UKC

After 7 years.

What does that say?

And people think Brexit will work?

Very mistaken.

These trade agreements are so complex I don't think the ordinary man in the street, including me understands them.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
A pro Brexit person on the radio has just said that it'd be in the EU's interests (and our's obviously) to carry on with the status quo once we leave, before saying that they may impose tariffs, but that it would be difficult for them to reach agreement on that.

This has set me wondering whether he's right...

In reply to Timmd:



But it won't be status quo when we leave without free movement so we're back to square 1

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Who cares, we're still going out...

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Did you read anything about why the EU failed to make the deal with Canada?

If you did, you might understand how difficult it is for the EU to make such a deal, and why those reasons would apply less to a smaller unit such as the UK.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:




It says that the EU is a deeply dysfunctional organisation and that it is therefore not one we should choose to be a member of. Nor should one choose to be a member of an organisation that holds itself together by threatening retribution on anyone who leaves.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The EU isn't "threatening", it's just saying it won't give us benefits on our terms which we are trying to demand.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:




It says that getting 28 countries to all agree on something when half of one of the smaller countries can veto it shows that pinning our future ability to trade globally on the EU is wishful thinking.
The EU is about 15% of the global economy and getting smaller, the other 85% (and getting bigger) is where the future lies, cutting our losses with the EU, perhaps taking a small hit now, but putting ourselves in a better position to access that 85% gives us the chance to get ahead of the field whilst they're too preoccupied with staring at their navels or whatever it us thay've been faffing around at for the last 7 years.
So far this century our trade with the EU has decreased from about 66% of our total trade to under 50%, since this is the direction we're already moving in it makes no sense to let the EU's paralysis drag us back.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm a member of the Climbers' Club. If I leave I can't use their huts on exactly the same basis as I can now. It's retribution, I tell ye!

In reply to wintertree:

Wasn't there something about getting back our sovereignty from an all powerful EU bureaucracy.

Yet here one small region can block everything.

Not good news for the EU agreed, but you can't have it every which way.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


So why did President Hollande say “There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price"?

In reply to seankenny:

Neither does the UK expect to. There are numerous compromise deals that could be struck were their wiling on both sides. It currently appears that the EU apparatchiks and the Francophiles are more concerned about "discouraging les autres" than the negotiating a compromise beneficial to both entities.

In reply to ian caton:




In this case it does actually go both ways. Think about it. We loose partial sovereignty in allowing others to have a veto over us, we gain different partial sovereignty in having a veto over them.

In practical terms, which of those partial sovereignties is more important?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, they don't want any risk of others - in this scary new belligerent, chauvinistic, nationalistic world - following suit, and the EU falling apart. Neither do I, nor anyone else who wants peace.
PS. Not going to argue this point. Working hard this pm.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


As I said then "to discourage the others". Of course they could try and meet the popular demand for a more flexible and democratic EU as opposed to acting as fanatical and authoritarian defenders of existing rules and regulations, however irrational and destructive, on the grounds that any concessions will beget more demands.

In reply to wintertree:

Genuinely, I am unclear what you are trying to say.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Brilliant, a Belgian province sabotaged an EU deal with Canada, and this somehow indicates the UK will be unable to make trade deals?

The bottom of that barrel is getting mighty thin remoaners.

In reply to Big Ger:

Not only because because if " the EU can't do a deal with cuddly Canada what hope for renegade Britain" but also because it is a reflection of the current western anti globalisation zeitgeist.

In reply to ian caton:


I'm not sure how to say it more clearly. The sovereignty of any member state (A) is both weakened and extended by being in the EU when looked at through the lens of these trade agreement negotiations.

It is weakened because another member state (B) can veto things, limiting the ambitions of A, and stopping A from accomplishing something it could have done if not a member of the EU.

It is extended because state A can influence the ambitions of state B by vetoing things for everyone - including B.

So my point is that I disagree with your statement that "you can't have it every which way" as the sovereignty issue does go both ways when states pool some control, as with the EU. I'm also not sure who your use of "you" in your reply refers to, but not I think me as I never made the claims you appear to be addressing.

In reply to seankenny:


would you be in the CC if it's rules banned you from also being a member of, or even staying at any other club's hut though? Perhaps you'd leave and accept that you'd lost a CC hut perk, but gained the rest of the world?

In reply to Postmanpat:


What choice do they have when the UK has indicated they don't want to make any concessions ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You mean because they respect the choice of people their citizen they are somehow dysfunctional ?


I think you are deeply confused. There is no "retribution", the EU is not imposing any penalty on the UK.
The EU is not threatening anything, they are simply acknowledging that the UK government seem to want a hard brexit - which of course would be deeply damaging, so if course there would be consequences for the uk, but they are self inflicted.

I can see that you are already shifting the blame on the EU, but that's hardly surprising.

In reply to summo:


That would be a shitty deal. However, luckily the CC we are talking about has negotiated free unrestricted access to most of the World's huts by use of reciprocal rights thanks to it owning a considerable number of huts. Were we to leave hoping that we get a better hypothetical deal we would probably be back to having to book the CIC hut 3 years in advance, by post, or being made to pay the full whack in the Alps BMC member style.

In reply to Mr Lopez:
£if only that were true, only the cc/eu doesn't have global reciprocal rights, as it appears to be unable to negotiate a deal that doesn't either disadvantage individuals, or the whole of the club. Canada, usa, India, China.... No CC reciprocal rights deal ? Globally year on year your CC is becoming less and less influential, its reciprocal rights will become less meaningful. A bit like when your club membership will offer a 5% discount on a product that was 10% over the market price in the first place.

In reply to summo:

This will be why banks and other businesses are considering leaving and why the Treasury are estimating massive GDP and hence tax reductions.

Anyhow I do look forward to you blaming it all on the likes of me when it all goes slowly horribly wrong.

In reply to seankenny:

I'm sure you'll be cheering and celebrating after any and all bad events which happen to the UK too.

In reply to seankenny:


When you say leave, you mean set up a regional office within an eu city, mainly full of legal eagles to continue the passporting rights of only a few very specific type of transaction, just as Switzerland already does?

In reply to Timmd:

Just because something prima-facie appears in two negotiating parties best interest does not mean it can be made to happen when the parties are constrained by a vast array of legal and treaty commitments to other parties and have extreme difficulty getting internal consensus. It would be in the EUs interest to sign a trade deal with Canada but it's having great difficulty in doing so.

It is unbelievable that the Tory ministers are still arguing as if trade negotiations were a simple thing like buying a car and think that keeping their negotiating position hidden to the last minute is good tactics.

In reply to summo:


Did you even wonder why there are so many Swiss banks in the city, all with significant numbers of staff ?

In reply to Big Ger:

"We had a vote, so we are definitely all going to stick a four foot wooden stake up our arse next March so stop moaning about it because there's no way anyone can be allowed to change their mind when their eyes start to water. We just need to get used to it and we'll be so much more open for new partners."

In reply to RomTheBear:

Because the UK, London specifically is in the right time zone, has hundreds of years of finance history, decades of experience and skills in finance and support industry; insurance, legal etc... It is stable politically in a relative sense, decent legal structure, good international communications ie. Heathrow, Gatwick etc...

All of these were in place long before the eu was a twinkle in the eurocrats eyes. Plus, many swiss banks only have hq type offices outside Switzerland purely for passport purposes, many of these are new since swiss referendum, just like with Erasmus they found a work around solution.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You do realise the City of London is the epicentre of the global financial services industry?

It would be bizarre for there not to be a significant presence on the part of all the international banks. I do agree however that the passporting issue needs to be clarified. But we've covered this already.

The pace of the Canada deal is cause for concern. Then again, it might be a blessing in disguise. The crucial difference between the UK and Canada is that Canada is on the outside of the EU and their trade agreement depends on detailed standardisation and negotiations between two non-compliant entities. Europe and the UK however are fully and mutually compliant and compatible with a comprehensive trading and legislative framework. Surely it is in the interests of both parties to continue to trade under the same rules beyond the 2 year limit if no deal can be finalised in that time. Reverting to WTO rules makes no sense to either party if both wish a trade deal to be reached in due course. Better to slowly redefine the marriage than divorce and remarry a couple of years later. The Great Repeal Bill already takes this course by adopting all EU law as UK law in the expectation of slowly diverging statute by statute. The least disruptive trade negotiation would agree that nothing shall change in the fundamentals at any landmark date, instead allowing the piecemeal divergence of the UK from the EU in series of treaties, be they to tweak migration rules, services passporting restrictions, or the shape of bananas.

In reply to summo:


I have no doubt that similar things were said by the Doges of Venice when courtiers suggested that the new-fangled cities of Amsterdam and London were on the rise.

In reply to summo:



But frankfurt and Paris tick most of those boxes too.

The sky won't cave in on the day after we trigger article 50. But not to acknowledge that in the medium term there is a risk that Londons current primacy could be eroded looks like wilful blindness to potential consequences.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Yes. Frankfurt are actively looking into how to turn Brexit into an opportunity.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

My experience is that the overwhelming view of business and the private sector is that Brexit will undermine investment, growth and ultimately jobs. Many of us running businesses have already seen deals being delayed and investment withdrawn. That's been sharpened by the complete lack of direction and understanding being demonstrated by the Westminster government. I fear that along with a slide in business confidence and economic stability we're also about to be treated to an erosion in human rights and employment law. Not to mention the kind of reputational damage that the UK couldn't have imagined in its worst nightmares a couple of years ago. Isolationism and xenophobia isn't a good look for attracting investment and skills.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

only in nothing like the same capacity, Frankfurt's finance industry is a fraction of London, Paris the same. The USA is more likely to scoop up Londons offerings, than the EU.


It's funny how the EU loving left, also now love those evil bankers, who supposedly single handedly cause the recession etc... Perhaps they've discovered which sectors of UK industry supply the butter for their bread?

In reply to BnB:


It's we'll know that the Swiss banks had to set up in London, in big part because they don't have the passport in Switzerland.


I'm not sure you really understood, it's not about what makes economic sense, or what's in the best mutual economic interest.
If it was about that the UK would just stay in the EU or the single market.

It's about myths around sovereignty and immigration, I can't see any deal or any compromise being made, given that virtually any trade deal would involve some sort of free movement and some sort of external court to arbitrate disputes, and that has been very clearly ruled out by the government.

If you look at the Canada deal, it's not being blocked because of differences of standard and regulation - it's blocked purely because of the politics of it.

Reverting to WTO rule wouldn't be a disaster for the EU really, the UK would suffer disproportionately though.


I think we are more looking at 20 years, for the relationship to be rebuilt pretty much as it was, at the condition that there is a will for it. If you look at Switzerland it took them 15 years to get all these bilateral treaties - and arguably they are virtually in the EU and implement most of EU law.

In reply to summo:

The other issue is Germanys 35% corporate tax rates against 20% for the UK. Frances high personal and corporate tax rates as well as employment restrictions will also be a no-no for these greedy corporates.
I don't think that Frau Merkels statement that she will not support Deutsche Bank will encourage them to move to Germany.
All in all, a lot of hot air from the BBA.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The view that the rest of the world is a better trade partner for us than Europe is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the terms that we have under the WTO were agreed as part of the EU; if we leave the EU we are no longer a part of agreements either with the EU or the WTO. Secondly, WTO agreements were agreed by the EU, negotiating as a major market in its own right. The UK is a negligible market in a world context and therefore has a weak bargaining position. If we were to, say, argue the case for a unique product such as Scotch whisky, then a market such as China might say that they would give us a low entry tariff to China for Scotch, but only if we agree to beneficial terms for their products into the UK- but they'll only give us the beneficial entry terms after 10 years. If we say 'no' they just tell us that the negotiation is now out of time. Next talks scheduled in 5 years, but with the same deal. Who's got the bigger problem?

In reply to summo:


I think you will find it is farmers, not bankers, that supply the butter for our bread.

In reply to RomTheBear:



That's how you see it. It doesn't mean I don't understand the many sides of the issue.


If you re-read my post and remind yourself of the OP, you'll see I was referring to the 7 years it has taken to get the point where the Waloons can, at the last moment, throw their special interest spanner in the works. Those 7 years are in a big way about the standardisation and compliance negotiation, all of which is already satisfied in the case of UK/EU.


Yes, but trading with single market access since 2002. Why not the same for UK (post Article 50 + 2 years) until such time as we conclusively prioritise migration curbs over membership or gain concessions on movement of labour to satisfy both sides?

In reply to BnB:

I think you're in a bit of a denial - that boat has sailed already, the UK will not accept any freedom of movement, and won't accept the jurisdiction if the ECJ, the government made it clear, and there just isn't any incentive for the Tory government to prioritise the economy over immigration at this point, they have a general election just after the end of the two year period. If we are still in a transitional arrangement - if by some miracle we get 27 countries to agree to it (unlikely) - the tories would just get hammered by UKIP.
A hard brexit also give the Tories the opportunity the transfer a massive amount of powers to the executive, something T May is very found of.

On the EU side you get a similar dynamic with general elections coming, and electorates that are unlikely to want to let the UK once again have more opt outs and favourable arrangements.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


A pedant might suggest its cows, funded by tax revenue from evil banksters?

In reply to summo:


Who knows what the future holds, summo? Perhaps the passporting issue will turn out to be of no great consequence after all. But if it does, the business going to wall st rather than Germany or France will be scant consolation, given how important the sector is to the UK economy, and therefore tax receipts.


Beware of making assumptions about the political affiliations of people you're debating with on the Internet; else you might be accused of creating straw men...

In reply to all:
The point I am making is that Brexit could go on for a long period of time, during which all of us on here, will directly suffer as a consequence in some shape or form.
UKIP is Nigel Farage, they don't agree upon anything. The whole job of Farage was to get us out of Europe, but he had no actual plan on how to implement it, no one did. This should have been the focus for the whole debate.
Brexit has already caused a lot of damage and split the country in two.
I'm just not convinced things will be better out of Europe, even though its dysfunctional, which I accept.
I could argue that the banking system is still dysfunctional, government is dysfunctional, democracy is dysfunctional ( look at what has been happening in the USA over the last decade) ,FIFA is dysfunctional, the FA is dysfunctional, capitalism is dysfunctional, human behaviour is dysfunctional.
Do you not grasp how complex this whole process will be? Obviously not.

I am not moaning!

In reply to summo:
I'll think you'll find the butter from the financial services is spread pretty thin North of Watford

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


the percent of city of London financial transactions which would actually require passport is quite small, the vast majority of banking business isn't impact at all.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


there is a lot of country to spread it over. I think you'll find it's spread a little thicker over NI and Scotland thanks to the barnet formula, it's the land between that doesn't see so much of it. I bet they are still knee deep in butter in Brussels though, they did have a mountain for while.

In reply to seankenny:
You can use the CC huts if you leave Sean. You just pay for them differently

In reply to jethro kiernan:


What about Boris's big pile of jam?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Let them eat Jam
Has a certain ring to it

In reply to The Ice Doctor:



It says that 2 of the arguments made for Brexit are not true (or "less" true):

1. "The EU will give us a good deal because Germany wants to sell BMWs to UK consumers". If Wallonia can block a trade agreement with Canada then they - and any other of the 27 states (and sub-states) can block a supposedly favorable agreement with the UK.

2. The sovereignty question. At least in the case of trade agreements it seems that the member states (and their sub-states, depending on their constitution) have plenty of sovereignty.

It also says that any favorable agreement the UK does strike with the EU will be a long time coming, which raises the question of what we do between now and then. A common sense approach would be to agree to the status quo; the problem with this is that it probably doesn't make sense as a negotiating strategy because the status quo is the baseline from which all negotiations start. If I am an EU trade negotiator, I want that baseline to the WTO obligations, possibly not even that (since UK is not part of the WTO).

The only way I can see of squaring this circle is to focus EU-UK negotiations on services, which is the largest and fastest-growing part of the UK economy and an area where the EU free market has never worked. In other words there is the opportunity to improve the terms of trade with the EU in services; whereas for goods the terms are already as good as they are going to get and so it is a question of limiting losses.

On the Brexit side, it reinforces the argument that EU trade agreements are slow and tend towards the lowest common denominator. Outside of the EU, the UK has an opportunity to strike more tailored trade agreements. Of course the problem is very few countries will want to sign an agreement with the UK before our future relationship with the EU becomes clear. Signing an agreement with a country that can trade tariff-free with the EU is very different from signing an agreement with a country which has WTO terms with the EU. Which takes us back to where we started: it will take a long time to negotiate anything long-term with the EU, and therefore it will take a long time to negotiate anything long-term with a significant number of other countries.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not a Francophile, then.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

https://www.dwf.law/media/2174825/brexit-north_oct2016.pdf

The first 2 conclusions to this document made me laugh (not in a good way). It's a report by IPPR North about the impact of different Brexit scenarios and making a case that The North needs to be involved in negotiations because there are specfic characteristics that need to be considered. Anyway, the Conclusions, and I quote:

"- The meaning of Brexit will be defined via a process of negotiation." (Just to remind us: we held an binary choice referendum where the meaning of one of the choice was undefined).

"- A range of actors with different interests and priorities will seek to influence what Brexit comes to mean." (perhaps the most chilling, because I suspect by 'range of actors', they do not mean the good people of UKC)

"-The economic opportunities and risks associated with Brexit will vary by economic sector and by place." (we're not all in this together folks...and who will speak up for us, because I don't think this is about the quality of life of the average citizen - it's all about ideology now. Please feel free to persuade me otherwise, because I might sleep more soundly tonight).

In reply to Postmanpat:


There is the sensible approach and then there is the approach they EU is likely to take. The sensible approach would be to inflict some pain on the UK while at the same time driving through reforms to keep Eurosceptics in their own countries happy, albeit at a safe enough distance from Brexit for it not to look like Brexit caused the reforms. The approach the EU is likely to take is to inflict some pain on the UK, talk about driving through reforms, feel the political pressure ease off a bit, get distracted and end up kicking the can down the road a few years longer.

Neither of those options include giving a good deal to the UK. You talk as if discouraging the others is dogmatic... its actually a logical response. If another large country, especially a euro-zone country, were to split from the EU it would unleash untold chaos - it is normal that they would want to discourage that.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I've read that the trade deal Canada was trying to get agreed was their equivalent to TTIP, in skewing the balance between the power of corporate interests and citizens/governments, meaning that drawing a parallel between their deal being thwarted and the UK agreeing future trade deals may be not quite right.

In reply to Timmd:

Nonsense, any trade deal includes inevitably some sort of arbitration court or supranational jurisdiction of some sort, for companies to sue governments if they feel they are being cheated, otherwise these deals would be worthless.

This is already the case with WTO arbitration tribunals BTW. With TTIP or CETA , these deals cover more things, so inevitably it gives more scope for companies to sue government and change domestic laws.

The whole point of the single market is that this is built on a democratic platform, much better than shady and corrupted arbitration courts IMO, but anyway...

In reply to planetmarshall:

I employed Franglish in the great tradition of Anglo-French co-operation and harmony

In reply to Timmd:

The secrecy and unaccountable counts surrounding trade deals are higly disturbing, I agree. The idea tobacco companies can sue governments for introducing health warnings, for example, is absurd. Quite why brexiteers are fine with this but object.to.a.democratic structure like the EU is beyond me.

In reply to MG:


Same here, I'd rather have these things decided in common democratically instead of having corporations suing governments in corrupted arbitration courts, utterly nonsensical when the argument is to "take back control"....

In reply to RomTheBear:

Out of interest has any corporation ever successfully sued a govt under these clauses as they arepretty normal in trade agreements.

In reply to neilh:

Some examples here, several seriously unpleasant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement

In reply to neilh:

I have heard that the fear of them has had a chilling effect on legislation a couple of times in Canada. It's hard to prove that kind of thing though.

In reply to Timmd:


It included investor-state dispute settlement clauses but I don't see why that means there is no parallel to be drawn between the Canada deal and future U.K. deals.

The U.K. pretty much invented investor-state dispute clauses and our investors bring more cases against states than any other country except the US and The Netherlands. Indeed they are a pretty basic precaution when doing a trade deal with a country whose legal system you don't trust like Russia, china, India and most of the other countries which will (allegedly) take British exports soaring into a new era. In fact Canada is one of the few countries where you could reasonably do without it.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Maybe don't trade deals with such countries? If you really don't trust them, why would you think they would honour supra-national judgements anyway?

In reply to MG:



It's interesting that Canada has lost three of those cases but it was Wallonia - not Canada - who objected to the inclusion of ISDS language in CETA. Canada obviously sees more upside in having the language in there (and in fairness there are some European jurisdictions where you probably wouldn't feel too confident of the justice system).

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Maybe Canada aren't very good at cutting trade deals.

In reply to MG:


Outside of the EU that leaves us with Australia, New Zealand, the US and, possibly, Korea.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Japan. Shrug.

In reply to MG:


Good point. I had a strong feeling I'd be missing one... or a few.

In reply to aln:




They've had a lot more practice than we have of the last few years

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I can see the merit of deals in principle but they have to be open and accountable. Why, for instance, can I not see and comment on the TTIP draft? It will affect me and others profoundly if implemented. Likewise, we have a court system that works well, and is independent. Why a parallel non independent one? The answers to both can only be corporate vested interests as far as I can see.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Doesn't bode well for us.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Hmmn, I said parallels 'may not be quite right', not that none can be drawn.


Do you think it might be the nature of the clauses which is causing alarm?

In reply to MG:


You can read the proposals and explainers here: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230

In fairness this is quite a new level of transparency and I suspect is only a response to the public pressure against TTIP. But still, not to be sniffed at. We'll have to wait to see how transparent the U.K. Government will be about its trade negotiations.

I doubt you can comment on it, beyond writing to your MP (and / or MEP?) because it's just not feasible to take into account individual views a negotiating text.


We do indeed but the countries we strike agreements with don't, necessarily. And in the context of trade agreements, well they're all corporate interests, aren't they?

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Ok but it wasn't possible for many years.

>

Well that would be fine, although previously MEPs couldn't see it either!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/mps-can-view-ttip-files-bu...


Err no. That's the whole point. For example the Ecuador case, where they were sued by Phillip Morris over public health measures (PM did in this case lose). See examples above too.

In reply to Timmd:


I don't see why parallels might not be right.


The point I was making is, if anyone thinks that isds wont be part of future U.K. Trade agreements they are dreaming. Having pretty much invented the concept ( or at the least been an early adopter) and being the the 3rd largest origin country for investor-state disputes, I'd be surprised if Britain were about to ditch them.

And that is to say nothing of the fact that isds is only what has tripped CETA up at the last minute. I don't know whether it is what took 7 years to negotiate. I suspect not.

In reply to MG:


Yes but the point is that any clause which goes into a trade agreement is, in effect, supporting vested corporate interests. That's what trade agreements are for.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


No it isn't, or shouldn't be. They should support the economy, and hence population at large. If they are really there to support corporate vested interests, they should be abolished immediately.

In reply to MG:


Aren't corporations (and, fair enough, small businesses and individual traders) the mechanism through which they support the economy?

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Yes but it a controlled way. For example it's not in a coorperation's interest to pay tax but the economy needs it. Similarly PM might better off giving Ecuadoreans lung cancer but that isn't in Ecuadoreans' interests.

In reply to neilh:

Hundreds of times.
Just look at the case backlog of WTO court, or NAFTA, or even ASEAN. Airbus and Boeing for example have been at it for decades, complaining that Europe has been providing state aid to airbus, and vice versa.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

This short piece may be of interest:

"Failure of EU free trade deal would leave Canada stranded" - http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN12P0ET

In reply to MG:


i fully agree with that.

it looks like the walloons have found their peace with the agreement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37788882