Brexit...

[holystove]

I could ask what threats etc but I'm sure we'd never agree.

 

I just wanted to point out how far both sides are apart.. "different galaxies" even. Really dangerous as this cannot and musnt end without a deep and comprehensive deal.

Edited April 28, 2017 by holystove

[Matt]

I could ask what threats etc but I'm sure we'd never agree.

 

I just wanted to point out how far both sides are apart.. "different galaxies" even. Really dangerous as this cannot and musnt end without a deep and comprehensive deal.

different realities is closer to the truth, somewhere between dream world and real life Edited April 29, 2017 by Matt

[Matt]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39755124

[holystove]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39755124

It has been UK foreign policy for centuries to make sure it doesn't have to face a single bloc united against it in Europe.

 

https://t.co/lnQP3qcXwD

 

 

Theresa May ::applause::

[johnh]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39755124

 

I thought that May had already proposed this, some months ago, but Merkel turned it down.

[Matt]

 

I thought that May had already proposed this, some months ago, but Merkel turned it down.

how many months ago? Because until less than 2 there wasn't any statement or commitment other than "Brexit means Brexit" (which is completely meaningless)

[johnh]

how many months ago? Because until less than 2 there wasn't any statement or commitment other than "Brexit means Brexit" (which is completely meaningless)

 

29 November last year. May proposed fast tracking the arrangements for Brits in the EU and EU people here, but Merkel and Tusk refused.

[Matt]

 

29 November last year. May proposed fast tracking the arrangements for Brits in the EU and EU people here, but Merkel and Tusk refused.

but made no efforts of any value. That said, considering her ability to 180, I guess I should be grateful

[johnh]

but made no efforts of any value. That said, considering her ability to 180, I guess I should be grateful

Eh? It was Merkel and Tusk refused and left millions of people in limbo. May was anxious to get it resolved. I suspect that Merkel and Tusk's tactic was to use the issue as a bargaining chip in the future. Typical EU, the people are the last consideration by the elite, always come a long way behind 'the project'.

[Matt]

Eh? It was Merkel and Tusk refused and left millions of people in limbo. May was anxious to get it resolved. I suspect that Merkel and Tusk's tactic was to use the issue as a bargaining chip in the future. Typical EU, the people are the last consideration by the elite, always come a long way behind 'the project'.

no, it was the Conservatives not having a plan, then and now.

Side note; you can't expect a divorce where you get to continue to share the house, car, kids, TV, etc. in exactly the same way without paying your way and collaborating. This latest statement from the EU emphasises this, and is absolutely the correct stance to take.

[MikeO]

no, it was the Conservatives not having a plan, then and now.

Side note; you can't expect a divorce where you get to continue to share the house, car, kids, TV, etc. in exactly the same way without paying your way and collaborating. This latest statement from the EU emphasises this, and is absolutely the correct stance to take.

 

Good analogy that.

[Matt]

Good analogy that.

apparently wine makes me more understandable

[johnh]

Matt, I understand that you are in a difficult situation and I sympathise. The fact is, that May tried hard to sort your problem out but was denied by Merkel and Tusk on behalf of your beloved EU. It is the EU to blame and nobody else.

Incidentally, how is it that Merkel's name keeps cropping up? After the latest dinner to discuss Brexit, Juncker went off to phone Merkel. I thought the EU was 27 different countries, it does seem to be run by Germany. No one appears to do anything without Merkel's say so. Just highly delighted we are out.

[Matt]

Matt, I understand that you are in a difficult situation and I sympathise. The fact is, that May tried hard to sort your problem out but was denied by Merkel and Tusk on behalf of your beloved EU. It is the EU to blame and nobody else.

Incidentally, how is it that Merkel's name keeps cropping up? After the latest dinner to discuss Brexit, Juncker went off to phone Merkel. I thought the EU was 27 different countries, it does seem to be run by Germany. No one appears to do anything without Merkel's say so. Just highly delighted we are out.

May gave platitudes to the press before anyone gave an opinion and before anything was "promised".

 

Oh, and fortunately we're not out. Yet.

[holystove]

In november 2016 rights of British immigrants on the continent were guaranteed by FOM rules, with no date in sight of when, or even if, article 50 will be triggered.. Germany has zero competence to make any decisions union wide; after Tusk realised at the time there was no consensus among EU27 this issue was left on the table. The EU now asks in the Council Guidelines for real guarantees for citizens, which tells you all you need to know about the May proposal of November 2016.

 

Seeing how there are many more EU citizens in UK than UK immigrants in the EU, the UK has the upper hand on this issue.. as evidenced by the ridiculously tough standards the home office has set to grant permanent residency. I guess after threatening to withhold security information, not respecting the rights of EU nationals in the UK is just par for the course. ☺

[johnh]

Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this, so can't quote a reference. An article mentioned that Juncker had visited the UK once and had visited Merkel thirteen times in the same period. Presumably to get his orders.

[holystove]

Terribly frightening account of the dinner of Juncker and May last wednesday. Story today in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Summary: (by Jeremy Cliffe)

 

- It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.

- May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures - three times.

- EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care

- May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.

- EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success". May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed.

- May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.

 

 

If it continues like this it won't matter one bit that countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland push EU to start trade talks as soon as possible.. May is even too incompetent to deal with the easy stuff first (such as the wrongly named "brexit fee"). I hope Davis and May don't have a falling out, because Davis seems to be the only one to understand that at one point we'll have to move beyond soundbites.

[johnh]

'Juncker objected to this timetable being way too optimistic'. Not surprising considering the EU took nearly a decade to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada. It just highlights the EU inept bureaucracy.

[Matt]

'Juncker objected to this timetable being way too optimistic'. Not surprising considering the EU took nearly a decade to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada. It just highlights the EU inept bureaucracy.

Or it highlights someone is actually willing to take their time and approach a monumental change rather than just plough through based on nothing but platitudes and ignorance.

 

Meanwhile:

 

http://mobile.foodmanufacture.co.uk/People/Diageo-s-planned-job-cuts-slammed-by-unions

 

http://mobile.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Ingredients/Brexit-could-impact-UK-science-research-funding

 

http://mobile.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Whisky-workers-seek-answers-to-job-fears

[johnh]

Matt, you are really scraping the barrel with those three.

[Matt]

Matt, you are really scraping the barrel with those three.

sharing something I found, and at least a different source this time The food industry is already making moves to ditch the UK, because of Brexit.

[johnh]

Well, for a start, the Diageo issue, with jobs going to the US and Italy, sounds like a business decision. Hardly Brexit related with jobs going to the US.

What do you mean by the food industry? By ditching the UK do you mean no one is going to sell us anything, and is that just Europe or the whole world? Why would the rest of the world not want to sell to us (and buy from us) just because of Brexit? As I say Matt, scraping the barrel.

[johnh]

Terribly frightening account of the dinner of Juncker and May last wednesday. Story today in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Summary: (by Jeremy Cliffe)

 

 

If it continues like this it won't matter one bit that countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland push EU to start trade talks as soon as possible.. May is even too incompetent to deal with the easy stuff first (such as the wrongly named "brexit fee"). I hope Davis and May don't have a falling out, because Davis seems to be the only one to understand that at one point we'll have to move beyond soundbites.

 

There is no legal basis for the 'Brexit fee'. In any event, it has been calculated on the back of a fag packet. No one appears to know how the amount was arrived at. At the end of the day, the man with the cheque book decides how much he is going to pay - not the man who sends the invoice.

[Matt]

 

There is no legal basis for the 'Brexit fee'. In any event, it has been calculated on the back of a fag packet. No one appears to know how the amount was arrived at. At the end of the day, the man with the cheque book decides how much he is going to pay - not the man who sends the invoice.

id love to go shopping with you, John

 

If you don't pay the invoice, you're avoiding paying for something you've committed to - it's illegal, basically theft. That's where the bill is coming from; the U.K. committed to projects, support, etc. and the fees we've promised must be supplied. Simple as that really, and if May think she can run out on the cheque but still sit down at the table and continue to order, she's more delusional than I've given her credit for.

[Matt]

Well, for a start, the Diageo issue, with jobs going to the US and Italy, sounds like a business decision. Hardly Brexit related with jobs going to the US.

What do you mean by the food industry? By ditching the UK do you mean no one is going to sell us anything, and is that just Europe or the whole world? Why would the rest of the world not want to sell to us (and buy from us) just because of Brexit? As I say Matt, scraping the barrel.

damn right it's a business decision! Producing in the U.K. is expensive, moving the companies to the EU has a lot of financial sense.

 

Nestle is another who's looking move a load of jobs abroad, Unilever too.

 

This whole idea that everyone in the world will want to trade with us after we're trying to run out on unpaid bills is insane.

[holystove]

There is no legal basis for the 'Brexit fee'. In any event, it has been calculated on the back of a fag packet. No one appears to know how the amount was arrived at. At the end of the day, the man with the cheque book decides how much he is going to pay - not the man who sends the invoice.

that's why I stressed it was wrongly named. it is just a settling of accounts. UK has both assets and liabilities in EU. the EU position at this time is that UK owes money, but maybe the UK can make the case it is the other way around. it is not a fee related to exiting a supranational organisation, it is only one of the aspects of ending a communal project.

 

why I am frightened by todays news and what is the cause of concern is not that May/UK and Juncker/EU disagree but, frankly, how pathetic and ill-briefed the UK points are. I personally live in a country that has a great stake in May being competent, and it appears it's so bad I now have my hopes set on David Davis.

[johnh]

id love to go shopping with you, John

 

If you don't pay the invoice, you're avoiding paying for something you've committed to - it's illegal, basically theft. That's where the bill is coming from; the U.K. committed to projects, support, etc. and the fees we've promised must be supplied. Simple as that really, and if May think she can run out on the cheque but still sit down at the table and continue to order, she's more delusional than I've given her credit for.

Matt, May has already stated that we will pay our fair share of outstanding commitments. The 50bn euro figure is a joke. Juncker has stated that he will take us to court if we refuse to pay. I hope he does (as long as it is an independent court) as our counterclaim for our share of EU assets will more than cancel it out.

 

This addresses Holystoves post too.

Edited May 1, 2017 by johnh

[holystove]

flash forward 2019. from today's FT (behind pay wall so I'll c/p). most likely scenario right now?

 

 

Sitting on the Heathrow Express last week, returning from a short trip to Berlin, I found myself composing a speech for Theresa May — to be given the day after the Brexit negotiations have broken down irretrievably.

 

The prime minister is seated behind her desk in Downing Street. A Union Jack is visible in the corner of the room. Mrs May tells the British people that, despite the unstinting efforts of her government, the UK and the EU have been unable to reach an agreement. She has to warn her fellow countrymen that difficult times lie ahead. There will be severe disruption to trade and travel for an extended period of time. There is likely to be a serious recession. Britain had made a democratic decision to leave the EU. But the EU has proved unwilling to accept that decision and negotiate a fair deal. Instead, it is determined to punish the UK.

 

Now comes the Churchillian riff. Lowering the timbre of her voice and staring straight into the camera, Mrs May says that some European politicians seem to believe that they can humiliate Britain and bend the country to their will. Clearly, they have no knowledge of the history or nature of the British people. A country that has defeated Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada has no reason to fear the bureaucrats of Brussels, or the governments of Malta and Slovakia. A quick reference to Shakespeare and the ­“sceptred isle” and an appeal for national unity, and the speech would be over.

 

I was rather shocked to find how easy it was for me to compose a speech like that, on a short train ride. After all, I am a “Remoaner”, who voted against Brexit in the EU referendum, and I still cling to the hope that it will never happen. If I can reach effortlessly for the language of nationalism while stone-cold sober on the Heathrow Express, what could the journalists of the Daily Mail do or the backbenchers of the Tory party?

 

All this could be dismissed as idle ­fantasy. But the danger of a slide into nationalism and confrontation is real — on both sides of the channel. The Brexit negotiations are starting with the two sides miles (or possibly kilometres) apart. After meeting Mrs May last week, officials from Brussels briefed that the UK prime minister’s demands are “completely unreal” and that she is living in a “different galaxy”. The British, for their part, regard the EU’s demand for a €60bn divorce settlement as outrageous. The EU says that trade talks cannot begin until the Brits have agreed to pay up. But that position is also seen as unjustified and punitive in London.

 

Senior figures in the British ­government may eventually conclude that they have no option but to play by the EU’s rules. It is possible that, fortified by a large majority in the next election, Mrs May can find the political space to make painful concessions, and face down the resultant rage in the media and her own Conservative party. But it is more likely that what Brussels regards as indispensable, London will find impossible.

 

That means talks will inevitably break down — and then angry rhetoric will surge on both sides of the channel. Popular culture and the education system have produced a fairly pronounced “finest hour” reflex in most British people, which is susceptible to an appeal to glorious isolation. (It is epitomised in the David Low cartoon from 1940 of a soldier on the cliffs of Dover, captioned: “Very well, alone”). That means that if and when negotiations with the EU go badly wrong, it will be easy for nationalists in Britain to blame the French and Germans, and to make an appeal for sacrifice and national solidarity that will drown out the appeals to reason of the remaining Remainers.

 

And while the Europeans like to argue that their position is dictated by reason and law — and not by any desire to punish Britain — there are, of course, some on the other side of the channel who will enjoy the opportunity to humble the arrogant Brits.

[johnh]

Anyone can write a script like that. It just depends on your view of the future. Without going into detail, my script is: the euro will collapse, several other members will do a 'Brexit'. The EU will then have two options. 1. To continue with 'the project' but involving just a handful of countries 2. Revert to what it was originally, a Common Market.

[holystove]

If that happens it will be because of poor leadership. Nothing against May personally but she seems a bit dimwitted and as a result we all might suffer. I have nothing against brexit in principle, to the contrary, but it needs to be handled competently. A choice between May and Corbyn is in that sense disasterous.

Edited May 15, 2017 by holystove