Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

That sort of conceptualize though is why people voted leave.

Sure, but that doesn't really matter now. The leave vote happened. Now it's about reconciling the various positions on how the separation and eventual divorce will go (or not).

I don't think "you are still responsible for the things you committed to" is an unreasonable starting position for a negotiation, even if you can also make strong and reasonable arguments that some commitments are no longer relevant in view of recent developments.

[Jacob]

There is no EU group house. There is not EU mortgage.  There are the dinner parties the EU had planned on hosting in 7 years that they want the UK to help pay for.

If you signed a commitment to pay for the dinner parties in seven years, it's not an unreasonable starting position to say you should pay for them even if you're no longer want to attend.

[Valmy]

That sort of conceptualize though is why people voted leave.

Damn Jake. Way to break up the EU.

[Valmy]

I mean I would rather everybody played nice and reasonable for the sake of NATO and western cohesion. But let's be frank: it is in the EU's best interest to benefit their member states as much as possible in this agreement and make it as difficult for the UK as they can. The UK has very little leverage to compel them to do otherwise. It is old school European power politics.

[Admiral Yi]

If you signed a commitment to pay for the dinner parties in seven years, it's not an unreasonable starting position to say you should pay for them even if you're no longer want to attend.

This I agree with.  If the document Yoo Kay signed says they're on the hook for bills 7 years out, they're on the hook.  However the one article I read on this issue didn't present it as a hard and fast treaty obligation.  Are you sure it is?

[Jacob]

If you signed a commitment to pay for the dinner parties in seven years, it's not an unreasonable starting position to say you should pay for them even if you're no longer want to attend.

This I agree with.  If the document Yoo Kay signed says they're on the hook for bills 7 years out, they're on the hook.  However the one article I read on this issue didn't present it as a hard and fast treaty obligation.  Are you sure it is?

My understanding is that there are a huge number of different commitments wrapped up in different institutions and decision making processes. Determining which ones are clear "you've signed and formally committed to paying, here's your name on the line" vs clear "well, we all assumed you'd pay your share but there's no actual documentation for that so I guess you're off the hook" and which ones are sort of in between is a big part of what the negotiation is about on this subject, I expect.

I'm sure there's nowhere the UK signed one document that said "we'll pay a sum total of £X billion over the next Y years come hell or high water". On the other hand, I'm also fairly sure the UK has signed a bunch of different commitments that have included funding commitments as part of them. I expect the EU number is the sum of all of those (as interpreted by the EU, of course).

[Jacob]

That sort of conceptualize though is why people voted leave.

Damn Jake. Way to break up the EU.

It's kind of like saying "THIS is why I wanted a divorce" once the lawyers start getting hostile during the division of assets. Like... who cares if you can find extra reasons to justify the divorce now? That decision has already been made. Similarly, your obstinacy is frustrating to us, but that's rather to be expected at this point of the process. Whining about it changes nothing.

[Josquius]

That sort of conceptualize though is why people voted leave.

Damn Jake. Way to break up the EU.

It's kind of like saying "THIS is why I wanted a divorce" once the lawyers start getting hostile during the division of assets. Like... who cares if you can find extra reasons to justify the divorce now? That decision has already been made. Similarly, your obstinacy is frustrating to us, but that's rather to be expected at this point of the process. Whining about it changes nothing.

I dunno. There are some in EU who want to treat the UK well as it is quite inevitable with the current situation that we will rejoin.
And then there's talk of associate membership being a possibility for the EU to launch a brain drain on England

[HVC]

I dunno. There are some in EU who want to treat the UK well as it is quite inevitable with the current situation that we will rejoin.

I'd give the EU the same advice i'd give any battered spouse, don't take them back.

[Valmy]

There was a lot of resistance to letting them enter in the first place right?

[Agelastus]

I don't think "you are still responsible for the things you committed to" is an unreasonable starting position for a negotiation, even if you can also make strong and reasonable arguments that some commitments are no longer relevant in view of recent developments.

I don't disagree; there's no question we owe pension contributions, for example, and a good argument that we owe for any spending commitments for the 2014-2020 budget cycle etc. The breakdown of the 40-60 billon estimate didn't look too unreasonable, even if we could be expected to chip away at the amount in negotiations.

But the sudden upping/doubling to 100 billion as an estimated exit fee? Which is basically the equivalent of our net contribution for roughly 12 years after we leave?

Bearing in mind that by the time we leave there'll be less than 2 years left on the current budget cycle, and that some of the estimated bill is related to other commitments, that's still at least the equivalent of being asked to pay our net contribution for the entire budget cycle after we leave, a budget cycle we'll have no input into and little to no benefit from.

That seems excessive. Yet France and Poland wanted a higher figure?

I wonder how much the "second aircraft carrier" and other items will cost France if the Defence co-operation deals fall through as a result of this? If the talks go the way it seems they will it's difficult to see how they can survive in the climate that'll will create between the UK and the various states of the EU-27.

[Agelastus]

I dunno. There are some in EU who want to treat the UK well as it is quite inevitable with the current situation that we will rejoin.

I don't think that's how they can be thinking; leaving the EU kills all our "special exceptions", including the rebate and the opt-out from the Euro. Conceivably, even triggering Article 50 has endangered these items. Even if the remainers/rejoiners in the UK are deliberately not mentioning this it's unlikely that the thought hasn't crossed the mind of the EU-27.

So treating us well isn't going to get us to rejoin quickly, not given public opinion in the UK about the Pound etc. Treating us well reduces the chance of the British economy becomes a basket case that makes rejoining look good even with the "exceptions" gone.

[Josquius]

What was the original source of this 100 billion anyway?
Certainly I know it was up to 100 billion, not 100 billion for certain.
A quick google suggests it came from financial times calculations based on data they'd gathered.

I don't think that's how they can be thinking; leaving the EU kills all our "special exceptions", including the rebate and the opt-out from the Euro. Conceivably, even triggering Article 50 has endangered these items. Even if the remainers/rejoiners in the UK are deliberately not mentioning this it's unlikely that the thought hasn't crossed the mind of the EU-27.

Which is win-win for the Euro-idealists.

[garbon]

That sort of conceptualize though is why people voted leave.

Damn Jake. Way to break up the EU.

It's kind of like saying "THIS is why I wanted a divorce" once the lawyers start getting hostile during the division of assets. Like... who cares if you can find extra reasons to justify the divorce now? That decision has already been made. Similarly, your obstinacy is frustrating to us, but that's rather to be expected at this point of the process. Whining about it changes nothing.

As I said, I think talks will collapse. The EU seems terrible enough at actually getting things past all its member states these days. Don't see how everyone adopting the position of feuding separating spouses makes it anymore likely that a deal will actually be hashed out.

[Josquius]

That sort of conceptualize though is why people voted leave.

Damn Jake. Way to break up the EU.

It's kind of like saying "THIS is why I wanted a divorce" once the lawyers start getting hostile during the division of assets. Like... who cares if you can find extra reasons to justify the divorce now? That decision has already been made. Similarly, your obstinacy is frustrating to us, but that's rather to be expected at this point of the process. Whining about it changes nothing.

As I said, I think talks will collapse. The EU seems terrible enough at actually getting things past all its member states these days. Don't see how everyone adopting the position of feuding separating spouses makes it anymore likely that a deal will actually be hashed out.

Certainly they won't be done in two years with a nice neat trade deal.
Hopefully this should mean Britain gets a stay of execution rather than just being unceremoniously dumped out to become a 3rd world basket case.
Though given the insanity of the brexiters....