The Great Mistake?

[Gecko001]

I don't think you get the point.

As part of the group we signed up to several spending commitments. If we do not honour our commitments it'll fall unfairly on the others to make up the difference.

However, over the years, we've invested hundreds of billions in EU institutions, real estate etc. Let's take just real estate - the EU owns billions of pounds worth of real estate. Given the size of our contributions over the years, our share is roughly 10%. We've also contributed to the EU space programme, CERN, ECB and tons of other stuff.

When we leave, it's only fair to credit us for the shares in those assets that we're giving up.

That's just the tangibles.

I handle business exits. Every business going to market has a lot of value tied up in intangible assets - brand, IP rights, the processes and systems they've put in place, operating manuals, teams they've built to handle specific tasks etc etc. I document those and put a value to them. Each and every single one of intangible assets like these has value.

But their value pales into insignificance compared to the value we've built in EU institutions, systems, processes, regulation, legislation, you name it.

So you are going by the nett-contributor argument. Other nations who were not nett contributors could leave and the EU would benefit, but when we leave the EU will lose out. It is an argument. It might even be considered a good argument by many, but we were willing to be a nett contributor when we joined presumably because we thought the EU was a good idea t one time. It was a good idea to help weaker nations to be more economically stable as that tends to help war breaking out amongst other things. However, isn't asking for some of the money we put in back now a bit like donating money to a good cause and then asking for it back a few years later?

I do not know what exactly the "bill" is for, but I believe it will be for relocation costs EU institutions which are presently in the UK and that sort of thing. Items that a price can be put to.

 

[Clinton]

...but we were willing to be a nett contributor when we joined presumably because we thought the EU was a good idea t one time. It was a good idea to help weaker nations to be more economically stable as that tends to help war breaking out amongst other things.

I agree with you on all of that.

But there is a Lisbon Treaty and there is an article 50 stating that countries can leave. We are in that situation now. We deal with what we've got, not how we would have liked the world to be last June.

When you go into negotiation, you don't go in making excuses for the other side. You go in to argue your case, not theirs!

Our case is that we own 10% of the assets and that any "exit bill" needs to take into account not just liabilities but assets as well.

Remember, it wasn't the UK that brought up the topic of an "exit bill"!

Pawn to king. Check.

 

[ffox]

We elect the PM, we elect the Government, and we elect the MPs who can force the Government out if things get too bad. We hold the power, but don't make these decisions directly. Instead, it's up to us to use our best judgement to decide who does make these decisions.

So, you agree that we have a Prime Minister, and that in a few weeks she will have been elected.
You also agree that the MPs who are elected at the same time will hold the PM and her appointed cabinet to account. You agree that they are there to use their expertise to represent the electorate who placed them in position to do a job.

The job, once the UK elections are out of the way, is Brexit. The electorate voted for it, the government has accepted that and is proceeding with it. Theresa May has even decided to go back to the electorate to be absolutely sure she has a mandate.

So, where is the 'Great mistake'?

 

[Gecko001]

I agree with you on all of that.

But there is a Lisbon Treaty and there is an article 50 stating that countries can leave. We are in that situation now. We deal with what we've got, not how we would have liked the world to be last June.

When you go into negotiation, you don't go in making excuses for the other side. You go in to argue your case, not theirs!

Our case is that we own 10% of the assets and that any "exit bill" needs to take into account not just liabilities but assets as well.

Remember, it wasn't the UK that brought up the topic of an "exit bill"!

Pawn to king. Check.

This is not a business deal. It cannot be considered even analogous to a business deal in my view. We have land borders. We have families living and working in the rest of the EU. We have people here wondering whether they will be deported.

I think that is the gulf which exists between us and the EU at the minute. We see it as like a business deal and the EU and the rest of Europe sees it as far more important than that.

Is lack of interest in recognising the priorities of the people you are negotiating with a strength?

 

[Clinton]

Is lack of interest in recognising the priorities of the people you are negotiating with a strength?

From a purely negotiating perspective, you recognise them ... and exploit them to your advantage. So, for example, if they place a high value on their citizens gaining ILR/PR in the UK, then our team could use that to our advantage in the negotiation.

Cue, screaming and wailing from some parties.

But, these are the same people who think the UK will struggle to survive outside of the EU. In other words, they secretly believe that we need every advantage we can get ... while at the same time publicly demand that we give advantages away. I don't understand them. They'd even give away rights to EU citizens in the UK without getting a reciprocal agreement on UK citizens living in EU countries! It's like they desperately want the UK to fail. And they're willing to pay any price so they can one day say, "I told you so!"

This is not a business deal.

Great! Then there is no "liability" on our part to pay any settlement. A50 certainly makes no mention of exit bills.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

So, you agree that we have a Prime Minister, and that in a few weeks she will have been elected.
You also agree that the MPs who are elected at the same time will hold the PM and her appointed cabinet to account. You agree that they are there to use their expertise to represent the electorate who placed them in position to do a job.

The job, once the UK elections are out of the way, is Brexit. The electorate voted for it, the government has accepted that and is proceeding with it. Theresa May has even decided to go back to the electorate to be absolutely sure she has a mandate.

So, where is the 'Great mistake'?

I went off on a bit of a tangent. The Byre's thread is about the great mistake so you'd have to ask him.

Although if I were to bite, I'd say the big mistake was allowing the referendum in the first place.

I'm sure many will disagree, but I think we should have stuck to our country's democratic system. If we really wanted to leave the EU so badly, the public always has the ability to vote in MPs, and a Government, to deliver that without a referendum.

The fact this was unlikely to ever happen just goes to show how unimportant the EU was until the referendum campaigning started. Britons saying the EU was one of the most important issues facing the country was at around 10%. The UKIP popular vote also struggled to breach 13% of the electorate.

And why is this? Because it really wasn't that important. It didn't really have an impact on most people's lives. If it did, the people would have noticed and took action by now - much like they do with the NHS, taxes, living standards and anything else.

Unless, of course, people claim that all the damage the EU causes was somehow hidden away where no one noticed.

The same even goes for immigration. The campaign was focused on Brexit supposedly solving our immigration woes despite about 50% of immigrants coming from outside of the EU where this won't make a jot of difference. Even if we half EU immigration, it will only reduce total immigration by 25%.

And The Byre's graph speaks for itself. This really wasn't an important issue for most people until the referendum campaigns told them it was and started to entice the strongest emotional response (on both sides) in an attempt to win votes.

But now we find ourselves heading towards the exit where representative democracy goes head-to-head with direct democracy. The majority of our elected politicians wanted us to remain. The majority of the public wanted us to leave. Time will tell who made the smarter choice.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Our case is that we own 10% of the assets and that any "exit bill" needs to take into account not just liabilities but assets as well.

Surely the EU is more analogous to joining, and subsequently leaving, a private members club:

· you join, and avail of any features the club built-up before you joined;


· you leave, and leave behind any assets your membership helped pay towards;


· as for the membership subscription, you pay what you agreed with the Club Secretary you would pay – in a lump sum, or by instalments (as in with the EU).


Unless we paid a fair share towards existing assets on entry, with an understanding that we, not the club as a collective, would hold that share & anything we subsequently contribute towards, that seems an unreasonable expectation. I’ve never joined, contributed towards, or left a private club on such terms.

Great! Then there is no "liability" on our part to pay any settlement. A50 certainly makes no mention of exit bills.

No, A50 doesn't, but the subscription renewal that we previously agreed to does note the share of the bills that we agreed to pay. Just because we later chose to leave before our latest subscription ends, our renewal agreement made no mention of discounts for early departure – like most clubs, we agreed to pay the latest fees, and are now liable for those.

But there is a Lisbon Treaty and there is an article 50 stating that countries can leave. We are in that situation now. We deal with what we've got, not how we would have liked the world to be last June.

As with any club, there doesn’t need to be a rule to say a member can exercise free will to leave, and A50 doesn’t actually say that members can leave. A50 simply explains the process that will apply if said free will is exercised.



Edit to add: it would probably have been much more helpful to the Remain campaign to highlight these basic, obvious facts, rather than run the baseless scare campaign they did run.



Karl Limpert

 

[Gecko001]

Great! Then there is no "liability" on our part to pay any settlement. A50 certainly makes no mention of exit bills.

You are probably correct........ if it was a business contract!

 

[Clinton]

Surely the EU is more analogous to joining, and subsequently leaving, a private members club:

OTOH, it could be reasonably argued that we entered a trade deal, a commercial arrangement for mutual financial benefit.

Then they made it into a Maastricht Treaty - a move towards economic and monetary union.

When you're a member of a private club, the club determines the dress code and fees. They don't tell you who you can marry, what colour to paint the walls in your house or which bank you should save your money with.

Maybe if the EU stayed a members club without trying to surreptiously take over the country by transferring more and more power to Brussels we wouldn't have had the Referendum and we wouldn't be leaving.

You are probably correct........ if it was a business contract!

You're right, there's no business contract. And there's no contractual obligation to settle liabilities.

 

[The Byre]

This thread has now become as moronically uninformed as the debate to leave the EU in the first place.

Given the size of our contributions over the years, our share is roughly 10%. We've also contributed to CERN, ECB and tons of other stuff.
Even the value of the real estate is tiny compared to, for example, EU/EC investment in space (Copernicus, Galileo etc via the ESA and universities). We own circa 10% of all of that! The ESA alone is probably worth about £80b - £100b (based on investment to date).

None of which is the EU.

The more hysterical and polemic views coming from the UK completely miss the point, that, outside of the UK, nobody really cares.

The idea that somehow the EU cannot survive without the UK is frankly laughable. The idea that the Euro is close to collapse is also totally laughable. The idea that The City is the centre of the known universe and that banking systems around Planet Earth will fail, if the UK is not given special status, is carpet-bitingly delusional. The idea that German and French manufacturing will grind to a halt, if there is a drop in exports to a market that is just 3% of the World's economy is bewilderingly foolish.

Yes, that's right! 3% - Brexit threatens a reduction in access to 3% of the World's economy. If that doesn't keep German businessmen awake at night, nothing will.

I notice that none of the points I raised have been answered by the Brexiteers, but rather, they are answering their own questions!

The majority of our elected politicians wanted us to remain. The majority of the public wanted us to leave.

Er, no. Once again - 26% of the public and just 37% of the electorate wanted the UK to leave.

As a result of this madness and moronically uninformed 'debate' such as it was, is that your children cannot get a job in France or Germany, or indeed any of the other 27. Mine can, yours cannot. You cannot open a company in Germany or any of the other 27 or even open a bank account, without a great deal of hassle. I can, you cannot.

Brexit has successfully denied UK subjects a huge range of opportunities for learning, business and living.

Brexit will make your children, your grandchildren and all your heirs, poorer, socially, spiritually and economically.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

OTOH, it could be reasonably argued that we entered a trade deal, a commercial arrangement for mutual financial benefit.


Then they made it into a Maastricht Treaty - a move towards economic and monetary union.

Not “they”, but the club as a collective… including us – there was no them & us then, only divisions among a few politicians (bastards, as some may have later been described).

When you're a member of a private club, the club determines the dress code and fees. They don't tell you who you can marry, what colour to paint the walls in your house or which bank you should save your money with.

When you’re a member of a private club, there is no “they”, only "us", the club members who vote or otherwise decide on the rules we abide by, whatever those rules might be.

Maybe if the EU stayed a members club without trying to surreptiously take over the country by transferring more and more power to Brussels we wouldn't have had the Referendum and we wouldn't be leaving.

Maybe as a member of the club, with a veto, if we didn’t agree to the new terms, the club wouldn’t have surreptitiously managed to do what the Maastricht treaty made obvious it was doing. (Careless of our politicians that no-one noticed or spoke out!!! Incompetent bastards.)

You're right, there's no business contract. And there's no contractual obligation to settle liabilities.

While we’re still members, perhaps the ECJ (that we're paying towards) could adjudicate on whether there is a binding contract. Or maybe we’ll just leave ourselves open to the free markets to decide whether we’re credible & trustworthy partners to do business with, to give credit to, or whether our credit rating should be adjusted if we don't honour our debts, having agreed with the club secretary to pay our fees later.


Karl Limpert

 

[Gecko001]

OTOH,


You're right, there's no business contract. And there's no contractual obligation to settle liabilities.

Well we are agreed on something. But I can bet you will continue to refer to Brexit in business terms as if there was a business contract in place!

 

[Clinton]

26% of the public and just 37% of the electorate wanted the UK to leave....

your children cannot get a job in France or Germany, or indeed any of the other 27.

...You cannot open a company in Germany or any of the other 27 or even open a bank account, without a great deal of hassle.

Brexit has successfully denied UK subjects a huge range of opportunities for learning, business and living.

Brexit will make your children, your grandchildren and all your heirs, poorer, socially, spiritually and economically.

We are sort of agreed on all of that! (I can't say 100% agreed as there's no 100% guarantee that all of the above will transpire. We haven't left yet!)

The only thing we are not agreed on is how strong Britain's negotiating position is. Of course the EU can survive without the UK. What an absurd statement! Who actually said that it can't? And of course the Euro can survive Brexit.

My argument has always been that if the UK goes rogue - becomes a low regulation, tax haven - neither the EU nor Euro will survive. And that the EU recognises this threat and will therefore make the appropriate concessions in the negotiations to keep the UK sweet. No point arguing this, we'll know soon enough

What we are not agreed on is the strength of the UK's negotiating position and the ability of the UK to thrive post-Brexit even if it walks with no deal. Let's see how that pans out. Time will answer all these questions.

There's no point in constantly rehashing whether it was a good idea to have a referendum and complaining about the result. It happened. We're leaving. We now have to look at where the risks and opportunities ahead are for us as individuals and for our businesses.

We can't do nuffin' about the vote. Let's be positive, look ahead, forge a new path.

 

[Clinton]

Or maybe we’ll just leave ourselves open to the free markets to decide whether we’re credible & trustworthy partners to do business with, to give credit to, or whether our credit rating should be adjusted if we don't honour our debts, having agreed with the club secretary to pay our fees later.

Refusing to pay the EU won't have an iota of impact on our credit rating. That doesn't count as a "default" for purposes of how the main credit rating agencies calculate our score. It will therefore have zero influence on our ability to tap markets or on the interest we pay.

In fact, I believe one of the agencies even said so recently. If I find the link I'll add it to the thread later.

But, as I've stated earlier, paying these liabilities is IMO the morally right thing to do.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I notice that none of the points I raised have been answered by the Brexiteers, but rather, they are answering their own questions!

Is there any practical purpose to anyone answering questions after the horse has bolted? No-one (with the exception I think of the Lib Dems) is suggesting a second referendum, an option to reflect on what’s already been decided, rightly or wrongly. To reflect now on the rights or wrongs of it is just navel-gazing.

As a result of this madness and moronically uninformed 'debate' such as it was, is that your children cannot get a job in France or Germany, or indeed any of the other 27. Mine can, yours cannot. You cannot open a company in Germany or any of the other 27 or even open a bank account, without a great deal of hassle. I can, you cannot.


Brexit has successfully denied UK subjects a huge range of opportunities for learning, business and living.


Brexit will make your children, your grandchildren and all your heirs, poorer, socially, spiritually and economically.

You make the observation yourself, @TheByre – the “debate such as it was”, past tense. It’s happened, and that decision (which some would say was wrong, or misguided) is being implemented. But as I had a German father, and have an Irish mother, my son will have EU-citizenship options open to him, regardless.

My argument has always been that if the UK goes rogue - becomes a low regulation, tax haven - neither the EU nor Euro will survive. And that the EU recognises this threat and will therefore make the appropriate concessions in the negotiations to keep the UK sweet. No point arguing this, we'll know soon enough

Not convinced by anything in this point, but we’ll know soon enough… if May (who we’re assured is fastidious in her decision-making) tests this point.

What we are not agreed on is the strength of the UK's negotiating position and the ability of the UK to thrive post-Brexit even if it walks with no deal. Let's see how that pans out. Time will answer all these questions.

And this is the actual crux of the debate now, and as @Clinton observes, only time will answer the question.



Karl Limpert

 

[Alan]

If we really wanted to leave the EU so badly, the public always has the ability to vote in MPs, and a Government, to deliver that without a referendum.

Bit of an aside, but don't you recall the conservatives were voted in on the promise to negotiate a better deal ( with Europe ) and deliver a referendum on that deal? They did ( promise the electorate a referendum ) this so that they wouldn't have another lame coalition and to win back the voters that were defecting to UKIP. The referendum was the choice of the people democratically, they could always have not voted conservatives in.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Our case is that we own 10% of the assets and that any "exit bill" needs to take into account not just liabilities but assets as well.

Dear Carl

An interesting concept. I can see this working with other expenditure. I am old enough to have paid tax for years before many of you were born. That tax went to pay for schools, hospitals, roads etc which are now used by citizens who never paid for them. Perhaps they can now pay my generation for using our assets. It would surely solve the problem of paying for care in old age and pensions.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

This will happen more and more as the power of 21st century communications gains ground.

OK, lets have democracy decided on referendums. The EU vote was a difficult decision beset by lies. How about some easier questions the great British public could easily understand and decide.

Q. Would you like to pay less tax?

Q. Would you like to see nurses properly paid?

Q. Would you like to see Bankers' bonuses capped?

Q. Would you like to see schools properly funded?

Q. Would you like to see child murderers hung?

Q. Would you like to see rapists castrated?

Q. Would you like our Prime Minister to use nuclear weapons before they are deployed against us killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process?

Q. Would you like to give young British people the rights and freedoms enjoyed by their friends who live 22 miles away across the Channel?

Pretty easy questions. Of course the British public, with their incredible wisdom and knowledge, already answered the last one and took away our freedoms and opportunities.

 

[Clinton]

I am old enough to have paid tax for years before many of you were born. That tax went to pay for schools, hospitals, roads etc which are now used by citizens who never paid for them. Perhaps they can now pay my generation for using our assets. It would surely solve the problem of paying for care in old age and pensions.

Absolutely. The day we charge you for leaving this existence, and present you with a bill for going, we'll refund your share of national assets. Please provide bank account number by return.

 

[Nochexman]

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners").

Probably a little late in the debate for a correction, but it is worth remembering that we have a long tradition of parliamentary democracy here, which has generally served us pretty well. We choose people to represent us and they are accountable to us on a regular basis.

Most of us commoners do not have the wisdom, nor especially the time to consider the great issues of the day and make the right descisions for our country. That is why we usually employ others to do it; and, if we don't like the way they do it or what they do, we have a means to get rid of them.

Our parliamentary democracy isn't perfect by any means, but it would be a stretch - particularly now - to think that in general national plebiscites are a way to achieve better outcomes.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Probably a little late in the debate for a correction, but it is worth remembering that we have a long tradition of parliamentary democracy here, which has generally served us pretty well. We choose people to represent us and they are accountable to us on a regular basis.

Most of us commoners do not have the wisdom, nor especially the time to consider the great issues of the day and make the right descisions for our country. That is why we usually employ others to do it; and, if we don't like the way they do it or what they do, we have a means to get rid of them.

Our parliamentary democracy isn't perfect by any means, but it would be a stretch - particularly now - to think that in general national plebiscites are a way to achieve better outcomes.

Exactly.

Time is a particularly good point. There are thousands of decisions to be made, both large and small, every year.

Just look at all the bills currently going through Parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/

Should we have a referendum on bread and flour regulations? What about something more complicated, like the Finance Act 2017 and all 156 pages of detail that comes along with it? https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0128/17128.pdf

If the public had to put any reasonable amount of time into informed decision making, it would take many hours per week and throw the work-life balance of the population into disarray.

Dare I say that the UK would be a much less productive and much more miserable place.

We must also accept that, just because a decision is backed by "the will of the people", it's not necessarily the best decision. In principle, it feels "right", but in reality, it may be wrong.

Volume alone does not solve decision making. Expertise, skill, debate and access to information are all far more important.

This isn't to say that the population is stupid. It's just that there's no reason why any of us would be in a position to make so many informed decisions. Should we fortify bread with folic acid? I don't know. Do I agree with what's laid out in the 2017 Finance Act? Not a clue.

A system like this would also give the media (and other influencers) far too much power. It's just too easy for them to be biased and try to warp the view of the electorate for their own gain.

It's bad enough in general elections. Just imagine how much sway they would hold if they had granular influence on every issue.

These influencers are owned by wealthy people, and as a result, we have a British press which is skewed heavily towards the right and seen as one of the most right-wing in Europe:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ght-wing-in-europe-yougov-finds-a6859266.html

I also have no doubt that the British press was one of the major reasons why the leave campaign won in the EU referendum. If you walked into any newsagents during that time, the shelves were a sea of anti-EU slogans about immigrants and sovereignty.

The prospect of the media being able to get into the minds of voters for every decision is a very scary prospect indeed.

 

[Cobby]

Exactly.

Time is a particularly good point. There are thousands of decisions to be made, both large and small, every year.

Just look at all the bills currently going through Parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/

Should we have a referendum on bread and flour regulations? What about something more complicated, like the Finance Act 2017 and all 156 pages of detail that comes along with it? https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0128/17128.pdf

If the public had to put any reasonable amount of time into informed decision making, it would take many hours per week and throw the work-life balance of the population into disarray.

Dare I say that the UK would be a much less productive and much more miserable place.

We must also accept that, just because a decision is backed by "the will of the people", it's not necessarily the best decision. In principle, it feels "right", but in reality, it may be wrong.

Volume alone does not solve decision making. Expertise, skill, debate and access to information are all far more important.

This isn't to say that the population is stupid. It's just that there's no reason why any of us would be in a position to make so many informed decisions. Should we fortify bread with folic acid? I don't know. Do I agree with what's laid out in the 2017 Finance Act? Not a clue.

A system like this would also give the media (and other influencers) far too much power. It's just too easy for them to be biased and try to warp the view of the electorate for their own gain.

It's bad enough in general elections. Just imagine how much sway they would hold if they had granular influence on every issue.

These influencers are owned by wealthy people, and as a result, we have a British press which is skewed heavily towards the right and seen as one of the most right-wing in Europe:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ght-wing-in-europe-yougov-finds-a6859266.html

I also have no doubt that the British press was one of the major reasons why the leave campaign won in the EU referendum. If you walked into any newsagents during that time, the shelves were a sea of anti-EU slogans about immigrants and sovereignty.

The prospect of the media being able to get into the minds of voters for every decision is a very scary prospect indeed.

You are one of the most level-headed and reasoned posters I've come across in recent times. Thank you for your continued input.