Support NeoGAF

[Charles Brandon]

?

 

[Mass_Pincup]

I would interpret control as the ability to put caps on migration, if required, and possibly protect certain labour markets. It does not mean that free movement must be stopped, it means it can be if necessary.

National Immigration Rules

Each EU country alone decides:
The total number of migrants that can be admitted to the country to look for work;
All final decisions on migrant applications;
Rules on long-term visas – stays for periods longer than three months; and
Conditions to obtain residence and work permits when no EU-wide rules have been adopted.

The UK could already do most of that.

 

[Syder]

"Let's just take it out if the NHS"

 

[Charles Brandon]

The UK could already do most of that.

Those are rules for non-EU migrants looking to enter the EU

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Those are rules for non-EU migrants looking to enter the EU

I misunderstood you, thought you were talking about non-EU migrants.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I think there are some contradictions here.

You say that the principal of free movement in inviolable but you admit that it is already subject to restrictions.

There is free movement, but there are no requirements to give those people benefits right away, which seems to be the line of thinking from a lot of anti-EU people.

You say that I am filling in the blanks of the referendum result and I am absolutely doing that because no-one, least of the people who voted for it, knows what that actually meant. Therefore the result should be interpreted in such a way that it meets the concerns of the voters - controls on immigration and sovereignty - without pointlessly wrecking trade. You can have both. You can have both!

But the choice was to Leave the EU. This was the thing they voted on, and the thing the UK wants to push through. And then you come complaining that the EU should give in on things that make the EU what it is, because the UK wants to leave. You can't have that, because those are contradictions.

The £60b is an opening position. It is not an objective number, it is the product of a method sure but I'm sure you could come up with dozens of different methods of calculating what the UK owes, if anything.

It is not an opening position. It is a number that was calculated according to the budget already agreed upon and the pensions that need to be paid for EU-officials for the time the UK was a member. Do you have a link with different calculations?

You say people voted to slam the door and send people away. There is no evidence for that. There is no support in the UK for sending EU migrants back at all. There was no public clamour to end immigration full stop. Control was what people wanted, that is not the same thing nor, objectively, is it entirely unreasonable.

But you did not vote for "control". You are pushing for that now, saying that was what people actually meant. If you want to twist a vote that way, you can make anything out of it. You can say it was a protest vote and the UK should stay in the EU anyway. The question was to Leave. That is the only thing we know for sure. And the only thing we can then say is the UK wants to go out of the EU, and by doing that they'll slam the door shut, they need to pay their outstanding bills and they need to stop whining.

Free movement within the EU is free movement. Letting go of that is entirely unreasonable. It is reasonable to say: let's not add more countries to the EU for now, because we don't think those countries are ready and might lead to immigration problems - which I agree with. It is not reasonable to have countries enter the union based on free movement and then say: let's not do that anymore.

If the UK is allowed to go for protectionism of their market by putting caps on certain sectors, that means all other countries should be able to do so also, and by doing that you might as well scrap the whole EU. Because free movement is one of the foundations it rests upon.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I misunderstood you, thought you were talking about non-EU migrants.

No problem.

 

[Charles Brandon]

There is free movement, but there are no requirements to give those people benefits right away, which seems to be the line of thinking from a lot of anti-EU people.


But the choice was to Leave the EU. This was the thing they voted on, and the thing the UK wants to push through. And then you come complaining that the EU should give in on things that make the EU what it is, because the UK wants to leave. You can't have that, because those are contradictions.


It is not an opening position. It is a number that was calculated according to the budget already agreed upon and the pensions that need to be paid for EU-officials for the time the UK was a member. Do you have a link with different calculations?


But you did not vote for "control". You are pushing for that now, saying that was what people actually meant. If you want to twist a vote that way, you can make anything out of it. You can say it was a protest vote and the UK should stay in the UK anyway. The question was to Leave. That is the only thing we know for sure. And the only thing we can then say is the UK wants to go out of the EU, and by doing that they'll slam the door shut, they need to pay their outstanding bills and they need to stop whining.

Free movement within the EU is free movement. Letting go of that is entirely unreasonable. It is reasonable to say: let's not add more countries to the EU for now, because we don't think those countries are ready and might lead to immigration problems. It is not reasonable to have countries enter the union based on free movement and then say: let's not do that anymore.

I think you have misunderstood me. I am not suggesting the UK stays within the EU, that cannot happen now. I talk only of our relationship following our exit.

I do not have a link to different calculations but should have that it was obvious that any number that results from a combination of agreements and treaties and whatnot could be debated endlessly based on the interpretation of the language of those treaties. I do that all day, every day on much less complex matters relating to tax law. I have no doubt you could drive a a cart and horses through the EU's calculations if you had a mind to, which wouldn't make you right but would't make the EU right either.

"Take back control" was the slogan of the official leave campaign. I think it is unreasonable to dismiss that.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Not having free movement is not compatible with a single market. If you want rid of free movement you might as well scrap the single market completely because the barriers put up in the market will stop it from being one. Regional blocs like Mercosur and the African Union are working towards a single market, and they are working towards having free movement between all member states. Free movement is not just some special snowflake EU thing.

Our government is well within its rights to cancel free movement and replace it with some work permit system or something which may or may not be easy to go through, nobody knows. But there are costs. That means no seamless free trade of the type we currently enjoy and UK citizens can't freely move to the EU after the UK leaves. I remember when I was hopeful that May would accept free movement with restrictions that we could have always done anyway for the single market membership because economy>everything. Turns out that was naive of me.

Sure, the government can make it easy for EU citizens to work in the UK with a very loose work visa system, giving you better trade deals as a result, but don't expect the full benefits of the single market to apply. I too hope the system for UK-EU movement of workers in both directions will be lax (and this will be reciprocal leading to minimum inconvenience). But still, no single market for the UK. It's fair to not enjoy the benefits of a club if you leave the club.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I think you have misunderstood me. I am not suggesting the UK stays within the EU, that cannot happen now. I talk only of our relationship following our exit.

I do not have a link to different calculations but should have that it was obvious that any number that results from a combination of agreements and treaties and whatnot could be debated endlessly based on the interpretation of the language of those treaties. I do that all day, every day on much less complex matters relating to tax law. I have no doubt you could drive a a cart and horses through the EU's calculations if you had a mind to, which wouldn't make you right but would't make the EU right either.

"Take back control" was the slogan of the official leave campaign. I think it is unreasonable to dismiss that.

The actual question was to leave the EU. The slogan does not matter, people don't vote on a slogan. That is an interpretation of a vote. And if you do that, you might as well ignore the whole vote. The leave campaign also said the NHS would get 350 million a month extra. But apparently we can pick one slogan to work with, but not another.

And the number can not be debated, if this number is based on the agreed budget of the upcoming years. That number is set. Sure, there might be 1 or 2 billion left over or a shortage, but this is not a starting position where you can go: we only pay half. That is not how government works. You can't just slash a budget after the fact like that without pissing off everyone else that now needs to pay more. So Europe should not let the UK get away with doing that.

Following the exit, you say that we still need free movement. But if you want that, you should... join the EU or EEA. Those are the simple facts. If you don't want that, we just go to regular immigration treaties and visa-free travel. Which is fine. But that will also impact British people and companies wanting to live and work in the EU.

The UK should not get free movement with caps. First because that is not free movement. And because doing that would mean we give the UK the benefits, but they are unwilling to contribute anything themselves.

 

[Charles Brandon]

The actual question was to leave the EU. The slogan does not matter, people don't vote on a slogan. That is an interpretation of a vote. And if you do that, you might as well ignore the whole vote. The leave campaign also said the NHS would get 350 million a month extra. But apparently we can pick one slogan to work with, but not another.

And the number can not be debated, if this number is based on the agreed budget of the upcoming years. That number is set. Sure, there might be 1 or 2 billion left over or a shortage, but this is not a starting position where you can go: we only pay half. That is not how government works. You can't just slash a budget after the fact like that without pissing off everyone else that now needs to pay more. So Europe should not let the UK get away with doing that.

Following the exit, you say that we still need free movement. But if you want that, you should... join the EU or EEC. Those are the simple facts. If you don't want that, we just go to regular immigration treaties and visa-free travel. Which is fine. But that will also impact British people and companies wanting to live and work in the EU.

The UK should not get free movement with caps. First because that is not free movement. And because doing that would mean we give the UK the benefits, but they are unwilling to contribute anything themselves.

Yep well, we're going in circles now, I think I've made my position clear over the several hundred posts I have made in this thread. I don't expect to change anybody's mind.

 

[Dingens]

I am (or was) a strong remainer, but with recent comments from the EU, I'm starting to feel like they can go and fuck themselves. This was a democratic vote, and instead of respecting the will of the British people, the EU wants to punish them.

It's all starting to feel like being a member of the mafia, and if you want to leave.. well you have to pay your security money. Forever.

kinda sad that the UK and some brits still try to paint themselves as the true victims. But I guess that was to be expected. There is a reason why the UK is perceived as a spoiled brat that throws a temper tantrum every time it doesn't get what it wants (from a main lander's pov at least)

 

[RenditMan]

Lets be honest, apart from the pound, things have not gone nuclear since the referendum (I think that is fair?) in fact some would argue the opposite...

Now we have not officially left yet as many will argue, but I honestly feel it wont be as bad as project fear claimed, nor will it be as good as project leave claimed...

I firmly believe it will be somewhere in the middle...and I also think there has been a softening of attitudes of remainers, and the need to watch the UK burn has calmed somewhat, like any divorce we both will do and say things we regret, but the hope is thatin the future we will both be happy.

everyone just needs a group hug

It's difficult to find a debate on this subject that's not debated in absolutes one way or another. The reality will be far more mundane and somewhere down the middle of the average argument.

 

[RenditMan]

kinda sad that the UK and some brits still try to paint themselves as the true victims. But I guess that was to be expected. There is a reason why the UK is perceived as a spoiled brat that throws a temper tantrum every time it doesn't get what it wants (from a main lander's pov at least)

The biggest problem is that ww2 was only a couple of generations ago. It was always a big ask to get the UK middle aged and over to accept fully that the EU was making laws for them.

 

[Walshicus]

The biggest problem is that ww2 was only a couple of generations ago. It was always a big ask to get the UK middle aged and over to accept fully that the EU was making laws for them.

Just a shame that they never really appreciated how much better the EU was at legislating in their interest than the fuckwits in Westminster.

 

[daviyoung]

or what, EU? gonna send the bayliffs round?

fucking do one mate

 

[witchedwiz]

or what, EU? gonna send the bayliffs round?

fucking do one mate

whooooo
make room for the tough guy.....

 

[witchedwiz]

The biggest problem is that ww2 was only a couple of generations ago. It was always a big ask to get the UK middle aged and over to accept fully that the EU was making laws for them.

oh well... understandably, uk has always seen themselves as the big boy that gets what they feel should be entitled to them, for better or for worse, and I doubt that will change anytime soon..

Just a shame that they never really appreciated how much better the EU was at legislating in their interest than the fuckwits in Westminster.

EU actually made some legislation errors during all those years, but frankly I can say that if you ask someone to point them out they would just blurt out nonsensical "uh uh" without actually pointing *what* those errors are... conversely the amount of quality of life (in direct or indirect context for the life of the single being) that have been provided by enforcing eu regulations has been incredible...
just to name one.. the eu-wide warranty law (2 years) plus all *written* law that can be possibly enforced for false advertising... consider america for example: if there's a case of false advertising, unless there's a class action, it's very unlikely that the issue will press forward to become an actual court case......

In europe we have strong policies that techncially discourage (prevents technically, but...) any cartel policy on tariffs of product//service..it's not the best solution, but by re-implementing what the romans put in place with the "delatores" we are actually tackling the issue, we just need one snitch//whistleblower and the whole cartel is hammred down... badly...
A policy like this would be *very* hard to enforce with a country-wide regulations given that most companies are now far from being country-wide, but are international companies with just a legal office in a country...

Or we can actually go on and on, but my point is...
UK citizens in gaf, in all honesty, can you say that what your government has done for you pre-EU is better than what the EU has tried to give you (or managed to give you)?
Because if you can, I'll let it go.. but general perception is that the EU has tried to improve the situation in UK as well, it's just that ultimately UK as a country has a lot of complication.. The sole fact that your whole economy is based for an absurd percent around activities in London, thus leaving country-side to just eat the scrap, is a problem in itself which your own government, your own representative failed to address...

so UK, please...

 

[ClosingADoor]

The biggest problem is that ww2 was only a couple of generations ago. It was always a big ask to get the UK middle aged and over to accept fully that the EU was making laws for them.

If the actual occupied countries of mainland Europe could get over it, I don't see what makes it more difficult for the UK.

 

[daviyoung]

If the actual occupied countries of mainland Europe could get over it, I don't see what makes it more difficult for the UK.

because two world wars and one world cup

 

[RenditMan]

If the actual occupied countries of mainland Europe could get over it, I don't see what makes it more difficult for the UK.

It's just how it is.

A lot of families saw personal loss of family members who assisted in protecting Europe from itself. Difficult to remove that from the minds of those who remember.

 

[Funky Papa]

because two world wars and one world cup

How quaint.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Come on this is clearly a big fuck you from the eu for leaving and designed to warn other countries that if you leave we will charge you. Hope the uk refuses to pay and tbh May has no choice but to refuse or else look weak.

How to destroy a countries credit rating in one easy step!

 

[daviyoung]

How quaint.

he chants it like it is

 

[Pancake Mix]

Is this in addition to our annual contribution? Because it sounds like what we're paying already.

2015 net contribution £8.5bn

8.5*6yrs=£51bn

Seems pretty close to the £48bn quoted

Right, but the figure is very debatable, it seems slightly inflated and nobody is really sure exactly where they're getting that number (well we do, they're demanding an extra year's worth of contributions or a bit extra). If Europe wants it all before trade talks start, then there won't be a trade deal, simple as that.

And if there's no trade deal...there's no incentive to pay up just to meet normal tariff walls and zero service industry access.

 

[plagiarize]

Think about this from the EU side.

If they don't make the UK pay its debts what's to stop other countries with large debts just nopeing out too?

It isn't a 'fuck you', it's something they've got little choice in. The UK owes money. Trade talks are their leverage to make sure it gets paid back.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Think about this from the EU side.

If they don't make the UK pay its debts what's to stop other countries with large debts just nopeing out too?

It isn't a 'fuck you', it's something they've got little choice in. The UK owes money. Trade talks are their leverage to make sure it gets paid back.

Right, but the UK, along with France and Germany, have always paid more than others.

Upon leaving with no likelihood of a good trade deal, why would you be in a rush to give them an inflated contribution that is higher than what you think you owe, just to most likely meet zero service industry access and full tariff walls in 2019 anyway?

Europe is not asking that amount as a 'fuck you', you're absolutely right, but they are asking a possibly inflated figure, and asking that up front when we know that 2 years isn't really enough for a trade deal, plus the UK's economic strength is its mighty service sector, which won't be getting single market access...then well, probably not in a rush to settle debts.

 

[JimiNutz]

And what if the UK doesn't pay? Seems like a lot of money to me.

 

[Tak3n]

Think about this from the EU side.

If they don't make the UK pay its debts what's to stop other countries with large debts just nopeing out too?

It isn't a 'fuck you', it's something they've got little choice in. The UK owes money. Trade talks are their leverage to make sure it gets paid back.

Greece....they are on the verge again

 

[RoyalFool]

And what if the UK doesn't pay? Seems like a lot of money to me.

We won't reap the benefits of most of the investments now, so other than pensions they can fuck right off.

 

[Pancake Mix]

And what if the UK doesn't pay? Seems like a lot of money to me.

Yeah, only a fool would pay with no guarantee of a good free trade deal, which isn't happening in a decent time-frame since it requires the consent of all 27 other member states anyways. It's not bilateral anymore, as CETA has shown.

The actual amount owed is a bit lower, and when we're talking billions...well that's a huge difference. It could be debatable whether it's even owed or not too, but that's a messy situation.

Either way, the EU isn't getting this amount of cash. Just gladly pay the pension contributions and otherwise get prepared to tighten your belts and talk to old friends like Canada, the US, South Africa, Australia, etc. and try to figure out some deals.

 

[Mr.Mike]

And what if the UK doesn't pay? Seems like a lot of money to me.

UK 10 year bonds currently yield 1.0780% and from what I can find the UK currently spends about 30 billion pounds a year servicing their debt. 48 billion pounds over 6 years is 8 billion pounds a year. The point here being that if refusing to pay causes the UK's cost of borrowing over the next 6 years to rise by more than 8 billion pounds a year they will be worse off financially then they would have been if they had paid.

Refusing to pay would almost certainly raise their cost of borrowing enough for them to end up paying more because of it, and probably a lot more too. Financially, the right choice is obvious. Politically it might be difficult.

 

[Pancake Mix]

UK 10 year bonds currently yield 1.0780% and from what I can find the UK currently spends about 30 billion pounds a year servicing their debt. 48 billion pounds over 6 years is 8 billion pounds a year. The point here being that if refusing to pay causes the UK's cost of borrowing over the next 6 years to rise by more than 8 billion pounds a year over the next 6 years they will be worse off financially then they would have been if they had paid.

Refusing to pay would almost certainly raise their cost of borrowing enough for them to end up paying more because of it, and probably a lot more too. Financially, the right choice is obvious. Politically it might be difficult.

Given for self-preservation reasons the EU is going to be very harsh, I don't honestly think paying all that up front at once (and the non-pension contributions at all) is the better choice. That is an awful lot of money just to enter talks with a near unworkable body that was barely able to make a deal with Canada after a decade, a deal that was originally going to be bilateral until the EU changed its mind and decided every member state must ratify.

It would not be good credit-wise at all, but the EU isn't really giving a choice. That is a lot of money upfront for what we know will end up being nothing. The only benefit of paying that is related to the cost of borrowing, nothing to do with EU talks that will surely break down over Gibraltar or something.

 

[RenditMan]

Think about this from the EU side.

If they don't make the UK pay its debts what's to stop other countries with large debts just nopeing out too?

It isn't a 'fuck you', it's something they've got little choice in. The UK owes money. Trade talks are their leverage to make sure it gets paid back.

If its genuinely owed money on signed agreements then I don't see why it shouldn't be paid as long as the agreements provide what they were always going to.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Given for self-preservation reasons the EU is going to be very harsh, I don't honestly think paying all that up front at once (and the non-pension contributions at all) is the better choice. That is an awful lot of money just to enter talks with a near unworkable body that was barely able to make a deal with Canada after a decade, a deal that was originally going to be bilateral until the EU changed its mind and decided every member state must ratify.

They're not paying to enter talks, they're paying a debt they owe. And it is tiny compared to the costs they will face if they default on this debt.

 

[Armaros]

Yeah, only a fool would pay with no guarantee of a good free trade deal, which isn't happening in a decent time-frame since it requires the consent of all 27 other member states anyways. It's not bilateral anymore, as CETA has shown.

The actual amount owed is a bit lower, and when we're talking billions...well that's a huge difference. It could be debatable whether it's even owed or not too, but that's a messy situation.

Either way, the EU isn't getting this amount of cash. Just gladly pay the pension contributions and otherwise get prepared to tighten your belts and talk to old friends like Canada, the US, South Africa, Australia, etc. and try to figure out some deals.

So who is going to go forward with a easy UK trade deal if the UK reneges on something that's already agreed upon? This isnt something out of nowhere, this was already set up before Brexit.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Yeah, only a fool would pay with no guarantee of a good free trade deal, which isn't happening in a decent time-frame since it requires the consent of all 27 other member states anyways. It's not bilateral anymore, as CETA has shown.

The actual amount owed is a bit lower, and when we're talking billions...well that's a huge difference. It could be debatable whether it's even owed or not too, but that's a messy situation.

Either way, the EU isn't getting this amount of cash. Just gladly pay the pension contributions and otherwise get prepared to tighten your belts and talk to old friends like Canada, the US, South Africa, Australia, etc. and try to figure out some deals.

So basically you want the UK to blackmail the EU? Oh, you want the money we owe you. Better sign a good deal!

I'm not sure the "old friends" would see that as a favorable thing, considering the EU used to be a "friend" also, but that doesn't stop the UK from screwing them over.

 

[Pancake Mix]

They're not paying to enter talks, they're paying a debt they owe. And it is tiny compared to the costs they will face if they default on this debt.

It's debatable how much is owed by contract.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/05/britain-owes-the-eu-21bn-report-claims-but-is-it-true

There are a lot of different figures. It'll be a matter of discussion bilaterally.

So who is going to go forward with a easy UK trade deal if the UK reneges on something that's already agreed upon?

Well, again, the EU is demanding a debatable figure, up front, for essentially no benefit to the UK. It's one thing to pay what you owe by contract, it's another to pay more than you signed up for when the EU has nothing to offer (because of course they won't go easy on a member state leaving, especially with the current political climate). There's no deal to be had, so paying the full amount owed could be done over the original time frame (several years) once that figure is finalised and acceptable to both parties. Again, the figure is debatable.

If it really is the final figure, then it can be paid over several years like it was originally supposed to be, without causing any harm to the EU, as let's be real, a trade deal isn't happening this decade. If it's a hard Brexit that will leave the service sector screwed (which it is looking to be), then paying this up front rather than over several years (again, if it's the true figure and not inflated) would be a fool's move.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

just to name one.. the eu-wide warranty law (2 years) plus all *written* law that can be possibly enforced for false advertising... consider america for example: if there's a case of false advertising, unless there's a class action, it's very unlikely that the issue will press forward to become an actual court case......

In europe we have strong policies that techncially discourage (prevents technically, but...) any cartel policy on tariffs of product//service..it's not the best solution, but by re-implementing what the romans put in place with the "delatores" we are actually tackling the issue, we just need one snitch//whistleblower and the whole cartel is hammred down... badly...
A policy like this would be *very* hard to enforce with a country-wide regulations given that most companies are now far from being country-wide, but are international companies with just a legal office in a country...

so UK, please...

First of all, how is a mandatory warranty for 2 years on items a negative for you? EU enforcing a mandatory 2 years warranty is a huge net gain for consumers.

You cannot have an EU-court system, it is per-country basis. If you want to sue a company you need to go through the nation's court system. Many countries have laws which are different, so EU-wide class action lawsuit is impossible. EU regulations are overwatch and requirements for the union. This is why EU strikes Microsoft on the behalf of the union as opposed to citizens.

Yes, EU tackles down cartels in addition to every other country being able to do it on their own. What is more, representatives of a particular country can escalate the investigation to the union-wide issue. The price-fixing of trucks is a marvelous example of EU hammering the cartel and further encouraged whistle-blowing by not punishing the company which snitched.

Your entire argument was that UK doesn't know problems of EU, but you don't seem to know them either.

 

[Pancake Mix]

And just in case you think I'm making this up, even the EU has made it clear that the final figure officially owed is a matter of negotiation.

While similar estimates have been circulating for months, Kern cited the sum as an EU calculation that will be presented to May once she formally initiates talks.

”The check should be around 60 billion euros, that's what the European Commission has calculated and this will be part of the negotiations," Kern said in the interview in Vienna on Thursday. ”There will be a lengthy debate about the check that has to be paid by the U.K., because 60 billion euros is a significant amount of money."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-24/theresa-may-s-tories-lash-out-at-eu-s-63-billion-brexit-bill

It's also debatable whether there'll ever be a trade deal, and if there's not, it would be no harm to the EU to have the final negotiated figure paid over several years.

It's also questionable whether the EU is still owed programme funding from the UK several years after an exit in which it won't benefit from those programmes anymore.

 

[Camp Freddie]

I think the debt will be negotiated down due to a lot of the things in the budget being scaled down due to 60 million fewer people requiring it.
But we will pay what we owe. I expect a lot of horse trading over what EU programmes the UK can keep access to until 2020 due to having already paid for it, and what rebate we get for not requiring it after 2019.
I don't expect it to be large, but just enough for both parties to save face.

My worry is that the three Brexiteers will go all d'Artagnan and try to challenge everything with a dual to the death because they're a bunch of stupid cunts high on jingoism and the smell of their own farts.

Sensible negotiation is possible, e.g. "We'll pay the research budget but you need to place some EU studies in UK universities for a transitional period". Hopefully we have some civil servants who will get BoJo, DeeDee and the disgraced former defense secretary to go and play in their room while the grown ups fix things.

 

[chromatic9]

oh well... understandably, uk has always seen themselves as the big boy that gets what they feel should be entitled to them, for better or for worse, and I doubt that will change anytime soon..


EU actually made some legislation errors during all those years, but frankly I can say that if you ask someone to point them out they would just blurt out nonsensical "uh uh" without actually pointing *what* those errors are... conversely the amount of quality of life (in direct or indirect context for the life of the single being) that have been provided by enforcing eu regulations has been incredible...
just to name one.. the eu-wide warranty law (2 years) plus all *written* law that can be possibly enforced for false advertising... consider america for example: if there's a case of false advertising, unless there's a class action, it's very unlikely that the issue will press forward to become an actual court case......

In europe we have strong policies that techncially discourage (prevents technically, but...) any cartel policy on tariffs of product//service..it's not the best solution, but by re-implementing what the romans put in place with the "delatores" we are actually tackling the issue, we just need one snitch//whistleblower and the whole cartel is hammred down... badly...
A policy like this would be *very* hard to enforce with a country-wide regulations given that most companies are now far from being country-wide, but are international companies with just a legal office in a country...

Or we can actually go on and on, but my point is...
UK citizens in gaf, in all honesty, can you say that what your government has done for you pre-EU is better than what the EU has tried to give you (or managed to give you)?
Because if you can, I'll let it go.. but general perception is that the EU has tried to improve the situation in UK as well, it's just that ultimately UK as a country has a lot of complication.. The sole fact that your whole economy is based for an absurd percent around activities in London, thus leaving country-side to just eat the scrap, is a problem in itself which your own government, your own representative failed to address...

so UK, please...

I love how everyone likes to jump up and down about London as if they know anything about the UK. Dehnus and witchedwiz seem quite bitter.

 

[Silent Chief]

Who would enforce?

Well, they have to pay as long as they are in the EU and they'll be in the EU forever if they don't agree to pay. Those negotiations will be years of fun.

 

[tuxfool]

I love how everyone likes to jump up and down about London as if they know anything about the UK. Dehnus and witchedwiz seem quite bitter.

Except for the fact that in those other nations people from outside the capital do not perpetrate economic suicide, well other than Greece.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Well, they have to pay as long as they are in the EU and they'll be in the EU forever if they don't agree to pay. Those negotiations will be years of fun.

No, that's not how it works under the Lisbon treaty.

You put in your two years notice, and after that, barring an extension agreed to by every member state (not happening), you leave.

The EU can't refuse an exit.