Quote:
Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr
I have got enough of this nonsense. The UK already had favourable membership conditions (exceptions from rules, reduced membership costs, etc.) and that wasn't enough. Then your overnment comes into the negotiation table thinking that they could get better terms than the UK had as a member state. Why would the EU and its remaining member states accept that?
Here is this voter's wish list to the EU leadership:
1. Withdraw that "divorce deal". The House of Common does not want it. There is no point in wasting time in this political merry-go-around.
2. No extensions. There is almost zero chance that the House of Commons would agree to any credible alternative plan. Additional time for the same old bickering is unacceptable.
3. Make sure the UK knows where the exit door is and how to use it. There is atleast one positive thing it the Brexit: One whiner less in the negotiation table.
|
That would certainly work for me and when you refer to my country as a 'whiner' don't your country amongst a few others I suspect start 'whining' when you are asked to pay in extra contributions to make up the shortfall of a former (still currently) major financial contributor/net payer.
Looking at the 2016 figures (happy to see anything more current if available) the UK is the third largest payer (13.45% of the EU budget) and Finland ranks thirteenth contributing a massive 1.56%
I appreciate it is easy to become a tad brash when posting online but in the cold light of day I think it wiser if a sense of proportionality and forbearance can be maintained whenever possible.