They're not ignoring the UK's share of our assets to be fair to them Stevlin, you have to go beyond our own newspapers, to find all these stories.
On the transition period, I agree, unwieldy as you say and I'm totally suspicious as to the reason for it as well.
I still disagree about how business' can prepare for Brexit. You say "whatever that entails" and that's exactly the problem. How can business prepare for whatever that entails? They need details. However, your point that many business' trade with non-EU countries is pertinent.
I think the difference is between large and small business' here. Large business' can prepare for any eventuality, small ones do not have the resources.
The question of tariffs is a red herring stirred up by our papers. As they know full well, the EU cannot impose tariffs on us for baked beans (or whatever it might be) unless they impose those same tariffs on the rest of the world too. That is what the WTO rules explicitly state and the EU is signed up to the WTO and has to abide by their rules.
This is all about the "divorce bill" aptly named. Divorces are not pleasant and comes down to a cold, clinical separation of assets and liabilities to one another after the divorce, this is what all this seven + months of rubbish has been about.
Au contraire Horizon - if the UK share of assets, ( especially if based on contributions), was indeed being taken into account, then they clearly wouldn't be quoting such a ridiculously high 'divorce bill' . Divorces usually take assets into consideration as well as liabilities do they not? - and it is inconceivable that those huge EU quoted 'divorce bills' could amount to 6 or more years worth of UK contributions - whether or not the UK's share of assets had been allowed. It is undoubtedly correct for the UK to pay it's share of costs , maybe even up to 2020, as we had agreed the budget before the referendum - but have a look at this wrt UK assets share......http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/
Trading Companies have to allow for the differing trade tariffs with far more countries than are in the EU, including those that have FT agreements with them, ( not all products are tariff free even in RFTAs), so coping with such is hardly a major problem - and they should be further assisted by the subsequent removal of many of these onerous and costly EU regulations that they claim have constantly been damaging their businesses- large and small.
But 'red herring' - undoubtedly not. Many non-EU countries have FT deals with the EU, WITHOUT having to accept EU dominance, in legislation or the paying of 'tribute' for the privilege - but, as WTO rules , which is the back stop 'agreement' could be harmful to the EU too, their attempts to 'punish' the UK will not, and cannot, ( as you rightly say), be punished by excessive tariffs - so their only mechanism for 'punishing the UK', and dissuading other countries from following suit , is by submitting an excessive 'divorce bill' , on the pretence that it is a real debt.....