The Brexit aftermath thread

[Noradin]

Again, what ****ing gifts? Everybody is talking about the UK wanting gifts, but nobody has explained to me, so far, what those gifts actually are.

A few billion euro to begin with.
The UK has enormeous outstanding obligations that the EU has offered to take care of for them in exchange for a paltry down payment* of a fraction of the money the UK promised.

(*unaccurately and dishonestly portrayed as a "divorce bill" by the UK, and its politicans and media outlets)

- - - Updated - - -

It's led by imperialist dicks I haven't elected and can't remove. The president of the commission representing Denmark is a ghastly woman whose party never got above 15% of the vote in anything bar a regional election. It's ****ing pathetic, and insulting my age doesn't change any of this.

If you are of age and still didn't get to vote then that is on your nation state, not on the EU.
Since all member states of the EU are sovereign nations the EU left the details of the organisation of the voting process up to the member states.
Unfortunately some botched it (like the UK), but most did an adequate job. If you didn't get a say, maybe show up for the vote next time?

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing wrong with wage devaluation in times of crisis. Canada did it, Iceland did it, Germany pursued such policy for a decade and they even weren't in a crisis and the even the EU pushed such a policy during the banking crisis. Criticizing Greek or any other nation if it decides to pursue such path with inflation is rank hypocrisy. Also, I'd like to add that we wouldn't even havr this discussion if Germany decided to do a proper bailout of the Greece economy.

Yes, but what you are calling for is an uncontrolled wage devaluation down to zero.
(The controlled version is called "austerity", it is when you are still able to priorize what is most important so people don't starve instead of simply turning everything over to the rich (and foreign banks) and hope for the best.)

- - - Updated - - -

You know i actually agree - they should have just bailed them out wholly - but i'm not German so it wouldn't be my money i would be giving away. At the end of the day, Greece behaved terribly irresponsibly and were given a choice, it wasn't a nice choice but it was a choice, they choose to not default.
Want to know why? - because the voters actually know that a return of the drachma would only benefit the elites, and would screw them over.

Geek politicans would probably have taken that as an invitation to crash their economy again, and harder this time, secure in the knowledge that Germany would have their back. That would have made the situation in Greece even worse in the long run.

[Pann]

A few billion euro to begin with.
The UK has enormeous outstanding obligations that the EU has offered to take care of for them in exchange for a paltry down payment* of a fraction of the money the UK promised.

(*unaccurately and dishonestly portrayed as a "divorce bill" by the UK, and its politicans and media outlets)

What is dishonest or inaccurate about calling the UK's financial settlement with the EU a 'divorce bill'? Two parties are going their separate ways after a long partnership and their are financial obligations that need paying for. It seems quite accurate to describe the bill for the outstanding financial commitments as a divorce bill to me.

And how has the EU offered to take care of the UK's obligations? Did you mean they have offered to take care of them in exchange for money equal the cost of these obligations (you know the UK paying for the obligations)?

[Noradin]

What is dishonest or inaccurate about calling the UK's financial settlement with the EU a 'divorce bill'? Two parties are going their separate ways after a long partnership and their are financial obligations that need paying for. It seems quite accurate to describe the bill for the outstanding financial commitments as a divorce bill to me.

Because it is not a bill incured for the divorce.
That wording implies the UK pays to get to leave while in fact it is money the UK gives the EU in exchange for the EU assuming a much bigger debt of the UK in their stead.
It is the UK that gains money in that exchange, not the EU.

And yes, the EU will take over those outstanding obligations in exchange for a partial payment by the UK.

Just look at how the "divorce bill" is commonly used by Brexiteers to confuse and mislead.
They imply that it is not something that is a sum of outstanding obligations of the UK, but something that was invented just to "punish" them and people buy it because their instinctive understanding of what a "divorce bill" should be misleads them.

[Pann]

A divorce bill is an endowment granted to the financially weaker party so that they can maintain their quality of living after the divorce. What is being settled in these negotiations is the amount of the obligations the UK has agreed to undertake under the current and past budgets reduced by their share in assets that will remain in the EU's control after their exit; it is an entirely different concept to a divorce.

What? A divorce bill is nothing of the sort. It is essentially a bill that represents a the monies owed by both parties to each other and joint financial commitments to third parties at the time of separation. The monies owed may include future commitments to maintain the standard of living of one of the partners.

A bill is a written statement of money owed for goods and/or services. The UK and EU are parting ways, getting divorced so to speak (in a slightly hyperbolic way), therefore I see nothing wrong with describing the statement of money owed by the UK as a divorce bill.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it is not a bill incured for the divorce.
That wording implies the UK pays to get to leave while in fact it is money the UK gives the EU in exchange for the EU assuming a much bigger debt of the UK in their stead.
It is the UK that gains money in that exchange, not the EU.

And yes, the EU will take over those outstanding obligations in exchange for a partial payment by the UK.

Just look at how the "divorce bill" is commonly used by Brexiteers to confuse and mislead.
They imply that it is not something that is a sum of outstanding obligations of the UK, but something that was invented just to "punish" them and people buy it because their instinctive understanding of what a "divorce bill" should be misleads them.

Only if you're looking for an issue where there is none.

Does it? The press and politicians have been quite clear that the bill is to cover our outstanding financial commitments.

How does the UK gain money when it is paying money, that makes no sense.

The UK will pay for its outstanding commitments that is not the EU taking over its obligations. It seems you issue with accuracy is a one way street.

Some Brexiteers are misrepresenting as a punishment however they are a minority and I fail to see how your misrepresentation that the EU is taking over the UK's commitments for a partial payment is any different.

[Noradin]

How does the UK gain money when it is paying money, that makes no sense.

When they have to offer only partial payment of the debts the EU assumes for them in exchange then the UK effectively gains money from the EU.
Basic maths.

[Mittens]

A few billion euro to begin with.
The UK has enormeous outstanding obligations that the EU has offered to take care of for them in exchange for a paltry down payment* of a fraction of the money the UK promised.

(*unaccurately and dishonestly portrayed as a "divorce bill" by the UK, and its politicans and media outlets)

- - - Updated - - -



If you are of age and still didn't get to vote then that is on your nation state, not on the EU.
Since all member states of the EU are sovereign nations the EU left the details of the organisation of the voting process up to the member states.
Unfortunately some botched it (like the UK), but most did an adequate job. If you didn't get a say, maybe show up for the vote next time?

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, but what you are calling for is an uncontrolled wage devaluation down to zero.
(The controlled version is called "austerity", it is when you are still able to priorize what is most important so people don't starve instead of simply turning everything over to the rich (and foreign banks) and hope for the best.)

- - - Updated - - -



Geek politicans would probably have taken that as an invitation to crash their economy again, and harder this time, secure in the knowledge that Germany would have their back. That would have made the situation in Greece even worse in the long run.

Using inflation to decrease wages during times of economic downturn is not some unknown thing. In fact, its a tool most if not all nations have used or continue to use to fight sticky wages and its one of the first things they teach you in either econ 101 or macro 101. And its not uncontrolled its literally a question of money supply which the Government can control. I will keep saying this, criticizing Greece or any other nation for pursuing such a policy is hipocrisy, especially coming from Germans whose government pursued a similar policy for more than a decade and as a result the wages of the working class have stagnated or flat out decreased sometimes.

[Noradin]

Using inflation to decrease wages during times of economic downturn is not some unknown thing. In fact, its a tool most if not all nations have used or continue to use to fight sticky wages and its one of the first things they teach you in either econ 101 or macro 101. And its not uncontrolled its literally a question of money supply which the Government can control. I will keep saying this, criticizing Greece or any other nation for pursuing such a policy is hipocrisy, especially coming from Germans whose government pursued a similar policy for more than a decade and as a result the wages of the working class have stagnated or flat out decreased sometimes.

What was proposed for Greece was "bankrupty" not a slight inflation.
And yes, inflation is a tool used by nations (read: those in power) to stealthily take from the poor and the lower middle class money they already earned.
Just because it is often used does not make it morally good.

[Triks]

Using inflation to decrease wages during times of economic downturn is not some unknown thing. In fact, its a tool most if not all nations have used or continue to use to fight sticky wages and its one of the first things they teach you in either econ 101 or macro 101. And its not uncontrolled its literally a question of money supply which the Government can control. I will keep saying this, criticizing Greece or any other nation for pursuing such a policy is hipocrisy, especially coming from Germans whose government pursued a similar policy for more than a decade and as a result the wages of the working class have stagnated or flat out decreased sometimes.

Honestly, after spending time on the Classic forums I'd take yours and @dribbles 's nonsense any day of the week.

[Pann]

When they have to offer only partial payment of the debts the EU assumes for them in exchange then the UK effectively gains money from the EU.
Basic maths.

The UK will pay its share of the EU's financial commitments, unless of course you know something that no-one else does, the UK is not gaining money by settling its accounts. For someone moaning about dishonesty you don't seem to be all that bothered about a painting an accurate picture of what is happening.

[Slant]

What is dishonest or inaccurate about calling the UK's financial settlement with the EU a 'divorce bill'? Two parties are going their separate ways after a long partnership and their are financial obligations that need paying for. It seems quite accurate to describe the bill for the outstanding financial commitments as a divorce bill to me.

And how has the EU offered to take care of the UK's obligations? Did you mean they have offered to take care of them in exchange for money equal the cost of these obligations (you know the UK paying for the obligations)?

A divorce bill implies paying someone off so they won't make a fuss over the separation of properties, a sort of bribe if you will. This isn't about separation of properties and Britain paying us off for it. We're taking our stuff (the bank and pharmaceutical institutions) out of Britain anyway. This isn't a quid pro quo situation. The whole analogy is faulty to begin with. But it's simple and you can properly bitch and whinge about it, because that's what you do in divorces. It's almost expected that you'd squabble over pennies and possessions. This isn't like that. The EU and the UK are not two people that can't control their emotions.

The EU has accounted for the obligations towards the UK in that calculation. That's why the estimate is "only" €100bn. Did you think the EU would just calculate what the UK promised and then go "Here, gimme!" without acknowledging that money flows the other way around, too? This sum is including what the EU owes the UK.

- - - Updated - - -

What? A divorce bill is nothing of the sort. It is essentially a bill that represents a the monies owed by both parties to each other and joint financial commitments to third parties at the time of separation. The monies owed may include future commitments to maintain the standard of living of one of the partners.

A bill is a written statement of money owed for goods and/or services. The UK and EU are parting ways, getting divorced so to speak (in a slightly hyperbolic way), therefore I see nothing wrong with describing the statement of money owed by the UK as a divorce bill.

So you're now making up your own definitions to suit your argument? Here's the only definition that Merriam-Webbster offers:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...20of%20divorce

Definition of bill of divorce

Jewish law
: a written document prepared according to prescribed form and given by the husband to his wife by which the marriage relation is dissolved — called also get

So, no, you do not get to use random words to stimulate one emotion and then when someone points out they are factually incorrect define them as something completely different.

[Pann]

A divorce bill implies paying someone off so they won't make a fuss over the separation of properties, a sort of bribe if you will. This isn't about separation of properties and Britain paying us off for it. We're taking our stuff (the bank and pharmaceutical institutions) out of Britain anyway. This isn't a quid pro quo situation. The whole analogy is faulty to begin with. But it's simple and you can properly bitch and whinge about it, because that's what you do in divorces. It's almost expected that you'd squabble over pennies and possessions. This isn't like that. The EU and the UK are not two people that can't control their emotions.

The EU has accounted for the obligations towards the UK in that calculation. That's why the estimate is "only" €100bn. Did you think the EU would just calculate what the UK promised and then go "Here, gimme!" without acknowledging that money flows the other way around, too? This sum is including what the EU owes the UK.

No, it does not. I have no idea what you are going on about or how it relates in anyway to anything I have written. Do you want to try again without resorting to hyperbole, strawman arguments and insults?

- - - Updated - - -

So, no, you do not get to use random words to stimulate one emotion and then when someone points out they are factually incorrect define them as something completely different.

What has Jewish Law got to do with anything related to the UK leaving the EU? Even for you that is utter nonsense!

[Slant]

No, it does not. I have no idea what you are going on about or how it relates in anyway to anything I have written. Do you want to try again without resorting to hyperbole, strawman arguments and insults?

- - - Updated - - -

What has Jewish Law got to do with anything related to the UK leaving the EU? Even for you that is utter nonsense!

Ok, I'll put it simply. It's not a divorce bill. Stop uttering nonsense and bear the consequences of your actions like a man. Stop crying like a baby. That make more sense to you? Is that in any way unclear? You can call it Mickey Mouses's Brithday Party Bill for all I care, but next time you promise some people money to invest, how about you stick to your word?

Or is cheating Brit the new slogan for the UK outside the EU? Dishonesty doesn't really suit you.

[Pann]

Ok, I'll put it simply. It's not a divorce bill. Stop uttering nonsense and bear the consequences of your actions like a man. Stop crying like a baby. That make more sense to you? Is that in any way unclear? You can call it Mickey Mouses's Brithday Party Bill for all I care, but next time you promise some people money to invest, how about you stick to your word?

Or is cheating Brit the new slogan for the UK outside the EU? Dishonesty doesn't really suit you.

What are you on about? It is a bill that is the result of a separation of two parties, calling it a divorce bill is an accurate description which is easily written in a headline and easily understood by the reader. Sometimes things are just what they are.

I am not the one getting upset by the phrase 'divorce bill' so I am not sure why you think I might be "crying like a baby" or why you cannot communicate like an adult. I have not promised anything to anyone so I have no idea why you think I should stick to my word nor have I at any point in time advocated that UK not fulfil its obligations to the EU.

Your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

[Acidbaron]

Can't believe you are arguing about the name of the bill.

In other news! Important week coming up, The UK has to provide an answer for the border problem if they fail to satisfy the EU there will be no more trade talks in 2017.

[Pann]

Can't believe you are arguing about the name of the bill.

In other news! Important week coming up, The UK has to provide an answer for the border problem if they fail to satisfy the EU there will be no more trade talks in 2017.

To be honest neither can I. I wish I'd let them get on with the silly little conspiracy.

I can't see how the Irish border can be solved with the current government stance. May has backed herself into a corner and there appears to be no way out.

[Slant]

What are you on about? It is a bill that is the result of a separation of two parties, calling it a divorce bill is an accurate description which is easily written in a headline and easily understood by the reader. Sometimes things are just what they are.

I am not the one getting upset by the phrase 'divorce bill' so I am not sure why you think I might be "crying like a baby" or why you cannot communicate like an adult. I have not promised anything to anyone so I have no idea why you think I should stick to my word nor have I at any point in time advocated that UK not fulfil its obligations to the EU.

Your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes. Clickbait. We know. That's what we're saying the entire time. It's the reason why many Brexiteers have a hard time understanding reality. Because anything beyond a headline is too confusing for them. That is the reason why we are telling you to stop misnaming things just to generate attention. That's why we keep having to explain that this isn't a divorce bill and the EU isn't being a big ol' meanie for asking money just to allow Britain out. This is simply a preexisting obligation that the UK wants to renege. Calling it a divorce bill doesn't open it up for discussion or negotiation any more than accusing the EU of "extorting" the UK does.

I don't have a big interest in your emotional state, but usually when people are this vehement about semantic trickery, it is a good sign that they know what the real issue is about and that they know that they don't have an actual point to make. I wonder what the case is with you?

[Pann]

Yes. Clickbait. We know. That's what we're saying the entire time. It's the reason why many Brexiteers have a hard time understanding reality. Because anything beyond a headline is too confusing for them. That is the reason why we are telling you to stop misnaming things just to generate attention. That's why we keep having to explain that this isn't a divorce bill and the EU isn't being a big ol' meanie for asking money just to allow Britain out. This is simply a preexisting obligation that the UK wants to renege. Calling it a divorce bill doesn't open it up for discussion or negotiation any more than accusing the EU of "extorting" the UK does.

I don't have a big interest in your emotional state, but usually when people are this vehement about semantic trickery, it is a good sign that they know what the real issue is about and that they know that they don't have an actual point to make. I wonder what the case is with you?

It is not clickbait. It conveys an easily understood message in few words this is not clickbait. Nor is that what was being said the entire time.

I don't think you are in any position to tell anyone what to do nor does it appear that you are well informed enough to explain, well... anything to anyone.

I guess after two attempts that you are incapable of communicating without hyperbole, insults or strawmans. It is no wonder Dribbles finds it so easy to push your buttons. Grow up!

- - - Updated - - -

On a more serious but worrying note a recent survey found that most respondents believe that the exit bill is the result of the EU trying to punish the UK; https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3708926.html

[ranzino]

....
- - - Updated - - -

On a more serious but worrying note a recent survey found that most respondents believe that the exit bill is the result of the EU trying to punish the UK; https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3708926.html

did nobody told them UK will have to pay such sums regardless of any trade deal results ? if those britons think it's sort of a bribe: sorry, you are not the brightest candle on the cake.
i wonder what is on the table tomorrow in the meeting May+Juncker.

[Pann]

did nobody told them UK will have to pay such sums regardless of any trade deal results ? if those britons think it's sort of a bribe: sorry, you are not the brightest candle on the cake.
i wonder what is on the table tomorrow in the meeting May+Juncker.

Did you not see the bus?

[Deleted]

did nobody told them UK will have to pay such sums regardless of any trade deal results ?

well first remainers told them - then it was project fear.
Then Barnier told them, then it was a 'negotiating position'
Now it's the price to pay for a FTA.
Maybe next year it will be what it is, the premature payment of long-term liabilities.