Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[cica]

I think there are alternatives to Brexit but I'm sympathetic to the reasoning it's happening and hope the UK prospers. What's funny is that the best modern organisations that want to foster valuable long term relationships make it easy to leave e.g. cancelling Netflix is trivial. I'm not saying joining and leaving something like the EU is something that can be done in minutes but the principle is important I think. Giving people the option to leave without too much fuss means people feel safe to stay because it's clearly mutually beneficial for all to be there. Perhaps the EU isn't the organisation for us after all.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

2 minutes ago, cica said:

I think there are alternatives to Brexit but I'm sympathetic to the reasoning it's happening and hope the UK prospers. What's funny is that the best modern organisations that want to foster valuable long term relationships make it easy to leave e.g. cancelling Netflix is trivial. I'm not saying joining and leaving something like the EU is something that can be done in minutes but the principle is important I think. Giving people the option to leave without too much fuss means people feel safe to stay because it's clearly mutually beneficial for all to be there. Perhaps the EU isn't the organisation for us after all.

Agreed. 

None of this stuff was on the table beforehand. Trade, tariffs, subsidies, rules, regs etc. The vast majority of the public have no idea of the sort of agreements and relationships in place. I certainly don’t!

[Unexpected]

20 minutes ago, cica said:

I think there are alternatives to Brexit but I'm sympathetic to the reasoning it's happening and hope the UK prospers. What's funny is that the best modern organisations that want to foster valuable long term relationships make it easy to leave e.g. cancelling Netflix is trivial. I'm not saying joining and leaving something like the EU is something that can be done in minutes but the principle is important I think. Giving people the option to leave without too much fuss means people feel safe to stay because it's clearly mutually beneficial for all to be there. Perhaps the EU isn't the organisation for us after all.

Good post. Couldn't agree more.

[Confusion of VIs]

13 minutes ago, EmmaRoid said:

Agreed. 

None of this stuff was on the table beforehand. Trade, tariffs, subsidies, rules, regs etc. The vast majority of the public have no idea of the sort of agreements and relationships in place. I certainly don’t!

It was all there for anyone that cared to look.

It was called project fear and discounted by those too lazy to look and happy to believe the lies being told by Farage and Co. 

The reality is that so far we have only scratched the surface of the complexities of leaving.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It was all there for anyone that cared to look.

It was called project fear and discounted by those too lazy to look and happy to believe the lies being told by Farage and Co. 

The reality is that so far we have only scratched the surface of the complexities of leaving.

It’s why I finally decided to vote leave. 

 

You seem to be confusing the fear of doing something difficult with the fear of being subsumed into a German federal superstate.

 

btw, your sudden sympathy for Spanish expat SL and property taxes, what’s your angle? Parents? In-laws? Sibling? 

[Confusion of VIs]

23 minutes ago, cica said:

I think there are alternatives to Brexit but I'm sympathetic to the reasoning it's happening and hope the UK prospers. What's funny is that the best modern organisations that want to foster valuable long term relationships make it easy to leave e.g. cancelling Netflix is trivial. I'm not saying joining and leaving something like the EU is something that can be done in minutes but the principle is important I think. Giving people the option to leave without too much fuss means people feel safe to stay because it's clearly mutually beneficial for all to be there. Perhaps the EU isn't the organisation for us after all.

40 years of integrating a complex economy with 27 other complex economies and jointly perusing projects, some of which have 50 year lifespans, is not an internet subscription.

Leaving is complex and difficult because it is.   

Integrating the UK back into the worlds trading system is will be complex and difficult because it is. 

By your logic perhaps the rest of the world isn't the place for us either.

 

[kibuc]

26 minutes ago, cica said:

I think there are alternatives to Brexit but I'm sympathetic to the reasoning it's happening and hope the UK prospers. What's funny is that the best modern organisations that want to foster valuable long term relationships make it easy to leave e.g. cancelling Netflix is trivial. I'm not saying joining and leaving something like the EU is something that can be done in minutes but the principle is important I think. Giving people the option to leave without too much fuss means people feel safe to stay because it's clearly mutually beneficial for all to be there. Perhaps the EU isn't the organisation for us after all.

Keep in mind, however, that organisations such as Netflix, Amazon etc. created their services knowing very well that the turnover will be quite high - people would join and then cancel or not prolong on a regular basis. The process has been tested on millions of users and refined over time, and every prospective user can get familiar with it before joining.

Not quite the same with UK leaving the EU. Should any other country decide to leave in the future, I'd expect Brexit to provide a blueprint and the whole process to be much smoother.

[Confusion of VIs]

2 minutes ago, EmmaRoid said:

It’s why I finally decided to vote leave. 

You seem to be confusing the fear of doing something difficult with the fear of being subsumed into a German federal superstate.

btw, your sudden sympathy for Spanish expat SL and property taxes, what’s your angle? Parents? In-laws? Sibling? 

Because you took an uniformed decision, or just because it's going to be hard?

Fear of what, we were never going to be subsumed into a German superstate. We are more likely to find ourselves having to kowtow to Germany outside of the EU. As for deluded idea that we will have more sovereignty outside, what's that worth when you have the likes of Michael Fallon telling MP's that to protect our arms sales they shouldn't criticize Saudi Arabia. 

Thankfully no links with Spanish property or expats, just highlighting a flaw in a earlier posters thinking. 

[Confusion of VIs]

9 minutes ago, kibuc said:

Keep in mind, however, that organisations such as Netflix, Amazon etc. created their services knowing very well that the turnover will be quite high - people would join and then cancel or not prolong on a regular basis. The process has been tested on millions of users and refined over time, and every prospective user can get familiar with it before joining.

Not quite the same with UK leaving the EU. Should any other country decide to leave in the future, I'd expect Brexit to provide a blueprint and the whole process to be much smoother.

It might be smoother but I imagine it would make the Leave referendum campaign a bit tricky. How many here would have voted Leave if the size of the bill had been on the side of that bus. 

Pay the EU £50bn to shrink the economy by £400bn (or whatever number May is hiding), is not the most appealing of slogans.

    

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

17 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Because you took an uniformed decision, or just because it's going to be hard?

Fear of what, we were never going to be subsumed into a German superstate. We are more likely to find ourselves having to kowtow to Germany outside of the EU. As for deluded idea that we will have more sovereignty outside, what's that worth when you have the likes of Michael Fallon telling MP's that to protect our arms sales they shouldn't criticize Saudi Arabia. 

Thankfully no links with Spanish property or expats, just highlighting a flaw in a earlier posters thinking. 

Sometimes I wonder if you are not native British. That is not a bad thing but I think at times you exhibit a spectacular misunderstanding of the British culture.

 

As homework this weekend, I suggest you watch the Simon Pegg film, The World’s End.

 

There will be a test on Monday.

 

edit: I’m sorry, I made a genuine mistake in my first post by missing out the word not. I have edited it now so it is correct. I changed the wording several times before posting so as to make it sound the least bad then completely ballsed it up. Sorry.

Edited October 27, 2017 by EmmaRoid
So sorry.

[cica]

13 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

40 years of integrating a complex economy with 27 other complex economies and jointly perusing projects, some of which have 50 year lifespans, is not an internet subscription.

Leaving is complex and difficult because it is.   

Integrating the UK back into the worlds trading system is will be complex and difficult because it is. 

By your logic perhaps the rest of the world isn't the place for us either.

 

I already addressed the points you raise in my original post. I acknowledge it's not trivial but the principle is that the EU is struggling to sell itself on its merits.

[kibuc]

5 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It might be smoother but I imagine it would make the Leave referendum campaign a bit tricky. How many here would have voted Leave if the size of the bill had been on the side of that bus. 

Pay the EU £50bn to shrink the economy by £400bn (or whatever number May is hiding), is not the most appealing of slogans.

    

Let's see what the bill is first, and which way it goes.

If the bill is meant to represent liabilities that UK would have to cover as a member, then it only seems fair that UK should retain all the privileges of a member state for the period covered by that bill.

That doesn't sound like something UE is prepared to accept - as evidenced (for me) by their insistence on settling the bill first and discussing future relationship later - hence I expect no deal and no bill.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

1 minute ago, cica said:

I already addressed the points you raise in my original post. I acknowledge it's not trivial but the principle is that the EU is struggling to sell itself on its merits.

It’s this ‘My way or the highway’ attitude isn’t it?

I’ve previously likened this to a religion and am reminded of Henry VIII leaving the RC church. Isn’t the EU the Holy Roman Empire/RC church for the 21st century? Well that and the movie “The World’s End”.

[Confusion of VIs]

6 minutes ago, kibuc said:

Let's see what the bill is first, and which way it goes.

If the bill is meant to represent liabilities that UK would have to cover as a member, then it only seems fair that UK should retain all the privileges of a member state for the period covered by that bill.

That doesn't sound like something UE is prepared to accept - as evidenced (for me) by their insistence on settling the bill first and discussing future relationship later - hence I expect no deal and no bill.

That's pretty much what the EU is offering but May will have to face down the hard line Brexiters to accept it.

The bill is just us settling our account. Nothing to do with what happens after we Leave, these will and logically should be separate negotiations. 

[kibuc]

4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

That's pretty much what the EU is offering but May will have to face down the hard line Brexiters to accept it.

The bill is just us settling our account. Nothing to do with what happens after we Leave, these will and logically should be separate negotiations. 

Is it?

As far as I know, UK hasn't stopped contributing to the EU budget, and on the 31st of March 2019 all its current obligations should be met - without any divorce bill whatsoever.

 

"The UK will remain a member of the EU until its departure has been negotiated and will continue to contribute to the EU budget until it formally leaves."

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886

 

It's pretty clear that the bill is designed to cover theoretical obligations after that date - something that EU budgeted for and is now facing a gaping hole. So, saying that it has "Nothing to do with what happens after we Leave" is patently false. In fact, it's ALL that the bill is about.

I am yet to hear about the EU making and offer where UK pays the bill equating to, let's say, 3 years worth of budget contributions, and get's 3-years members privileges in return. All I hear is that UK should pay the bill first, and then negotiate to pay even more to get some limited privileges as a 3rd country. In which case, what exactly is the bill for?

[Errol]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The reality is that so far we have only scratched the surface of the complexities of leaving.

And? I'm sure it can't be much harder than WWII. As a nation we want to leave and we will leave. Most voters understand very well that there will be short/medium term impacts but voted 'leave' for the next 50+ years, not for next year or a couple of years.

The complexity is irrelevant. You don't sell your sovereignty because it is 'too complex' to keep it. A slave doesn't stay a slave because it is 'too complex' to obtain freedom.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Errol

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, kibuc said:

Is it?

As far as I know, UK hasn't stopped contributing to the EU budget, and on the 31st of March 2019 all its current obligations should be met - without any divorce bill whatsoever.

 

"The UK will remain a member of the EU until its departure has been negotiated and will continue to contribute to the EU budget until it formally leaves."

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886

 

It's pretty clear that the bill is designed to cover theoretical obligations after that date - something that EU budgeted for and is now facing a gaping hole. So, saying that it has "Nothing to do with what happens after we Leave" is patently false. In fact, it's ALL that the bill is about.

I am yet to hear about the EU making and offer where UK pays the bill equating to, let's say, 3 years worth of budget contributions, and get's 3-years members privileges in return. All I hear is that UK should pay the bill first, and then negotiate to pay even more to get some limited privileges as a 3rd country. In which case, what exactly is the bill for?

You need to dig a bit deeper into the detail. 

We approved spending up to the end of the current budget round in 2020 and are obligated to pay what we have approved. Maybe we should have aligned our leaving with this date, which would have eliminated this as an issue. 

Then you have the ongoing liabilities which will arise after we leave the EU. Pension liabilities being the most obvious. We have two choices here - make a clean break by paying up front, or pay as the liabilities as they arise.

The government want a clean break, but doesn't like the size of the actuarially calculated bill (inflated as it is by us being in a near zero interest world).  It would probably be a lot cheaper to pay the liabilities as they arise but is politically unpalatable, as we would be paying into the EU for the next 50+ years.

Only once we have settled these liabilities can we have an honest discussion about our future trading arrangements. If we think it is worth paying for access to the single market we can. If not, or the price is too high, we can pay nothing and trade on WTO terms.   

 

 

 

  

[Confusion of VIs]

2 hours ago, Errol said:

And? I'm sure it can't be much harder than WWII. As a nation we want to leave and we will leave. Most voters understand very well that there will be short/medium term impacts but voted 'leave' for the next 50+ years, not for next year or a couple of years.

The complexity is irrelevant. You don't sell your sovereignty because it is 'too complex' to keep it. A slave doesn't stay a slave because it is 'too complex' to obtain freedom.

The fact we could choose to leave the EU shows the sovereignty argument up for the nonsense it is.

Sovereignty is ultimately the ability to influence events. Inside the EU 95% of the votes went our way enhancing our influence. Outside the EU we will be doing a lot of kowtowing to the large trade blocks, and even much smaller states, because we will be desperate to trade with them.   We will be less sovereign than we were inside the EU.

[kibuc]

7 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Then you have the ongoing liabilities which will arise after we leave the EU. Pension liabilities being the most obvious. We have two choices here - make a clean break by paying up front, or pay as the liabilities as they arise.

I struggle to understand this bit. Pension liabilities towards whom? UK expats living in EU? Inflation adjustments aside, how is that obligation different than pension obligations towards UK citizens living anywhere else? That money was supposed to be paid either way, and I don't see why EU would have to be involved.

[HairyOb1]

26 minutes ago, kibuc said:

I struggle to understand this bit. Pension liabilities towards whom? UK expats living in EU? Inflation adjustments aside, how is that obligation different than pension obligations towards UK citizens living anywhere else? That money was supposed to be paid either way, and I don't see why EU would have to be involved.

Since we joined the EU, all members of European Parliament and other EU organisations, have accrued pensions and we are jointly liable for these.  Up until we leave.  Then we have all of the things we've agreed to fund post brexit; just because we're leaving doesn't absolve us of long term agreements that we've signed.  Say we've agreed to pay a part for 8 river crossings in the Eu and they'll cost £100bn, then we have an obligation to pay the amounts we agreed we would.  It's like agreeing to pay for your wife to learn to fly and then leaving her.  If you've agreed to it, you're liable for it, no matter if you've left her or not.

[pig]

29 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Since we joined the EU, all members of European Parliament and other EU organisations, have accrued pensions and we are jointly liable for these.  Up until we leave.  Then we have all of the things we've agreed to fund post brexit; just because we're leaving doesn't absolve us of long term agreements that we've signed.  Say we've agreed to pay a part for 8 river crossings in the Eu and they'll cost £100bn, then we have an obligation to pay the amounts we agreed we would.  It's like agreeing to pay for your wife to learn to fly and then leaving her.  If you've agreed to it, you're liable for it, no matter if you've left her or not.

She's not the same one thats jumping out of planes lol !? 

[kibuc]

8 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Since we joined the EU, all members of European Parliament and other EU organisations, have accrued pensions and we are jointly liable for these.  Up until we leave.  Then we have all of the things we've agreed to fund post brexit; just because we're leaving doesn't absolve us of long term agreements that we've signed.  Say we've agreed to pay a part for 8 river crossings in the Eu and they'll cost £100bn, then we have an obligation to pay the amounts we agreed we would.  It's like agreeing to pay for your wife to learn to fly and then leaving her.  If you've agreed to it, you're liable for it, no matter if you've left her or not.

That's not necessarily the case. One could argue that UK agreed to contribute to EU budget as a member state (and get member's privileges) and that it also agreed on how EU budget should be spent. UK didn't agree to fund this or that project individually as a member.

As soon as UK's membership ends, there's no need to contribute to EUs budget anymore if there are no privileges associated with it, and the flip side is UK no longer has any say in how that budget is spent.

Your marital analogy doesn't fit well specifically because me and my spouse we're not a legal entity. Every obligation we take, we take individually. If we wan't a joint utility bill, we put one signature each, not a joint "Kibuc Family" signature, and we're both individually responsible for meeting our obligation.

The analogy I like much better (because it's mine ) is this: While I have a statutory periodic AST, my landlord - being a good lass that she is - gives in to my demands for a refurb, which will take 6 months. However,  my work arrangements change, forcing me to give a notice to quit and leave at the end of next month, paying my rent in full, but leaving her with future financial obligations she was hoping to cover with rental income.

Am I still liable for my theoretical rent for the duration of the refurb? There was never a guarantee that I'd stay forever, just like there's never been a guarantee that UK would stay in EU forever.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, kibuc said:

That's not necessarily the case. One could argue that UK agreed to contribute to EU budget as a member state (and get member's privileges) and that it also agreed on how EU budget should be spent. UK didn't agree to fund this or that project individually as a member.

As soon as UK's membership ends, there's no need to contribute to EUs budget anymore if there are no privileges associated with it, and the flip side is UK no longer has any say in how that budget is spent.

Your marital analogy doesn't fit well specifically because me and my spouse we're not a legal entity. Every obligation we take, we take individually. If we wan't a joint utility bill, we put one signature each, not a joint "Kibuc Family" signature, and we're both individually responsible for meeting our obligation.

The analogy I like much better (because it's mine ) is this: While I have a statutory periodic AST, my landlord - being a good lass that she is - gives in to my demands for a refurb, which will take 6 months. However,  my work arrangements change, forcing me to give a notice to quit and leave at the end of next month, paying my rent in full, but leaving her with future financial obligations she was hoping to cover with rental income.

Am I still liable for my theoretical rent for the duration of the refurb? There was never a guarantee that I'd stay forever, just like there's never been a guarantee that UK would stay in EU forever.

We've still, IIRC, got to pay Confusion of VIs' EU pension. Hence his actuarial posts on the previous page.

[HairyOb1]

1 hour ago, kibuc said:

1.  That's not necessarily the case. One could argue that UK agreed to contribute to EU budget as a member state (and get member's privileges) and that it also agreed on how EU budget should be spent. UK didn't agree to fund this or that project individually as a member.

2.  As soon as UK's membership ends, there's no need to contribute to EUs budget anymore if there are no privileges associated with it, and the flip side is UK no longer has any say in how that budget is spent.

3.  Your marital analogy doesn't fit well specifically because me and my spouse we're not a legal entity. Every obligation we take, we take individually. If we wan't a joint utility bill, we put one signature each, not a joint "Kibuc Family" signature, and we're both individually responsible for meeting our obligation.

4.  The analogy I like much better (because it's mine ) is this: While I have a statutory periodic AST, my landlord - being a good lass that she is - gives in to my demands for a refurb, which will take 6 months. However,  my work arrangements change, forcing me to give a notice to quit and leave at the end of next month, paying my rent in full, but leaving her with future financial obligations she was hoping to cover with rental income.

5.  Am I still liable for my theoretical rent for the duration of the refurb? There was never a guarantee that I'd stay forever, just like there's never been a guarantee that UK would stay in EU forever.

1.  A point of law, but given if we've signed agreements to pay, it's very unlikely to have said 'as a member state' as I am sure that would have been assumed at signing by all members, as Brexit wouldn't have been on the cards then.  Any way you dress this up, if it doesn't say as a member state, then we'd be liable.  The only concession I'll give you is the possibility, as we both don't know, but logic would assume we are liable, as we wouldn't have been planning to leave.

2.  That's a complete fallacy - If we've obligations, we have obligations.  Period.  Think of the 'transition period' being touted: We will have to contribute to the budget, but we'll have no say in how it's run.

3.  Not true at all.  Simply isn't. You are a legal entity, look at your mortgage. 

4.  How about if in your rental agreement, you agreed to pay her pension whilst you rented (and that of her support staff and agency): If you hadn't paid anything until you left, you'd still have a liability.  

5.  Agreed, but if we agreed to pay pensions to EU staff, the accrued pension debt we would be liable to.

I'm sure you get all of the above now.

Edited October 27, 2017 by HairyOb1

[HairyOb1]

1 hour ago, pig said:

She's not the same one thats jumping out of planes lol !? 

Ha, no, but that's probably next on her list....