Brexit negotiations

Chris Ashdown

Free Member
  • Dec 7, 2003
    13,398
    3,011
    Norfolk
    I feel that the level of anti EU is still there in the EU countries, The new french president wants big changes, so do the Dutch and Danish, Greece and Italy and on deaths door without the energy to walk in yet the summer influx of immigrants has only just really taken off

    Who will be the first to walk the walk before us
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    Gotta link?
    First hand experience. It stemmed from Nigeria importing more cement than they needed or could unload at the docks during the 70s. Cement went off in the holds of ships waiting to unload. An idiot British MP called John Stonehouse was involved in a small way. Their import licence system was chaotic. For reasons of pride they refused help from Kenya and the situation got worse. Various companies in the EU, including the UK, wanted paying so put the screws in.

    (I had dinner once with the MD of Blue Circle Cement at the Ikoyi Club in Lagos. They opened a new very big cement works to overcome the shortage problem. Those who remember the history of the time will know that on the way back from the opening of the earlier cement works the President was shot.)
     
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    I feel that the level of anti EU is still there in the EU countries, The new french president wants big changes, so do the Dutch and Danish, Greece and Italy and on deaths door without the energy to walk in yet the summer influx of immigrants has only just really taken off

    Who will be the first to walk the walk before us

    Dibs on Germany.
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    Which takes us back to @simon field 's post ie, if we just stop paying, there's almost nothing the EU can do about it.

    It would not be the honourable thing to do, but it's one option the EU negotiators hopefully recognise. They would be in seriously deep doo-dah if that happened. Combine that with the UK drastically dropping tax rates and it would spell major bad news for the EU, far in excess of our annual contribution to the budget and to trade.

    If we did just walk away, we have no "divorce bill" to pay and it won't even affect our credit rating as we aren't reneging on debts (bonds / treasuries)! The markets wouldn't blink an eye.

    Today's Good News:
    I've no idea. Yet. It'll come in the Davis and Barnier new conference later today.
     
    Upvote 0

    KM-Tiger

    Free Member
    Aug 10, 2003
    10,344
    1
    2,893
    Bexley, Kent
    They would be in seriously deep doo-dah if that happened.
    They are anyway, as there will be a serious hole in the EU budget once we stop paying. That's why they want to milk as much as possible from UK taxpayers while they can.

    Some beneficiaries will have to become contributors to make up the shortfall, as the EU doesn't do cuts.
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    That's why they want to milk as much as possible from UK taxpayers while they can.

    I don't know about "milking" us because, let's face it, they didn't ask us to leave... and they do have commitments entered into on the understanding that we'd still be paying the share we agreed to pay. ;)

    But, yes, there will be a big hole when we leave. I suggest they fill it by not being precious about no single market access without free movement.

    That way they can trade their way out of the hole and still have the BoE onside when the next financial crash hits. And that crash is not far off as the ECB's huge QE (60 billion euros a month!) and negative interest rates are beyond a joke. The EU is really struggling to get inflation up despite all that QE. When the brown stuff hits that fan, the bond market will go ape-sh1t. And the ECB will want the BoE onside because they'll need to party together like it is 2008.
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    Dragi (of the ECB) is on the newswire. He's doing everything he can to keep the Euro low ... and this is what happens:

    https://ibb.co/ieKtEk

    I won't call this good news as I do feel for them.
    ieKtEk
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    Do we risk far more danger to us in these states also being in Nato where the one for all comes in

    How do these tiny states manage to survive in the world without russia
    We are much safer now that six of those countries are no longer host to nuclear weapons aimed at us!
    Those tiny states survive by being members of the EU and NATO.
    The real answer is that they survive by having a well educated population.
     
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    It seems they just switched from teaching the Russian language to teaching English. Quite how they were able to get so many English teachers in a short time when the UK have a long term problem with language teacher shortages is a mystery.

    They are not as picky.
    Nor do they require 4 years tertiary education to teach.

    Have known people with GCSEs or O level qualifications spend a year or two doing ESOL teaching overseas.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    Can we get agreement to be bound by arbitration within the timescale?

    That cliff is looking mighty close.
    Getting 27 countries to agree to delegate control of items which to them may be sacrosanct is asking a bit much and in breach of one of the democratic ideals of the EU - as a state you have a say. It's unlikely.


    This debate contains many valid points on both sides.

    I do wonder, apart from allowing people to vent, why it has any actual value, however? Has anyone drawn the attention of any person who in any kind of authority to this thread?
    This debate, which has continued since the announcement of the referendum, has been quite educational - with lots of easy to digest points laid out that people may not have considered or read about via other avenues. It also helps people to understand the points of view and driving motivations of people from both sides of the argument by seeing all the variations laid out and deconstructed.


    No, it's not true. Most of the land is owned by hereditary whatnots who own most of the country. The farming subsidies go to them and not to their tenant farmers. Your point is right, just the beneficiaries are the landed gentry, not PLC's.
    You might be surprised by the amount of land around the country owned by unexpected parties like the colleges of Cambridge University. I know I was.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    You might be surprised by the amount of land around the country owned by unexpected parties like the colleges of Cambridge University. I know I was.
    You are right. These old institutions crop up everywhere. Apparently the Waterstones shop in Truro, Cornwall pays rent to Cambridge University. I was told that all the old cottages painted pink scattered around Devon once belonged to one insurance company.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    They are not doing us a favour. They need a deal just as much as we do - they sell more to us than we sell to them, by about £60 billion a year.

    We can talk about individual countries and recognise that we don't account for a large chunk of any individual country's exports. But the EU is negotiating on behalf of the bloc, not individual countries. And the bloc sells more to us than they buy from us, a lot more.
    It's surprising people are still trying to flog this particular equine which expired before the vote even took place.

    We account for 3% of EU trade but they account for 13-14% of ours. That's a scale firmly tipped in their favour. We have a surplus in services trade with the EU and the surplus a far bigger factor (since 3/4s of our GDP comes from the service sector).

    £60 billion is a lot of money and most importantly for this guy's argument is that it sounds like a lot of money. Problem is it's a little like the Daily Mail and The Sun constantly publishing the noise in the value of GBP under the guise of 'good news' and 'growth', it's disingenuous and useful for little more than bolstering their narrative. Might as well paint it on a big red bus and have a floppy haired buffoon keep trying to defend it...
     
    Upvote 0
    We account for 3% of EU trade but they account for 13-14% of ours. That's a scale firmly tipped in their favour. We have a surplus in services trade with the EU and the surplus a far bigger factor (since 3/4s of our GDP comes from the service sector)..
    A much forgotten fact - The UK has an overall trading surplus with the rest-27, once so-called 'invisibles' are factored in. All this talk of "They need us more than we need them!" is just the sound of someone whistling 'Dixie'!

    But here are some facts that need to be taken into account -

    1. The Civil Service has lost all its negotiating expertise and is 70% of the size it was when we joined 50 years ago.

    2. Not one member of the present 'Brexit' team has ever negotiated a trade deal. That was all left to the E. Commission in the past.

    3. The 'Brexit' team has not received any instructions as to preferred outcome from the UK government. That is because civil war has broken out between members of the government's front bench.

    4. Dave Davis and his team seem to be paying a waiting game, one assumes, in order to wait out the result of the German election in Oct.

    5. That means that there will be just 12 to 15 months for negotiations to be completed. Any deal will have to be finalised a few months before March 2019, to leave time for the rest-27 to all ratify said deal. And that assumes that all 27 states do indeed ratify any deal.

    All the above would suggest that there can only be one of three outcomes -

    1. Stay.
    2. Norway, i.e. stay in all but name.
    3. Geh mit Gott, aber geh! Und mach die Türe hinter Euch bittle zu! (Go with God, but go! And please close the door behind you!)
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,805
    8
    8,047
    Newcastle
    I can see number 1 becoming more and more likely. This lot don't seem to understand that there is some urgency about negotiating some agreements, and their offers on Britain-based EU citizens are an absolute disgrace.
     
    Upvote 0

    KM-Tiger

    Free Member
    Aug 10, 2003
    10,344
    1
    2,893
    Bexley, Kent
    and their offers on Britain-based EU citizens are an absolute disgrace.
    Nothing of the sort. The offer is perfectly reasonable, unless of course you think it a good idea for a foreign court to have jurisdiction in the UK.

    Contrast with the EU's offer for UK citizens in the EU. Considerably worse as they will be confined to one country only.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,805
    8
    8,047
    Newcastle
    Nothing of the sort. The offer is perfectly reasonable, unless of course you think it a good idea for a foreign court to have jurisdiction in the UK.

    Contrast with the EU's offer for UK citizens in the EU. Considerably worse as they will be confined to one country only.

    As I understand it EU citizens in Britain get to stay until they leave for 2 years, then they can't come back. British citizens in the EU can go anywhere within the EU for as long as they like and whenever they like.

    The reverse of what you are saying.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,805
    8
    8,047
    Newcastle
    Sorry, do our politicians work for these EU citizens or do they work for the British citizens?
    What is the offer at the moment for the British?

    They keep all the rights of EU citizens without limit. That offer will be withdrawn if our politicians, working for British citizens, do not offer something reciprocal.
     
    Upvote 0

    KM-Tiger

    Free Member
    Aug 10, 2003
    10,344
    1
    2,893
    Bexley, Kent
    As I understand it EU citizens in Britain get to stay until they leave for 2 years, then they can't come back. British citizens in the EU can go anywhere within the EU for as long as they like and whenever they like.
    The 2 year thing is I believe in line with how we treat immigrants from the rest of the world with leave to remain. Why should we discriminate in favour of the EU?

    I cannot find a reference right now, but I understand the EU's offer is that UK citizens can be domiciled (ie have the right to live and work) in one country only. Obviously travel to the rest of the EU would not be a problem.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,805
    8
    8,047
    Newcastle
    You really need to read what you quote:

    The EU made clear it would not move without a reciprocal offer for European nationals living in Britain that would allow them to move to another EU country and return to the UK.
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    I can see number 1 becoming more and more likely. This lot don't seem to understand that there is some urgency about negotiating some agreements, and their offers on Britain-based EU citizens are an absolute disgrace.
    Just because they aren't progressing at a speed you consider reasonable doesn't mean we won't be leaving the EU. If the team don't have a deal in time ... we leave with no deal.

    In fact, that may even be what they're aiming for - leaving with no deal.

    Not leaving is not an option. There'd be mayhem. Whatever the margin of the Brexit victory, more people voted to leave the EU than have ever voted for any political party in the UK. Further, 85% of the votes in the last general election were for parties who've committed to honouring the Referendum result. And to add to that, Parliament voted by 494 to 122 to trigger Brexit.

    Expecting a reversal at this stage is what whistling Dixie is all about ;)
     
    Upvote 0
    Parliament voted by 494 to 122 to trigger Brexit.
    No, it voted 494 to 122 to issue the Article 50 letter. It has yet to pass a bill or resolution to the effect that Britain should leave the EU.

    You may argue that it has done so by implication, but there are many clear cases of precedent, that bills effecting the human rights of the individual must unequivocally state their intent in clear language. That principle was indeed the basis for the need for the Article 50 bill in the first place!

    I suspect that this was done deliberately, to leave the door open for second referendum on any deal.

    Not leaving is not an option. There'd be mayhem.

    Mayhem - A situation without order or control. Anarchy, havoc, chaos.

    The only mayhem I see, is the state of Westminster politics at the moment and possibly, if Brexit is cancelled, the state that will no doubt occur within the Tory party. But then, I kind of like a bit of chaos - so bring it on!
     
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    No, it voted 494 to 122 to issue the Article 50 letter. It has yet to pass a bill or resolution to the effect that Britain should leave the EU.

    You may argue that it has done so by implication, but there are many clear cases of precedent, that bills effecting the human rights of the individual must unequivocally state their intent in clear language. That principle was indeed the basis for the need for the Article 50 bill in the first place!

    I suspect that this was done deliberately, to leave the door open for second referendum on any deal.



    Mayhem - A situation without order or control. Anarchy, havoc, chaos.

    The only mayhem I see, is the state of Westminster politics at the moment and possibly, if Brexit is cancelled, the state that will no doubt occur within the Tory party. But then, I kind of like a bit of chaos - so bring it on!


    If there was a 2nd referendum here and we accepted the deal offered - but another state rejected the deal, from what I see we have no deal.
    Only one party I know of suggested a 2nd referendum and their support dropped.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    The EU made clear it would not move without a reciprocal offer for European nationals living in Britain that would allow them to move to another EU country and return to the UK.
    Not only are we not best served by our politicians at the moment but by our press also. In one paper this story was illustrated by a photograph of a retired couple in the sunshine in Spain. The real and important issue of moving around Europe is for working age staff to be promoted or transferred to overseas offices without restriction. Everyone from banks to combine harvester makers has enjoyed this freedom and to cut UK employees out of the opportunities will seriously affect our business prospects.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    1. The Civil Service has lost all its negotiating expertise and is 70% of the size it was when we joined 50 years ago.
    In that case the Civil Service need to employ some civilians. I know of 2 people who have successfully negotiated deals with Putin. OK they were small deals but they did get what they wanted by not insulting him first, not keeping their cards secret and being very clear about what they wanted.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Cobby
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,805
    8
    8,047
    Newcastle
    This has been offered in the negotiations already for the British citizens? Or an aspiration by politicians?

    Yes it is what the EU has suggested. Prats in this country likening people moving between Berlin and Florence to moving between Manchester and Birmingham may be the reason we are not going to get a deal on this. That and out government's absolute intransigence to give way on anything. Including issues that benefit British citizens in the UK.

    Where do some of you get your information from?????
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles