EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

an opponant of this bad character to just do the same through honour.

---

:laugh4: So you vote for more competition and then expect an opponent who does not actually oppose you? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

What's the astonishment here? That EU believes a deal can't be struck as early as June? Or because she mentioned twice that she wants it done by June? OMG, Theresa has spoken twice now, everybody drop whatever you're doing and make it so.

It wouldn't work like that if EU was the Catholic flock and Theresa May the Pope.

---

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

Quote:

---

So you vote for more competition and then expect an opponent who does not actually oppose you?

---

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

---

Might not be pleasant at once but the brexit is political chemotherapy, I hope we follow soon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

---

It's not really, since by being in a position of leaving you inherently assume or express different goals and priorities - it's a circular proposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It's not really, since by being in a position of leaving you inherently assume or express different goals and priorities - it's a circular proposition.

---

No,it isn't.

We took the action of leaving because we express different priorities - something which has consistently put us at odds with "Eurocrats".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

No,it isn't.

We took the action of leaving because we express different priorities - something which has consistently put us at odds with "Eurocrats".

---

But the process of leaving isn't itself continuous with whatever those different priorities may be; it carries its own priorities.

So don't conflate alleged political and economic differences before the decision to leave with how the decision to leave organizes priorities between the parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It helped didn't it, it's the Brexit's most immediate succes.

---

So all the Polish left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

So all the Polish left?

---

Not talking about them, that's an issue of course but not having to carry the weight of the consequences of of the childless mutti's birdcall is a blessing, the UK doesn't has to schaff das

I find quite funny the Tories' media finally discovered than in a divorce/negotiation the other party has as well interests and points to make. As soon May will have made her mind for at least one month, perhaps some real discussions might take place...

Avoiding the mass displacement of their own people apparantly isnt one of those interests.

Nope, individual people are not important - only the survival of the EU dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Might not be pleasant at once but the brexit is political chemotherapy, I hope we follow soon

---

Have you applied for permanent residence in the UK yet? Or are you still insisting that the pain will be worth it, even as you live inside the EU and have no intention of leaving the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Nope, individual people are not important - only the survival of the EU dream.

---

Make that the comfortable bliss of eurocrats. Eurocrats are in panick and are radicalising, it's getting increasingly grotesque, talk about losing your gravitas.

timber, just a little while

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39789903

And the Bill rises to €100Bn

"There are reports in Brussels that the rising figure might include demands from countries like France and Poland for UK contributions to farm subsidies. The EU may also be planning to refuse to allow the UK a share of the EU's assets including buildings and bank deposits."

On the other hand...

"Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, said a range of factors would have to be taken into account - including the UK's rebate on budget payments and its share of EU borrowing - but he believed a credible figure would be somewhere between 25bn and 65bn euros."

I really hope the EU is super-high balling here.

I get paying for access to the single market, but paying just to leave? Christ they are determined to prove farage's mafia comparison true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I get paying for access to the single market, but paying just to leave? Christ they are determined to prove farage's mafia comparison true.

---

They are not asking us to pay to leave - they are asking for us to pay up money we pledged to pay over X number of years before we decided to leave.

Basically their argument is we promised to pay this money eventually so now we are leaving we should pay it all upfront now.

I suspect what will happen is we will agree to pay but not all at once (ie keeping the current agreements) and probably not the entire amount.

It's almost like other countries expect you to keep your promises and previously thought of you as trustworthy enough that they planned with the money you promised, but are now unsure about whether you won't just stop paying once you're out since you may seem less trustworthy now. Terrible mafia methods, I know. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's almost like other countries expect you to keep your promises and previously thought of you as trustworthy enough that they planned with the money you promised, but are now unsure about whether you won't just stop paying once you're out since you may seem less trustworthy now. Terrible mafia methods, I know. :rolleyes:

---

You read the article I linked?

Rumblings of a bill of 100bn, no accounting for the UK's share of the EU's assets given, you know, how much we paid to build a lot of it.

Once all is said and done I imagine that the actual bill we owe, offset against everything the EU will have to "buy" from us when we leave (like our part-ownership of buildings etc.) the bill will be less than 50bn.

If the EU fails to take into account the cost of the UK's past contributions then the bill will be higher, and unfair.

100 bn is over 9 years of our Eu contributions, 13 if we count what we regain through spending. To continue paying for the two years of article 40's enactment is obvious, even paying a year or two extra to help the Eu adjust is fair enough but to cover the next decade of funding, of which we will see none of the benefits ourselves, before we even start talking about single market access, is absurd.

Paying up to the end of the next budget it fair, paying beyond that is not unless we somehow continue to participate in a certain program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

---

I think the EU just doesn't want to do a deal piece by piece. Which is perfectly normal, as EU holds a stronger hand overall. It's gonna happen often, this preposterous behavior that EU isn't much bothered when UK states it wants something. And every time it happens, conservative press in the UK is gonna throw a tantrum. Better get used to it.

The UK isn't legally obliged to pay. Not morally either as a net-payer. If the UK kindly says 'dear fuck you' the EU has nothing. It's the ideological EU that is at stake and that frightens eurocrats as the UK will do fine without them, nobody says no to good trade-deals. It's of course more complicated but the joke's on them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The UK isn't legally obliged to pay. Not morally either as a net-payer. If the UK kindly says 'dear fuck you' the EU has nothing. It's the ideological EU that is at stake and that frightens eurocrats as the UK will do fine without them, nobody says no to good trade-deals. It's of course more complicated but the joke's on them

---

I know that you are against the EU, even though I cannot follow your reasoning. However, why do you think that Britain does not have any obligation?
Even though the topic is too complicated for me to fully understand the extend, it seems to be reasonable that Britain keeps on paying its share for the pensions of former EU officers. Is there any reasons they can deny that? That is just one point. What about running cooperation in research? I see that Britain wants to leave, but isn't it worth thinking to bring at least some to an end? Other things like student exchange programs can come to a quick end, I assume.

I understand that the Brexiters want to leave, that they want to leave as soon as possible and that they do not want to have any further obligations. Thing are not as simple, however.

By the way, I also support a hard Brexit as fast as possible with a fair and clear agreement. Day dreaming is not a way to reach this goal. Neither is polemic.

Being against the EU is a bit of an euphanism, there is no nerve in my system that dispises it upto the marrow of it's bones. That sum they howl for is simply bluff and I hope the UK calls it, there is no way the Brussels can enforce it they have no legal means to do that. The EU is lashing out as hard as they can because they are afraid others will leave as well but they absolutily don't have the best cards, for a trading nation like the UK the Brussels is a hindrance because it wants to protect the barren-eurozone all the while other economies are growing. Nexit please

Could someone with more legal expertise track down some of these obligatory agreements?

As it is it the numbers appear rather vague. With the recent doubling it appears undefined and without literature it is currently bound the whims of an overreaching will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Could someone with more legal expertise track down some of these obligatory agreements?

As it is it the numbers appear rather vague. With the recent doubling it appears undefined and without literature it is currently bound the whims of an overreaching will.

---

Your House of Lords have already done it for you, the UK can leave without paying anything at all, and eurocrats know that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Could someone with more legal expertise track down some of these obligatory agreements?

As it is it the numbers appear rather vague. With the recent doubling it appears undefined and without literature it is currently bound the whims of an overreaching will.

---

That is the only reasonable approach. All this - "You have to pay 100 fantastillions" - "I won't pay anything" nonsense is childish and unprofessional. I neither trust the EU numbers nor the British numbers. Is there any reliable source? Haven't these numbers been discussed before the BREXIT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

That is the only reasonable approach. All this - "You have to pay 100 fantastillions" - "I won't pay anything" nonsense is childish and unprofessional. I neither trust the EU numbers nor the British numbers. Is there any reliable source? Haven't these numbers been discussed before the BREXIT?

---

Why care, the EU better give the UK a good deal or they don't get anything at all, major loss of face. You buy corrupt people, why negotiate. The UK is in a pretty sweet spot, unlike the EU they can play this hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why care, the EU better give the UK a good deal or they don't get anything at all, major loss of face. You buy corrupt people, why negotiate. The UK is in a pretty sweet spot, unlike the EU they can play this hard.

---

I am not wise enough to understand your point of view but I guess time will tell. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

You read the article I linked?

Rumblings of a bill of 100bn, no accounting for the UK's share of the EU's assets given, you know, how much we paid to build a lot of it.

Once all is said and done I imagine that the actual bill we owe, offset against everything the EU will have to "buy" from us when we leave (like our part-ownership of buildings etc.) the bill will be less than 50bn.

If the EU fails to take into account the cost of the UK's past contributions then the bill will be higher, and unfair.

---

That's like demanding your children repay all the money you spent raising them once they leave your home.
The assets you built, you paid for willingly at the time and to now demand money back for them is not necessarily part of the contract so to say. I have no idea though whether every country actually owns a share of things like the EU parliament, it's not a corporation after all. Do you own a share of the UK parliament building because you pay taxes to maintain and renovate it? Can you demand money for that from your government when you renounce your citizenship?
The money the EU wants as I understand it is mostly money that was already agreed you would pay. Whether the sum is correct would remain to be seen, we're just at the beginning of the negotiations after all.
I'm entirely relaxed though, unlike you I don't feel like I need to be scared of or angry about the potential results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

I am not wise enough to understand your point of view but I guess time will tell. :bow:

---

Pretty simple really, the UK doesn't have to worry about an idelogical project falling apart in the first place. Druncker and his consingliers and enforcers have a bit of a problem; it doesn't. Infimidating the Brits, great idea, they respond so well to that if you do that. If the UK simply refuses to play the EU has lost all credibility. As they should as the EU behaves like omerta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's like demanding your children repay all the money you spent raising them once they leave your home.
The assets you built, you paid for willingly at the time and to now demand money back for them is not necessarily part of the contract so to say. I have no idea though whether every country actually owns a share of things like the EU parliament, it's not a corporation after all. Do you own a share of the UK parliament building because you pay taxes to maintain and renovate it? Can you demand money for that from your government when you renounce your citizenship?
The money the EU wants as I understand it is mostly money that was already agreed you would pay. Whether the sum is correct would remain to be seen, we're just at the beginning of the negotiations after all.
I'm entirely relaxed though, unlike you I don't feel like I need to be scared of or angry about the potential results.

---

I don't think there will be a deal, I haven't thought that for a while but I become increasingly certain.

Your analogy is faulty though, because the UK was an equal partner in the EU. The UK's exit should be managed like the dissolution of any partnership, we have to cover our liabilities and you have to buy us out.

Either this is business, as the EU has implied, or it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I don't think there will be a deal, I haven't thought that for a while but I become increasingly certain.

Your analogy is faulty though, because the UK was an equal partner in the EU. The UK's exit should be managed like the dissolution of any partnership, we have to cover our liabilities and you have to buy us out.

Either this is business, as the EU has implied, or it's not.

---

Again, that depends on the contracts that were signed, I haven't even read them, so I won't say I know how it should work.
If you think you know exactly how it works, I guess that is good for you.

Let me tell you a story to make my point clearer:

There was once a father with seven sons. When he died, he left them a house with several apartments. The sons decided to rent the apartments and to share the income. So everyone of them received a pretty good amount of money. Soon, however, the brother discussed about the future. Some said that the house should be sold as soon as possible, others said the brothers should invest money so the worth of the house would raise and they could get more rent. Some said they do not want to change anything. They made a compromise here and then, and although they still made good money, no one was really happy. All seven brothers had wives. The wife of one brother said to him: You should try to get out of the project. Think of what we could do with that money. We could buy us a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. Furthermore you will not have to worry about your stupid brothers. The man replied: You may be right. But now we receive pretty good money each month. The wife said: So what, we can buy our own apartment and rent it. We will still get the money and more. So the man went to his brothers and told them he wants to leave as fast as possible. The others were taken by surprise and asked him why. He said he would buy himself a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. And I will still get a rent each month, probably higher than before. Although some of the brothers doubted that, they agreed to give him his share, but they also told him that he would have to compensate for the obligations. There was a mortgage on the house and a roofer was already told to repair the roof.

(to be continued)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Again, that depends on the contracts that were signed, I haven't even read them, so I won't say I know how it should work.
If you think you know exactly how it works, I guess that is good for you.

---

I didn't say I know exactly how it works, but my point is valid nonetheless. The UK paid for the construction of EU institutions, both physical and bureaucratic with the expectation we would hold part-ownership in them in perpetuity.

If we do not, in fact, hold part ownership in these institutions that implies that neither do the other EU nations, and that raises disturbing questions.

The moral of the story is women ruin everything and shared property should be under the control of a fiduciary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Let me tell you a story to make my point clearer:

There was once a father with seven sons. When he died, he left them a house with several apartments. The sons decided to rent the apartments and to share the income. So everyone of them received a pretty good amount of money. Soon, however, the brother discussed about the future. Some said that the house should be sold as soon as possible, others said the brothers should invest money so the worth of the house would raise and they could get more rent. Some said they do not want to change anything. They made a compromise here and then, and although they still made good money, no one was really happy. All seven brothers had wives. The wife of one brother said to him: You should try to get out of the project. Think of what we could do with that money. We could buy us a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. Furthermore you will not have to worry about your stupid brothers. The man replied: You may be right. But now we receive pretty good money each month. The wife said: So what, we can buy our own apartment and rent it. We will still get the money and more. So the man went to his brothers and told them he wants to leave as fast as possible. The others were taken by surprise and asked him why. He said he would buy himself a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. And I will still get a rent each month, probably higher than before. Although some of the brothers doubted that, they agreed to give him his share, but they also told him that he would have to compensate for the obligations. There was a mortgage on the house and a roofer was already told to repair the roof.

(to be continued)

---

So the brother who wants to leave, he will have to pay the existing obligations he has to his brothers, yes?

They will have to pay him his share of the value of the house though, and that will have to be calculated based not only on its current worth, but also based on the proportion he paid towards improving the house, so that they could enjoy more rent. Now, this brother who is leaving, he had a better job and had more money coming in, so he had paid more towards the new roof and other improvements than some of the other brothers who did not have as much money.

I like your analogy, but it's not the one the EU is using. Indeed the EU is nor really using any kind of analogy, they just keep raising the figure we have to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

So the brother who wants to leave, he will have to pay the existing obligations he has to his brothers, yes?

They will have to pay him his share of the value of the house though, and that will have to be calculated based not only on its current worth, but also based on the proportion he paid towards improving the house, so that they could enjoy more rent. Now, this brother who is leaving, he had a better job and had more money coming in, so he had paid more towards the new roof and other improvements than some of the other brothers who did not have as much money.

I like your analogy, but it's not the one the EU is using. Indeed the EU is nor really using any kind of analogy, they just keep raising the figure we have to pay.

---

Well, that is exactly the point. If the one brother, let's call him Albion, is richer (than most). Then there must have been an agreement in the past that the richer ones should pay more to repair the house. There should also be part of this agreement if those who pay more get a bigger share of the house or not. This is not elemental, but a result of an agreement between the brothers.

I chose a familiar affair because I think that the members of the EU are as close as brothers and because in these familiar affair things usually end up in conflict.
I think it is natural that both sides want to make a good deal, but both sides should also have some good will and common sense. Then the BREXIT should be easy for both sides.

There is a flaw with the argument. Unfortunately, I don't think the payments are like a house ownership, but more like house rental. So whilst Albion might have contributed more to things like the sofa, and as such, should help offset any payments. However, Albion and the other Brothers have agreed to a rental plan till 2020 on the house. However, with Albion leaving, this leaves a big hole in the rental plan which the other brothers will have to make up this cost. Whilst the brothers will have make do in the future, Albion did agree to pay rent till this time and is breaking the rental contract if he doesn't, so the brothers want him to continue those payments till the agreed time, then afterwards, everything is settled.

On same time, I have no problems with Albion contributing to that rental plan and staying there during this time whilst he is looking for his own place. This might be an alternative to agree to instead of the foreboding "divorce bill", that he simply pays his rents and keeps his room till that cut-off date. If he wants to abandon the room completely regardless, than that is when Divorce bill comes in.

So, if the members are renting the EU, who owns the EU? Who are they renting it from​?

This is an important question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

So, if the members are renting the EU, who owns the EU? Who are they renting it from​?

This is an important question.

---

The money goes into private hands of members of the EU. So Farmers in France, Cornwall, UKIP EU Expenses, and so on. It is not tangibly held and labeled "All the Money paid into the EU" or any assets. It has disappeared/gone. Which is why I used renting rather than home ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

So, if the members are renting the EU, who owns the EU? Who are they renting it from​?

This is an important question.

---

No, it is not. If you renounced your citizenship tomorrow, would you expect to get reimbursed by the Queen for the assets you paid for with your taxes? :dizzy2:

If the owners are the people of the EU, then by renouncing your citizenship of the EU you also give up your assets in the EU as ownership of the assets is tied to membership in the club. This does not automatically give you any right to get reimbursed. Next you will be asking for the physical seats of the British delegates to be brought to Britain, including a slice of the building they're in? The EU is a political alliance/construct and not a privately owned corporation, otherwise it might as well be publicly traded and then China could buy it... :rolleyes:

Husar and Beskar, it's difficult for me to understand why you are conflating sunk assets with unrealized future obligations.

I suspect you all have very different understandings of what exactly the item here is to be resolved through negotiations. The article PVC brought to our attention at least had something to do with payment from the UK to the EU in settling matters of treaty obligations and mutual holdings or operations.

From a pro-Brexit op-ed:

Quote:

---

The actual mistake they made was to come in too low with their original estimate of €60 billion. For immediately they gave a number we were able to crawl all over it. For example, they are demanding that we pay for contingent liabilities. That is, things which have not happened yet and may never happen. But cough up anyway right now please. Similarly, immediately the demand was made it was pointed out (here as well as other places) that the EU has considerable capital assets which Britain has paid a hefty share of the bill for. That capital should be distributed upon the divorce, quite obviously, and be taken into account as to what the final net sum should be. The current higher sum is being justified by saying that Britain shouldn't get any of that capital back. But then the original €60 billion demand didn't have the capital share being offset either. So it's really not a reasonable changing of the number being demanded.

Similarly, the demand now is that Britain should keep paying for the agricultural subsidies to other countries in the period after Britain has left. Umm, no mateys, that's a bill you're going to have to cover yourselves.

So, as to the €100 billion demand this is really just their realising that they underpitched that original one of €60 billion. So they're now scrambling to find any justification at all so as to raise the claim so that they end up with something close to what they first hoped or. And as I say, that's not how price negotiations go, that first offer is always the top price, not one that can be then increased.

---

So now at least some of the components are elucidated. This doesn't say much about "contingent liabilities" or the farm subsidies, so we have to look elsewhere for information. We see something about total divestment of mutual capital assets, but that component (leaving aside the claim that divestment was already considered for the original price point) doesn't seem like it should have any direct cost, since it is just the transfer of ownership and management of properties and the like.

Please post more concrete information so we aren't jumping the gun with wrong assumptions and impertinent analogies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Husar and Beskar, it's difficult for me to understand why you are conflating sunk assets with unrealized future obligations.

I suspect you all have very different understandings of what exactly the item here is to be resolved through negotiations. The article PVC brought to our attention at least had something to do with payment from the UK to the EU in settling matters of treaty obligations and mutual holdings or operations.

From a pro-Brexit op-ed:



So now at least some of the components are elucidated. This doesn't say much about "contingent liabilities" or the farm subsidies, so we have to look elsewhere for information. We see something about total divestment of mutual capital assets, but that component (leaving aside the claim that divestment was already considered for the original price point) doesn't seem like it should have any direct cost, since it is just the transfer of ownership and management of properties and the like.

Please post more concrete information so we aren't jumping the gun with wrong assumptions and impertinent analogies.

---

I should just leave the discussion and apologize for saying anything about it in the first place because I have no interest in beginning to calculate any shares and talk in-depth about assets.
But just to explain, that's what I was talking about, he said the UK should pay less money because they have to include a reimbursement for the assets it paid for. My point is that unless they have a contract that states they own a certain percentage of said assets, it's just something they provided as part of their membership and there is no reason to pay them out or anything since the EU is not a privately owned company. Again, unless there is some contract says otherwise. That's just my opinion though, I'm not an international lawyer either and wouldn't want to be one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

No, it is not. If you renounced your citizenship tomorrow, would you expect to get reimbursed by the Queen for the assets you paid for with your taxes? :dizzy2:

---

Bad example - the Queen already owns the country and all my money (that's why her head is on it).

You might get more mileage out of a comparison to the UK and Scotland leaving, but Scotland is a new drain for the UK where the UK is a major financial supporter of the EU, alongside Germany.

Quote:

---

If the owners are the people of the EU, then by renouncing your citizenship of the EU you also give up your assets in the EU as ownership of the assets is tied to membership in the club. This does not automatically give you any right to get reimbursed. Next you will be asking for the physical seats of the British delegates to be brought to Britain, including a slice of the building they're in? The EU is a political alliance/construct and not a privately owned corporation, otherwise it might as well be publicly traded and then China could buy it... :rolleyes:

---

You might want to look at the history of partitioning of countries, the assigning of assets and debts in that case.

If the Citizens of the EU own the EU institutions collectively then the EU is a Nation-State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Your House of Lords have already done it for you, the UK can leave without paying anything at all, and eurocrats know that

---

Link?

And is this owing nothing based on some technicality or on the lack of a formal agreement or the EU having somehow abrogated the arrangement through it's behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Husar and Beskar, it's difficult for me to understand why you are conflating sunk assets with unrealized future obligations.

I suspect you all have very different understandings of what exactly the item here is to be resolved through negotiations. The article PVC brought to our attention at least had something to do with payment from the UK to the EU in settling matters of treaty obligations and mutual holdings or operations.

From a pro-Brexit op-ed:



So now at least some of the components are elucidated. This doesn't say much about "contingent liabilities" or the farm subsidies, so we have to look elsewhere for information. We see something about total divestment of mutual capital assets, but that component (leaving aside the claim that divestment was already considered for the original price point) doesn't seem like it should have any direct cost, since it is just the transfer of ownership and management of properties and the like.

Please post more concrete information so we aren't jumping the gun with wrong assumptions and impertinent analogies.

---

With contingent liabilities, wouldn't a sidebar treaty to pay 'as and if necessary if something happens over the next X years' suffice? Surely such a thing could be crafted with reasonable safeguards to insure it wasn't being triggered artificially but would allow the UK to fulfill that previous commitment if such a commitment was made. The UK has a better record than many of honoring its word internationally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I should just leave the discussion and apologize for saying anything about it in the first place because I have no interest in beginning to calculate any shares and talk in-depth about assets.
But just to explain, that's what I was talking about, he said the UK should pay less money because they have to include a reimbursement for the assets it paid for. My point is that unless they have a contract that states they own a certain percentage of said assets, it's just something they provided as part of their membership and there is no reason to pay them out or anything since the EU is not a privately owned company. Again, unless there is some contract says otherwise. That's just my opinion though, I'm not an international lawyer either and wouldn't want to be one.

---

Have to agree with you on this. While contingent future payments or payments scheduled for future contributions after some reasonable period would not be "owing" in the same way, current or previous contributions are pretty much a sunk cost. Until the vote, the UK was an EU member with responsibilities owing as per that arrangement. Reimbursement would be a bit silly, and counting previous required contributions against what is owed (again, the contingency stuff etc. is different) nearly as out of whack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Link?

And is this owing nothing based on some technicality or on the lack of a formal agreement or the EU having somehow abrogated the arrangement through it's behavior.

---

Forgot link my apoligies https://www.theguardian.com/politics...enny-say-lords

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Forgot link my apoligies https://www.theguardian.com/politics...enny-say-lords

---

Thank you.

This is classic. Throw out a number that is generally guessed to be completely unreasonable but is not without some thin shred of support, so as to force the other bargainer to re-anchor their bargaining range.

Once you have re-anchored their bargaining range a bit, you can then "make concessions" from a different start point and generate a better haggling result.

It's the usual positional bargaining bullshit headgame -- but that is customary in international affairs anyway.


You will note that the positional paper already has a caveat built in to let the EU know it is a bargaining step. Moreover, as it has been officially authored by the Lords, whose position can be over-ridden, it is designed to backed away from as needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

If the one brother, let's call him Albion, is richer (than most).

---

Does this brother realize he has some aliens in him (let's call them Scottie and N. Iry) and they can break free if he tries to leave the house that suited them well?

Scottie's less interested since trying 3 years ago and N. Iry is likely to tear himself apart if he tries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Scottie's less interested since trying 3 years ago and N. Iry is likely to tear himself apart if he tries.

---

Scottie tried it under different circumstances and they voted to remain within the UK which was in the EU. Now that the conditions have changed Nicola is willing to try it again.

@Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I cannot remember which thread or where, but I remember saying that the UK is holding EU citizens as hostage and they should agree to an exchange of rights. You disagreed saying it is not happening because the EU won't return them and the government just wants it as a guarantee.

Here is a new latest comment from the chief EU negotiator Michael Barnier. Source
He demanded full protection of the rights of some 3.2 million EU citizens living in the UK and the 1.2 million Britons in other EU countries.
"I will not discuss our future relationship with the UK until the 27 member states are reassured that all citizens will be treated properly and humanely," he said.
Brexit should not alter people's daily lives, he went on, and there must be equal treatment between all EU and UK nationals in the UK, as well the inverse.

It is as I suggested it was. EU wants to do an equal exchange, Theresa May is holding EU citizens within the UK and UK citizens in the EU to ransom.

Yeah that's crap. If they wanted equivalent exchange why dont they agree to May's offer months ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Scottie tried it under different circumstances and they voted to remain within the UK which was in the EU. Now that the conditions have changed Nicola is willing to try it again.

---

Thier people seem less willing:Support for Scottish independence lower than at 2014 referendum, poll shows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Yeah that's crap. If they wanted equivalent exchange why dont they agree to May's offer months ago?

---

What offer? News to me, she has been openly defiant of such an offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

What offer? News to me, she has been openly defiant of such an offer.

---

My response to you last time you raised this:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053745683

There's also the UK Citizens who wanted to sue Junker because he refused to agree to this months ago.

Also in response to you:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053746154

We've mentioned this several times over the last several pages, what have you been reading? Clearly not the mainstream media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

My response to you last time you raised this:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053745683

There's also the UK Citizens who wanted to sue Junker because he refused to agree to this months ago.

Also in response to you:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053746154

We've mentioned this several times over the last several pages, what have you been reading? Clearly not the mainstream media.

---

Then it is bad form of the EU. It was probably the fact they were saying one thing publicly whilst saying something else privately.

Barnier is cunning, I'll give him that. Having refused to even countenance discussion of Citizens' Rights as recently as last week, and certainly not before the "Brexit Bill is settled" he now turns it around and makes a show of demanding exactly what the British Government has been asking for for over six months. However, he makes a deal contingent on us continuing to accept the rulings of the ECJ and links it to Freedom of Movement.

Contrast this with the UK saying, just last week, it wants to enshrine the Rights of resident EU Citizens in Primary Legislation, something it expects to be able to basically wave through given all parties in the UK are in agreement on the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Then it is bad form of the EU. It was probably the fact they were saying one thing publicly whilst saying something else privately.

---

I think it has literally taken a month for you to recognise this.

May I suggest you chew more Telegraph and smoke more Gruniard? Just don't swallow or inhale.

While I have no doubt that it fits the Evil EU narrative pro Brexit voters are so fond of, I'm pretty certain that's not the case.

A cursory check shows that EU feels UK's guarantees are not good enough, as the process would take more than a decade under current rules, and leave around a third (roughly a million people) EU nationals currently living in UK without resident rights. So, they want better guarantees.

Quote:

---

Such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence. Citizens should be able to exercise their rights through smooth and simple administrative procedures.

---

As BBC analyst has said

Quote:

---

This reflects concern among EU member states that the UK is underestimating the technical difficulties of reaching an agreement on the issue of citizens' rights. There have to be legal guarantees, one senior official said, not just a gentlemen's agreement. And, at the moment of course, the ultimate legal authority for EU citizens is the European Court of Justice. That makes this a tricky political problem in the UK, not least because some of these issues will still be relevant decades into the future. The EU is also concerned that the UK Home Office is placing and will continue to place bureaucratic obstacles in the path of EU citizens trying to secure their future - this is a warning shot across British bows.

---

They want real guarantees (legal obligations) that could be independently enforced.

There's a nice Financial Times article on it, which concludes

Quote:

---

However, the UK and the EU do not seem far apart in principle, and both agree that the matter is urgent. There can be no serious doubt that an agreement can be made within two years, if Britain accepts the EU’s demands. But it cannot be done at speed or without the detail being worked out, and the UK does not seem to realise this yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

While I have no doubt that it fits the Evil EU narrative pro Brexit voters are so fond of, I'm pretty certain that's not the case.

A cursory check shows that EU feels UK's guarantees are not good enough, as the process would take more than a decade under current rules, and leave around a third (roughly a million people) EU nationals currently living in UK without resident rights. So, they want better guarantees.

---

The UK has expressed a willingness to pass legislation guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, this does not constitute a "gentleman's agreement" but the same level of protection as enjoyed by British and Commonwealth Citizen for their own rights.

Britain has no Constitution by design, for the EU to demand that the UK be subject to the ECJ in this would give EU citizens greater theoretical protection that British Citizens whilst at the same time being totally unenforceable because we will no longer be part of the EU or Single Market.

There's a consensus, among Leave and Remain, that there's no point leaving the EU if Parliament is not Sovereign.

Quote:

---

As BBC analyst has said

They want real guarantees (legal obligations) that could be independently enforced.

There's a nice Financial Times article on it, which concludes

---

The bit you didn't bold in your last quote was "if Britain accepts the EU’s demands." which is unlikely to happen.n It's also worth pointing out that for the average Brit, including all the Leave voters here this IS a simple question. One merely determines what rights EU Citizens are to be afforded and then one passes a law giving them those rights.

This is how we run our democracy, for the EU to demand more of us is rather illustrative of why we left.

Two final points -

One notes that less than a week ago the EU was unwilling to discuss this issue, so this sudden outrage feels more than a little manufactured given that we were previously told nothing else would be discussed before the Brexit bill.

Ironically, it's likely that regardless of the agreement with the EU that EU Citizens resident before Article 50 was triggered will be offered favourable rights of residency even if the EU does not reciprocate because theire is no alternative which would be conscionable to the British Public.

The last time you spoke about this, you said EU wasn't interested in citizens rights. They consider it a priority, they just can not agree until they know what they are agreeing to. It is a fair point to argue whether that is acceptable to Britain, but your previous statements were completely false.

May I suggest reading less Telegraph?

Seems like a draw at the moment. It's serious business but I can't help finding it entertaining, pure poker eyes (EU will lose). Eurocrats are so narcistic arrogant and dumb, what they really are is for everybody to see, they are no different from ordinary mobsters.

prediction, the UK is going to pay a reduced amount, and keep acces to the market. The EU is being the bully so no lose of face for the UK. The 'hostages' will have nothing to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The last time you spoke about this, you said EU wasn't interested in citizens rights. They consider it a priority, they just can not agree until they know what they are agreeing to. It is a fair point to argue whether that is acceptable to Britain, but your previous statements were completely false.

May I suggest reading less Telegraph?

---

Actually, what I said was that the EU seemed more interested in the "Brexit Bill" than citizens' rights based on the fact they had added €40 Billion to the former and were unwilling to talk about the latter but, according to leaked documents, did not want to be seen to "block" a deal.

Now a week later the Chief Negotiator explodes in Gallic Outrage that we will not guarantee citizens' rights when we wanted to discuss this issue months ago.

I can't read your FT Article. Can you compare the date-stamps on the articles with the date-stamp on my last post on the issue?

This: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sidency-rights is the first rumbling about the issue from the EU side, 26/04/17. I clearly missed that at the time but my last post on that topic was 02/05/17, six days later and most of the intervening time was taken up with the EU asking for a bigger slice of pie. Moreover, the EU negotiating position appears to refer to rights EU citizens should already have. What's more this looks like a case of EU Commission asnd EU Council of Ministers respectively playing bad cop/good cop on this issue.

It's already a typical divorce at this point. :drama3:

You are even in a better spot mia muca, the EU can't overrule deals that were already made under the EEC. I would lay my dick in their empty hands but that's just not my thing but to each their own. We have a saying here, cornered cats make odd jumps. Who do you think the cornered cat really is? Do you really think it's the UK? Beggars can't be choosers as you Eglish-native speakers like to say.

It's all kinda biblical even,what was it 'esperanto',a unversal language, ah yes it was the tower of Babel. Good jokes never get old

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Thier people seem less willing:Support for Scottish independence lower than at 2014 referendum, poll shows

---

Oh, really?

Quote:

---

It puts backing for independence at 44 per cent, one point lower than when the question was put to Scotland two-and-a-half years ago, while a majority (56 per cent) would vote to remain in the United Kingdom.

---

Is it what we call "within statistical error margin"?

Perhaps, however;

Quote:

---

The poll suggests a majority of Scots agree with the Prime Minister, with 51 per cent saying they do not want another referendum to take place in the next few years.

Almost a third (32 per cent) supported having a referendum in the next year or two while the Brexit negotiations are ongoing, while around 18% backed another ballot about two years from now when negotiations are complete.

However 44 per cent said they expected one to take place within the next five to 10 years, up six points since Panelbase asked the question in January, and nine points since last September.

---

The referendum of 2014 had support from both sides as the remainers wanted the issue put to rest. Now the amount who want another referendum has lost the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Actually, what I said was that the EU seemed more interested in the "Brexit Bill" than citizens' rights based on the fact they had added €40 Billion to the former and were unwilling to talk about the latter but, according to leaked documents, did not want to be seen to "block" a deal.

---

Don't want to be seen blocking a deal doesn't mean that they're actually blocking a deal.

Quote:

---

Now a week later the Chief Negotiator explodes in Gallic Outrage that we will not guarantee citizens' rights when we wanted to discuss this issue months ago.

---

No negotiation before the Article 50 is triggered. Certainly that couldn't have caught anyone by surprise.

Quote:

---

I can't read your FT Article. Can you compare the date-stamps on the articles with the date-stamp on my last post on the issue?

---

I can't read it now either. Asks for a subscription. Weird.

Quote:

---

This: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sidency-rights is the first rumbling about the issue from the EU side, 26/04/17. I clearly missed that at the time but my last post on that topic was 02/05/17, six days later and most of the intervening time was taken up with the EU asking for a bigger slice of pie. Moreover, the EU negotiating position appears to refer to rights EU citizens should already have. What's more this looks like a case of EU Commission asnd EU Council of Ministers respectively playing bad cop/good cop on this issue.

---

It's more like waiting for Article 50 to be triggered and then waiting for instructions from European Parliament.

No grand conspiracy. But Telegraph readers were happy that their prejudices had been reinforced.

Don't tear threads apart Sams, you are smart enough to understand what's going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNxD0OFstQ

Junker's been a tad self destructive of late.

"We must continue, we must forge ahead."

Forward in the service of Rome, Fratres, but without Consuls or an Augustus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNxD0OFstQ

Junker's been a tad self destructive of late.

---

A tad? That facelicker who is never sober has always been self-destructive, it's a disgusting guy. It's good that drunk people tend to speak the truth, so how the ultra-undemocratic Brussels thinks is for everybody to see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Perhaps, however;The referendum of 2014 had support from both sides as the remainers wanted the issue put to rest. Now the amount who want another referendum has lost the majority.

---

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends on your vantage point) the polled people don't decide whether to have a referendum or not. They delegated this responsibility to the current authorities (until the next elections). If Nicola decides on holding the referendum, she will do it (and imagine what arguments will be voiced by secessionists).

To call a referendum she would need both houses of parliament and lords' permission, and May would choose the date.

Without majority popular approval for a referendum to take place May would be justified in denying them a second referendum so close to the last.

https://youtu.be/rvYuoWyk8iU

Still true.

I identify my national self-interest as Apache attack helicopter.

Don't you mean "selling Apache Helicopter"?