose) crashed the car which that loan paid for.

And if I signed a contract committing me to making those club membership payments, and was also hoping to obtain continued access to the clubhouse even after I resigned my (founding) membership, then yes, I absolutely bloody well should make those payments — at least, I should if I want the other club members to ever deal with me honestly again.

If specific commitments had been made to provide specific funds then that's a different matter of course. But if it's really just a case of "we voted for some things for the organisation to do while we were in it" then it's hardly unreasonable to posit the idea that leaving the organisation removes your ongoing commitment to these things.

So basically, are you saying that the UK shouldn't honour any long-term contractual commitments it made prior to May pulling the Article 50 trigger? Srsly?

She took 9 months to get round to it, and no-one (in the EU27 anyway) was 100% certain that she would actually have the balls/be utterly stupid enough to do it, until she did. You really think nothing was signed in that intervening 9 months? We could probably look it up, but I can't be bothered.

X-posted with @uppi and @Arakhor... Ah well.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well you can get as ranty as you like, but I did say I was talking in general terms and I was responding to this statement:

It asks it because it's the UK's share of already-voted EU projects. If the UK had stayed in the EU it would have payed that amount too (actually a lot more).

The only claim there is that the projects have already been voted for while the UK was a member, and had the UK stayed a member it would have been paying for them. I was saying it's not unreasonable to see that as a flimsy reason for paying when you haven't stayed a member.

 

[innonimatu]

The EU doesn't ask that money from the UK because of Brexit. It asks it because it's the UK's share of already-voted EU projects. If the UK had stayed in the EU it would have payed that amount too (actually a lot more).

Does that mean the UK will keep having full access and participation in those projects? Because I recall some frenchman who thinks he speaks on behalf of the whole EU saying that the UK would no longer have allowed access to Galileo after they left. Not will they have access to european markets unless they strike a deal separate from this payment the EU bureaucracy demands, is that it? Or is this payment, as I explained, actually part of the deal for access?

Because if the EU burecautracy's argument is that the payments demanded are for "already-voted EU projects", then I'd like to know exactly what are those projects, and what the UK will keep getting from those already-voted projects that it supposedly should keep financing.

They keep paying for it, they keep receiving the deliverables. If they cease receiving those deliverables from the EU projects, then the right thing is to cease paying immediately. Which projects are these?

A more fitting analogy would be a business partnership, in which the business partners share the liabilities of the company. You cannot just get rid of that by declaring you are not a member of the partnership any more, but you need to negotiate what part of the liabilities and assets you take with you when you depart.

So which portion of the EU assets is the UK taking with it when it leaves? Can they change rent for use of their share of the EU bureaucracy's property, headquarters, etc after they leave?