> 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.