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.
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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
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.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-04-2017 at 08:57.
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?
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.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
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
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
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)
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
The moral of the story is women ruin everything and shared property should be under the control of a fiduciary.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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.
Last edited by Beskar; 05-04-2017 at 14:07.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
So, if the members are renting the EU, who owns the EU? Who are they renting it from?
This is an important question.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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.
Last edited by Beskar; 05-04-2017 at 15:15.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
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?
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...
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
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.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.
Please post more concrete information so we aren't jumping the gun with wrong assumptions and impertinent analogies.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
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.
You might want to look at the history of partitioning of countries, the assigning of assets and debts in that case.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...
If the Citizens of the EU own the EU institutions collectively then the EU is a Nation-State.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Forgot link my apoligies https://www.theguardian.com/politics...enny-say-lords
Bookmarks