Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dayshine | Hacker News Reader

For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill.

There are literally hundreds of collaborations between UK organisations and EU organisations. If we just stop our promised contributions to all of them they're not going to trust us again.

View on HN

For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill.

What about if you refuse to split the bill for the next dinner, to which you aren't invited?

It's more like already having placed a binding order for that next dinner which is already in progress of being made but then refuse to pay.

> For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill.

What if you had very little choice on what was ordered for dinner? and ate almost nothing at dinner. You wouldn't want to pay right?

You say to your friends, "Let's share the cost of dinner". Then when you decide you don't like the dinner, walk out halfway through, leaving your friends to pick up the bill for what you ordered.

Once word gets round, not only your friends but nobody is going to go out to dinner with you ever again.

Yes, I agree to "share the cost of dinner". But I don't get the food that I ordered, and eat very little of it. And I watch others eat a lot of food without contributing to the tab. I then want to leave the dinner which is only right

It doesn't matter. Once you have made a commitment to pay a share of something, you pay it.

What would you price the reputation of the UK at? I hope more than £39bn. All the other countries of the world are watching the UK's actions.

> I then want to leave the dinner which is only right

But you would at least pay for what you ordered. Anyone just upping and leaving would be considered very rude, and nobody would invite him ever again.

But he's already paid for far more than what he's eaten. If anything, the others at the table should be giving him money back.

The difference here is between how children react and how grown ups react. In the grown up world your words along with the SPIRIT of their meaning underpins your actions. in this case all the parties agreed on splitting the costs, not retro actively changing the rules to suit themselves.

Well, the dinner metaphor breaks down here. It's almost certain that the access to the EU workforce and trade markets have benefited the UK much more than the pocket change it pays into the EU; but it's hard to put an exact number on those things.

He paid for what he agreed to pay, looking at the menu and everything. If he's changed his mind, that's his problem.

Do you realize the EU was co-created by Britain and many EU laws and regulations were drafted by British politicians as well as voted on by them?

No, you would state that you don't like the fact that you don't like what you're having for dinner before going, like a fucking adult.

If we expand on your analogy a little bit: its more like families going to dinner. The British family agreed with the dinner at first but due to some internal changes in the family, now says they didn't like what they ate before, don't like what they will eat in the future, and want to negotiate a different plan for dinner henceforth.

Reality would be closer to this: imagine you participated to the choice of the menu in the past, ate it, participate of the choice of the next menus in the future and commited to pay your share. You even eat some of the first courses in each menus, but before the end of the meal, you decide to get out and pay what you want of what you have started to eat and none of what you ordered next. Brexiters wanted to continue to eat without paying : that's not even close to what's needed to negociate with the EU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com