> Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in > HN. I think we have a very different definition of propaganda. I suggest getting into the com

> Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in > HN. I think we have a very different definition of propaganda. I suggest getting into the comments early when a keyword is used in the title. > "9 billion a year for a voting right" is like saying that > the average software developer in London pays 20K a year > to the government for voting rights every 5 years. It's clearly a tongue in cheek exaggeration. > The "divorce bill" makes it sound like it some kind of a > fine or something but it's actually about the obligation > that the UK committed through the years. I used "divorce settlement" - and it is very much like a divorce settlement. Both parties are expected to settle remaining costs and you end up losing the kids. > A good analogy would be the UK participating in a birthday > dinner party, promising to chip in for the present, > ordering the food and the desert but leaving before the > desert arrives so people expect the UK to pay for its > desert as it was already cooked and pay its part for the > present they bought. Maybe, but then you would expect to be able to chose what to do with the desert if you've paid for it? > If the UK does not honour its obligations, it would be > incorporated in the future trade agreements. Unfortunately, yes. > Please don't use propaganda catchwords and talking points > here, the topic itself is divisive but this is beyond > that. It is a dishonest portrayal of reality. I purposely put the word "divorce" in speech marks as it's what it is commonly referred to, rightly or wrongly. I wasn't aiming to paint a picture perfect version of reality, I would need several books to describe Brexit accurately (and no doubt somebody will write them). The purpose is simply to show that £3.3 billion is really not that much compared to our ongoing projects. Hell, another one to look at is the Trident project.