Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Kentonio]

I dont think there is any doubt the UK will pay an exit bill, which of course isnt really an exit bill at all but a settling up. The question is the amount. If the trade talks dont go well and the whole thing breaks down in acrimony I can see the UK refusing to accept the EU's calculations of what we owein which case it might insist on an independent arbiter calculating the cost of the UK's liabilities.

I could be wrong, but I think the fact we've agreed in principle to make payment (which I'm assuming specified the areas we're accepting responsibility for) would basically torpedo any attempt later to suddenly claim we don't bear responsibility.

It shouldn't matter anyway, the last thing we could afford is a credit rating collapse and the EU potentially pissed enough to initiate some kind of trade war. The EU is still in the mindset of trying to get an equitable deal, but there's only so far we can push them before they just say feck it and give the country the real punishment beating the likes of the Mail have been claiming.

 

[Adebesi]

I could be wrong, but I think the fact we've agreed in principle to make payment (which I'm assuming specified the areas we're accepting responsibility for) would basically torpedo any attempt later to suddenly claim we don't bear responsibility.

It shouldn't matter anyway, the last thing we could afford is a credit rating collapse and the EU potentially pissed enough to initiate some kind of trade war. The EU is still in the mindset of trying to get an equitable deal, but there's only so far we can push them before they just say feck it and give the country the real punishment beating the likes of the Mail have been claiming.

No but that's what Im saying, there wouldnt be an attempt to claim we dont bear responsibility, there would be a disagreement about the actual amount. I get the impression the EU is making assumptions in the calculation of the amount that ensures the payment amount is high - as you would expect. I imagine if the UK was left to calculate the figure it would also be much lower than the independent calculation. The UK might agree to go along with a higher payment if it sees it as a price to pay for a good trade deal. But if it isnt getting the trade deal it wants the UK is likely to turn around and say the number the EU has come up with is fantasy, it will pay but it wants an independent calculation of the amount. That doesnt sound unreasonable or particularly unlikely to me, I doubt it would affect our credit rating or anything like that if we made it clear we were happy to pay as long as we knew we were paying the right amount. But it wouldnt come to that unless the negotiations had already turned sour and there was nothing to lose - in terms of our relationship with the EU - by doing that.

 

[Kentonio]

"What's a requirement of my job? I don't have to be very clever, I don't have to know that much, I do just have to be calm.

"That did test the calmness a little bit.

"Anybody can do details, we'll let you do the details."

For fecks sake..

 

[Smores]

No but that's what Im saying, there wouldnt be an attempt to claim we dont bear responsibility, there would be a disagreement about the actual amount. I get the impression the EU is making assumptions in the calculation of the amount that ensures the payment amount is high - as you would expect. I imagine if the UK was left to calculate the figure it would also be much lower than the independent calculation. The UK might agree to go along with a higher payment if it sees it as a price to pay for a good trade deal. But if it isnt getting the trade deal it wants the UK is likely to turn around and say the number the EU has come up with is fantasy, it will pay but it wants an independent calculation of the amount. That doesnt sound unreasonable or particularly unlikely to me, I doubt it would affect our credit rating or anything like that if we made it clear we were happy to pay as long as we knew we were paying the right amount. But it wouldnt come to that unless the negotiations had already turned sour and there was nothing to lose - in terms of our relationship with the EU - by doing that.

Isn't that the point od whats been undertaken though? We'v agreed the principles for what we owe to a sufficient amount that there is no room for such ambiguity.

Not a chance in hell we walk away without paying what we owe. Its just the Tories using it as a slogan to appease the brexiteer masses.

 

[Stanley Road]

Spoiler: Juncker inflaming speech

This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth; enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics. It is the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modem times.

If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations, which we have seen even in this twentieth century and in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

And what is the plight to which Europe has been reduced?

Some of the smaller States have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas a vast quivering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beings gape at the ruins of their cities and homes, and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror.

Among the victors there is a babel of jarring voices; among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair.

That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient States and nations, that is all that the Germanic Powers have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide.

Indeed, but for the fact that the great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean has at length realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve their own fate as well, and has stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor.

They may still return.

Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is today.

What is this sovereign remedy?

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe.

Christ on a bike, I guess he will be the Donald Trump of it all.

 

[Kentonio]

Isn't that the point od whats been undertaken though? We'v agreed the principles for what we owe to a sufficient amount that there is no room for such ambiguity.

Not a chance in hell we walk away without paying what we owe. Its just the Tories using it as a slogan to appease the brexiteer masses.

I suspect Davis will come to regret slapping Hammond over it. I'm intrigued to see what Hammond comes out with when he's inevitably asked. Last I checked the Chancellor is still a much more senior position than 'Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union'.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

How can Davis say the media twisted his words, he just lied and everyone throughout the world heard it, the EU and all the other countries he wants to do deals with.

The most stupid/ignorant thing he said yesterday was "we'll think of something" to keep the NI Border open/frictionless. This is a man supposedly in charge of the most important negotiation the UK have done since the war.

If you've conceded, Mr Davis, that the NI has to stay open, you're in the CU and you're not making any deals by yourself, why not be honest and tell the people that.

As has been said the final amount of the bill will be calculated after December 31st 2020. The agreement is to ensure that the UK will pay what it owes at that point.

 

[Member 5225]

Full steam ahead!

 

[Smores]

Full steam ahead!

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll take over in another glorious revolution before Brexit happens

 

[fcbforever]

Full steam ahead!

Would probably be one of the best results ever to come out of the EU. Spending on individual militaries, which are in effect jack of all trades, master of none organisations (or worse...) never really made sense as long as we agree to stay away from military adventures, which, to be honest, is far easier without the UK being with us.

It has been happening for quite some time already anyway, just without people noticing. The Dutch military is integrated into the German one in large swaths already, the Czech tank divisions are part of the German army as well and will be part of the Leo 2 successor program. It just makes sense.

 

[JPRouve]

Would probably be one of the best results ever to come out of the EU. Spending on individual militaries, which are in effect jack of all trades, master of none organisations (or worse...) never really made sense as long as we agree to stay away from military adventures, which, to be honest, is far easier without the UK being with us.

It has been happening for quite some time already anyway, just without people noticing. The Dutch military is integrated into the German one in large swaths already, the Czech tank divisions are part of the German army as well and will be part of the Leo 2 successor program. It just makes sense.

And the Franco-German brigade at Mullheilm.

 

[fcbforever]

And the Franco-German brigade at Mullheilm.

Different project though. It's a joint brigade, while in the Dutch case, their brigades are just integrated into the German army as a whole. Will be the same for the Czechs. 4th rapid deployment brigade will be part of the 10th tank division of the Germany, just like the 43rd mechanized of the Dutch army is already part of our 1st tank division.

Our marines are serving onboard the dutch amphibious landing ships permanently by the way.

 

[devilish]

Christ on a bike, I guess he will be the Donald Trump of it all.

Its really concerning isn't it?

 

[Kentonio]

Our security cannot be outsourced.

Long overdue.

 

[Virgil]

Long overdue.

And probably total balderdash. Reckon many a decade will pass (if ever) before Europe is in a position to do without American support. Also takes away one of my claims with Brexiters that fears of a European Army is unfounded.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

And probably total balderdash. Reckon many a decade will pass (if ever) before Europe is in a position to do without American support. Also takes away one of my claims with Brexiters that fears of a European Army is unfounded.

Why are they so scared about an European Army?

 

[Kentonio]

And probably total balderdash. Reckon many a decade will pass (if ever) before Europe is in a position to do without American support. Also takes away one of my claims with Brexiters that fears of a European Army is unfounded.

With the UK included the EU has the second highest military spending after the US. Even without the UK only China moves ahead. A combined EU military makes absolute sense in the face of the threats we face. Given their apparent inability to understand basic economics and the law of obvious consequences, I'm really not particularly concerned with what Brexiteers might think, fear or desire.

 

[JPRouve]

With the UK included the EU has the second highest military spending after the US. Even without the UK only China moves ahead. A combined EU military makes absolute sense in the face of the threats we face. Given their apparent inability to understand basic economics and the law of obvious consequences, I'm really not particularly concerned with what Brexiteers might think, fear or desire.

And it's not an army, unless they consider the likes of NATO like a world army or Europol a european police.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

Since time immemorial most decent political leaders in the world has governed through something called reputation and legal claim. The medieval world called it casus belli. Before the agreement the money the UK owed the EU was a grey area. I suspect that the EU has learnt from its mistake of trusting the UK and made such commitment in writing. If the UK now bails out than the EU is free to use tactics that the Brexiters call vindictive without hindering its own reputation in the process. That may mean, that the UK will find it hard to fly its own planes over Europe, goods will get stuck at Dover for hours if not days, UK company will be submerged in ridiculous expenses and beurocracy just to sell their services in Europe

There's a reason why the likes of Davies, Johnson and co had toned down. The UK is in a no win situation here. It can either pay its bills or the EU will recoup the money thanks to the massive exodus of companies fleeing a pariah country who can't honour its dues.

Davies has only implied that the divorce settlement won't be paid if trade talks are unfavourable which is a fair negotiating stand point. The EU are the ones who've demanded 'no parallel talks'. But in reality our bargaining chip has always been our divorce settlement payment and any further payments to ensure a free trade agreement.

So if the free trade agreement exludes financial services then there's nothing to be gained from paying our tax money to Brussels when they are offering nothing of worth in return.

If the EU don't give us a free trade deal on financial service sector then there's the possibility that no deal would be a better deal. IE no divorce payment, no payments to the EU, WTO tarrifs but we're in a position where we have a trade deficit so the exchequer wins out on import taxes and in turn we can offer tax haven incentives to the finance sector because of savings from the EU.

I'm a Remainer but from a negotiating stand point you have to play the cards how they're dealt.

It's not. The trade deal isn't being negotiated yet.

We're currently talking about current financial obligations to the EU for past commitments which we jointly agreed to. Once we agree on that, there are a million questions to answer before the EU will then discuss trade.

If we have agreed regulatory alignment then getting access to the single market and customs union will be more straightforward, though it will mean oversight from EU courts
and open migration, plus additional financial contributions to the EU.

My point is we're only paying the divorce settlement to enable a free trade deal. May's initial point was 'there is no legal obligation to pay a divorce settlement'. There isn't, it's one that should grant us access to a free trade agreement and without that we should completely withhold any payments to the EU.

 

[Stanley Road]

Its really concerning isn't it?

He's really concerning yes, he's a loon in the eu with a voice.

 

[Kentonio]

And it's not an army, unless they consider the likes of NATO like a world army or Europol a european police.

Yet. It should be though.

 

[Kentonio]

Davies has only implied that the divorce settlement won't be paid if trade talks are unfavourable which is a fair negotiating stand point. The EU are the ones who've demanded 'no parallel talks'. But in reality our bargaining chip has always been our divorce settlement payment and any further payments to ensure a free trade agreement.

So if the free trade agreement exludes financial services then there's nothing to be gained from paying our tax money to Brussels when they are offering nothing of worth in return.

If the EU don't give us a free trade deal on financial service sector then there's the possibility that no deal would be a better deal. IE no divorce payment, no payments to the EU, WTO tarrifs but we're in a position where we have a trade deficit so the exchequer wins out on import taxes and in turn we can offer tax haven incentives to the finance sector because of savings from the EU.

I'm a Remainer but from a negotiating stand point you have to play the cards how they're dealt.

My point is we're only paying the divorce settlement to enable a free trade deal. May's initial point was 'there is no legal obligation to pay a divorce settlement'. There isn't, it's one that should grant us access to a free trade agreement and without that we should completely withhold any payments to the EU.

This is not true. The 'divorce bill' has absolutely nothing to do with future trade agreements, its solely the UK taking responsibility for its obligations. You might be able to say 'no legal obligation' (although it would almost certainly end up in an international court of arbritration at some stage) but we most certainly have a moral obligation and we absolutely will face serious economic hurt if we try and dodge our obligations.

 

[Ramshock]

The DUP and in particular Ian Og Paisley are trying the old this is actually great for us (DUP) and a disaster for the ROI ruse but nobody is buying it.

 

[devilish]

He's really concerning yes, he's a loon in the eu with a voice.

well that was Winston Churchill.

 

[Virgil]

Why are they so scared about an European Army?

With the UK included the EU has the second highest military spending after the US. Even without the UK only China moves ahead. A combined EU military makes absolute sense in the face of the threats we face. Given their apparent inability to understand basic economics and the law of obvious consequences, I'm really not particularly concerned with what Brexiteers might think, fear or desire.

And it's not an army, unless they consider the likes of NATO like a world army or Europol a european police.

Why folks should be scared about a European army is neither here nor there. The important point is that the Remain camp were strong in rebuffing the Brexiters claim that there would be a Euro army. Now that repudiation looks like quite a sizeable porky. As regards it not being an army then what might I ask will be the use of it? A defence force for Europe that cannot defend Europe now thats a novel way to spend money.

 

[JPRouve]

Yet. It should be though.

That's an other debate. Mutualizing hardware research and having a joint military command makes sense but if we were to create an actual EU army before a EU police and in particular a border police then I have to question the motivations behind it.

 

[devilish]

Davies has only implied that the divorce settlement won't be paid if trade talks are unfavourable which is a fair negotiating stand point. The EU are the ones who've demanded 'no parallel talks'. But in reality our bargaining chip has always been our divorce settlement payment and any further payments to ensure a free trade agreement.

So if the free trade agreement exludes financial services then there's nothing to be gained from paying our tax money to Brussels when they are offering nothing of worth in return.

If the EU don't give us a free trade deal on financial service sector then there's the possibility that no deal would be a better deal. IE no divorce payment, no payments to the EU, WTO tarrifs but we're in a position where we have a trade deficit so the exchequer wins out on import taxes and in turn we can offer tax haven incentives to the finance sector because of savings from the EU.

I'm a Remainer but from a negotiating stand point you have to play the cards how they're dealt.



My point is we're only paying the divorce settlement to enable a free trade deal. May's initial point was 'there is no legal obligation to pay a divorce settlement'. There isn't, it's one that should grant us access to a free trade agreement and without that we should completely withhold any payments to the EU.

As said, I think that the EU had placed the UK in the bag with this. By agreeing with it, the UK has committed, in writing, what it owns the EU. Sure in practice it can bail out. There again the EU will then have carte blanche to go tough on the UK without coming out as the villain.

What I think will happen at that point is that an independent arbitrary will take place which will take ages to settle things up (these are complicated matters). Till then the EU will drag its feet on any deal with the UK. Flights will be suspended, UK companies will find it very hard to sell products/bring parts to/from the EU

 

[JPRouve]

Why folks should be scared about a European army is neither here nor there. The important point is that the Remain camp were strong in rebuffing the Brexiters claim that there would be a Euro army. Now that repudiation looks like quite a sizeable porky. As regards it not being an army then what might I ask will be the use of it? A defence force for Europe that cannot defend Europe now thats a novel way to spend money.

PESCO is basically two things, Eurofighter but bigger and NATO but European. The UK are members of both.

 

[Kentonio]

Why folks should be scared about a European army is neither here nor there. The important point is that the Remain camp were strong in rebuffing the Brexiters claim that there would be a Euro army. Now that repudiation looks like quite a sizeable porky. As regards it not being an army then what might I ask will be the use of it? A defence force for Europe that cannot defend Europe now thats a novel way to spend money.

You're missing the wood for the trees. The reason it was never an issue was because the UK were in permanent opposition to it, and would have simply used our veto. The only reason its being discussed now is because now the UK is leaving.

 

[Kentonio]

That's an other debate. Mutualizing hardware research and having a joint military command makes sense but if we were to create an actual EU army before a EU police and in particular a border police then I have to question the motivations behind it.

Why? The EU countries are (or certainly could be) perfectly capable of taking care of their own policing and borders, although obviously things like Europol are hugely beneficial. When it comes to national defense though, none of them are capable of providing complete national security to their people alone. Only France and the UK can even claim it thanks to their nuclear arsenals, but conventionally none is a match for the increasingly aggressive Russians not far to the east.

Mutualizing hardware research and having a joint military command is a nice start, but if you want a military that works as effectively as possible (which you do when you're talking about national security) then seperation is going to decrease their effectiveness. A better question would be what exactly is the reason for not doing it as long as every country retains a veto over any external action?

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Why folks should be scared about a European army is neither here nor there. The important point is that the Remain camp were strong in rebuffing the Brexiters claim that there would be a Euro army. Now that repudiation looks like quite a sizeable porky. As regards it not being an army then what might I ask will be the use of it? A defence force for Europe that cannot defend Europe now thats a novel way to spend money.

You're missing the wood for the trees. The reason it was never an issue was because the UK were in permanent opposition to it, and would have simply used our veto. The only reason its being discussed now is because now the UK is leaving.

Well this was a tad funny.

 

[JPRouve]

Why? The EU countries are (or certainly could be) perfectly capable of taking care of their own policing and borders, although obviously things like Europol are hugely beneficial. When it comes to national defense though, none of them are capable of providing complete national security to their people alone. Only France and the UK can even claim it thanks to their nuclear arsenals, but conventionally none is a match for the increasingly aggressive Russians not far to the east.

Mutualizing hardware research and having a joint military command is a nice start, but if you want a military that works as effectively as possible (which you do when you're talking about national security) then seperation is going to decrease their effectiveness. A better question would be what exactly is the reason for not doing it as long as every country retains a veto over any external action?

Because you don't start a federation with an army because let's be honest if you create an actual army, you see yourself as a definitive entity. In my opinion, if we were to go down that road, homeland and things like fiscal-social unity would be way above an army.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Well this was a tad funny.

Kentonio is right.

There is no question that some in the EU wanted a cohesive defense policy of their own. However, while we were members it was never, ever going to happen, simply because we would veto it.

Therefore, the idea of a EU army was a fallacy, because we had complete control over whether it happened or not. Brexit removed that power.

 

[Virgil]

You're missing the wood for the trees. The reason it was never an issue was because the UK were in permanent opposition to it, and would have simply used our veto. The only reason its being discussed now is because now the UK is leaving.

Kentonio is right.

There is no question that some in the EU wanted a cohesive defense policy of their own. However, while we were members it was never, ever going to happen, simply because we would veto it.

Therefore, the idea of a EU army was a fallacy, because we had complete control over whether it happened or not. Brexit removed that power.

Missing the wood for the trees am I? Well you two cannot even see the trees. The one thing I am sure must happen in the future is for the ability of an individual country to veto a proposal has to be removed. Without the power of veto going the EU cannot seriously develop. If any remainer thinks otherwise then respectfully contend that they are bigger fools or charlatans than any Brexiter. Quite frankly we have had enough of the Ted Heath politics of 'Lets join the EEC but it will always be merely a Common Market' whilst knowing that position was as far away from the truth as could be envisaged.

And according to Junckers statement PESCO is only the foundation of a European Defence force.

 

[Kentonio]

Because you don't start a federation with an army because let's be honest if you create an actual army, you see yourself as a definitive entity. In my opinion, if we were to go down that road, homeland and things like fiscal-social unity would be way above an army.

To me that's just a hangover from traditional nationalistic viewpoints though. We think of an army as something that defines the whole because armies have traditionally been a major force for maintaining sovereignty. Once we step away (which in Europe I believe we already have) from the idea of an army playing any part in internal political discourse, and if we take the deliberate positive step of eschewing unilateral adventurism, then I can see very little reason why an army would be such a core identifier of where political power lies.

Then again I want a federalized European superstate anyway, so maybe I'm just an agent provocateur.

 

[Kentonio]

Missing the wood for the trees am I? Well you two cannot even see the trees. The one thing I am sure must happen in the future is for the ability of an individual country to veto a proposal has to be removed. Without the power of veto going the EU cannot seriously develop. If any remainer thinks otherwise then respectfully contend that they are bigger fools or charlatans than any Brexiter. Quite frankly we have had enough of the Ted Heath politics of 'Lets join the EEC but it will always be merely a Common Market' whilst knowing that position was as far away from the truth as could be envisaged.

You do understand that getting rid of the veto would require a major treaty change which would require all members to approve it right? So your argument appears to come down to 'well we'll surely voluntarily give up our right to veto eventually, so what's the point in having a veto?' which seems a rather odd position.

 

[JPRouve]

To me that's just a hangover from traditional nationalistic viewpoints though. We think of an army as something that defines the whole because armies have traditionally been a major force for maintaining sovereignty. Once we step away (which in Europe I believe we already have) from the idea of an army playing any part in internal political discourse, and if we take the deliberate positive step of eschewing unilateral adventurism, then I can see very little reason why an army would be such a core identifier of where political power lies.

Then again I want a federalized European superstate anyway, so maybe I'm just an agent provocateur.

You can't go around a pretend that an army doesn't define a state and a specific set of citizens because its role is to protect the geographical integrity and safety of defined borders and citizens. Let's not play that game, if you create an army, a police or just even an actual custom administration then you definitely create a state. It's even more evident for the EU who legally already have all the attributes of a country within Schengen with a population, a territory and a sovereignty.

I'm perfectly comfortable with it being myself a federalist.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

By what is going on in the HoC, apparently Davis was just following instructions, May's instructions, they believed our lies once, they'll believe them again.

 

[fcbforever]

You can't go around a pretend that an army doesn't define a state and a specific set of citizens because its role is to protect the geographical integrity and safety of defined borders and citizens. Let's not play that game, if you create an army, a police or just even an actual custom administration then you definitely create a state. It's even more evident for the EU who legally already have all the attributes of a country within Schengen with a population, a territory and a sovereignty.

I'm perfectly comfortable with it being myself a federalist.

I don’t really get your point. As I laid out, it’s already been happening anyway. Are Germany or the Netherlands any less a state just because we share capabilities and integrate our forces? Isn’t it better for countries which pretty much share the same foreign policy anyways to share the costs for it as well? Realistically, what would a single tank brigade help the Netherlands? What does it help us to have marines when we don’t have ships for them? Now we both have a bigger combined tank force, our marines have ships and the Dutch have something to use their ships for. Win win.

Only reason I‘m glad about Brexit. Long overdue and would never have happened with Britain as part of the EU.

 

[JPRouve]

I don’t really get your point. As I laid out, it’s already been happening anyway. Are Germany or the Netherlands any less a state just because we share capabilities and integrate our forces? Isn’t it better for countries which pretty much share the same foreign policy anyways to share the costs for it as well? Realistically, what would a single tank brigade help the Netherlands? What does it help us to have marines when we don’t have ships for them? Now we both have a bigger combined tank force, our marines have ships and the Dutch have something to use their ships for. Win win.

Only reason I‘m glad about Brexit. Long overdue and would never have happened with Britain as part of the EU.

I'm not judging the merits of a cooperation. And Careful there, the Royal Netherlands Army and the German Army aren't one, they have a deep cooperation but they are both under the sovereign powers of two different countries.