Those sums aren't some arbitrarily thought up "exit fees", it's regular funding that has been decided on and committed to years ago.

If the UK wanted to avoid that they should have exited somewhere in the future, outside of the current budgetary periods.

Oh but they are, because they ignore the things that the UK has already paid for! We could for example calculate exactly how many miles of Ireland's EU-funded road building projects are actually "owned" by the UK based on our contribution. Should we be entitled to charge Ireland tolls for those sections of roads too?

If Britain refuses to pay what the rEU decides is fair, it will have a very poor position for the trade negotiations which follow.

(I'm not paying to read the Telegraph, but "admit" in the headline is loaded language, and intentionally missing the point.)

I hate to admit it, but May and Davis should absolutely refuse to play ball. They should agree to terms they think are fair here, and if the E.U. doesn't go along, prepare for a really hard brexit. Which of course means that they'll capitulate.

Worst case, we go to WTO tariffs. The effect of that in theory is that EU imports to the UK will reduce, as they become more expensive relative to the same goods from non-EU countries (note that our tariffs to non-EU countries will reduce post Brexit).

UK exports to the EU will also reduce for the same reason. However, given that we're a net importer it should be clear who is in the worst position.

If the UK can sign a couple of decent trade deals with large economies like India, USA, China then we won't be worried about the EU trade at all.

The UK doesn't even have the bureaucracy anymore, the capable negotiators to conduct more than a few smaller or maybe one big trade deal.

The deals between the EU and Switzerland took more than a decade. And Switzerland didn't poison the atmosphere.

Additionally, the US aren't in a big hurry. Trump said otherwise while he was campaigning, but now he has already made clear tzhat a trade deal with the EU is a priority and the UK will have to wait (after Merkel had to tell him ten times that Germany cannot and will not negotiate a separate trade deal with the US).

I wish the UK the best, but I am very much in favor of us playing hardball. It's fascinating to watch the UK's non-strategy, a bit like a bit car crash. You have guilty feelings about stopping and staring, but you just cannot help it.

I think you overestimate how long it takes to sign a unilateral trade deal when the parties want to make it happen. The reason the EU trade deals take so long is that 28 countries have to agree on the EU side (which will indeed be a problem for Brexit, but hardly the UK's fault).

Non strategy? As previously stated, we have a net trade deficit with the EU and are the EU's biggest export destination. Do you really think BMW group etc are going to want to stop selling cars to the UK?

Also as previously pointed out any import/export detriment to the UK from increased tariffs will be offset by the corresponding tariff reduction when trading with the rest of the world. That's not the case for the EU.

That's without considering the money we'll save on contributing to the EU budgets.

Ah, the "throw your steering wheel out the window" strategy in "chicken". Greece tried this. It didn't work.

What sort of "capitulation" do you expect? The EU have already said that any deal cannot be allowed to be better than EU membership (which is kind of obvious). Would "hard Brexit" include deporting the 3m EU nationals in the UK? How do you expect that to work out?

Well, so do we all, so why are we doing this Brexit thing again?

Many of the really bad potential outcomes are truly within British control, such as refusing to guarantee residency to current EU residents.

Hasn't the British leadership been saying all the time that they want a mutual agreement to guarantee residency? Of course they cannot give a unilateral guarantee, such an agreement is needed. It's the EU that's acting stupid here.

It's absolutely clear that a deal between EU and Britain will involve mutual agreement to allow current resident to stay, both ways. Handling future residencies may then be different.

I trust this so much that I'll support my kid to start in a university in UK this fall, and the Brexit outcome will likely be seen during his studies. I'm certain that his studies won't be interrupted because of residency issues.

The EU has already offered an agreement to May, but she refused -- it guaranteed more rights (existing rights) than she wanted.

It's also not at all clear who will be able to stay. Students? Pensioners? Unemployed people? Family members? Seasonal workers?

My colleague's daughter will be studying elsewhere this autumn. She was interested in a British university, but her parents didn't want the risk of international fees in the future.

So .. how, specifically, plausibly, is this going to work? What would be the main industries involved here? To whom are we going to export that we don't currently? Does this extra-EU UK include Northern Ireland? Scotland What does the border with the Republic of Ireland look like? What happens to the EU nationals already here? What happens to the British nationals in the EU?

I'm not asking for a crystal ball, I'm asking for a plan, which has been conspicuously missing. It really ought to be in the Conservative manifesto, but isn't yet.

Plenty of countries seem to find other countries to export to without being in the EU.

I would expect NI to remain in the UK for a while yet. Given that we managed to bring a terrible hundreds of years long conflict to peace, surely we have the capacity to find a solution to this issue also.

If Scotland chooses independence I wish them good luck. I think it will be a shame, but Scotland is beautiful and I will still visit, and I hope Scots will still feel welcome in whatever remains of the UK. I don't understand why the break up of the UK should be thought of as so terrifying. It's not like Hadrian's wall would be going back up.

I'd expect some kind of arrangement to be reached on expats because forced repatriation would be terrible PR on both sides. That said, the EU has more to lose on this issue as there are far more EU citizens in the UK than the reverse, and these EU citizens in the UK are mainly of working age, and the EU cannot provide enough employment as it is (hence these EU citizens coming to the UK for work).

I agree it would have been better for the government to have a plan. There was a considerable degree of complacency that there would be a victory for Remain. Clearly there are many issues to be resolved, but I think it's a little premature to write off the UK.

But the cause of this issue is not due to being a member of the EU; other member states have more balanced economies. Can you explain what has prevented successive UK governments from addressing this imbalance, yet will now be resolved by Brexit?

I don't believe it is possible to provide a plan that will satisfy people who want to remain in the EU, and I believe that people who want to remain in the EU and are asking for a plan know this well.

You're not going to get the plan you want. A vague overview of goals is the best you can hope for, and exactly what you've been given.

https://www.planforbritain.gov.uk/information-leaving-eu/ https://www.planforbritain.gov.uk/12-negotiating-objectives/

Let me guess. Not enough detail?

the prime minister would be out within hours and would be replaced by someone who would refuse to pay it

They are, actually:

1) The number being cited keeps changing (upwards)

2) When asked how they calculated those figures, and what the legal basis was, the Commission said it wasn't going to tell you.

There is a useful analysis of what's going on here:

https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/pb_barker_brexit_...

The EU president is taking a rough stance with the UK to make an example out of it.

The people of Britain where split 52% - 48%. Hardly a clear mandate politicians make it to be.

Present and former industrial workers basically all voted leave, while knowledge workers and finance voted remain.

What is telling is how the former class' way of life was ravaged first by thatcher's union busting, and then by management (under pressure from finance) either moving production abroad, or shipping cheap workers in.

Knowledge workers, particularly the kind that is frequenting this very site, have a much easier time moving around as the needs or desires require. Especially as the market segment prefer younger employees, unlikely to be "burdened" by family and such.

Do you have a source for that claim?

According to The Australian:

"Leave was backed by almost two-thirds of those considered “working class and non-workers”, meaning skilled manual workers through to those with lower grade jobs, pensioners or welfare dependants."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/brexit-who-vot...

Your original comment was about mandate; that is what I will be voting for.

Yes, it is. The commission have said article 50 is reversible, and intermediate arrangements can be indefinite. One party is campaigning for another referendum. And so on. Your original comment was about mandate; that is what I will be voting for."

I have no problem with that.

I think it would be very interesting to be able to identify "voting blocks" and voting patterns on HN. I'm not saying HN should implement that, but it could make for an interesting experimental feature for forum software.

Europe has been bluntly honest about this. They've said that the UK leaving the single market will hurt them, but they're bigger than the UK and the UK will hurt more. They've also pointed out that they can't give the UK a soft landing, as they need to show that leaving the EU is not without consequences; there's a few states thinking of departing, and if departing is painless, why wouldn't they?

Remember that the EU isn't just about the fat cats in Brussels. It's also about bringing the people together. Europe has historically been the most divisive and warlike continent, with neighbours at each others' throats since records began. You only need to go back to the 90s to see a genocide between europeans who looked the same as each other, and it's within living memory that Europe gave us the worst war of all time and the Holocaust. But 'bendy bananas' is worth it, right?

You've just described an abusive relationship. The EU should make people want to be in it, not afraid of leaving it. Are other EU member states OK with being bullied and threatened in this manner?

"Remember that the EU isn't just about the fat cats in Brussels. It's also about bringing the people together. Europe has historically been the most divisive and warlike continent, with neighbours at each others' throats since records began..."

The creation of the EU may or may not have helped to bring peace in the beginning, but there's no reason to think it has anything to do with maintaining peace today. We have the UN, NATO, and the unimaginable destructive power of modern weaponary keeping the peace between nations in Europe today. Heck, even the "World shrinking" power of the Internet probably plays a bigger part these days.

In an ideal world, I would like all EU countries to merge into one Federal Republic, like US, where UK trying to leave would be no less ridiculous than Silesia trying to leave Poland or Oregon trying to leave US. Yes, they all can - but it doesn't make the idea any less stupid.

You are imagining things - there's no real separatist movement in Silesia, those who campaign for "independence", are just doing it as a practical joke, the same way some people in US declare their religion as "Jedi" and have some meet-ups, local fan groups, etc. Plus, there's only few hundred, maybe a thousand of them.

Please, do not give HN community the wrong impression that they are a real thing.

I mean, what's your main argument here, I feel like you haven't even addressed my main point?

Silesia is nothing like Catalonia - I know that because I live there (Silesia, I mean). There's no real support for the separatists ideas, because at the end of the day Silesians are not really that different from Poles - except maybe that they talk with slight accent and have a dozen or two of words borrowed from German. The concept of them demanding autonomy is as alien to me as the Switzerland demanding access to the Atlantic Ocean coast :)

EDIT: to be clear, I have nothing against granting them autonomy. In fact I think that getting rid of Silesia would solve most of Poland's economic problems :)

I never said their demands weren't ridiculous, but they do exist. I was expressing a view that countries wanting to leave EU should be seen with the same ridicule as Silesia wanting to leave Poland(as small and insignificant that number of people is). In an ideal world at least.

May or may not? Care to point out the last war between EU members?

Just because the EU happened to exist during a period of peace, does not mean it is the reason for it. There was a little thing called World War 2 that may also have played a part.

If you take out the 'first world' bit, then yes, there's been plenty of war between democracies, including World War I: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

I think my point stands, it's pretty rare for democracies to go to war. If you take the example of WW1, I doubt many people would consider Germany to have been a democracy in our modern understanding of the word.

Anyway where's your evidence that the EU somehow prevents war?

There's nothing to stop the EU going to war with someone else (when they get a military) for starters.

That says something truly horrible about the EU as an institution - that, by the admission of its leaders, what they think will continue to hold it together in the future is threats and intimidation.

Presumably this is because they intend to enact more Weimar-style tactics like they did to Greece and Cyprus and they think that the consequent impetus to leave across the EU will only strengthen.

The fact that they've been clear, up front and honest about this and May is in denial about it doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

If you choose to go it alone, then why shouldn't the union say 'business is business', and do the standard thing in business: hardball. Use your size to squeeze the best possible deal for yourself. The UK 'wanted' out, and that's what 'out' gets you.

That sounds awfully... federalist. If that's the best reasoning they can give for staying, then better to leave.

There's already plenty of Nazis in Britain. "Britannia rules", "Destroy the fascist/socialist/capitalist EU" (yeah, make up your mind please), "kick out the foreigners".

Remove the EU oversight and they can do whatever they want.

If you want to criticise people for these traits then do so, but using "Nazi" as a snarl word does nothing to back up your point. If you are arguing that there are many actual Nazis in the UK, I'm fairly skeptical but open to believing you if you have the data to back up your position.

No, it's not. Just look at what happened to the AfD in Germany - first they were just euro-critical nationalists, and not even three years later they have open holocaust denials in the front row (http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/afd-politiker-designi...).

Add to this the countless other antisemites, supporters of right-wing terrorists like PEGIDA - Petr Bystron, leader of AfD Bayern, calls for the AfD being a "shield" for Pegida and Identitäre Bewegung, while Heinz Meyer, leader of Pegida München, is under suspicion of founding a terrorist group - the road from nationalism to outright nazism and terrorism is VERY short.

Would you bet on this still being the case in four years? With Bannon (of Breitbart "fame") and friends in the government, plus all the open xenophobia and what I can only summarize as "politics for old white men"... the Republicans have always been right-wing but after 8 years of opposing Obama (including the rise of the Tea Party) they've went very far to the right already.

For what it's worth, some of the most vocal Trump supporter base (especially in the Internet, /pol etc.) are outright Nazis. And no, I don't consider smearing swastikas as "for the lulz" but as open worshipping of Nazism instead.

I wouldn't take anything that comes out of 4chan seriously, as they're known for intentionally riding the line of Poe's law. In the same way that I assume /r9k/ isn't full of obese autistic children who abuse their mothers, I assume /pol/ isn't full of fervent Nazis who hate Jews.

Well, you don't take 4chan seriously... but unfortunately e.g. police tends to do so, just look at the countless swattings. Or the media, look at the Macron fake leaks or the massive hate campaigns which now mostly originate on 4chan since reddit has banned doxxing outright or dedicated hate places like fatpeoplehate.

> and doesn't appear to me to be a racist, despite near-constant insistence from journalists that he is

Uh. Have you never watched a Trump speech, or the executive orders from Trump and their fallout?! Donald Trump is at the very least an open racist, with some of his actions leaning towards Nazism.

> Trump received a larger share of the AA and hispanic vote than Romney

No one forbids people to vote for Trump even if the consequences will directly harm themselves. In fact, anyone who voted for Trump except the rich could have known that he/she voted for a racist who will do anything to harm them if it suits his way.

> Bannon (and Breitbart in general) are not Nazis

Breitbart is a frontrunner of pushing antisemitic and xenophobic propaganda. You'll find interesting parallels between Breitbart pieces and the realities of Nazi Germany. Trust us Germans on this one, it appears that due to our history we spot the parallels easier than others.

Also, Nazism did not start with Auschwitz, it began with xenophobia, us-vs-them (i.e. us-vs-jews) divisive rhetoric (which is now rebranded as us-vs-muslims/us-vs-"illegal immigrants"), propaganda (as "fake news" were called at the time), anti-"communist" fights, plus a healthy dose of imperialism ("Lebensraumerweiterung"). The only thing which the Trump presidency and his supporters lack currently is the aggressive imperialism, but he's doing some "progress" in that area.

Sure, I doubt the Republican party will be aligned with Nazism or anything like it, but there are new elements (from Trump's side) that want to push it in that direction. I don't think they'll succeed in the long-term, but the risk is there.

>Bannon (and Breitbart in general) are not Nazis

Nazism/National Socialism refers to a specific German ideology. Of course neither Brannon nor Breitbart are aligned with Nazism. But that's obviously not what the parent post was trying to directly say.

Breitbart and Bannonism promotes a very ethno-nationalistic agenda (among other agendas), with elements of various philosophies from the past century. It'd be very ignorant to just call them all Nazis or fascists, but also ignorant to say that because they're not Nazis they don't share any of their views.

Breitbart and Bannon are:

* Very anti-immigration from countries that don't have a high percentage of whites (see Bannon's comments on Asian immigrants, and his and Breitbart's comments on Muslim immigration, Mexican immigration, etc.)

* Extremely pro-Christianity and anti-Islam

* Pro-Zionist, as part of what Bannon sees as some sort of global "war" between Judeo-Christianity and Islam

* Anti-American (or non-conservative) Jews (see Bannon's alleged comments to his wife about not wanting his kids in a school with so many Jews and "too many Hanukkah books", and far-right nationalist Jews like David Horowitz posting articles attacking American Jews like Bill Kristol for not being sufficiently pro-Israel and pro-Trump)

What do you call an ideology like that? No it's not Nazism, but it's ultra-nationalistic and sees a large portion of the world population as essentially being lesser than the populations of predominantly-white countries. Bannon clearly wants America to have some degree of ethnic purity, which is similar to far-right ideologies like the Nazis'.

To be clear, that oversimplifies Bannon's beliefs, as he certainly has a strong economic-nationalist, protectionist, and authoritarian ideology as well. But between almost anyone else who's held so much power in the White House, he's probably the closest we've had so far to a Nazi, even if he absolutely is not a Nazi.

>I wouldn't take anything that comes out of 4chan seriously, as they're known for intentionally riding the line of Poe's law. In the same way that I assume /r9k/ isn't full of obese autistic children who abuse their mothers, I assume /pol/ isn't full of fervent Nazis who hate Jews.

This is an argument Milo and others use a lot. That it's all just ironic or post-post-post-post ironic trolling and most of them don't really believe the shitposts they make. And /pol/ (and /new/ and /b/) did start out that way, with an ironic edginess rather than genuine contempt towards non-whites and women, but starting around 2011 or 2012, /pol/ was slowly co-opted by full-on Stormfronters.

Look at /pol/ today and tell me that they don't have a very sizeable % of posters who genuinely admire Hitler and want a Nazi-like regime.

As for /r9k/, that's more of a mixed bag with a lot more trolling and baiting, but I think you'd agree at least 40% of the regular posters there genuinely detest "roasties".

Nationalism is inherently tied to xenophobic forms of right-authoritarianism, though not necessarily the particular forms called out as Nazism or Fascism.

> It's basically a synonym with patriotism

No, it's not, though nationalists equate the two.

No it's not. Nazi comes from German: Nazionalsozialismus. National socialism. Propaganda peeps love pulling that one.

And it would not surprise me if elements within EU welcome the rise of these groups, because as it was said about Mussolini "at least he made the trains run on time".

Damn it, just watch the events in Greece a year or so ago.

"If you let people form smaller communities, some of those smaller communities might contain NAZIS!!!! Won't somebody think of the children?????"

Leaving EU, thus allowing a debate about these issues without the EU regulations acting as a trump card, may well de-fang them.