UKC

Latest from the BBC on Brexit talks http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41941414

How do you think they are going then?

In reply to Pids:

You are implying that Britain is totally not on top of this and hinting that Brexit is not the best possible thing the country could be doing right now. Get behind the project and stop being unpatriotic!
(That's me pretending to be a Brexiteer.)

In reply to Pete Pozman:
Definitely, Putin is going to get the best possible outcome. The divide, subvert and conquer of these isles is now seeing elements of the SNP participate and yet being used as dupes by RT while we continue with unexpected headlines about matters which do not merit hiding the real news. And UKIP/Brexiteers are willing troops in his wish to occupy the EU with stuff that really needn't happen as he de-risks his future plans

In reply to Pids:

It's a a fiendish German plan to bankrupt the UK.

Except that it's the UK that seems to be leading it.

In reply to wercat:

Do the dislikers know that Salmond is heading up a show on Russia Today, a station that is funded by the kremlin?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


To be fair, whilst this is a pretty shoddy attention-seeking move by Salmond, he's a former politician.

Meanwhile, Theresa May, actual Prime Minister of the UK, seems to be happily hosting and attending dinners with Paul Dacre.

Not that that makes Salmond's stunt any better - it just shows how far in the mire we are.

In reply to Pids:

Another Brexit thread, whoop! We haven't had one of these in years....

In reply to Big Ger:

You just can’t resist can you?

In reply to Pids:

Barnier says we need to come up with some sense in two weeks, British business says exactly the same thing.
The Irish republic are quite interested in sensible, achievable statements too.

Fat chance with this shower of shit in government.

In reply to pasbury:

"I" cannot resist!?!?

LOL!! What about these remoaners who cannot resist starting a new thread every time the anti-British Broadcasting Company shares Brexit news?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

A station that many British politicians from all sides of the spectrum have appeared on.

In reply to Big Ger:

anti-British?

In reply to pasbury:

I think the sticking point is their (wholly illegal demand according to the remainer HOL ) of extortionate monies with menaces .

The U.K. HAS offered some reasonable sums ( of our money) to cover the EU funds for projects that we will benefit from, which I think is fair.

No one wants the UK taxpayer to be ripped of , do we?
(I do wonder somethings reading this forum )

In reply to aln:


It's a joke name that those of us who are described as "Daily Mail reading little Englanders" use to describe the pro-remain BBC.

In reply to john arran:


And now it seems the BBC is being accused of colluding with the Germans in their fiendish plan!

Is 'Trumpian' an accepted word yet?

In reply to Jim C:

The tossers in charge are trying to conflate what we owe from past commitments with what we might pay for in the future.

Not even indicating what we think we owe money for?

Effectively saying UK might not pay its dues if we don't get what we want.
Debt downgrade anyone?

In reply to Big Ger:

If you find them so tedious, why do you always post?

In reply to Pids:



How well does anyone think they should be going? There is no precedent by which to measure the progress. Given the nature of eu negotiations in general then what is happening is pretty much inline with what could reasonably be expected.

At the moment the sticking point seems to be their inability to understand what leaving the eu actually means hence their insistence a small number of totally unreasonable demands.
i.e. that we accept the jurisdiction of European courts in the UK, whilst UK citizens in the EU will have no protection from British courts and of course eu citizens have no such protection in any other country. Can you imagine eu courts holding sway in the USA, Japan, China etc?

The idea that N. Ireland should effectively remain in the eu customs union, thus drawing the eu border within a non eu state is as unreasonable as if the UK demanded that the UK customs border be drawn to include the Republic of Ireland (which would actually make more sense given that 3/4 of N. Irish trade is with the r.UK and half of Irish trade is with the UK).

The demand that we say upfront how much cash we will stump up before we know what we are actually getting for it is similarly unreasonable.

Personally, I would consider that the negotiations were going a lot worse of we were to cave in to such unreasonable demands.

Yanis Varoufakis suggested we could expect them to give us what he called the "eu runaround" which seems to be the case, on the otherhand his dealings with the eu were from the weakest position imaginable whereas even though we may be the weaker side we actually are in a position to give them a metaphorical bloody nose.

If no deal is done it will hurt them, perhaps not as hard as us but it will hurt and they will be answerable to eu workers who lose their jobs, not us. Telling them don't worry its worse for the British won't cut much ice, schadenfreude might comfort Juncker and co but it won't pay the bills of 1.2 million redundant eu workers (as predicted by researchers from the Belgian University of Leuven) who will demand answers from their governments, not ours as to why they put their politcal project ahead of European citizens welfare.

So in the end I expect a similar outcome to most things involving the eu, some kind of compromise will be fudged at the last moment. If there's one thing the eu really is good at its fudging things at the last minute.
Until then I'm not going to lose sleep over something over which I have absolutely no control.

In reply to Big Ger:



ROFL

In reply to aln:

But have any of them hosted a regular show?

In reply to pec:

Where are you getting this rubbish from?

But miles away from what we were led to believe would be the case. Admit it, we're not yet out of the starting blocks and we were told it would be so easy as we held such a good bargaining hand!

We aren't buying anything. We're agreeing to pay our debts, i.e. the cost of the commitments we've already agreed to. It has nothing to do with what we're going to get in return. That's the whole point of separating current liabilities from future deals.

And if we don't agree to honour our commitments, you think that would make negotiations easier? Well they could be over very quickly, I suppose, if that's what you mean.

What is this metaphorical bloody nose of which you speak? Or is it just fighting talk that sounds good in a jingoistic way down the pub but has no basis in reality. The more the UK tries to make life unreasonably hard for the EU, the more bullets it shoots into its own foot. We seem to be getting quite adept at that of late.

And if there's one thing the UK is really good at right now it's ... er ... er no, it's gone. It'll come to me later once I've taken a wishful thinking pill.

You may not be going to lose sleep, but almost certainly you and almost all other Brits are going to lose money, many will lose jobs, the UK will lose influence, etc., etc. But as long as you sleep deeply enough, perhaps you won't care.

In reply to john arran:


I think if you read my post more carefully and attempt to do so with a more open mind you will find that I do acknowledge that it won't be all plain sailing and that I do acknowledge potential harm to ourselves. You will also find answers to most of the questions you raise above but you will need to take a deep breath, step back and consider that opinions than your own might have some validity.

If the idea that no deal will result in 1.2 million job losses in the eu is rubbish its not my rubbish, it was research done by economists in a Belgian university. You don't think that would be a metaphorical "bloody nose"? I'd have thought its certainly enough to make the eu side consider what is most important and amoungst other things gives us a leverage which the Greeks couldn't begin to approach. As I said, it won't be the UK government answerable to the eu unemployed.

Of course on a pro rata basis job losses would be greater in the UK (if the research is to be believed) and I acknowledge that in my post above.
I'm not pedalling jingoistic nonsense, just a pragmatic assessment that common sense will probably prevail in the long run. But then as a militant remainer you don't really want to hear that do you.

We're all doomed I tell you, we're all doomed.

In reply to pec:

A less condescending attitude might help.

Of course I read your post carefully, as that's what I responded to. My conclusion was that you were paying lipservice to reality and believing what you wanted to believe might be true. I have a different opinion. I doubt anything further I might say would make a difference, given that you've decided already that I'm some kind of militant. I don't see myself as militant in any way, just exasperated as to how people can seemingly misinterpret huge volumes of expert opinion and hard evidence in forming opinions based mainly on wishful thinking. I wouldn't call that militant.

In reply to Big Ger:



What's the Brexit good news Big? The longer this goes on the more it feels like a coup by a small cadre of catastrophe capitalist/Ayn Randists in the Tory government. As a remoaner I know I'll get to say I told you so but I would much rather we weren't as a nation marching, cheering, into a gigantic slurry lagoon.

In reply to john arran:


From the viewpoint of an experienced businessman trading with many EU countries, Pec's assessment not only makes a lot more sense than yours but comes across as considerably less condescending. You haven't provided a reasoned argument against his vision, you've simply ignored all possibilities other than those you wish to entertain for the purposes of winding yourself up into a lather.

Now, you've a right to be angry with the format of the vote, and with the poor standard of electioneering, and with the result for sure. But inveighing against Pec for what reads like fairly balanced common sense when compared to your passable impression of Nostradamus seems like an over-reaction.

Debate is good but don't make it personal.

In reply to john arran:



If you had read my post carefully you would have seen that I barely expressed an contentious opinion, mostly observations that could have been made by either a remainer or Brexiteer.
To summarise:
I suggested that we have no way of knowing whether its going well because there is no precedent for comparison. Both sides have said good progress has been made in some areas and the fact that if we can come up with a bit more detail on the cash in next two weeks we will progress to trade talks hardly reflects your view that talks are barely off the starting blocks.

I suggested the eu has made some unreasonable demands and I maintain that no other country would accept the jurisdiction of another's courts without any reciprocal agreement or the imposition of what amounts effectively to the eu border within the UK. Do you really think that's reasonable? Would a trade deal between the eu and the USA be ok if the eu demanded that California be included in the eu customs union?

The phrase "bloody nose" is not some jingoistic rhetoric but rather an acknowledgment that we don't have the clout to deliver a knockout punch but can still cause damage to the eu if no deal is reached, i.e. it is very much in their interests as well as ours to do a deal whilst I also acknowledge the harm will be greater to us. This is not the ranting of some swivel eyed loon as you imply, its a simple obserbvation of reality. As is my observation that eu negotiations tend to go to the wire, hence my opinion that we may well have to wait for a last minute fudge.

I refer to you as a militant remainer because in all of your posts you cannot concede that any good outcomes are possible only negative and that we are wrong in every respect about everything whilst failing to acknowledge that the eu can ever be at fault.
This is not rational behaviour, politicians may take these extreme stances, even though in reality they probably don't believe them, because the political game requires it of them, but for the rest of us surely we can acknowledge that there will be positives and negatives whilst differing in our view as to which will outweigh the other and by how much?

In reply to MG:


you've heard of bair baiting haven't you?

In reply to pec:


I'll believe in the realistic possibility of a good outcome once I see evidence that one is likely. Until then you're just going to have to dismiss my evidence-based approach as militancy.

In reply to john arran:

Calling him condescending!? You come across as the most self righteous, know it all, arrogant prick I've come across on this forum

In reply to pec:

The EU didn't fudge Greece. There was no compromise.

Greece is a precedent. Greece was in a very strong if not stronger position than us.

When a country is wholly dependant on another for its day to day spending and has the capacity to bring the whole house of cards down, conventional wisdom would have it that they hold all the cards. The EU did well to face them down.

In reply to elliott92:

Why thank you Sir. Have a nice evening.

In reply to pec:


Where do yo think would be reasonable to put the border?

In reply to ian caton:

'Greece was in a very strong if not stronger position than us'

In 2016 the GDP of Greece was 7.36% of that of the UK. More importantly, Greece were hamstrung by having adopted the euro.

In reply to John2:

Yeah but they wanted to stay in.

In reply to Pids:

What exactly is the EU demanding of us and why? Surely it is HM government making demands, ie for all the benefits of being a member with no inconvenience or expense. We can always just go and accept the consequences. The British People voted for that after all.

In reply to Big Ger:


52% voted Leave. 48% voted Remain. I think the BBC is doing a pretty good job reflecting that balance, unlike our current government that seems to care very little at all for the views of the 48%.

Martin.

In reply to pasbury:

The example of what happened to Greece is very instructive. The more powerful nations were not willing to grant the Greeks relief on their debt, which they were well able to afford, because they were worried by the political reaction in their own countries. The EU is not a group of nations which look after the weaker among them - they are a bunch of bullying opportunists who having in the past profited by exporting their goods to Greece turned away when the Greeks, as a result of their own actions, were unable to repay their debts.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


A large but unspecified and unexplained amount of money upfront so that they can subsequently dictate the terms of withdrawal immune to financial concerns. Isn’t that obvious?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Who would have imagined that leaving might be a difficult process? I thought it would be easy and we would have had it all wrapped up by now. Still, plenty of time, companies aren't slashing investment, sterling's doing great, the government's looking strong, all's well.

In reply to MG:


To express my tedium, obvs.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



>
How odd of you...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Except it isn't "unexplained". It has been explained. And the EU have asked us for an explained counter-proposal (rather than a number) and we won't give one...

In reply to Postmanpat:



Nah, it's all going great.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Your posts seem to be a succession of random non sequiturs presumably addressed to the wrong person.most odd.

In reply to elliott92:


Oi. What about me?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I suppose I could punctuate and capitalise oddly. But anyway, how do you think the negotiations are going? Do you think the current situation is doing the UK good?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Can you give me the number the EU believes is due, the breakdown of this, and its justification the UK's legally based challenge to their arguments?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Too early to tell.....

As I have said before, the EU seems to want to cut off its nose to spite its face, but maybe they will wise up. Do you think that we should judge brexit on the basis of the entirely predictable and predicted uncertainty caused by the divorce negotiations?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Come on, you're a bright chap, I think you're telling porkies if you say you don't have view on how the negotiations are going - but I do appreciate that you don't want to say.


You think think has been predictable? Interesting, I must have missed your posts that predicted this was how the negotiations would proceed.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Do you think his crystal ball is better than yours?

In reply to pec:

I think one of the things you are missing is the EU isn't obsessed with Brexit the way the Britain is. There is no existential threat to the EU. It can just work away on other things, get in some popcorn and politely wait knowing there's every chance May's government will fall apart under the weight of increasingly obvious economic reality and its' own stupidity.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
>
I’ve said many times that I think it a pointless exercise following every line in of every grandstanding politician and ill informed hack. Are they all bluffing or will they cobble something tigether? Who knows? Its too early to tell.

The EU has been more intransigent than I hoped but that shouldn’t be a surprise.

>
Because there were none. There were posts predicting that rhe uncertainty of the interegnum would result in economic weakness. But that has not so far been as bad as I feared.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Sorry, I assume you've been drinking because this is incoherent. How do you think the negotiations are going is a simple question. And your obfuscation hints at your view.


Oh, you thought it would be worse? Excellent, that must mean it's going great.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Sorry, I assume you've been drinking because this is incoherent.

In reply to Big Ger:


Tediously obvs

In reply to John2:


The Greek experience is instructive but your interpretation is complete horseshit. Greece was not honest about it’s financial affairs, was given an alternative to default that was harsh, and after a lot of upheaval eventually began to comply. What is really instructive is that they’re still in the EU. They will be better off in the long run because of their continued membership as will the other small newcomers. The exact opposite of your fantasy of bullying big boys exploiting the small fry, who must all be masochists as they were so keen to join this abusive club.

In reply to pasbury:


But with such wit, panache and lyrical eloquence....

In reply to pasbury:
Greece is a virtual basket case...

Greece fell into recession again last year, confounding its international creditors who had predicted some growth after years of budget austerity and bailouts. The country's leading economic think tank, meanwhile, said there would be growth this year - but not as much as the government expects. The economy contracted by 0.2% in 2016, statistics service ELSTAT said today, releasing its revised estimate of full-year gross domestic product.

ELSTAT's estimate, based on seasonally unadjusted data, was based on lower than previously estimated household consumption, suggesting that the euro zone's largest unemployment rate is still holding back broader recovery. It said gross domestic product in volume terms and measured at constant prices was €175.9 billion last year, down from €178.1 billion in 2015. Greek consumption dropped by an annual 0.3% compared to a 0.6% rise estimated by the agency in March.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1017/912981-greek-economy/


See also; http://www.dw.com/en/greece-reeling-from-austerity-and-a-broken-economy/a-4...

In reply to ian caton:



You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.

In reply to John2:

Except that close on 270 billion was written off. The maturity of the rest at least doubled and the interest rate slashed. Plus direct aid.

Greece is now pulling out of crisis.

The EU looked after Greece despite the populist politicians. Be good if they could do the same for us.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


I'll give you one guess, and here's clue, it lies somewhere between the North and South of Ireland.

In reply to ian caton:

'Greece is now pulling out of crisis'

Unemployment is 22% (yes, I know it used to be even higher), debt is almost 200% of GDP, the EU are still in the position of giving them loans so that they can pay the interest on their pre-existing debt. It would have been possible for the EU to write off the entire debt, as a number of serious economic commentators have pointed out.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Sigh. You need to get with the program. Who cares about negotiations? A few million jobs lost, everyone poorer, families divided etc are just irritating trivialities on the road to a glorious post brexit future where the map is pink again, foreigners stay abroad, passports are black and Rees-Mogg is in charge.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

>
No , it's what I think.

>
I know you like to live up to your name but surely not at the expense of logic.

In reply to MG:

Meanwhile, here's what the New York Times has to say about the UK...

"Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts."

Tsk, bloody experts...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/sunday-review/britain-identity-crisis.ht...

In reply to pec:


Problem with that is, both the citizens of the North and South of Ireland find that unnaceptable. Do you think the UK imposing a border within Ireland when the Irish refuse to accept it is a reasonable demand?

In reply to Mr Lopez:


No, they find the idea of a hard customs border unacceptable. The idea that when the north does 3/4 of its trade with the rest of the uk it should have to go through a customs border to do so is totally unacceptable to them just as it would be to the ROI if we demanded they have the UK customs border to include them, which is why we aren't proposing such a complete non starter of an idea.


We aren't seeking to impose a border within Ireland, there already is one. The problem is finding a way to have a soft customs border between a non eu and an eu state. This will require some effort and imagination, something the eu's proposal completely lacks.

In reply to pec:

What does our proposal look like?

In reply to Sir Chasm:
'What does our proposal look like?'

Imaginative and innovative, obv. Just no-one to know what it is ... we don't want to show our hand too soon, eh?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Something to do with remote monitoring of cross border traffic and pre registration of goods in advance as far as I know.
Anyway, I'd have thought you should know. Militant remainers seem to be privvy to a whole load of detail on the the state of negotiations that isn't in the public domain, that's why you can say with such absolute certainty that's its all going so badly.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Like the open border between Norway and Sweden. Some goods are free to trade tariff free under eea agreements, others (all food and drink) is not tariff free. 99% of traffic moves under hindered. Freight has to cross at specific points for checks. All smaller roads are camera monitored in a special control room.

The hindrance to the NI is likely to be a lack of imagination, and the desire for a black & white (hard or soft) solution, when the answer lies in the grey.

In reply to pec:

I haven't seen our proposal, perhaps you could provide a link?

In reply to summo:


I haven't seen our proposal, perhaps you could provide a link?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I haven't either, I just gave you an example of a hard and soft eu trade border that actually exists, it's not a trial, not a proposal, it's real and working 24/7/365. What's not to like?

Ps. Heard you the first time.

In reply to summo:


So it's an idea from Sweden, thank you Sweden. And Norway/Sweden have 40 road crossings, NI/Ireland have 260 plus.


I wasn't talking to you

In reply to pec:
I'm prepared to bet good money (oh silly me, I already have, albeit against my wishes) that the 'negotiations' are going even more chaotic and counter productive than we can possibly imagine. If Davis makes it to 2019 I will be amazed - retirement on 'grounds of ill-health' would be my guess, to cover up for the fact that he has achieved precisely f*ck all in 19 months to date.

The Brexit bill: how hard can it be to draw up a list of what we will and will not contribute to? Pensions for employees recruited during our membership - check. Contributions towards projects that we jointly agreed to fund - check, maybe qualified by the amount of time in the future those projects have to run, maybe offset by the funds we were expecting to receive. Payment for the CAP (if it still exists) after Brexit: Nope. Etc. That should result in a list that we can argue over the fine detail, and that is what the EU seems to want. And I think they are being entire fair to do so.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>
Well, actually enormously difficult. The EU has laid out some general principles and we have argued that these principles have no legal basis and why that is so. We have indicated a number we have are prepared to pay on the basis of our legal interpretation. Given that the EU's "principles" seem to produce a number of anywhere between 25 and 100bn euro depending on who is interpreting them the EU has clearly not laid out its position clearly. Indeed, both sides have agreed not to produce a precise number at this stage and DD claims that they have also agreed not to produce a precise methodology.

The argument is not so much about what we are prepared to contribute to (although there is some of that). It is about the size and the longevity of what is owed on those things, which depends on the interpretation of the extremely complicated small print and the interpretation of different accounting principles.

The argument about these details is going on behind the scenes. In the meantime each side postures and politicks in order to gain traction in what is ultimately going to be a deal based on politics rather than accounting or law.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's always nice to hear from an optimist! Other scenarios are available. And I'd like to know what my representatives are proposing.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


20bn euros at the last count. They've basically agreed most of the list of items. It's what is due on those items that is at issue. The media coverage of all this is infantile, probably because it's considered too complicated and therefore too boring for us proles (and for most journos).

It's quite possible, of course, that one or both sides overplay their hands and do deal is reached.

In reply to summo:

Eh? Norway's in the single market and has (mostly) free movement of people across its border with Sweden.

How is that comparable with a border between the Republic of Ireland and a post-Brexit UK, which has declared its wish to end such free movement?

If you're advocating a Norway-style solution for the UK as a whole, great - but that doesn't appear to be the plan.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Do you have a better one or are you just too negative to see say solution?


Why did you reply then? Twice?

In reply to summo:


I asked what our (that's the UK's not Sweden's) plan is, and I'm still waiting.


I replied once to you and once to pec, do try and keep up

In reply to skog:


No it isn't in the single market entirely. It has a trade agreement, that does not cover food or drink.


Yes. But we don't know what migration deal will be done yet. That's the whole farce of trying to negotiate each point independently, one after the other, when they are rea?ly interlinked.


I think it's too early to say, but there are other grey agreements in place, so the UK can build it's own shade. It's too complex for some black and white vision that most people seem to imagine.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I replied in the 'our' sense, I'm stood in Sweden now. Do keep up.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


You can bet on whatever you like, I don't give a f*ck


So why don't they just tell us what we owe and get on with the more important stuff (to them as well as us)?

In reply to summo:


Sorry, that makes no sense. If you can link to what the UK's plan is then please do (but you won't).

In reply to skog:

There you go with those annoying facts. Stop it.

Strong and Stable. Taking back control. £350 million a week. Lies and BS work better

In reply to broken spectre:



Why do you consider the NYT an expert on matters British? Because you agree with their negativity perhaps?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Lovely trick this, you keep demanding that others provide information , links and facts, but fail to supply any yourself.

In reply to Big Ger:


I don't know what our (the UK's, not Australia's) proposal for the UK/Ireland border is, I'm not going to pretend otherwise, so I asked pec, no answer though. Perhaps you've got a link to the UK's proposal?

In reply to Big Ger:


They were quite complimentary about the 2012 olympics! A bit of positivity there for you in the article.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
pec never claimed to have the UK's proposal though, so your strawman falls flat on it's face at the first fence...

In reply to Big Ger:

Pec said "We aren't seeking to impose a border within Ireland, there already is one. The problem is finding a way to have a soft customs border between a non eu and an eu state. This will require some effort and imagination, something the eu's proposal completely lacks." , so apparently he knows what we (the UK, not Australia) aren't seeking to impose. If that is the case it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask him what we (the UK) are proposing. He could link to the UK's proposals if he wanted/could.

In reply to pec:


So after the first week when the spanking new cameras have more bullet holes in them that a Tennessee stop sign and the customs officers are saying it is too dangerous to stop people on border roads without an armoured landrover full of cops with machine guns backing them up what happens next?

It seems like the actual options are:
a. fortified border like it was before.
b. no border like it is now, let Northern Ireland effectively be within the EU and accept that its a step towards Irish reunification.
c. a pretend border with rampant smuggling eventually leading to a fudged version of (b) with checks at ports so the smuggled goods don't get as far as the UK.
d. give up on the whole stupid idea.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No he doesn't, he claimed that the EU's proposal lacked it. He made no claim about any UK proposal.

Your mendacity is far too obvious, and your childishness (UK not Australia,) just compounds it.


FYI; "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man""

In reply to Big Ger:

So I asked him what our (the UK's) proposal is, if he doesn't know then that's fine and he could say so, it's silly to pretend you know more than you do - but all we appear to know at the moment is that we don't know what our (the UK's not Australia's) proposal is.

In reply to pec:


So do you think it's reasonable for the UK to pull out from the customs union and then demand that one of its borders has the benefits and advantages that arise from being part of the customs union without any of the obligations and controls that are part and parcel of being in the customs union?

In reply to Mr Lopez:


is that what the UK is demanding? could you provide a link?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You have constantly demanded he supply, and others, (eg, PP,) something they never claimed to have access too. It's a silly childish strawman tactic.


You keep playing your trick, I'll keep pointing it out your mendacity. You're a one trick pony by the look of it.,...

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I said this in response to somebody else who was inferring that there is no border within Ireland. Clearly there is, just as there is a border between France and Belgium even if there's very little on the ground to show it.


I know we aren't seeking to impose a hard border between North and South because we've said so, surely you knew that already?


Again, I only know what gets reported which is along the lines of what I outlined elsewhere, remote monitoring etc. Again, it was in the news, if you missed it don't blame me.
I don't know anything more specific because as far as I'm aware those details haven't been made public, so in that sense it is unreasonable of you to expect me to know more.


I could if such a link existed, but if it did you could find it as easily as me. Why don't you try and post it yourself to enlighten us all?
What happens to the irish border is not actually top of my agenda, I just know that the eu suggestion of moving the border to mainland Britain is completley unreasonable and a total non starter.

In reply to Big Ger:



As I said, I don't know what our (the UK's) proposals are, if he doesn't know what our proposals are that's fine.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


You really ought to pay more attention to the news if you want to argue about it. Britian is most definitely NOT demanding this. We have put forward some proposals in order to minimise the friction along the border because that is what both sides want.
I don't know the specifics of those proposals but I repeat, we definitely are not demanding what you suggest above.

In reply to pec:

I don't know what our proposals are, you seem keen to say what we are not proposing but less keen to tell us what we are proposing. But that's ok, it's not top of your agenda, move on, nothing to see.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-ireland-and-ireland-a-p...

In reply to Sir Chasm:


One would think that you would have appreciated that asking someone for information, information they never claimed to have, six times, and getting no response, would be an indication that they are not playing your silly games....

In reply to pec:

In reply to pec:


You were the one using colourful language like 'imposing' and 'demanding' when referring to the EU's proposals. Did i miss the memo that if the EU proposes something it is a demand or imposition, but if the UK does the proposing it's just 'putting forward a proposal'?


So maybe they are not as reasonable/unreasonable as you were thinking?

In reply to Mr Lopez:



EU demands that Britain ‘start negotiating seriously’ over Brexit
https://www.ft.com/content/9207d244-8c07-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93

EU leaders demand May makes ‘firm and concrete’ Brexit divorce offer
https://www.ft.com/content/bbe43a6a-b585-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399

Brexit bill: Barnier gives UK two weeks to clarify key issues
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41941414

In reply to Big Ger:

youtube.com/watch?v=qMM3MgS4yxc&

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Jings! Salmond kept that quiet.
(Well no actually, he shouted it from the tree tops, but no doubt that was just a fiendish Russian plot to hide his show in plain sight!)

In reply to Big Ger:



And a straw issue is a negotiating strategy where you build up something that you don't really care about, so you can 'concede' it later and trade it for what you really want.

There is certainly of straw around in the Brexit talks

In reply to Pids:


Pretty much on a par with my very low expectations, going nowhere for now as the issues requiring resolution don't have solutions which produce 'favorable' outcomes. There'll probably (but not certainly) be a fudge in the last few weeks to delay calamity (out of power but in the marketplace an unpopular limbo where we'll likely remain for the coming decade if it comes to that). Time will tell who takes (or controls) the blame for the resulting decline and that will steer us toward the ultimate solution.

I'm still cautiously optimistic that sanity will prevail before we burn the last of our bridges.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
to be honest one of the things that depresses me is that I haven't seen any signs of a government-tory-party having any signs of any genuine intentions to negoitiate for us since the general election. We just seem to have a load of opportunists and schemers pretending to run the country - look at the implications of this supposed letter to May from undemocratic Hard Brexiters. They haven't even bothered to soften up the more than 50% of voters who did not ask for Brexit at all, just ignoring us while they get on with degrading our futures for their own gain

Claiming "Democracy" we've just got a load of F*****G pirates and buccaneers in control

In reply to wercat:

Surely the fact that UK hasn't given the eu all its demands is a sign the UK is negotiating? It's a question of who blinks first, as the eu really needs money from the UK otherwise it will be begging the other nations for more in less than 18mths time.

In reply to summo:


... and the UK will be left with nothing but WTO terms, massive trade deals to negotiate from scratch from a position of extreme weakness, and not a single close ally in the developed world. Now which side do you think might be 'blinking first'?

In reply to john arran:


Both! Because both need the deal for different reasons. It's just a question of deciding how much of what the eu wants is worth what the uk wants, as it doesn't really correlate like for like.

The eu of course is easier to please, it will pretend to care about people and borders, but it's cash that it needs. Without a nice divorce cheque in 18mths time it's got immediate funding problems.

In reply to summo:

... meaning you don't acknowledge the glaring imbalance, and prefer to obfuscate so as to portray the two situations as being more comparable in severity?

That may well be a good strategy in a Poker game, but I'd hope we won't be gambling the UK's prosperity on a strategy of bluffing indifference to a no-deal outcome. I'm not convinced we won't be though, as there seems little indication to the contrary right now.

In reply to john arran:
that scenario was being sold to us as a positive idea this morning on R4(Today). I felt a chilled sinking feeling of inevitability


Again the professors of going it alone like "the rest of the world" did not show how many countries are NOT in some form of regional trade agreement or organisation

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/rta_participation_map_e.htm

In reply to john arran:


Are you aware that there are no tariffs on import/export of services to and from the EU? And that 80% of GDP and 80% of the UK workforce is in the services sector?

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/five-facts-about-the-uk-service-sector/

We'll have to remain compliant with regulations in order not to fall foul of non-tariff barriers, of course, but we'll start from a position of complete compliance. Vast portions of our economy will have no impediment to trade with the EU at all.

I'm not saying it'll be a bed of roses, financial passporting throws up significant challenges. But the doom-mongering is overplayed. The notion that we'll have no export partners from March 19 in the event of no deal simply doesn't stack up when there are surprisingly few barriers to carrying on as before. Had you considered this at all?

In reply to Big Ger:



We've got another 40 years of moaning before we can hold a candle to you lot.

In reply to BnB:

I think you are probably right that there will not be a cliff edge, but do you think we will still have a level playing field?
For example, the UK will have to continue to comply with EU data protection rules, and therefore it is unlikely that companies will be forced to more EU data out of the UK. But, all things being equal, surely a new business holding EU and UK data would set up in the EU for greater future stability?

In reply to BnB:


Which begs the question what is the point of all this 'sovereignty' we can't actually use and is it even sovereignty at all given we'll have ceded control of the regulations we'll have to comply with and which as a result may now be wielded against us.
jk

In reply to john arran:

Bluffing... Like the eu trying to split the UK and give northern Ireland a different deal. They are potentially stirring up a hornets nest. It's certainly not poker, it's life and death.

In reply to BnB:

Convincing as your figures might appear at first sight, I suspected it might be rather more to it than that, so I looked into it and found a detailed report into precisely what we're talking about, from Oliver Wyman, who I presume know rather more about this than either you or I.

http://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/global/en/2016/oct/OW%2...

This, from the Executive Summary, should tell you as much as you need to know about the expected impact of Brexit on financial services in the UK:

"The UK-based financial services sector, together with the related professional services sector, has
developed over many years into an interdependent and interconnected ecosystem comprising a
large variety of firms providing world-class services, products and advice. This ecosystem brings
significant benefits to financial institutions and to the corporations and households they serve.
Because of the interconnectedness of the activities and firms within this ecosystem, the effects of
the UK’s exit from the EU could be felt more widely than simply in business transacted directly with
EU clients.
Our analysis suggests that, at one end of the spectrum, an exit from the EU that puts the UK outside
the European Economic Area (EEA), but otherwise delivers passporting and equivalence and allows
access to the Single Market on terms similar to those that UK-based firms currently have, will cause
some disruption to the current delivery model, but only a modest reduction in UK-based activity. We
estimate that revenues from EU-related activity would decline by ~£2BN (~2% of total international
and wholesale business), that 3-4,000 jobs could be at risk, and that tax revenues would fall by less
than £0.5BN per annum.
At the other end of the spectrum, in a scenario that sees the UK move to a third country4 status with
the EU without any regulatory equivalence, the impact could be more significant. Severe restrictions
could be placed on the EU-related business that can be transacted by UK-based firms. In this lowest
access scenario, where the UK’s relationship with the EU rests largely on World Trade Organisation
(WTO) obligations, 40-50% of EU-related activity (approximately £18-20BN in revenue) and up to
an estimated 31-35,000 jobs could be at risk, along with approximately £3-5BN of tax revenues
per annum."

In reply to stevieb:



I think it would probably set up quite close to the entrepreneur's home, wherever that may be, so no change there!!

I want to be clear I'm not glossing over the difficulties and risks. But I'd be genuinely surprised if there were no deal, not least because doing the trade deal is actually pretty straightforward. It's the divorce that throws up the challenges, be those relating to free movement or the financial settlement. I'm rather surprised that most posters don't seem to recognise that holding up progress is chiefly the EU's doing, the better to extract a higher price.

In reply to BnB:

For a small/medium business, yes you're right. For the European base of a Chinese or American company, or the data centre of a larger business, then maybe not.

In reply to summo:


You jeopardised that fragile peace with your vote, not the EU. The Irish border issue was discussed on here in threads we both contributed to pre referendum. Like the rest of the issues we're now mired in it was glibly dismissed as 'project fear'.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

That exactly. Why should the EU compromise at all as far as common market access of the ROI is concerned? Some Whitehall clown actually suggested putting a customs barrier between Ireland and the REU to salvage the Good Friday Agreement and the integrity of the common travel area of the UK and Ireland.

Not even maybe. You broke it, you fix it.

CB

In reply to stevieb:


As it happens representatives of my business had a chat with the Information Commissioner the other day and she explained that we won't be diverging from the EU standards so this objection will be moot.

In reply to jkarran:

the trouble is that "Project Interesting Times", based on woolly aspirations, does not have an opt-out, even for those who voted against it and we'll all have to live with the consequences.

In reply to wercat:


United States of Europe? Yes all those people who have never had a choice over the eu will just have to live with it.

In reply to jkarran:


I think we need to re-name it 'project reality' or 'project sense' now with the benefit of hindsight.

In reply to BnB:


This Information Commissioner https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/who-we-are/ ?
Is that a promise they can make?

In reply to Sir Chasm:
None other. They're doing a lot of outreach in relation to GDPR. It's current policy to mirror the EU's. Obviously that's mandated under law until 2019 but the intention is to continue in that mode.

In reply to BnB:

To be honest, I had already assumed that we would be implementing GDPR and any other EU led regulations. But I also assumed that there would still be extra hoops to jump through to access e.g. German personal data outside the EU.

In reply to BnB:


But they say their role is to "uphold information rights in the public interest", they don't confer information rights, that would be the government. So they can't say that we won't be diverging from eu standards, because that is for the government of the day to determine.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

To the extent that no one in the public sector ever claims responsibility for anything I think we'll struggle to apportion it!! But I would expect the government to lean heavily on their counsel if not delegate the whole matter. Wouldn't you?

In reply to BnB:


Apportion what? They aren't government counsel. They don't have the power to set the standards. They are there to uphold the standards as set by the government. And as it's the government who set the standards the IC can't say we won't diverge from eu standards.

In reply to jkarran:


Interesting stance, I'd personal lay the blame for NI troubles at various governments, religion and terrorist sympathisers through several centuries.. Not Brexiteers. Is there anything that Brexit can't be blamed for?

In reply to summo:

Oh for goodness' sake. The consequences for Northern Ireland of a Leave vote were repeatedly discussed before the referendum and yet you voted leave anyway. There was an option that would have helped to avoid those consequences and you chose not to take it - you either didn't care about them or you thought that they were a price worth paying. Either way, it's a consequence of your vote, and if you're a responsible adult then you should bloody well own that.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Is there anything that can't be blamed on Brexit? If anything good happens it will be despite Brexit and it's bad because of it. Will Brexit take the blame for a poor winter as well? I can't even be bothered to reply properly to your post.

In reply to summo:

Oh come on, it was quite obvious that brexit, and especially leaving the single market, would have a far bigger disruptive effect on Northern Ireland, politically and economically than it wouldnon most of Britain. But to be fair to you, you’re 1000 miles away from any fall out. the voters of Northern Ireland will have to live with it, and 44% of them thought it was worth it too.

In reply to summo:

Of course difficulties over the Irish border can be blamed on Brexit. There wouldn't have been any problem if we'd stayed in the EU, and it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention that the Irish border would be a difficult problem to resolve if we left. You can ask all the rhetorical questions you like, but this is something that you voted for, that you'd been told that you'd be voting for, and that you were happy to vote for anyway.

In reply to summo:

In this specific context *you* laid the blame at the EU's feet for jepardising NI peace through their brexit negotiation stance, I pointed out they are only in that position because of an informed choice you made and now you're deflecting blame off brexit (which you initially blamed) and bleating about others blaming brexit. Make your mind up!
Jk

In reply to Sir Chasm:

D'ya know what? You've convinced me. I'll ignore what the actual Information Commissioner said to my employee and I'll go with the random stranger off the internet. How could I have been so foolish

In reply to summo:


After decades of difficult times NI unity had, for a decade or so, become harmonious to the point of hardly ever being in the news and hardly ever the focus of political or sectarian violence, mainly due to a political solution that was acceptable to the major factions. And suddenly now we're faced with the renewed prospect of political division, separation and economic disparity. What else do you think may be responsible for this new potential for renewed unrest, if it isn't the single most divisive and damaging issue to have hit the UK in centuries? And who, exactly, do you think may be responsible for that?

Is it the EU's fault? In which case, which EU decision was it that caused it?
Is it the UK's fault? In which case, which UK decision (other than Brexit, of course) was it that caused it?
Or was it completely inexplicable, destined to happened whatever choice anyone made?
I'm curious as to your non-Brexit explanation for something that has coincided startlingly with the referendum vote and the inevitable consequential prospect of a more substantial border splitting the island.

In reply to BnB:

Chasm's point is valid, if that's what you were told they're apparently making promises it's beyond their power to keep or something is lost in the recounting of the story.
Jk

In reply to BnB:


Have it your own way, of you're saying they rather tha parliamemt set the standards then I'll believe you.

In reply to BnB:


That's not a question the Information Commissioner can answer. It's like asking an Inland Revenue employee what the next government will do with income tax. The fact is:

a. the Brexit wing of the Tory party are against regulation and if the Tories stay in power they are running the show
b. if we leave the EU we will be screwed if we don't get a comprehensive trade deal with the US
c. getting a comprehensive trade deal with the US will involve moving from a EU centric regulatory framework to a US centric one. Data protection rules, along with rules about washing chickens in chlorine and genetically modified crops are going to need to change if we want to join the US sphere.

In reply to jkarran:

The eu is using the border as leverage. There is no excuse for that. Imagine if the UK government did that, would you find that equally acceptable?

In reply to john arran:

The eu did not facilitate peace in NI. There are plenty options the UK could agree directly with Ireland. The problem is they can be vetoed by people living a thousand miles away in other countries and this threat used to extort more money from the UK. This kind of action must or should be in breach of some international agreement.

In reply to summo:


But the peace was facilitated with both countries being in the EU, and therefore on a reasonably level footing and with no major border issues. Is this not obvious?

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer as to what it was that has caused this latest potential for disharmony in NI if, as you claim, it has nothing to do with the UK's decision to vote for Brexit. Please enlighten me.

In reply to john arran:


Nothing has changed. What does change will depend on the various elements of the deal and at this point in time no one knows.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Thanks for the link - but I cannot really see your statement
>> So do you think it's reasonable for the UK to pull out from the customs union and then demand that one of its >borders has the benefits and advantages that arise from being part of the customs union without any of the obligations >and controls that are part and parcel of being in the customs union?

is supported with by it as the key proposals appear to be that the UK and EU should have a new customs arrangement that would automatically solve most of the border problems unique to NI/I (set out in the separate customs proposal). And that the avoidance of a 'hard border' could be achieved by the sort of technical solutions proposed by summo

see page 17, point 50.

In reply to john arran:


The border between the two has been open for about 90 years. Long before the eu in any of its guises.

In reply to summo:


So as long as free movement and customs union continues between NI/UK and the rest of Ireland there's little blame that can be attributed to the Brexit vote. I'd agree with that. If the UK insists on changing the status quo to something less palatable, you can hardly blame the EU for that!

In reply to summo:

It's not leverage, it's a serious problem you voted to create which now needs to be solved. I'm glad the EU are taking their remaining members' interests very seriously.
Jk

In reply to summo:


Are you suggesting we should be deferring to some sort of supranational court?

In reply to john arran:

No, but the eu shouldn't use the border as leverage or a threat. It should support Ireland in finding an agreement with the UK that is mutually beneficial.

In reply to Tyler:


No!!! But the eu using the border in this manner, which could result in stirring up the troubles is seriously wrong.

In reply to summo:


When you think of such an agreement that is acceptable to all parties please let the respective authorities know. I'm sure they'll be delighted to know that the problem isn't intractable after all.
Failing that, something will inevitably have to change, someone (probably the people of NI, since those in London are unlikely to be particularly concerned with a distant outpost of the remaining Empire) will inevitably end up disappointed, and the only root cause will have been the Brexit vote.

In reply to summo:
They're not really, they just want the UK to say what they are going to do. All this talk of 'imaginative solutions' is eyewash. There are a limited number of options, the govt needs to plump for one of them but is too cowardly to do so because it knows it will be saying to the people of N Ireland 'your concerns are of secondary importance'. It's the same reason as they are not releasing the impact papers, it's because the truth is out there but it's not very palatable. That's not to say Brexit will be a disaster but there is very little good news to balance out the bad. So far it consists of 'the economy is losing ground to Europe but has not crashed' and 'we're definitely shootin ourselves in the foot but if we aim carefully the ricochet will get the EU in the balls as well'.

In reply to john arran:


I can think of one. Several, in fact.

I don't think Nigel and Boris are going to like them much, though.

In reply to Ramblin dave:



Boris will happily support any proposal which benefits him, he will be open to persuasion

In reply to BnB:


The overwhelming barrrier to trade in services is simply movement of workers. It’s really obvious.


You’re completely missing the point here BnB. We can be 100% compliant all we want, without common regulatory bodies and enforcement structures, which we will be leaving, and without freedom of movement for workers, which will be also leaving, it’s rather pointless.

Say you’re a German company looking for an ERP expert on a six month contract, who are you going to give the work to ? A British consultant who will have to wait for months for get a visa with no guarantee of success, complicated paperwork, or someone from France or Italy who can start the next day ?

I’ll give you an example, I used to work for a very large American software/hardware tech company. We used to maintain mission critical systems for big European customers (hardware and software).

The staff had to be highly skilled and fluent in European languages, so most of the employees were either EU citizens who came under freedom of movement, or British citizens who had the opportunity to learn another EU language, again, because they had the opportunity to live long term in another EU country at some point. We had to travel on various EU sites regularly and at very short notice. In the same building, in the factory floor below, server parts from all over the world would come to be assembled and put to test benches, before being shipped out to customers tarrifs-free through a tight supply chain.

I have zero doubt the such a business simply couldn’t exist in the U.K. without the level of regulatory integration and freedom of movement of workers and goods the single market offers.

The same pattern repeats itself in pretty much every permanent job I’ve held. Maybe I’m biased as I’ve naturally sought this type of jobs that involved cross border services, but it seems to me, that’s a lot of big business (and FDI) that will go somewhere else.

As for data sharing... we’ll in my experience, even within the EU, large companies are already very reluctant to host data outside of their jurisdiction, but you can manage. Outside of the EU, you can forget about it, too risky.

In reply to RomTheBear:

IT is probably not the best example, let's face it we are haemorrhaging jobs abroad anyway thanks to cloud etc. Even now safe harbour for data can apply to more than just the EU.

In reply to summo:


There's no excuse for the UK government messing about with the Good Friday agreement and putting a hard border in place. The Irish Republic made concessions in the course of the Good Friday negotiations including modifying its constitution to remove an explicit claim to the territory of Northern Ireland and replace it with a more general clause hoping for future Irish unity.

Ireland is a member state of the EU, it has a veto on any Brexit deal, why is anyone surprised that it expresses its concerns to the EU negotiators and they take note.

In reply to Tyler:

I suspect the same applies to all sorts of jobs. Financial services of course but not only, architects, highly skilled construction workers, engineering, advertisement ... put simply, to export their services to the EU, they’ll have to get work visas, and that’s a huge barrier, much more of an issue than tarrifs on goods.

As for cloud-based providers with significant EU customer data in the U.K., I have no doubt that most if not all will have to relocate their data in the EU. Even if the U.K. retained the exact same regulations as the EU (which btw would somewhat defeat the point of brexiting...)

In reply to BnB:

The EU’s doing ? Really ? The EU position was very clear from the start, but the U.K. gov still can’t put a number or a methodology on the table for the brexit bill, they are politically unable and too weak to make the concessions they will obviously need to make to go forward.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Logically the person who wants the money presents the bill? The methodology would be based on any contract we signed. There should be no guesswork or plucking of random billion size figures from the air. It should be precise down to the last Euro, precision is not a strong point when it comes to eu finances but they should at least try(workings out must be shown).

In reply to summo:

Logically if you're going to leave a club it might be sensible to check what it's going to cost before you slap your farewell note on the secretary's desk.

In reply to summo:

They have. The EC has put forward a methodology already (a year ago). Which of course we expect the U.K. to dispute, but the UK gov has been unable to put a counter offer on the table. They are just kicking the can down the road, but they’re running out of road.

In reply to summo:


I'm not sure why you think the collective members of the EU would want to put time and effort into this circus ? Quite understandably they aren't as fixated with helping the UK leave as we are in walking away.

In reply to GrahamD:
>
Because the UK is their biggest single export market and one of their biggest contributors to their budget? They have other priorities but they'd be mad not to put time and effort into this issue.

There is a huge amount of disinformation about the negotiations from both sides. The EU knows perfectly well where the UK is coming from because the UK has given an indicative number (20) and explained where they disagree with the legal position of the EU. By implication the EU therefore knows both the UK's number and methodology. The EU has not given any number but, based on their guidelines on methodology, various institutions have estimated a number at between 25 and 100bn euro.

Behind the scenes they are (it would appear) wrangling over the details of RAL, pension calculations etc etc which are the nub of the technicalities. In a sense, however, this is a deflection tactic by both sides who understand well that this is about willy waving and politics. Neither side wants to be nailed down with precision (indeed, they have agreed not to be) because this would make compromise much harder especially given the resistance of the domestic constituents.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It doesn't seem to bother you, the notion that there are now two 'sides' in conflict with each other, and that this conflict has been almost entirely of our own making. There was no willy-waving before we started it. (Well, not all of us, but some of us.)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Willy waving is endemic in the EU negotiations, as it in most organisations. Greece ring any bells?
We're not at war with them.

In reply to Postmanpat:

There isn't a negotiation . The EU are just waiting for the UK to concede. We have form.

The UK talked tough on the phasing of the negotiation (the row of the summer according to DD). They were going to cut a deal with the Germans over the heads of the commission (they want to sell us cars etc) - delusion. We were going to cut trade deals with world governments although we were still in the EU for two more years- tumbleweed. We had mapped out all the economic impacts of brexit in 58 detailed sectoral analyses - then decided when parliament demanded them that they don't exist.

The EU have set a formula that will produce a number between 50-60Bn EU. The EU is united and won't bargain. Theresa May is too weak force half her cabinet or the daily Mail to accept it. The only "wrangling" is within the Tory party and Press. Eventually the UK will accept it or there will be a hard brexit. A mild drag to growth in the EU and a big economic disaster in the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I recommend simply forgetting about the issue of UK contributions missing in future budgets, it is essentially a non-issue for the other side at the table and will provide the UK with no leverage at all.

The issue did crop up briefly in the current coalition negotiations in Germany, as a loss of the UK contribution will mean that some EU regional support, e.g. through the EFRE program, will have to be cut. Since some of this money still also goes to the former GDR regions, and the intra-German support program runs out in 2019 as well, some billions had to found behind the sofa, were earmarked for the East, and the issue disappeared again. Similarly, the prospect of increased EU contributions caused not more than a shrug. The German government, if not all of the population know how much we benefit, so we might as well pay up.

In fact, but of course never said in a citeable way, the need to introduce some budget cuts is in part seen as a welcome thumbscrew that can at least be shown to the Visegrad states come the next round of budget negotiations.

The point of the leaving bill (which is unrelated to future budgets, existing commitments aside) is different, but you can work that out for yourself....

CB

In reply to Malarkey:

Which is what I've been saying in less stark terms when I say "it is about willy waving and politics" and a "deflection activity" (on the other thread maybe)

In reply to cb294:


Yes, but these issues have PR significance both to electorates and recalcitrant EU members. In reality all the numbers are small enough that they are not that significant financially, but they carry a a lot of symbolic significance; more in the UK than in the EU maybe.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

of our own making, but I suspect under the exploitative influence of those who would divide Europe


Journalists are the unwitting agents here - Local TV had an item about "Europeans" working in the Lake District last night - from being a small child I had always thought European included British!

In reply to GrahamD:


If the uk just walks away it will cost all those member nations much more to balance the eu books.

In reply to summo:


That's nothing compared to what it will cost us.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I agree, and it looks to me as if the UK Brexit negotiators were mainly playing to a home audience. What is the point of conflating the exit bill with future contributions? Are they trying to convince their voter base that they do hold some trump cards? I have no idea how that is going to help them in negotiating with Barnier's team. Very strange tactics.

CB

In reply to summo:

I refer you to my reply to PMP. The issue of missing future contributions is a non issue at least in Germany, even though one might think that the timing, with several things happening in parallel in 2019, should make a potential budget shortfall relevant.

CB

In reply to cb294:


For Germany of course. Another net contributor that is doing relatively well. Can the other 26 nations cough up more too? The eu will need to cut its budget after Brexit, which will be a first. Even through the austerity era it was asking for more and more money, sometimes even mid year because it hadn't planned properly and was running out.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


That's just negative speculation though.

In reply to cb294:

tactics, allegedly ...


please make the plight of those of us stuck in a country of the wrong gender-identity clear to the folks in Germany!

In reply to summo:


That's right. It's almost as if we, not sufficiently confident of our complete inability to organise a piss-up in a brewery, have decided to lock the doors first and throw away the keys as an extra precaution.