The E.U Commision's

Status
Not open for further replies.
You raise a good point. Text book negotiation tactic known as "storm before calm".
 
Must be followers of the Trump school of public misinformation. I wonder if they've been getting carefully target Facebook posts from the robots.
It's been reported in every single paper and news channel. Looks like they're all fake news now! :LOL:
 
Do you think that newspapers are responsible for setting government or EU policy?

Read them again.

Disregard any that say "It is estimated that..."

Look for a report that says "The EU Commission has issued an official demand"

Can you find one?
 
That's exactly my point. All they say is "...according to the Financial Times." :rolleyes: "We read the financial times for you. Here's what it said. No idea if it's legit, but we mostly copy news from other papers anyway so."
 
The FT has made some estimates of the account balances. It has described them as its estimates.

The EU has not made a demand.

So now you think that a newspaper's estimate is the same as an official demand?
 
Interestingly, the FT also says:

"Warnings of staff relocations after Brexit jump
More than a quarter of 222 financial services firms expect to move workers"

"Market share loss threatens London insurance hub"

"Hiscox plumps for Luxembourg over Malta for new EU base"

"MacKenzie heads for Sun exit in Murdoch clearout
Loyalty to former editor ends after contentious ‘gorilla’ footballer column"

"Tories seek to keep campaign spotlight on May
Strategy aimed at promoting PM’s popularity while Labour focuses on policies"

Did the red-tops also repeat those stories?
 
5d338796743e49931fca0ee9362799.jpg
 
I'm sorry that you are not equipped to tell the difference between a newspaper's estimate of account balances, and a demand for a punitive charge.

Nobody has demanded a charge or a punishment.

The anti-European campaigners are working hard to create the myth that some kind of penalty charge has been demanded. It hasn't.
 
Nobody has demanded a charge or a punishment. The anti-European campaigners are working hard to create the myth that some kind of penalty charge has been demanded. It hasn't.
Yes. I know. That's why I have been agreeing with you this whole time.
 
There is no exit fee. If there were it would be detailed in the article 50 treaty.
Absolutely correct. there is no exit fee!

The 100bn is to plug the hole in the EU's budget following the departure of the UK for the next 10 years (is my guess). Effectively they are saying we have entered in to a lease like deal where we must pay to terminate the lease early. Trouble is, the article 50 process is a termination for convenience clause, which allows us to leave. So its really more like a rolling tenancy agreement.
Totally incorrect. The amount to be paid is for existing agreed contributions that UK made for certain programmes, etc, prior to the referendum/Article 50 invocation/Actual Brexit.
This will include costs for EU employees, etc.

In addition, most papers, etc are calling Brexit a divorce. It is not a divorce, it is UK leaving a club.
The difference is, in a divorce the assets are divided among the two parties. But in leaving a club, the leaving member has no claim on any assets.
It cannot be a divorce because the EU is made up of 28 members, therefore it is more akin to a club.

Now to draw an analogy, suppose you were a member of the local golf club. The club wanted to build a new clubhouse. It asked for contributions from the members, over a period of years, to build the new clubhouse. After some years, you decided to leave the club, but there are still previously agreed contributions owing. You cannot simply walk away from that agreement, even though you are free to leave the club. Similarly, you would have no claim over the assets because you are voluntarily leaving, and the club continues to exist.

As John said, the bill has not yet been formulated, by the EU. It has been estimated by various organisations. Obviously, the more pro-Brexit organisations will inflate that estimate to paint the EU in a poor light, and to soften the real bill when it is formulated.

Back to Wobs's cognitive dissonance, if a behaviour is incongruent with an attitude/belief/value, the sufferer seeks to alleviate the dissonance. On this occasion the pro-Brexiteers are building up resentment against an imaginary future bill, so that when a lesser bill arrives the attitude/belief/value is relieved and disharmony is avoided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top