8 ms·

Reporting, investigating, coming up with a solution, creating the appropriate law, and enforcing it is a lengthy and costly process. I hope non-contributors to

Reporting, investigating, coming up with a solution, creating the appropriate law, and enforcing it is a lengthy and costly process. I hope non-contributors to the EU project are not going to leach on the effort and money the EU members are putting on this. The UK is taking with it, via "Great Repeal Bill", all these laws (with some to be ditched in the future, at their discretion). We need to ensure that: * the UK has properly contributed to the costs of creating the legislation body: any pending bills must be claimed * the UK is not leaching on the EU, by enjoying the benefits of these laws without contributing to the recurring enforcement costs. It seems the UK is going for a a Hard Brexit, and they will (I assume) want to opt-in in several beneficial schemes. In this case, a "Cross-Border Access to Streaming Services" yearly bill, amount to be negotiated, must be levied on the UK. It is not clear that the EU should have any interest in dealing on this kind of detail with one of our partners, when we are doing this in bulk within the EU. The more sensible outcome, from the EU point of view, is that the UK is excluded from this scheme, otherwise the administrative burden would blow out of proportion. There is a reason the EU is a thing.

pc256 10y ago
Well yes, outstanding bills should be paid. But I don't think the UK has been leaching, in fact the UK has been a net contributor to the EU for a long period of time [1]. As we are leaving the EU will we in some way get to reclaim some of the assets paid for over the period of time? Do we get the roof of the parliament in Strasbourg? Until we've actually left, we are bound by the rules of the EU which may include this. And given the current alignment of rules I wouldn't imagine it would be a huge burden. Once we've left, well paying associated costs may be a sensible thing to do, but that's for us to decide! [1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
- gonvaled 10y ago
  > in fact the UK has been a net contributor to the EU for a long period of time Your membership fee was lower (per-capita, per-GDP) than other countries. That membership fee has bought you services, the same services that other countries have been enjoying, and paying at a premium compared to the UK. The UK has been a member of the EU by its own decision for over 30 years. Nothing to complain about there. On the other hand, EU members which have been paying premium membership price should very seriously consider adding to the exit bill whatever rebates have been granted to the UK during all these years. > As we are leaving the EU will we in some way get to reclaim some of the assets paid for over the period of time? Do we get the roof of the parliament in Strasbourg? When I am renting an apartment, and I need to pay for something that needs repair, I do not ask for money back whenever I leave. There may be some assets that you have a right to claim a stake in, though. There are also some open bills. That is a matter of exit negotiations. By the way, who is paying for the financial burden that the negotiations themselves are going to put in the EU? I hope that is also a matter of negotiations, and since it is a UK decision to leave (which we respect), the UK must contribute specially to those costs. > And given the current alignment of rules I wouldn't imagine it would be a huge burden 1. Since there will not be automatic law alignment, we can not guarantee this long-term 2. There won't be a framework to enforce this, since the EU will have no jurisdiction in the UK, and vice versa. Creating a third-party enforcement framework seems too big of a burden. > Once we've left, well paying associated costs may be a sensible thing to do, but that's for us to decide! For you ... and for the EU. As said, I do not think it is in the interest of the EU to deal with issues at these level of detail with each potential partner. We already deal with this at the EU level, put it in to law, and let the common EU enforcement mechanisms do the management. No need to duplicate this structure for each partner and each scheme that our partners would like to enjoy. A better solution, discussed at length, would be to negotiate access to the EU market (which includes these kind of schemes) with the UK. But this has already been ruled out by Theresa May, since it assumes acceptance of the four freedoms.
  - programmernews3 10y ago
    Excluding Germany, Britain’s contribution is more than the total net contribution of the 26 other EU states combined. https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/eu-£250-miillion.png https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01...
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      A bit more context would be helpful for such a complex issue. That's for 2015. Total? What about per-capita? What about per-GDP? Are you expecting Malta to contribute more than the UK?
      - programmernews3 10y ago
        Well one way to look at it is that the other 27 countries will have to increase their contributions just to break even, or reduce spending.
        NetStrikeForce 10y ago
        Well, the UK has massively benefited from its EU membership. I don't think we'll have that much money around after we leave, our trade will take a hit, our companies will have less access to EU talent (which is massively needed in IT at least), so we will be less competitive. I do think all that extra money we paid in the EU was easily recovered. It's going to be ironic when we have less money around than before paying into the EU :(
      - pc256 10y ago
        I think they were referring to net contributions - Malta is a massive net recipient per capita (https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-get-back/ https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-g...)
        gonvaled 10y ago
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
One of the weirder parts of Brexit, is that the long run up to leaving was fuelled mostly by people complaining about these very sensible harmonizations of existing laws between member nations. In fact, making up lies about these laws was basically Boris Johnson's job at one point. And the EU had to publish a blog tracking the various myths that he and his fellow right-wing journalists invented in a bizarre war on pragmatic realities of free trade: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ But now, as you say, they want to take all the output of this boring but necessary bureaucratic (this word is not intended in the insulting pejorative sense!) work with them. Presumably they'll need to find some laws to repeal and replace with good old fashioned British equivalents, just to save face. Though, if they want to still export goods to the EU then they'll need to comply with all the regulations, which means many companies will need to comply with potentially incompatible regulations from two different sources. Ironies abound.
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  It was hard for anyone in the UK to make sense of how efficient the EU was in regards to making laws. The general consensus was that they were too slow and didn't go far enough. Last summer there was a lot of talk about bee die off and what to do about it. The EU was simply too slow to do much about it. Banning pesticides or whatever. With most of these laws that people feel passionately about (farming, housing, jobs, energy, pollution, etc) the EU is so so so so slow.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    It sounds like you move in non-standard circles, of progressive people who've accidentally absorbed right-wing propaganda. They'll perhaps get a shock when the UK very quickly moves to rip out consumer and environmental protections that it regularly fought to prevent passing while in the EU.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Note that the UK is perfectly allowed to implement additional regulations on top of what the EU provides. If the issue was too little regulation, as in your example with the bees, the British Government could provide what additional regulation it needs to.
jfaucett 10y ago
> There is a reason the EU is a thing. The problem with the EU is that they now have the goal of becoming the United States of Europe and eliminating national soverignty in most senses of the word. [1] This isn't good or bad just many EU officials statements of their goals. [1] However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now. But its an assault on freedom to try to accumulate central power while decimating local democratic processes, especially for all the member states who did not join under such pretences. It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body. Whether you're for a United States of Europe or not these are issues we need to address if we want to make real progress in the EU. > the UK is not leaching on the EU, by enjoying the benefits of these laws without contributing to the recurring enforcement costs. IMHO attempting to punish the UK by refusing to cooperate with them when its mutually beneficial to both parties is not a route I'd like to see us take. In general economic terms, it will almost always be in the EUs interest to work with the UK and not against them. The EU enjoys the benefits of many laws in the USA and elsewhere, for instance that a subscriber to a service in California can use that service in Georgia. Still, it would be absurd to assume the EU should pay a price to help enforce that law. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe 2. http://www.aueb.gr/statistical-institute/european-citizens/history_en.pdf http://www.aueb.gr/statistical-institute/european-citizens/h...
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  > The problem with the EU is that they now have the goal of becoming the United States of Europe and eliminating national soverignty in most senses of the word. [1] This isn't good or bad just many EU officials statements of their goals. [1] However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] > If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now. But people can democratically vote for it. You can elect your MEPs directly and you can elect the rest (council, etc) by voting in your national elections. Don't want the United States of Europe? Fair enough, vote for parties that oppose it. People are doing it. > But its an assault on freedom to try to accumulate central power while decimating local democratic processes, especially for all the member states who did not join under such pretences. That would be an assault on freedom if it was true, but it's not. If any, the EU reinforces democracy and enhances personal freedom. People rule the EU. > It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body. People have full control of it. Vote in your country for a party that will support your ideals in the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission - Formed by one member of each state (each Commissioner is first nominated by their member state in consultation with the Commission President, although the President holds little practical power to force a change in candidate). http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/ http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/ - The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission. > Whether you're for a United States of Europe or not these are issues we need to address if we want to make real progress in the EU. Happy to see people bringing up these topics, I however think you might be misinformed. The EU is one of the most democratic organisations out there and, if actions speak louder than words, the EU has got a very decent track of upholding people's rights against lobbies and big corps. > IMHO attempting to punish the UK by refusing to cooperate with them when its mutually beneficial to both parties is not a route I'd like to see us take. In general economic terms, it will almost always be in the EUs interest to work with the UK and not against them. The EU enjoys the benefits of many laws in the USA and elsewhere, for instance that a subscriber to a service in California can use that service in Georgia. Still, it would be absurd to assume the EU should pay a price to help enforce that law. No one is trying to punish the UK, but I think op might have worded his point rather confusingly. The UK is of course free to copy and paste the EU law. Anyone can do it (and I hope they do) - there is however a problem: How do you enforce it? Is the UK strong enough of a market to force Netflix or Amazon to change? Should the EU press Netflix to include the UK in the no-borders streaming zone? If you think the answer to this latest question is yes, then the UK has to contribute. And, by the way, how different is your "refusing to cooperate" than op's "refusing to contribute to the recurring enforcement costs" - should contribution with the UK be free? Can you have your cake and eat it?
tallanvor 10y ago
I think that the UK is going to be in for a rude awakening with Brexit. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland all have somewhat different agreements with the EU, but at the end of the day, they've had to accept a lot that they don't necessarily like in order to get the benefits they do like.
matthewmorgan 10y ago
Nobody in Britain wants to watch Canal Plus, so don't worry yourself about that. Plenty of Europeans want to watch the BBC though.
- tomelders 10y ago
  Well, if they pay for a TV license, what's the problem?
  - matthewmorgan 10y ago
    The problem is with the hectoring tone of the poster who seems to assume that the UK owes the rest of EU something, which I do not believe is the case. If the EU gets easy access to streamed UK media, they will be the winnners. Many British TV shows are enjoyed across the continent; you cannot say the same thing about French, German, or Italian productions.
    - pdpi 10y ago
      It's not a very prevalent thing, sure, but my wife and I quite enjoyed watching The Out-Laws (Belgian production) on Channel 4.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Of course, I understand nobody from the UK wants anything from the EU, that's why you voted out. Just in case at some point you do want something, remember that there are associated costs, that laws, rights and enforcement do not fall down from the sky. And that the EU does not necessarily need to be inclined to offer access to those "services", not even by paying a fee, since doing this kind of deals per-service, per-partner is much too complex. We have an organization to simplify that kind of agreements, it is called the EU. We offer you associate status, by accepting some rules. You are free to accept or refuse the offer, of course. What you are not welcome to do, is to use what the EU has created and maintains, without accepting any rules. I find it funny that Theresa May insists that she is interested in trading with the stable and rich internal market. What she does not mention, is that a stable and rich internal market does not exist without some rules, that means, without the EU.
pjc50 10y ago
Simply phrasing discussions in terms of "leachers" is immediately toxic to European unity. The question of who's contributing more can be toxic even when it's just a bunch of friends paying a restaurant bill; it's far more toxic when there are billions at stake. This is part of why the Greek Euro crisis has dragged on so much. If there is to be a single currency, there must be a single bank resolution mechanism, and there must be a means of addressing fiscal imbalances. I'm still somewhat surprised that Greece hasn't left the Euro yet.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  I understand that my use of the term leach is confrontational, but I am not ready to back down from it for several reasons: * I am disappointed at the role that the UK has played in the EU, how you have dragged your feet, how you have pushed for EU policies that, long time later, you have complained about them as being EU imposed. As a short list, I must mention opening negotiations with Turkey, expansion to the East, renouncing to east Europeans quotes by your own decision, and specially blocking legislation about financial markets. * I am angry about how the EU has been portrayed by your media and politicians during the last 30 years. * Lack of goodwill: the UK has been given special treatment. What has been your response? To continue complaining, and now to withdraw from the union, putting it at existential risk. * Outright lies during the referendum campaign: one thing is to say "we think the UK will do bad outside the EU" (an opinion of the remainers), the other is to say "we send 350 million pound to the EU each week" (an outright lie by the leavers) And a very specific reason why I think the UK is actually trying to justify its leaching, that's why I call it like it is: you (your politicians, a big part of your media) feel "entitled" to a special relationship, and particularly insist that the UK should get free access to the internal market (eat your cake and keep it). This I call plain and simply "leaching", and I will call it that as long as you keep on pretending that you are entitled to anything. The EU and the UK are going to negotiate what they want their future relationship to be. The old agreements are void, and nobody is entitled to anything. Stop pretending that the UK knows what the EU internal interests are, we can very well come up with our own priority list. We are all adults here. If we decide that it is not in our interest to give free access to our internal market (as I think it is the case), stop pretending to know better. So, if you want a better tone from the EU side, use a more respectful tone from your side.

pc256 10y ago

Well yes, outstanding bills should be paid. But I don't think the UK has been leaching, in fact the UK has been a net contributor to the EU for a long period of time [1]. As we are leaving the EU will we in some way get to reclaim some of the assets paid for over the period of time? Do we get the roof of the parliament in Strasbourg? Until we've actually left, we are bound by the rules of the EU which may include this. And given the current alignment of rules I wouldn't imagine it would be a huge burden. Once we've left, well paying associated costs may be a sensible thing to do, but that's for us to decide! [1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...

gonvaled 10y ago
> in fact the UK has been a net contributor to the EU for a long period of time Your membership fee was lower (per-capita, per-GDP) than other countries. That membership fee has bought you services, the same services that other countries have been enjoying, and paying at a premium compared to the UK. The UK has been a member of the EU by its own decision for over 30 years. Nothing to complain about there. On the other hand, EU members which have been paying premium membership price should very seriously consider adding to the exit bill whatever rebates have been granted to the UK during all these years. > As we are leaving the EU will we in some way get to reclaim some of the assets paid for over the period of time? Do we get the roof of the parliament in Strasbourg? When I am renting an apartment, and I need to pay for something that needs repair, I do not ask for money back whenever I leave. There may be some assets that you have a right to claim a stake in, though. There are also some open bills. That is a matter of exit negotiations. By the way, who is paying for the financial burden that the negotiations themselves are going to put in the EU? I hope that is also a matter of negotiations, and since it is a UK decision to leave (which we respect), the UK must contribute specially to those costs. > And given the current alignment of rules I wouldn't imagine it would be a huge burden 1. Since there will not be automatic law alignment, we can not guarantee this long-term 2. There won't be a framework to enforce this, since the EU will have no jurisdiction in the UK, and vice versa. Creating a third-party enforcement framework seems too big of a burden. > Once we've left, well paying associated costs may be a sensible thing to do, but that's for us to decide! For you ... and for the EU. As said, I do not think it is in the interest of the EU to deal with issues at these level of detail with each potential partner. We already deal with this at the EU level, put it in to law, and let the common EU enforcement mechanisms do the management. No need to duplicate this structure for each partner and each scheme that our partners would like to enjoy. A better solution, discussed at length, would be to negotiate access to the EU market (which includes these kind of schemes) with the UK. But this has already been ruled out by Theresa May, since it assumes acceptance of the four freedoms.
- programmernews3 10y ago
  Excluding Germany, Britain’s contribution is more than the total net contribution of the 26 other EU states combined. https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/eu-£250-miillion.png https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01...
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    A bit more context would be helpful for such a complex issue. That's for 2015. Total? What about per-capita? What about per-GDP? Are you expecting Malta to contribute more than the UK?
    - programmernews3 10y ago
      Well one way to look at it is that the other 27 countries will have to increase their contributions just to break even, or reduce spending.
      - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
        Well, the UK has massively benefited from its EU membership. I don't think we'll have that much money around after we leave, our trade will take a hit, our companies will have less access to EU talent (which is massively needed in IT at least), so we will be less competitive. I do think all that extra money we paid in the EU was easily recovered. It's going to be ironic when we have less money around than before paying into the EU :(
    - pc256 10y ago
      I think they were referring to net contributions - Malta is a massive net recipient per capita (https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-get-back/ https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-g...)
      - gonvaled 10y ago

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

One of the weirder parts of Brexit, is that the long run up to leaving was fuelled mostly by people complaining about these very sensible harmonizations of existing laws between member nations. In fact, making up lies about these laws was basically Boris Johnson's job at one point. And the EU had to publish a blog tracking the various myths that he and his fellow right-wing journalists invented in a bizarre war on pragmatic realities of free trade: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ But now, as you say, they want to take all the output of this boring but necessary bureaucratic (this word is not intended in the insulting pejorative sense!) work with them. Presumably they'll need to find some laws to repeal and replace with good old fashioned British equivalents, just to save face. Though, if they want to still export goods to the EU then they'll need to comply with all the regulations, which means many companies will need to comply with potentially incompatible regulations from two different sources. Ironies abound.

monk_e_boy 10y ago
It was hard for anyone in the UK to make sense of how efficient the EU was in regards to making laws. The general consensus was that they were too slow and didn't go far enough. Last summer there was a lot of talk about bee die off and what to do about it. The EU was simply too slow to do much about it. Banning pesticides or whatever. With most of these laws that people feel passionately about (farming, housing, jobs, energy, pollution, etc) the EU is so so so so slow.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  It sounds like you move in non-standard circles, of progressive people who've accidentally absorbed right-wing propaganda. They'll perhaps get a shock when the UK very quickly moves to rip out consumer and environmental protections that it regularly fought to prevent passing while in the EU.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Note that the UK is perfectly allowed to implement additional regulations on top of what the EU provides. If the issue was too little regulation, as in your example with the bees, the British Government could provide what additional regulation it needs to.

jfaucett 10y ago

> There is a reason the EU is a thing. The problem with the EU is that they now have the goal of becoming the United States of Europe and eliminating national soverignty in most senses of the word. [1] This isn't good or bad just many EU officials statements of their goals. [1] However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now. But its an assault on freedom to try to accumulate central power while decimating local democratic processes, especially for all the member states who did not join under such pretences. It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body. Whether you're for a United States of Europe or not these are issues we need to address if we want to make real progress in the EU. > the UK is not leaching on the EU, by enjoying the benefits of these laws without contributing to the recurring enforcement costs. IMHO attempting to punish the UK by refusing to cooperate with them when its mutually beneficial to both parties is not a route I'd like to see us take. In general economic terms, it will almost always be in the EUs interest to work with the UK and not against them. The EU enjoys the benefits of many laws in the USA and elsewhere, for instance that a subscriber to a service in California can use that service in Georgia. Still, it would be absurd to assume the EU should pay a price to help enforce that law. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe 2. http://www.aueb.gr/statistical-institute/european-citizens/history_en.pdf http://www.aueb.gr/statistical-institute/european-citizens/h...

NetStrikeForce 10y ago
> The problem with the EU is that they now have the goal of becoming the United States of Europe and eliminating national soverignty in most senses of the word. [1] This isn't good or bad just many EU officials statements of their goals. [1] However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] > If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now. But people can democratically vote for it. You can elect your MEPs directly and you can elect the rest (council, etc) by voting in your national elections. Don't want the United States of Europe? Fair enough, vote for parties that oppose it. People are doing it. > But its an assault on freedom to try to accumulate central power while decimating local democratic processes, especially for all the member states who did not join under such pretences. That would be an assault on freedom if it was true, but it's not. If any, the EU reinforces democracy and enhances personal freedom. People rule the EU. > It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body. People have full control of it. Vote in your country for a party that will support your ideals in the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission - Formed by one member of each state (each Commissioner is first nominated by their member state in consultation with the Commission President, although the President holds little practical power to force a change in candidate). http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/ http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/ - The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission. > Whether you're for a United States of Europe or not these are issues we need to address if we want to make real progress in the EU. Happy to see people bringing up these topics, I however think you might be misinformed. The EU is one of the most democratic organisations out there and, if actions speak louder than words, the EU has got a very decent track of upholding people's rights against lobbies and big corps. > IMHO attempting to punish the UK by refusing to cooperate with them when its mutually beneficial to both parties is not a route I'd like to see us take. In general economic terms, it will almost always be in the EUs interest to work with the UK and not against them. The EU enjoys the benefits of many laws in the USA and elsewhere, for instance that a subscriber to a service in California can use that service in Georgia. Still, it would be absurd to assume the EU should pay a price to help enforce that law. No one is trying to punish the UK, but I think op might have worded his point rather confusingly. The UK is of course free to copy and paste the EU law. Anyone can do it (and I hope they do) - there is however a problem: How do you enforce it? Is the UK strong enough of a market to force Netflix or Amazon to change? Should the EU press Netflix to include the UK in the no-borders streaming zone? If you think the answer to this latest question is yes, then the UK has to contribute. And, by the way, how different is your "refusing to cooperate" than op's "refusing to contribute to the recurring enforcement costs" - should contribution with the UK be free? Can you have your cake and eat it?

tallanvor 10y ago

I think that the UK is going to be in for a rude awakening with Brexit. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland all have somewhat different agreements with the EU, but at the end of the day, they've had to accept a lot that they don't necessarily like in order to get the benefits they do like.

matthewmorgan 10y ago

Nobody in Britain wants to watch Canal Plus, so don't worry yourself about that. Plenty of Europeans want to watch the BBC though.

tomelders 10y ago
Well, if they pay for a TV license, what's the problem?
- matthewmorgan 10y ago
  The problem is with the hectoring tone of the poster who seems to assume that the UK owes the rest of EU something, which I do not believe is the case. If the EU gets easy access to streamed UK media, they will be the winnners. Many British TV shows are enjoyed across the continent; you cannot say the same thing about French, German, or Italian productions.
  - pdpi 10y ago
    It's not a very prevalent thing, sure, but my wife and I quite enjoyed watching The Out-Laws (Belgian production) on Channel 4.
gonvaled 10y ago
Of course, I understand nobody from the UK wants anything from the EU, that's why you voted out. Just in case at some point you do want something, remember that there are associated costs, that laws, rights and enforcement do not fall down from the sky. And that the EU does not necessarily need to be inclined to offer access to those "services", not even by paying a fee, since doing this kind of deals per-service, per-partner is much too complex. We have an organization to simplify that kind of agreements, it is called the EU. We offer you associate status, by accepting some rules. You are free to accept or refuse the offer, of course. What you are not welcome to do, is to use what the EU has created and maintains, without accepting any rules. I find it funny that Theresa May insists that she is interested in trading with the stable and rich internal market. What she does not mention, is that a stable and rich internal market does not exist without some rules, that means, without the EU.

pjc50 10y ago

Simply phrasing discussions in terms of "leachers" is immediately toxic to European unity. The question of who's contributing more can be toxic even when it's just a bunch of friends paying a restaurant bill; it's far more toxic when there are billions at stake. This is part of why the Greek Euro crisis has dragged on so much. If there is to be a single currency, there must be a single bank resolution mechanism, and there must be a means of addressing fiscal imbalances. I'm still somewhat surprised that Greece hasn't left the Euro yet.

gonvaled 10y ago
I understand that my use of the term leach is confrontational, but I am not ready to back down from it for several reasons: * I am disappointed at the role that the UK has played in the EU, how you have dragged your feet, how you have pushed for EU policies that, long time later, you have complained about them as being EU imposed. As a short list, I must mention opening negotiations with Turkey, expansion to the East, renouncing to east Europeans quotes by your own decision, and specially blocking legislation about financial markets. * I am angry about how the EU has been portrayed by your media and politicians during the last 30 years. * Lack of goodwill: the UK has been given special treatment. What has been your response? To continue complaining, and now to withdraw from the union, putting it at existential risk. * Outright lies during the referendum campaign: one thing is to say "we think the UK will do bad outside the EU" (an opinion of the remainers), the other is to say "we send 350 million pound to the EU each week" (an outright lie by the leavers) And a very specific reason why I think the UK is actually trying to justify its leaching, that's why I call it like it is: you (your politicians, a big part of your media) feel "entitled" to a special relationship, and particularly insist that the UK should get free access to the internal market (eat your cake and keep it). This I call plain and simply "leaching", and I will call it that as long as you keep on pretending that you are entitled to anything. The EU and the UK are going to negotiate what they want their future relationship to be. The old agreements are void, and nobody is entitled to anything. Stop pretending that the UK knows what the EU internal interests are, we can very well come up with our own priority list. We are all adults here. If we decide that it is not in our interest to give free access to our internal market (as I think it is the case), stop pretending to know better. So, if you want a better tone from the EU side, use a more respectful tone from your side.