Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Had the UK been saying 'of course well settle up, can we please negotiate other issues simultaneously?', I'd be on board with you.

I thought the Government was saying that?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Had the UK been saying 'of course well settle up, can we please negotiate other issues simultaneously?', I'd be on board with you.

I thought the Government was saying that?

I believe the conversation went:

Let's get the exit sorted and then get into trade?
Great, let's see what you're due us.
Due? You don't pay your golf membership after you stop playing!
You do if you quit a month after signing up to a year's monthly direct debit. You're due £60b.
Whistle.
£60b
Get a grip, we don't owe you anything.
£60b
We'll give you something. Let's talk about trade.
Kinda hard to trust you now. £60b
£20b?
£60b
£40b?
£60b
£57b?
Ok. This bodes well.

Well, if the EU refuses to haggle down by just 3 billion I'd say that is pretty petty.

They have agreed £57b. The first offer anywhere near to the request.

Cool. I haven't been keeping up to date on news lately.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Cool. I haven't been keeping up to date on news lately.

It's all under the table nowadays. There's no official confirmation for anything, but it's been reported from multiple sources.

In any case it seems the tories seem to start to realise just how incompatible a hard brexit is with the good friday agreements. The UK signed both those treaties in good faith, and needs to keep in mind how one interacts with the other when trying to amend either.

Out of the three sticking points the EU insisted on settling before moving on to trade (citizen rights, financial settlement and Ireland) the UK seemingly focused too much on #1 and #2 thinking #3 was a done deal, but the Republic has proven to be a tougher negotiator than expected.

May has insisted that the actual figure is kept quiet, so she knows people won't be happy with it. How she thinks it'll stay secret for long is beyond me.

Seems they've agreed on a formula to work on the balance, but the results vary a bit depending on who works them out. So it's been totally overcomplicated just to avoid facing the public, again.

It's all a waste of time, the settlement figure is less than the expected economic damage (somewhere from £78-168bn per year) so it's largely irrelevant beyond politics and point scoring.

Naturally, most brexiteers have come out saying that we're paying too much and we've been had over by the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


So Britain can't leave the EU for at least 50 years in case people in Northern Ireland start shooting each other again?

No liberal democracy on Earth could function under those restrictions.

It's blackmail, pure and simple, and I'm not afraid to call it what it is.

Britain can leave the EU without breaking the Good Friday Agreement. Our government, however, has arbitrarily chosen the form of leaving which does.

So again, British people peacefully vote to leave customs union and single market, ...

No-one voted to leave the customs union and the single market. They voted to leave the EU. It's different.

If this divorce bill works out cheaper than what our continued membership over the same period would have been, and keeps relations good and doesn’t result in us still remaining under the control of the EU after ‘leaving’ then I’ll accept it.

I wish people would stop calling it a divorce bill. It's a settlement of liabilities and the figure owed will be identical regardless of any future dealings.

It's likely to be about the same as what we'd have paid as a member.

Herzlos wrote:
I wish people would stop calling it a divorce bill. It's a settlement of liabilities and the figure owed will be identical regardless of any future dealings.

It's likely to be about the same as what we'd have paid as a member.

Without getting anything back from the EU

Lovely tasty freedom.

So if that's paid over 10 years, does the NHS get it's bus money after that? Just trying to work out when my child stops getting pooped on from a great height, and I'm trying to work out when we can as a country use this 350 million for something good.

As there been any developments on the common fisheries policy? I’m ok with other countries fishing in our waters but only on our terms.

nfe wrote:

I believe the conversation went:

Let's get the exit sorted and then get into trade?
Great, let's see what you're due us.
Due? You don't pay your golf membership after you stop playing!
You do if you quit a month after signing up to a year's monthly direct debit. You're due £60b.
Whistle.
£60b
Get a grip, we don't owe you anything.
£60b
We'll give you something. Let's talk about trade.
Kinda hard to trust you now. £60b
£20b?
£60b
£40b?
£60b
£57b?
Ok. This bodes well.

Sadly, this is far from being remotely accurate. The discussion went:-

EU:- Before we move onto trade, let's talk about how much you owe from prior commitments.
Britain:- Okay. How much is it?
EU:- Well, we don't have a precise figure. Here's a four page list of general headings denoting things we think you've agreed to pay for. Just sign here....
Britain:- There's no breakdown of costs or total figure? Just general headings?
EU:- Yeah, we just want you to agree to pay according to these headings on principle first before we go away and work out how much it will be.
Britain:- Sorry, that really won't do. Can I get a detailed breakdown of costs on a point by point basis?
EU:- No, no, we can't do that. You just need to sign in general terms to agree to pay the bill on these lines, and then we'll tell you how much it is and more precisely what for. Then we can move on to trade.
Britain:- I'm happy to meet our commitments, but I want a detailed breakdown of what I'm paying for before agreeing to any specifics. Can we move onto trade yet?
EU:- I'm afraid we can't do trade until you sign at the bottom here.

And so on ad infinitum. Hence the game of chicken. The Europeans want to squeeze out as much as they can whilst they can, and the British want to pay as little as possible and whizz onto trade. The result from the EU is absolute vagueness and a refusal to put down a figure on paper until the 'general principles' have been agreed upon (without discussing what makes them up), and the Brits keep demanding specifics they can haggle over. So the EU refuses to provide them and accuses Britain of being obstinate and holding everything up, and Britain accuses the EU of stonewalling.

Both are true, and both have a grain of reason in them. As said before, this negotiation has been a sterling example on both sides as to how not to actually do one, and how to cause ill will in the opposite side.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

I believe the conversation went:

Let's get the exit sorted and then get into trade?
Great, let's see what you're due us.
Due? You don't pay your golf membership after you stop playing!
You do if you quit a month after signing up to a year's monthly direct debit. You're due £60b.
Whistle.
£60b
Get a grip, we don't owe you anything.
£60b
We'll give you something. Let's talk about trade.
Kinda hard to trust you now. £60b
£20b?
£60b
£40b?
£60b
£57b?
Ok. This bodes well.

Sadly, this is far from being remotely accurate. The discussion went:-

EU:- Before we move onto trade, let's talk about how much you owe from prior commitments.
Britain:- Okay. How much is it?
EU:- Well, we don't have a precise figure. Here's a four page list of general headings denoting things we think you've agreed to pay for. Just sign here....
Britain:- There's no breakdown of costs or total figure? Just general headings?
EU:- Yeah, we just want you to agree to pay according to these headings on principle first before we go away and work out how much it will be.
Britain:- Sorry, that really won't do. Can I get a detailed breakdown of costs on a point by point basis?

EU: You, as a full member, have access to the full numbers. Move your lazy arses and do your homework.

That's more like it.

You're also missing

Britain: "Spin on it"

and:

EU: Ok, how much do you think you owe?
Britain: Dunno. Nothing?

Sure the EU should have put a number on it, based on the assumed list of items, but the UK could have had this settled 6+ months ago and be well into the trade stuff.

In the end we settled for more or less what they asked for at the start, so was all the gakking around worth it?

jouso wrote:
EU: You, as a full member, have access to the full numbers. Move your lazy arses and do your homework.

That's more like it.

Herzlos wrote:You're also missing

Britain: "Spin on it"

and:

EU: Ok, how much do you think you owe?
Britain: Dunno. Nothing?

And yet, none of these exchanges actually took place. Instead we've simply had Britain saying they wouldn't pay an overinflated bill, and the EU saying that they're not touching trade talks until the bottom line is signed. And since then, Britain has gradually edged towards agreeing to pay specific figures without any real costing or justification, one step at a time, because they're losing the game of chicken.

Whatever blame can be thrown either way, a "disorderly hard Brexit" will cause the UK economy to fall off a cliff and bring about up to 9% loss of GDP, which would be catastrophic coming on top of our lost 10 years since the Lehman Shock.

The EU also doesn't want a "disorderly hard brexit" though for them it would be less of a disaster because their involvement with the UK is a smaller part of their overall economy.

Therefore this job has got to get done so everyone can move on to the next stage of talks.

We also need the right solution to the Irish Border Question.

We’re paying tens of billions of pounds to leave the world’s largest free trade area, whilst surrendering all of our ability to define its rights & regulations.
All so that we can hopefully then start negotiating an inferior arrangement with the world’s largest free trade area.

And we're the ones who have them over a barrel right ?

We've wasted weeks of valuable negotiation time on an argument we always knew we were going to lose.

The EU already knows our negotiating positions.

The EU has been negotiating trade deals on behalf of the UK for 44 years.

The equivalent of a doctor knowing your medical records.

and we've got Liam Fox.

Meanwhile some MP's have today been saying we need to have a second vote in Parliament about the Government publishing the Brexit impact studies because they didn't like the result of the first one and they won't respect the will of sovereign Parliament demanding publication.

That would be the vote that Govt. didn't contest the first time.



It's a bit like watching your footie team with their long serving manager getting relegated.

... well, I'd imagine so, I'm a Liverpool fan so been a long time since that was an issue.

This whole thing has strengthened my convictions. The EU’s attitude during this entire thing has been atrocious. Conjuring numbers out of nowhere, arguing in bad faith, hostile leaks, and no notion of actually guaranteeing anything. It wasn’t so much a bill as a ransom demand, which the B.G seems to have sadly caved in on. Whilst I do hope it means we can move on with the talks, my biggest fear is that having now gotten their money, they’ll now completely fob us off on all other issues. I wouldn’t put it past them.

I'm all for the information being open - it affects all of us.

The EU will continue negotiation from their standard position; holding all the cards and knowing it. They've given us a few easy options, so I hope we take one.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Whilst I do hope it means we can move on with the talks, my biggest fear is that having now gotten their money, they’ll now completely fob us off on all other issues. I wouldn’t put it past them.

The bill and future negotiations are not related. We should not be expecting to be treated any differently because we finally agreed to pay for things we'd already signed up to pay for.

We've still got Ireland to sort before we can move on, anyway. Given that we're currently insisting we do not want to be in the customs union (a position that legally obliges us to have a border), whilst also insisting that Ireland are going to force a border (when they actually want us to stay in the customs union: the only possible way of avoiding one) moving on probably isn't happening in a hurry.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The EU’s attitude during this entire thing has been atrocious.

What's your assessment of the UK handling of the talks, then?

That is the core problem, as I've said before.

Hard Brexiteers have commandeered the Maybot and the referendum result to force through the most extreme possible version of leaving the EU short of going to war.

If you start your negotiations by locking out all possibility of a reasonable compromise, and set a legally binding deadline to finish whatever the results, it is not going to go well.

Again and again, this is not what the people or parliament voted for. The government does not have the authority or mandate to do what they are trying to do.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This whole thing has strengthened my convictions. The EU’s attitude during this entire thing has been atrocious. Conjuring numbers out of nowhere, arguing in bad faith, hostile leaks, and no notion of actually guaranteeing anything. It wasn’t so much a bill as a ransom demand, which the B.G seems to have sadly caved in on. Whilst I do hope it means we can move on with the talks, my biggest fear is that having now gotten their money, they’ll now completely fob us off on all other issues. I wouldn’t put it past them.

Really?

So far as I can see it's been

UK: Oi, Speccy Foureyes EU! Give us all your sweets!

EU: No, and also, 'or what?'

UK: WAAAAAAAH!!!! Y U BULLY I????

We're the ones leaving. We're the ones with the poor hand. You....you honestly expected us not to get pushed around? Have you seen how the world actually works?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And at what point are people going to be honest and admit that a second referendum is in the national interest?

You or I as voters may not be primed to change our mind. But given the frankly outrageous lies told by BoJo, Gove et al, there's a decent number of people hoodwinked. And seeing the destruction about to be wrought upon our economy, do we really want to inflict that on ourselves?

Seriously. Look at the areas that voted Leave, that are now requesting super-special-treatment from the Government to make up for the loss of EU subsidy and investment. There's biting the hand that feeds you, and there's taking the absolute Michael. You voted for financial strife? Enjoy your sovereignty and ride it out yourself. Don't see why my local area (only one in Kent to vote Remain) should pay for you.

Oh? What's that nasty, tiny minded little bigot that blames everyone else for their failings*? You don't like your own logic being used against you? Think it's unfair? Well, tough. You pooped your bed, time to lie in it. At least I can still afford clean sheet.


*Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka.

*Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka.

Nice cop out. Still violates Rule #1 IMO.

Unless you think its also OK for people here to start throwing around terms like "Traitor" whilst insisting its "Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka"?

I agree. Tone it down, please.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

*Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka.

Nice cop out. Still violates Rule #1 IMO.

Unless you think its also OK for people here to start throwing around terms like "Traitor" whilst insisting its "Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka"?

Whatevs.

Care to address my point that a second referendum is now a must, given 'Project Fear' was clearly 'Project No Really We've Looked Into This And This Is What Is Going To Happen'?

Gove, BoJo, Farage et al. Lied, lied and lied again to get their way. Said lies are now exposed. Time to see if Britain still wants to swallow what they've put in the water.

Did you missed the part where a Mod agreed with me?

Project Fear - or Project We Told You So.

Is a second referendum, free of the racist, bigoted lies and misdirection of Farage and co now warranted? Now we can see the stark reality that leaving the EU is going to do serious damage? Now we can see that our 'top negotiation team' are nothing but a bunch of self interested clowns who's sole idea is 'tax haven'?

Those areas that voted Leave, but now demand Government cash to make up for the EU money they're about to lose - should we be telling them 'no, you created this mess, enjoy the brunt of it'?

I don't think a second referendum is practical in the time we have left. We've got ourselves into an insoluble position, or rather I should say the Conservatives have got us into this position.

That said, we don't actually have to quit on March 29th 2019 at midnight. We can give ourselves and the EU more time to think everything through and work it out properly. This would allow for a second referendum, after a deal was proposed, and full scrutiny by parliament. I would suggest the referendum should be phrased a lot more carefully.

Why is it that the government is so keen to cement the leaving date and time into law? What is the Maybot's hidden agenda?