The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The best bit is, the UK has figured out that there's no legal obligation to pay a penny if no deal is reached. Which makes sense, why should you pay for something which you won't benefit from? This will be a high stakes game once negotiations start.

I don't think you understand what much of the money would be for. Much of the obligation involves commitments that will continue long after the UK leaves, such as their share of pension payments for former EU employees, including British ones.

Are you suggesting that the UK should renege on such commitments and if so, why would anyone bother making an agreement with them in the future? Regardless of the legality, it would be an excellent way to not only burn ones bridges with the EU, but pin ones flag to the mast of 'not to be trusted'.

[lewton]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	I don't think you understand what much of the money would be for. Much of the obligation involves commitments that will continue long after the UK leaves, such as their share of pension payments for former EU employees, including British ones. Are you suggesting that the UK should renege on such commitments and if so, why would anyone bother making an agreement with them in the future? Regardless of the legality, it would be an excellent way to not only burn ones bridges with the EU, but pin ones flag to the mast of 'not to be trusted'.

If it was me to decide, I would let the UK go without any deal and without any bill to pay.
I would also fire all British nationals working at any EU institution and stop paying the pensions for ex British EU employees.
Finally, they would be given 3 months to "make arrangements to leave the EU" or prove that they are affluent enough to stay and pay for their health insurance. If they have money we want them.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	lewton
	If it was me to decide, I would let the UK go without any deal and without any bill to pay. I would also fire all British nationals working at any EU institution and stop paying the pensions for ex British EU employees. Finally, they would be given 3 months to "make arrangements to leave the EU" or prove that they are affluent enough to stay and pay for their health insurance. If they have money we want them.

While what you suggest is over the top, if the UK refuses to honour previously agreed commitments, then the EU will most likely reciprocate and pull out of any ongoing projects prior to conclusion or terminate EU pension or insurance payments for British citizens. Either way it does not end well.

As an observation, I would note that the Brexiteers have been seeking to pursue any policy that would 'burn bridges' with the EU. I imagine it is down to a fear that in time public opinion will turn and they want to make returning to the EU impossible in the future.

	Quote:	Aeneas
	I don't think you understand what much of the money would be for. Much of the obligation involves commitments that will continue long after the UK leaves, such as their share of pension payments for former EU employees, including British ones.

I'd love to see the calculations that show how a few thousand gold plated Eurocrat pensions result in a bill for 60 billion euros.

	Quote:	Aeneas
	Are you suggesting that the UK should renege on such commitments and if so, why would anyone bother making an agreement with them in the future? Regardless of the legality, it would be an excellent way to not only burn ones bridges with the EU, but pin ones flag to the mast of 'not to be trusted'.

Why should the UK pay for something that doesn't benefit them? These commitments were made when the UK was part of the EU.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I'd love to see the calculations that show how a few thousand gold plated Eurocrat pensions result in a bill for 60 billion euros.

I never said that the 60 billion Euro figure was simply pensions. I said that much of that figure is related to existing financial commitments of which pensions was simply an example. Please pay attention and try not to offer straw men.

	Quote:
	Why should the UK pay for something that doesn't benefit them? These commitments were made when the UK was part of the EU.

Why should anyone make a commitment and then stick to it when it no longer benefits them? Because of the only way to abandon that commitment is to break it, people will stop making commitments with them.

I've no doubt that the 60 billion Euro figure has been exaggerated by the EU, but to breaking every commitment that the UK made to the EU so as to 'stick it' to Brussels, isn't going to make other nations terribly enthusiastic about making trade deals that the UK could renege on tomorrow. Not really rocket science.

[lewton]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	As an observation, I would note that the Brexiteers have been seeking to pursue any policy that would 'burn bridges' with the EU. I imagine it is down to a fear that in time public opinion will turn and they want to make returning to the EU impossible in the future.

I have the same feeling and I totally support burning any bridges because I don't want England to ever return. Scotland is another story, if they manage to get independence I am 100% for admitting them to the EU.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	I don't think you understand what much of the money would be for. Much of the obligation involves commitments that will continue long after the UK leaves, such as their share of pension payments for former EU employees, including British ones.

If I cancel my TCS or Greenpeace membership, am I still liable for the pensions of their management?

[TobiasM]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I'd love to see the calculations that show how a few thousand gold plated Eurocrat pensions result in a bill for 60 billion euros. Why should the UK pay for something that doesn't benefit them? These commitments were made when the UK was part of the EU.

Because when you have made deals, you dont renage on your deal until such a time as a new deal can be struck or your commitments have been fulfilled. The UK will be still part of the EU for two years following our exit. The UK taxpayer pays for Trident it doesn't benfit anyone much, but it cost us 40 billion pounds for 10 years of supposed security. Yet we can't afford the NHS?

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	If I cancel my TCS or Greenpeace membership, am I still liable for the pensions of their management?

If you cancel your fixed term mortgage you have to pay interest to the original finish date.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	amogles
	If I cancel my TCS or Greenpeace membership, am I still liable for the pensions of their management?

If I argue a strawman case that is completely different to what is being discussed, will I get away with it?

The answer is no. If the UK has not made commitments that go beyond its membership, then you'd be correct, but in some cases it has. For example, if a commitment has been made to fund a project, then it's irrelevant if it's going to benefit in the long term or not. It made a commitment - basically it promised it was going to pay. Legally it might be able to welsh out on that promise, but it still remains that it would have welsh ed out on a promise.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	If I argue a strawman case that is completely different to what is being discussed, will I get away with it? The answer is no. If the UK has not made commitments that go beyond its membership, then you'd be correct, but in some cases it has. For example, if a commitment has been made to fund a project, then it's irrelevant if it's going to benefit in the long term or not. It made a commitment - basically it promised it was going to pay. Legally it might be able to welsh out on that promise, but it still remains that it would have welsh ed out on a promise.

But then this should work both ways. The EU would still have to pay for projects in the UK that have been promised or commenced.

So far the remainer camp has been claiming all that will be gone immediately.

Somehow I think they're trying to interpret the rules very selectively.

The US has pulled out of TPP.
Countries have pulled out of supporting the ICC.
France left NATO and then rejoined.

In international politics there is no obligation to do anything.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	If I argue a strawman case that is completely different to what is being discussed, will I get away with it? The answer is no. If the UK has not made commitments that go beyond its membership, then you'd be correct, but in some cases it has. For example, if a commitment has been made to fund a project, then it's irrelevant if it's going to benefit in the long term or not. It made a commitment - basically it promised it was going to pay. Legally it might be able to welsh out on that promise, but it still remains that it would have welsh ed out on a promise.

I can join my local sports club. I can go to the AGM and vote to increase membership fees. I can vote for a new rule that all members have to invest a certain number of hours per week. I can then leave the club. None of that affects me. That's how clubs work.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	marton
	If you cancel your fixed term mortgage you have to pay interest to the original finish date.

Well only true for little people in CH. If your a bigger organisation you organise a swop & pay or be paid any difference.

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	I can join my local sports club. I can go to the AGM and vote to increase membership fees. I can vote for a new rule that all members have to invest a certain number of hours per week. I can then leave the club. None of that affects me. That's how clubs work.

You could also vote that members have to pay cancellation fees when they leave

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	You could also vote that members have to pay cancellation fees when they leave

But this is something different. You can't confuse commitment to ongoing projects and pensions with a cancellation fee, which if such a rule exists, is a well defined one-time sum enshrined in some piece of legislation.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	amogles
	But then this should work both ways. The EU would still have to pay for projects in the UK that have been promised or commenced.

Actually they would have to continue paying if they have undertaken to do so, within the parameters they agreed, although one would sympathize that they might also renege, in response to the UK reneging.

	Quote:
	So far the remainer camp has been claiming all that will be gone immediately.

Really. Was it the equivalent of a cross-party committee of peers or are you offering another straw man? Any eejitt can claim what they like, after all and as we can see.

	Quote:
	Somehow I think they're trying to interpret the rules very selectively.

They might be and the 60 billion figure could well be inflated. But there's a big difference between that and not "paying a penny".

	Quote:	Loz1983
	In international politics there is no obligation to do anything.

Tell us, how has such a unilateral approach worked out in the past?

	Quote:	amogles
	I can join my local sports club. I can go to the AGM and vote to increase membership fees. I can vote for a new rule that all members have to invest a certain number of hours per week. I can then leave the club. None of that affects me. That's how clubs work.

Of course if you undertake to pay a share of the cost for the new extension to the club house and having signed leave without paying that amount in full you'd still be liable and the club could sue you for the balance of monies owed.

	Quote:	amogles
	But this is something different. You can't confuse commitment to ongoing projects and pensions with a cancellation fee, which if such a rule exists, is a well defined one-time sum enshrined in some piece of legislation.

How would any of the others not be well defined? Not understanding doesn't count.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The US has left pulled out of TPP.

How many employees does a treaty have? What joint expenses were agreed upon by it's signatory countries?

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Countries have pulled out of supporting the ICC.

Whatever ICC stands for (international communication conference?), see above.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	France left NATO and then rejoined.

Wrong, France never left NATO. What they did leave and re-join was the joint military structure.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	In international politics there is no obligation to do anything.

Wrong again, you're obliged to honor your treaties, that's why they were signed to begin with.

But it's a tad difficult to enforce them internationally as contrary to people, countries don't usually surrender their monopoly of force so trying to coerce a country may ultimately result in war. But before that happens there may be a trade war that is likely to cause significant damage to the economy, aka cost, and possibly more than honoring the contract would have cost.

Having a child as a married couple and divorcing is comparable to Brexit and its costs. By procreating you agree to do your share for years to come. You may of course divorce but that doesn't relieve you from the commitment and paying your part. Brexit costs is like paying expected alimony in one lump sum payment.

	Quote:	amogles
	But this is something different. You can't confuse commitment to ongoing projects and pensions with a cancellation fee, which if such a rule exists, is a well defined one-time sum enshrined in some piece of legislation.

So is club membership. People are not countries.

[Cata1yst]

Looking at this list (below) of the house of lords I can see very little representation in line with the UK populous. 300 pounds per day to represent business, royal and political interests. 804 members and very few represent my thoughts.

I guess gongs for your mates feature strongly in the list. Along with the un-elected hereditary peers (who should immediately be removed)

I'm not quite sure how you can serve after a conviction for perjury either

Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare

Notable exceptions I'm sure there's a few more from the 804

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes - ex Social Worker
Lord Judd - former Oxfam director

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member...House_of_Lords

[J2488]

I love how one guy thinks leaving the EU is like leaving a village sports club.

Ive got a mental picture of Merkel and Hollande banging a wooden gavel on a re-purposed school desk, asking for volunteers to bake some cakes for this weekends village fete, in a thick west country accent.

This thread is comedy gold!