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.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

You know, that's the sort of thing the partner who's walking out on a marriage says, "why are you being such a douche? The marriage is over, I'm keeping the kids and the house, you can stay at your brothers. Btw, this is my new boyfriend Donny."

If we're the ones keeping the house, how come remainers keep moaning that we're making such an economic mistake?

Or does she get to keep the vintage Mustang?

Because that's what she wants, what she gets after the lawyers have had a go is a different matter altogether. I've not met a single person who's done well out of a divorce, most people I know are pretty fethed afterwards financially. But you know, I'm sure this time it'll be different.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

You know, that's the sort of thing the partner who's walking out on a marriage says, "why are you being such a douche? The marriage is over, I'm keeping the kids and the house, you can stay at your brothers. Btw, this is my new boyfriend Donny."

If we're the ones keeping the house, how come remainers keep moaning that we're making such an economic mistake?

Or does she get to keep the vintage Mustang?

Because the house is mortgaged to the hilt, twice, and we've decided to take on the entire burden of making those payments.

 r_squared wrote:
I've not met a single person who's done well out of a divorce

I have. Admittedly they were the lawyers, but at least someone did well, eh?

 Ketara wrote:
The petty, controlling, vindictive element that seems to increasingly pervade their communiques.

Sounds like a standard Daily Mail 'Brussels Bureaucrats" story. The rhetoric from the Brexiteers was far, far worse than anything that the EU as an institution has said.

The government is certainly trying to be a bit more conciliatory these days, which isn't surprising given the weakness of it's position

 Ketara wrote:

What I dislike is the way the EU is approaching the whole affair. The rhetoric that flows out of Brussels isn't that we're a common neighbour who feel is best to go our separate ways, and all the best to us (the attitude which I personally have towards Europe), but rather a labelling of us as Public Enemy Numero Uno. And that's what I find distasteful, what makes me feel it was the right decision. The petty, controlling, vindictive element that seems to increasingly pervade their communiques.

All I want is for everyone to act like adults and get on, and the majority of what I seem to hear from Europe is immature playground style squabbling, bitchiness, and blame. It gets quite tiresome. You just want everyone to get on with things, play the game politely, shake hands, and move on. Much like a good game of 40K.

Well gee. Resources in the world are limited. Everybody can't be rich. For one to be rich other has to be poor. Tough but you know what? If you aren't allies you are competing for same limited wealth. You are going to become EU's competitors. Obviously EU's interest is ensuring EU gets better over UK. Otherwise it's less wealth for EU.

Basic economy. Everybody wants money and wealth. Everybody cannot. Would you be poor so that your neighbour be rich or would you be rich leaving neighbor poor? Sucks but that's life.

tneva82 wrote:


Well gee. Resources in the world are limited. Everybody can't be rich. For one to be rich other has to be poor. Tough but you know what? If you aren't allies you are competing for same limited wealth. You are going to become EU's competitors. Obviously EU's interest is ensuring EU gets better over UK. Otherwise it's less wealth for EU.

Basic economy. Everybody wants money and wealth. Everybody cannot. Would you be poor so that your neighbour be rich or would you be rich leaving neighbor poor? Sucks but that's life.

That is very spot on A lot of the EU's vast power is superficial at best, many of the smaller countries further East cannot pull their own weight because of various limiting factors to their economies and subsequent living standards. That is why many people from these places look to earn more and live better in other countries. The EU accepted them to make themselves book bigger and more justifiable, were as the said smaller countries joined because they could rake in more economic benefit than they could pay out. Its almost a 'Comintern policy' of robbing richer peter to pay poorer paul.

I think down the line an independent UK has the chance to get a larger portion of global market share than what we could get from the EU. Yes it will take a lot longer, but we will be in the position to decide what portion of the cake we want rather than have the cake slicing done by the EU and being giving a smaller portion.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I've not met a single person who's done well out of a divorce

I have. Admittedly they were the lawyers, but at least someone did well, eh?

That's brilliant, ask them to drop May a line, they could give her some tips.

@tneve82 and sentinel1, your points are incorrect.

The whole of Europe and most of the rest of the world is now richer and more developed than it was 30 years ago, and 50 years, and 100 years ago, despite increasing population.

Co-operation to develop new technologies and build up poor nations, is much more successful than competition.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Well gee. Resources in the world are limited. Everybody can't be rich. For one to be rich other has to be poor. Tough but you know what? If you aren't allies you are competing for same limited wealth. You are going to become EU's competitors. Obviously EU's interest is ensuring EU gets better over UK. Otherwise it's less wealth for EU.

Basic economy. Everybody wants money and wealth. Everybody cannot. Would you be poor so that your neighbour be rich or would you be rich leaving neighbor poor? Sucks but that's life.

That is very spot on A lot of the EU's vast power is superficial at best, many of the smaller countries further East cannot pull their own weight because of various limiting factors to their economies and subsequent living standards. That is why many people from these places look to earn more and live better in other countries. The EU accepted them to make themselves book bigger and more justifiable, were as the said smaller countries joined because they could rake in more economic benefit than they could pay out. Its almost a 'Comintern policy' of robbing richer peter to pay poorer paul.

That's called solidarity. These countries further east had a non-functioning post-soviet mafia economy, recovery takes a while after that.

Eastern Germany that was the best of the bunch and has had access to significantly more funds is still lagging behind.

And again, it was the UK who led a coalition of minor countries to let them in, the Germanies, Frances, etc. were all against.

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Sounds like a standard Daily Mail 'Brussels Bureaucrats" story. The rhetoric from the Brexiteers was far, far worse than anything that the EU as an institution has said.

....have you read any of the stuff that comes out of Juncker's mouth these days? Please don't try and dismiss me by associating me with the Daily Mail.

tneva82 wrote:
Well gee. Resources in the world are limited. Everybody can't be rich. For one to be rich other has to be poor. Tough but you know what? If you aren't allies you are competing for same limited wealth. You are going to become EU's competitors. Obviously EU's interest is ensuring EU gets better over UK. Otherwise it's less wealth for EU.

Basic economy. Everybody wants money and wealth. Everybody cannot. Would you be poor so that your neighbour be rich or would you be rich leaving neighbor poor? Sucks but that's life.

This is an outdated view of economics, as pointed out by Killkrazy above. The same farmland is now capable of yielding ten times as much produce compared to two hundred years ago. Modern smelting techniques unlocked new metal alloys which didn't exist before. New markets are created and old ones destroyed all the time. There is no finite amount of wealth.

Indeed, that was the point of the EU, that by banding together, the size of our collective cake would grow. And it has. The fact that only a very small group of people get to gorge on all that increased cake doesn't mean it isn't there.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

And again, it was the UK who led a coalition of minor countries to let them in, the Germanies, Frances, etc. were all against.

Eh. I think 'against' is putting it a bit strong, but yes, Blair and our own diplomatic corps sowed that harvest. And it isn't fair that the EU has taken the fall for it.

Such is politics, alas.

Juncker is quite the ass.

In fact, as he became the face of "On your bike you bloody Brits!" He is probably one of the largest reasons that we voted to leave. The man is so far up his own butt that he has emerged back at his head again.

Him acting like more of an arse only reinforces the view that Britian had never properly inter grated into the EU.

Isn't he now threatening to resign if Europe rejects his vision for further integration? Always a silver lining I guess.

The God-Emporer will never resign!

Junckers will reign from the Golden Throne for ever!!

That's pretty much what he wants. He is a firm believer in the United States of Europe.

[sarcasm] Bloody Germans always trying to find new ways to conquer Europe.[/sarcasm]

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's pretty much what he wants. He is a firm believer in the United States of Europe.

[sarcasm] Bloody Germans always trying to find new ways to conquer Europe.[/sarcasm]

He's from Luxembourg. :p

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's pretty much what he wants. He is a firm believer in the United States of Europe.

[sarcasm] Bloody Germans always trying to find new ways to conquer Europe.[/sarcasm]

He's from Luxembourg. :p

And Austria's greatest achievement was convincing the world that Hitler was German and Mozart was Austrian.

Although with a name like Juncker, he is definitely Germanic.

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's pretty much what he wants. He is a firm believer in the United States of Europe.

[sarcasm] Bloody Germans always trying to find new ways to conquer Europe.[/sarcasm]

I accept it's tongue in cheek, but this would be a little offensive if you were German.

 Ketara wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's pretty much what he wants. He is a firm believer in the United States of Europe.

[sarcasm] Bloody Germans always trying to find new ways to conquer Europe.[/sarcasm]

I accept it's tongue in cheek, but this would be a little offensive if you were German.

You're probably right...

..

..

Bloody Brits always trying to find new ways to reconquer the world......

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

And again, it was the UK who led a coalition of minor countries to let them in, the Germanies, Frances, etc. were all against.

Eh. I think 'against' is putting it a bit strong, but yes, Blair and our own diplomatic corps sowed that harvest. And it isn't fair that the EU has taken the fall for it.

Such is politics, alas.

Put it like "maybe in 10 years time", that was the general position around the time (which in turn would have probably been pushed back by a few more years thanks to the crisis).

I mean, I know most of those complaining about Polish plumbers probably didn't vote for Blair, but don't go around saying the EU is a German-run dictatorship either.

I'm quite enjoying the parliamentary debate on Trumps state visit, some quality insults being thrown about

My favorite so far is "The President’s power is enormous, but unfortunately his intellectual capacity is protozoan", which I'm pretty sure he won't get.

Watch the debate: http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85c7c283-d353-4863-8628-3a012a80b2f5

Read the transcript: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-20/debates/34847E5C-8B14-46E6-8251-AE99526CC011/PresidentTrumpStateVisit

of course.

Note how Banks is quite blatant about the immigration issue, despite all the people telling us it was actually about ...well.. whatever.

..ever get the feeling you've been cheated ?

I don't know how much the official Leave Campaigns were about Immigration, as opposed to legal or economic issues, but there is no doubt that for a lot of voters it was a major point.

But even more I think a lot of votes were cast on a ill-defined overarching resentment of the EU, comprising all sorts of vague gripes including £50 million a day, Polish plumbers, Albanian criminals, straight cucumbers, lack of NZ lamb and butter in the supermarkets, the Human Rights Act, the dictatorship of Juncker, etc. etc.

Surprise, surprise everybody! Mr Junkers 87 is going to dive bomb Britain with a 'crudly, very hefty bill'. If he gets his way we may have to pay up to 60billion Euros after talks start.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39042876

Now I can understand paying something for any joint ventures we want to continue post Brexit, but I think we should not pay anything to any joint ventures that are automatically cut when we leave. The UK has been paying in to get something out and I don't see why we should pay our dues up front when we all know it won't matter after the 2 years legal affair. I see this as just a last minute money grabbing business with somewhat of an excuse made to sound legitimate. Apparently this bill would cover the coffers of all EU interests, such as pensions for EU officials. What a Farce!

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Surprise, surprise everybody! Mr Junkers 87 is going to dive bomb Britain with a 'crudly, very hefty bill'. If he gets his way we may have to pay up to 60billion Euros after talks start.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39042876

Now I can understand paying something for any joint ventures we want to continue post Brexit, but I think we should not pay anything to any joint ventures that are automatically cut when we leave. The UK has been paying in to get something out and I don't see why we should pay our dues up front when we all know it won't matter after the 2 years legal affair. I see this as just a last minute money grabbing business with somewhat of an excuse made to sound legitimate. Apparently this bill would cover the coffers of all EU interests, such as pensions for EU officials. What a Farce!

A Brussels smash and grab comes as no surprise to me. After all, they are losing their second biggest net contributer, so I suppose they need some way to keep the gravy train rolling.

It always amuses me when people talk about EU money for projects drying up in this country without realizing that they were effectively being bribed with their own money, and then tricked into thinking it was an act of benevolence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


A Brussels smash and grab comes as no surprise to me. After all, they are losing their second biggest net contributer, so I suppose they need some way to keep the gravy train rolling.

It always amuses me when people talk about EU money for projects drying up in this country without realizing that they were effectively being bribed with their own money, and then tricked into thinking it was an act of benevolence.

Couldn't have said it better myself Times will be changing and it will make it harder for the other net contributors in Europe. No doubt the EU will find money from someone and I think Germany will be taking on more of a burden. Germany has already expressed displeasure at this due to 'special interests in the UK', but I think the bottom line is they don't want to be the EU's life support.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


A Brussels smash and grab comes as no surprise to me. After all, they are losing their second biggest net contributer, so I suppose they need some way to keep the gravy train rolling.

It always amuses me when people talk about EU money for projects drying up in this country without realizing that they were effectively being bribed with their own money, and then tricked into thinking it was an act of benevolence.

Couldn't have said it better myself Times will be changing and it will make it harder for the other net contributors in Europe. No doubt the EU will find money from someone and I think Germany will be taking on more of a burden. Germany has already expressed displeasure at this due to 'special interests in the UK', but I think the bottom line is they don't want to be the EU's life support.

We have a duty to honour our existing commitments to the EU for as long as we are a member. I have no problem with that, but in two years time when the plug is pulled, the British wallet goes back in the nation's pocket.

Guys, we quite literally just covered this yesterday, scroll back one page.

I understand that the sum is made up of money we have already agreed to spend, and are contractually bound to pay. However other posters made better arguments than me, if you can be bothered to read them of course.

 r_squared wrote:
Guys, we quite literally just covered this yesterday, scroll back one page.

I understand that the sum is made up of money we have already agreed to spend, and are contractually bound to pay. However other posters made better arguments than me, if you can be bothered to read them of course.

I have read their arguments, but I much prefer to stick to my default position of knee jerk reactions.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Guys, we quite literally just covered this yesterday, scroll back one page.

I understand that the sum is made up of money we have already agreed to spend, and are contractually bound to pay. However other posters made better arguments than me, if you can be bothered to read them of course.

I have read their arguments, but I much prefer to stick to my default position of knee jerk reactions.

It is one of the world's favourite reactions.

 Ketara wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:And we know that they are trying to get us to pay for more than we should how exactly? Do you have evidence for this? Otherwise you are just slating the EU with no good evidence.

It's an inference on the tactics being deployed. 'You must agree to pay us X sum of money before we can begin to discuss the matters of real import to you.' It's essentially a basic form of coercion. Instead of discussing the matters at the same time (because there is a time limit), which would be an impediment to nobody, there is instead an insistence that we have to agree to writing them a cheque first.

So you are making it up then (or fitting facts to fit a view which is just as bad!). Given that you are always asking for evidence to substantiate claims, I would assume you would demand the same of yourself. It also appears that this is assuming an inevitability of the future despite that things can change (say for example the French elections)? You are also misquoting what was said. Taken from the same BBC article the quote was:-

"It will be a tough negotiation which will take two years to agree on the exit terms. And to agree on the future architecture of relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union we will need years. The British people have to know, they know already, that it will not be at a discount or at zero cost. The British must respect commitments they were involved in making. So the bill will be, to put it a bit crudely, very hefty"

There is nothing here that supports the view they will only start discussing issues before they have resolved the finances. Although as I pointed out it's always the first thing you want to discuss because it focuses the mind on what you really can afford and want. The misquote is pandering to a view "the EU is out to get us" and the UK are complete innocent of any mudslinging of which we are definitely not!

It's perfectly apparent to all parties involved that Britain isn't going to default on her commitments, we're looking to get on with everyone in the future. Absconding like that would only hurt us. The only reason to insist on the financial discussion being held first is if you're planning on asking for more moolah than is actually owed and hoping the other party will be pressured into signing because they need to get to the substance of the matter.

Why is it, these are complex contracts and negotiations. This isn't the 1800's where you spit in your hand and shake. There could be well be things that the UK supports (through departmental budgets) that ministers don't even know are happening. There are likely to be complex contract clauses that need to be mapped out. It is not a simple task. It is by far better to get these all determined now than it over the negotiations because any things that interlink need to be identified first.

You may dismiss it as a 'lack of business knowledge' on my part, but considering the number of in depth business histories and biographies currently adorning the bookshelf to my right, you'll forgive me if I take such thinly disguised assumptions of my inferior knowledge with a grain of salt. I'm not saying I'm right, but at the moment, I consider it the most likely of probabilities.

Not really knowledge, more there is an apparent lack of experience in dealing with complex contract and business negotiations. You can read as many books as you want, review the historical context but that really does not prepare you for the thin end of the wedge when it comes to the actual contract/business negotiations. It's the same as saying that reading/reviewing how a plane works is the same as flying the plane; they are linked but books/reviews can't actually assist you when you are in the cockpit and need to make the decisions based on current (and in some cases lacking evidence as to what the other sides game plan is).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I have read their arguments, but I much prefer to stick to my default position of knee jerk reactions.

There's a lot of this going round on the Brexit side of things (generally) at the moment. For most remainers the arguments are just

There's a lot of spitting the dummy out (in general) at the moment and going "waaa, waaa, waaa the EU aren't giving us what we want; they aren't rolling over to our demands" so I'd like to point out these few facts :-

It should not have failed to be noticed that we voted to leave the EU (much to my consternation) so to reinforce the message THE EU NO LONGER HAS TO CONSIDER WHAT IS IN THE UK'S BEST INTEREST!
It is now the UK governments responsibility (though if you didn't like last years negotiations don't hold your breath). The EU is *duty bound* to consider what is in the best interest of it's members and it's population. That is their responsibility. May has stated that she will walk away from a bad deal, but be under no illusion the EU will walk away if it is a bad deal for them. There appears to be some notion that the EU should still consider what the UK wants. It does not have to at all; that is, again, the UK governments responsibility. The notion that the "EU is out to get us" is ridiculous. The only thing they are out to get is the best for their citizens. If you wanted to ensure the EU continued to include the best interests of the UK (and the special privileges we had) then folks really shouldn't have voted to Leave in the first place....