UKC

I noticed the Tories in the audience last night frothing at the mouth with nationalistic fervour when TM said this last night, but have no idea what it actually means. Can anyone enlighten me?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It means everything will be strong and stable - so don't worry

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I've always taken it to mean that there are a set of terms and conditions (the bad deal) which the UK will not accept (the no deal).
What those terms and conditions are only the government knows.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Unless they decide that no deal means we stay (unlikely), no deal will be bad unless you are a (very) rich conservative supporter (we end up exposed to a very harsh trading environment). It has the advantage tat as we haven't agreed on anything we can blame Europe for all our woes. The risk of a deal is that we might have to accept some responsibility for our actions.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

What it means is starting negotiations from a position of strength and confidence.
Labours any deal is better than no deal is starting from a position of weakness and fear.

Negotiation is all compromise, we start strong and they start strong and ultimately we meet in the middle somewhere.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

My understanding is we revert to world trade organisation terms whatever they are but basically we will pay tariffs on imports and charge tariffs on exports as opposed to tariff free trade.
One things for sure, it will be complicated.

In reply to Dax H:

So what are the consequences of no deal?

Surely we need to know this before we get excited by the prospect of telling Johnny Foreigner where to go?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


This helps explain some of the issues involved.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/01/economist-explain...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Disaster.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-theresa-may-tories-no-deal-bette...

In reply to Gone for good:

For many achieving Brexit™ is an end in itself. We shouldn't let consequences get in the way of the prize of Brexit™.

( I suspect for some of those they have realised that saying they hate foreigners sounds even worse).

In reply to Pekkie:

That's an interesting and very troubling article.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You might find these interesting too

try: https://infacts.org/

https://www.facebook.com/scientistsforeu

In reply to Pekkie:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/why-leavin...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I think she means that if the terms of a trade deal offered by the EU turn out to be worse for our economic future than reverting to WTO rules, then we would reject this "bad deal" and go for "no deal" (i.e. WTO rules). This is, therefore a statement of the f*cking obvious, and she is a massive dickhead who talks total bollocks the whole time and doesn't have a f*cking clue what she's doing, and is only capable of choosing her favourite slogan suggested by her advisers and repeating it in a stern voice, looking a bit cross, over and over again.

Edit. I think the whole thing's bullshit anyway - there won't be a deal. There isn't time, these things take about a decade to develop. We'll just get a massive "fuck you" from Brussels, and our European friends will just deal with the loss of trade with the UK as it isn't their top priority.

In reply to HardenClimber:


I'm liking the little Theresa May branding on Brexit shame you can't get it in red, white and blue!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm liking your optimism!!

In reply to baron:


Interesting. Independent v Telegraph. Trouble is there's a lot more 'ifs, maybes and coulds' in the Telegraph's analysis.

In reply to Pekkie:
There certainly are far more ifs in the Telegraph article.

In reply to Pekkie:


Does that mean the Independents crystal ball is faultless?

In reply to JIMBO:

alt 0153 gives you ™
(press alt and use the number pad)

In reply to Jon Stewart:



At which point brexiteers will blame everyone but themselves and move on to their next ideological obsession.

In reply to HardenClimber:


Is that the left one or the alt-right?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Basically what it means is that "No Deal" - a catastrophe for the British economy - would be better for her personally than a "Bad Deal" - that is any deal that would annoy Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Entertaining as ever Jon but I'm sure you can see that this is a standard negotiating gambit wherein walking away secures a quick and substantial improvement to the "final" offer on the table. She's just laying the groundwork for that move and a better deal. Why do I get the impression you're not thankful

In reply to MG:


I just watched a Party Election Broadcast that tried to convince me that my future was hanging on the negotiating skill of the PM, and that if I voted for Theresa May, we'd get a "good deal" because she's a good negotiator, but if I voted for anyone else, we'd get a "bad deal" because they wouldn't have the "clear plan" [sarcastic snort here] that she has. I was not convinced.

If we go into negotiations and say "we want to be in the single market, we'll pay in, and we'll accept free movement" then we'll get a "good deal". It will be the same as what we have now, but with no influence, and we'll look like a bunch of pricks for cutting our nose off to spite our face. If we go into negotiations and say "we don't want to be in the single market because we will not accept free movement, and we won't pay in" then we'll be told to go f*ck ourselves. The very bottom line is that any deal will ensure we are worse off - how could the EU possibly agree to a deal that made it better to leave the EU than to stay in? And the idea that there will be some incredibly skillfully constructed arrangement that somehow preserves what we want from the EU while satisfying the EU - who will be a losing huge contribution to its budget, and who are far more concerned with survival than any decline in trade with the UK - is just laughable. Oh yes, Theresa May, who hasn't said anything with any substance nor demonstrated any skill in developing successful policies since coming to power, is going to pull off this monumental magic trick! Anyone who believes this ridiculous proposition needs their head examined.

In reply to JIMBO:

make sure Num Lock is on
left one ...... keep it pressed (Alt not Alt Gr)
then use the keypad


https://tools.oratory.com/altcodes.html

In reply to BnB:


But it's garbage, it doesn't mean anything. We're not buying a house, where the vendor has a big stake in getting the sale completed. We're leaving the EU. She thinks that the pubic will believe that she's saying something meaningful, because it's the kind of thing you say when you're negotiating stuff generally and sounds a bit tough, but actually she hasn't got a f*cking clue what to do next. She's a charlatan.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Indeed she is.

The thought that the likes of Merkel are quaking in their boots at May's posturing would be laughable if it wasn't f*cking up my daughter's future.

I don't know how stupid you need to be not to realise that we need trade with the EU a lot more than they need it with us. A point TM made quite forcibly before she did one of her U turns.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Who's going to pay the shortfall in EU funding when the UK isn't there?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Given that's so obvious, why are the lib dens saying that they won't leave without a deal? Why don't the other parties just agree, but say it's unlikely? It'd stop the Tories being able to use the line.

In reply to baron:

Is that the best you can do? The EU will do what any organisation does when faced with a budget shortfall - it copes.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Yes it's all I've got.
Would you care to answer my initial question?

In reply to thomasadixon:

I'm not 100% sure I understand. The LD position is that they want to stay in the EU, but we've had a referendum so they have to phrase that in a more palatable way than "we seek to wipe our arse on the referendum ballot papers and flush them away like the sewage they are". "We'll hold a referendum on the final deal (which will obviously be shite, given that getting a "good deal" is a totally impossible outcome given that we are living in actual reality rather than some twisted Gove-Farage fantasy world) with the option to leave" is their way of saying this. Labout are in a pickle because it's their traditional working class base that brought the whole bloody thing about because they were pissed off with immigration, so you can't expect to hear anything that makes sense from them.

In reply to baron:


I don't understand. No one's going to pay it, unless we stay in the club, accepting free movement and all the rest.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sorry Jon, can you please quietly crawl away and hide.

You are articulating perfectly all my beliefs, understandings, perceptions and predictions, and it's too sodding depressing.

On the other hand ... let's try an optimistic slant. Brexit will 'fail', messily and embarrassingly, the UK economy will tank, the over 70s who voted for this f*cking shambles will shuffle off this mortal coil to be replaced by a cohort that isn't entirely in thrall to the gross and ignorant Paul Dacre, (though the success of the Mail online has to be held against the human race as much as any atrocity), the EU will survive and gradually progress, and there will be some clauses in the exit agreement that give us wiggle room for crawling back, though not in my lifetime on anything like as good terms as we enjoy now.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Wow, that's a really good effort at optimism. Respect!

In reply to Jon Stewart:
So the EU finds itself short of 8 billion pounds a year to fund its projects.
If Germany doesn't fill this funding gap, who will?
Which countries will see their funding cut and how will they react?
Leaving the EU doesn't just affect the UK and therefore EU politicians can't just treat Brexit as a sideshow.

In reply to baron:
Correct no one will pay it. There will be less investment in the EU, the economy won't do so well. We all lose. Again. You must be so proud of yourself voting for this

In reply to Dax H:


It's meaningless nonsense. It's only purpose is political: to get votes from people who think it's some sign of strength or negotiating prowess. It's risk is that it pisses off europe and gets us a worse deal.

In reply to baron:


You're right, they're f*cked.

In reply to baron:
There isn't an option that involves us paying in, except the one that involves free movement. Do you think we're going to get a deal whereby we pay in a lot, don't have free movement, are outside the customs union, and still have the trade benefits of the single market?

The "hard Brexit" line has been established. We're out. We're not having free movement, so we're not in the club, and we're not paying in. May isn't budging on that, and the EU won't budge on the free movement in order to keep the funding. Do you think that May is such a brilliant negotiator that she'll unravel the 4 freedoms?

In reply to edwardgrundy:


I agree it's meaningless nonsense, but I expect the EU will be aiming for the worst possible deal for the UK anyway. Simply throwing ourselves at the mercy of the EU won't make the final deal any more palatable.

That said May hasn't a f***ing clue what she's doing anyway...

In reply to MG:
I voted for what I believe to be the best choice.
You voted based, I presume, on your beliefs.
What's pride got to do with it?

In reply to BnB:


I think you're confusing political posturing to get idiots' votes with a credible threat that he EU might give a f*ck about. Yes, they export a bit to us, but more important to them is that brexit is sh!t for us and seen to be so. Given the *risks* associated with breaking up the EU, this is a perfectly reasonable morally speaking.

In reply to baron:


Well since you must think lower incomes, less stability, less influence and greater xenophobia are for the best, then surely you must be proud to help bringing them about?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think that the EU is so wedded to its 4 freedoms that there's little if any room for negotiation.
Where this leaves the UK who knows?
However, neither the U.K. nor the EU can afford for trade between both parties to be seriously affected.
Oh sorry, it's the EU we are talking about.
Anything is possible where keeping the EU together is the aim.

In reply to baron:


"Sh!te, if the UK leaves we'll each be £16 year worse off", said no one in the EU ever

In reply to baron:


Apparently we can - we can revert to WTO rules and survive, yeah? We'll just be a bit poorer - great!


Exactly the EU can afford to lose some money to ensure its survival. We're not in any position to negotiate a "good deal" and besides, it isn't possible on a practical level. These deals don't come about in 18 months, especially when we don't have any expertise in this field because the EU has been doing it for us for decades.

In reply to edwardgrundy:
The EU can't afford to lose the money that the UK contributes without other countries paying more.
There appears to be some reluctance to either contributing more or suffering cuts among the EU community.

In reply to edwardgrundy:
The more I hear the EU will make Brexit shit for the UK, presumably as a threat to never try this to any other nation that may be considering leaving the gravy train, the more I think f*ck you Junker, Von Rumpy, Tusk , Merkel and Macron. Give no quarter, fine, well expect no quarter. Britain is a strong and proud nation that can survive, even prosper in its own right. The memories of our European neighbours are short but their greed and fickle selfish nature is long as any casual glance in the history book tells us.
I voted remain but the contemptuous sneering patronising tone of those seduced and addicted to their relationship with Europe has turned my head and I now look forward to saying Adieu to the Franco German enterprise sometimes known as the European Union.
Rule Britannia and God save the queen!

In reply to baron:


The EU can afford it a lot more than we can......

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Maybe Germany can. I doubt the rest of Europe will be as keen to damage their trade links.

In reply to baron:


This is true... but £8billion punds isnt very much and we're laving so they'll just have to whether they like it or not

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I suppose unless you are seen as willing to walk away you're in a worse negotiating position.

In reply to Gone for good:


I can't tell if this is serious or not? Bit sad if it is.

Eitherway, we can indeed survive and prosper on our own. Long run it'll just be a bit worse than it otherwsie would be. I wouldn't judge them for wanting brexit to be bad for Britain though. If it's seen to go well it could lead to the break up of the whole EU. Maybe that would be good in the long run, maybe not - but it's a huge risk and not one a responsible leader who cares about people would want to be taking. Particularly when the coutry that's leaving is being a total cnut about it.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


You'll need to explain that one to me.

Who's demanding 100 billion Euros as a divorce settlement? Oh that would be Europe.

In reply to Gone for good:


Trade links are going to be damaged. No free movement, no commonmarket. That's just it. No one but no one in the EU is saying "lets just let them stay in because it's good for our trade."

In reply to edwardgrundy:


We will see. The European project will be seen for what it is. It's all designed around maintaining German and French industrial output. Of course the other member states get thrown some scraps to keep them quiet but let's not kid ourselves that the EU is anything other than a Franco German social and industrial project hurtling headfirst into a United States of Europe with arms opening ever further east.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


So what are we supposed to do?
We are leaving and agree with it or not it's apparently going to happen.
I for one don't want to drop my draws and hand the EU a tub of vasalien.

Doesn't it say a lot about the state of the EU that they have to ensure we get a bad deal to prevent other countries following us out of fear?

In reply to Gone for good:

How much do you think we should pay?

In reply to edwardgrundy:

Nothing. Nada. Diddly squat.

In reply to Dax H:


It's just that the idea we're going to walk away with no deal isn't a credible threat so it on't help negotiations. It's not a credible threat because a. we're not going to do it, b they know we're not goig to do it and c. they don't really care if we do.


Yes, agree. (It's in a bit of a mess but not a mess that bothered us unless you fee strongly about EU immigration.)

In reply to Gone for good:

Is that what you said to your solicitor when you said you wanted a divorce?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
We are leaving the club after having faithfully paid our membership fee, on time, year after year after year. The club didn't really want us to join in the first place, you know, they never really liked the cut of our jib. But they desperately wanted our business, our pound notes, our protection.Now we have given our notice to leave, the club are demanding we pay the next 5 years of membership fees without us being a member. No access to the bar, no free meals, no invites to meet the special guests.

Would you pay out?

In reply to baron:


The EU could also use not having the UK continually trying to block things as an opportunity to reinvent itself and go for deeper integration. I think that's what Merkel was implying when she said the EU needed to 'take the lead' and couldn't rely on the US and UK. Merkel and Macron could make it happen. The federalists in the EU could see this as an opportunity for the EU to become an economic and military superpower with the cost of losing Britain's contribution made up for by increased efficiency in the internal processes.

In reply to Gone for good:

No, we are not leaving a club. We are negotiating a divorce.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Great Britain is a marriage. For richer for poorer for better for worse.

The EU is a club. A bit like the Hotel California.
You can check in anytime you like .....you know the rest.

In reply to Gone for good:
That's an over-simplification. They aren't asking for future membership fees. They're just asking that the UK fulfils its legal liabilities. That's things that we have contracted into through various agreements. If we walk away from these then we place ourselves in the rogue state category. Who will want to make agreements with the UK if we cannot be trusted to honour those agreements?
The extent of the liabilities is another matter, one for the courts and the lawyers to sort out if we don't reach a negotiated agreement. That'll be cheap...

In reply to Bob Kemp:

They aren't doing that. They thinking of a number, any number, adding a few million and timsing it by a few hundred thousand to come up with a ridiculous sum designed to deliberately provoke and antagonise the Government.

In reply to Gone for good:

'The EU is a club'

No, it isn't, and never was. It's a complex confederation of independent states who have voluntarily and democratically agreed to negotiate away some of their autonomy in return for greater economic and social benefits.

If you don't understand that then maybe you should so some more research before posting?

In reply to Gone for good:
Where's your evidence for that?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It means that you might have one of the big red numbers in your box but the banker only offers you a hundred quid which sounds nice because the penny is still out there somewhere but you no deal and it turns out to be better than getting a hundred quid which would have been a bad deal.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The path to further integration is definitely easier without the UK.
That's the aim of the federalists and good luck to them.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I don't remember much democracy taking place when Emperor, sorry, Prime minister Blair signed the Lisbon Treaty and the decidedly dodgy vote to get it ratified not to mention the absence of a referendum despite one being promised to the electorate.
And I'll thank you for your sneering arrogant tone Professor Ward.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Where's the evidence to the contrary?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


And people wonder why the left is so maligned as loopy these days, what with them getting ideas of reference from the TV....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It means f*ck all.

Classic autocratic political move, ramp up uncertainty and confusion then pretend to be the party, organisation, dictator with the solution to the electorates anxiety. Hence calling an election right after the splendid chats we had with chaps at the E.U.

Supercilious head mistress is about to take a rattling in the election next week. If you are going to play these kind of sports at least have some cojones for the face game.

D

In reply to Gone for good:


The only way to deal with Johnny Foreigner is to give him some cold steel where the sun don't shine They don't like it up 'em, oh no! Colonel Mainwaring, help! Someone's put a grenade down my trousers!

In reply to Big Ger:

Eh? How do you get from an observation like "I saw members of the studio audience doing X" to "getting ideas of reference from the TV"?

There did seem to be members of the audience getting a hardon every time PMTM repeated her tough-sounding-but-ultimately-empty catchphrase, with one even attempting a solo standing ovation. But me observing and commenting on that doesn't mean I think it's somehow related to me. And I can't see how the post you replied to says that about the OP either.

In reply to NoddyBoulder:

The claim was; " I noticed the Tories in the audience last night frothing at the mouth with nationalistic fervour "

So, our telepathic friend, not only knows the voting intention of these people on TV, but also, despite there being no visible froth, knows they are in a lather over nationalism.

Utter claptrap, but par for the course for the left leaning, who are, it would seem, trying to win the title of "the nasty party", from the Tories.

Symptoms of "ideas of reference" include;

Seeing objects or events as being set up deliberately to convey a special or particular meaning to themselves
Thinking 'that the slightest careless movement on the part of another person had great personal meaning...increased significance."

In reply to Bob Kemp:

The vast majority of EU states have ignored their financial obligations to NATO and commitments to overseas aid for decades. The worlds response thus far , has been a collective shrug of the shoulders. Bit rich to come over all outraged if the UK walks away from commitments that were never defined in case of divorce any way.
You call them 'legal liabilities' but, as I understand it, they have no actual legal basis.

In reply to BnB:


Do you really think she is talking to the EU negotiators when she comes out with this horse shit? By the time it comes to sign or walk away the UK and EU will have been negotiating for months, they'll know each other's red lines etc. so some simplistic soundbite made 18 months earlier during an election campaign is meaningless.

As with everything that has been said on the subject by a Tory leader in the last two years, she is talking to the Eurospectic wing of the party and UKIP voters. Some sort of deal will be made (there are potentially hundreds of them to be made so even if it is only something trivial like on paper clip tariffs or the signage on Eurostar trains there will be something to cling to) so when she walks away clutching the deal (any deal) we'll all know what a great job she and the three stooges have done as she would not have made a deal for the sake of it, ergo this must be a good deal for Britain.

In reply to Gone for good:


I'm genuinely interested in what you've seen since last June that's made you change your mind? We've not even stated negotiation yet? In what way are the EU being unreasonable? How would you expect them to react differently, I mean, you must think it reasonable for the EU and its member states to look out for themselves and walk away with their own 'good deal' or do you think it's a bit off that they are not agreeing to UKs every demand?

In reply to Gone for good:


Well when the Tories start by spouting off for months about how hard they are going to negotiate and how awkward they are going to be what do you expect them to do?

The upside is the entertainment value of watching the EU provoke and antagonise the Tories.

In reply to HardenClimber:
The (very) rich labour, lib/dem green etc supporters must be sh***ing themselves then? Can you explain why its just the (very) rich from one party thatll be ok?????

In reply to payney1973:

You've lumped rather a lot together...
I was thinking of the extreme end of things (the Dacres, Banks etc),

But perhaps many of the group you refer to have a social conscience (and, of course Labour seem quite keen on Brexit)

In reply to Gone for good:

Haha. You've truly drunk the brexit coolaid.

In reply to Gone for good:

They have actually calculated the liabilities. Sure they're no doubt starting at the higher end but it's not just made up.

There's no getting away fromaying a share of liabilities. You'd be better with the divorce analogy. At least then we get some assets.

Also at the next indyref I'll be keeping an eye out for your staunch defence of Scotland's right to leave with out paying a penny toward national liabilities

In reply to baron:

The expectation in Germany is that we and France as the main remaining rebate free net contributors will definitely have to pick up part of the tab, together with the Benelux states and a few others. However, this will not cover everything, and the rest will be made up by cuts, something that places like Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia are not looking forward to, as their recent lack of cooperation and interest in European principles has been duly noted. To quote someone (Macron?), they have their principles, but we have the structural funds....
Overall, Brexit and Trump seem to have increased rather than diminished support for a more rapid and ambitious European or at least Eurozone integration. In the medium term I see no alternative to a core Europe with several tiers of associated countries with different levels of integration. I am sure the UK will eventually negotiate a status that is more close to, say, Norway or Switzerland rather than Belarus or Turkey, if not right away then later, and at a cost.

CB

In reply to Gone for good:

No you are not expected to pay "membership fees", but you are most definitely expected to stick with your legally binding commitments for the current funding period that have been signed off by your government (which will vary for different EU programs). How much that is in total will be part of the negotiations.

CB

In reply to edwardgrundy:

They can take it out of our fair share of the assets we're leaving behind.

Or maybe we can get some of that art work they're hoarding.

In reply to NoddyBoulder:

Yep, it was the bloke at the end clapping like a convert at a cult convention that I noticed too.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Makes a change from Corbyn supporters heckling whilst people have their say.

In reply to Gone for good:


Have you lived in another EU country? Or studied the EU in any depth? Where exactly further east is the EU opening its arms?

In reply to birdie num num:

Hahahahahahahaha!

I love you Num Num.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes I have lived in another European country.

How about Turkey for a start? Is that far enough East for you? After all who else is going to prop up the aging German population in the decades to come?
I've no doubt Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine will be casting their eyes westward as the Russian bear slowly awakens.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It means that if you go into a negotiation with another party that knows you will have to accept whatever they offer, they will offer you the worst deal.

In reply to Gone for good:

Tell that to the Ukrainians, or indeed the Turks or the Moroccans.

Your analogies have become consistently more silly as this thread has developed.

Rob, I guess it is a divorce, but looking at the breaking a part of other supranational structures of the post WWII settlement (USSR, Yugoslavia, India, the French and British empires) it would seem that these divorces lead to one partner trying to kill the other. FORTUNATELY, the EU has no analogy in history, so there is no reason to expect such terrible outcomes as were sparked by Slovenian and Croatian secession. But I don't think anyone, be that May or Junker, knows what is going to happen.

In reply to Dax H:


Except for the fact it's so self evidently untrue it comes across at best as delusional fantasy, not strength. 'No deal', a cold reset on our key trading, industrial, scientific and security relationships, potentially the forced repatriation of millions, the decimation of our key industry... these are the consequences of war, not a well handled negotiation. No deal *could* be cataclysmic, there is no alternative deal we could consensually arrive at that is worse than that which could be imposed upon us should this all go to worms.
jk

In reply to TobyA:
(In reply to Wanderer100)

Maybe the clue was in his name

In reply to baron:

The remaining 27 members, or they'll choose to spend less, do less. Is that not obvious?
jk

In reply to cb294:


I believe that's the has been established that there are no legally binding obligations to pay under A50.

Now that may have been an oversight in the drafting, and there could be a moral obligation to pay something, but then, as was pointed out, the EU would be morally obliged to give us a share of the many assets that we have been a major contributer to.

In reply to Gone for good:


Which one? I'm interested if you saw people in that one who shared your opinion of the EU being this Franco-German tool where they get thrown 'scraps'? I lived much of my adult life in Finland (and my PhD is mainly about the impact of EU membership on Finland - security policy in particular) and I don't see that view from anyone outside of the True Finns party.


Turkey has been trying to join for decades and totally stymied by the EU. Erdogan's rise is massively a result of that.



Again they all had association agreements or partnerships with the EU for many years but there is no sense that membership is likely to happen without massive changes in their political cultures and relationships to Russia.

In reply to jkarran:


And if you were our negotiator the EU would smell your fear, and take you ( and us) for a very expensive ride.
We would pay out a fortune, and still be effectively IN the EU.

Thankfully even Corbyn ( maybe even Tim Farron) would be a better negotiator that you.

In reply to Jim C:


It's not fear, it's realism. If you think anything good comes from this you're deluded, it is going to be expensive, it is going to be largely on the EU's terms with the 'red lines' we are ultimately allowed to defend being those that are politically valuable to the tories (immigration control, some sort of finance sector deal that doesn't capsize our economy, something to avert war in Ireland would be my bet) but of precious little use to the majority of working folk in a modern globally connected country.
jk

In reply to Jim C:


Good, so there is nothing to discuss, so on to the next point...

Dream on! If the EU disbanded the UK would be entitled to a share of its assets, but as it continues to exist, it will get nothing. The EU assets will simply remain in the possession of the EU (not that there are that many such EU assets, contrary to general claims it is a rather slim organization).

As an entirely separate issue, the UK government has signed up to multiple legally binding agreements to fund certain programs (e.g. ESA) for defined periods. Any funds from these programs earmarked to go to the UK will of course continue to do so. Some brexiters believe they can simply walk away from these contracts, but I am sure the UK government knows better than blowing its credibility for any form of future international agreement. I am sure they will want to avoid some kind of compulsory escrow arrangement that has been forced on countries like Greece (for the bailout guarantees by e.g. Finland).

As for the yearly "membership fees", I assume they will end either when the UK actually leaves or at the end of the budget period, but I am not a lawyer so I do not know for sure. Quite possibly there is some ambiguity in the agreements, which, unlike what you assert, would then have to be resolved during negotiations.

Simplifying this as either a divorce or leaving a club is deliberately dumbing down the discussion.

CB

In reply to Jim C:


What do you think is going to happen with the Tory strategy? As a club of 27 countries with tens of trade agreements the EU can't make serious concessions to the UK without a bunch of other countries asking for them too. The only thing they can do is make minor alterations to well understood templates.

Every month that passes they are thinking less about concessions and more about the opportunities for a more efficient and integrated EU after Britain leaves.

In reply to Jim C:

What makes you think the EU sees us in any way as 'the enemy'? With the exception of the occasional barbed comment from Junker, the tone over the last 12 months seems to have been one more of sorrow than anger at our leaving.

There isn't a 'deal' to be done in the conventional sense - and the best deals it should be remembered, are always 'win win.' though May won't know anything about that because she's never done a proper job in her life (like Corbyn, I totally agree.)

There are 10,000 technical issues to work through, some of which will be agreed on the nod, some of which will required careful scrutiny of legal text books and international law, and some of which - the N Ireland border, health care for foreign nationals and for our ex pats, rights of ex pats here and abroad, passporting of financial services - really will be delicate with no precedent to guide the negotiators. Big sticks - even if we had any, which emphatically we don't - won't play any part.

In reply to cb294:

It's a bit of a leap from the 1.4 billion comitted by the UK to ESA over the next four years to the 100 billion figure being bandied about.
If the UK contributes to funding projects beyond the Brexit date i.e. up to 2020 does it still have a say in how those projects will develop?
Didn't the ESA just receive a 9.4% increase in it's budget?
Despite the importance of the ESA's work it's difficult to imagine any increase on that scale in the context of UK austerity.

In reply to baron:

ESA is just one of the hundreds of EU programs that has separate, binding funding commitments. You could pick any other example, but once a country signs up for such a program it will remain bound by its commitments even though the basis for initial participation disappears.

CB

In reply to baron:


Surely people realise this kind of stuff is bandied about in the press to maintain support in their respective countries? TM has to say the "No Deal" line to keep the hard-brexiteers happy and the EU has to point out the UK will get a worse deal than what it has now and will pay it dues in order to maintain the confidence of the populations of it's members.

What either of them says in the press will surely have nothing to do with the ACTUAL negotiations, that will take a few years involving god knows how many people (it's not just May and Junker sat in a room, thankfully), both sides will find out what is important to the other and they will attempt to get a deal that benefits them BOTH as much as possible? We want the EU to prosper and they want us to do well too as it'll be mutually beneficial.

In reply to cb294:

The ESA is not an EU agency. Plans were afoot to make it such, but have not yet come to fruition.

In reply to John2:

I stand corrected, bad example then.

CB

In reply to galpinos:


Hooray for some common sense. It beats me how so few get this. Or pretend not to, just to have a good vent (which I get, as I hated the Ref result).

In reply to BnB:



Er?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I'm looking forward to getting back to the Commonwealth so we can trade with people who speak our language. So it would be far better to have no deal as a deal wouldn't be clean and we would still feel a bit as if Europe had something to do with us when it has nothing to do with us as we are Anglo-Saxons.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


A joke, surely? Anglo-Saxons were Germanic tribes from europe. Yes, it's got to be a joke...

In reply to Pete Pozman:


And a little, Celtic, French, Nordic and italian....

In reply to summo:

If you're not 100% angosaxon you can do one, sharpish.

In reply to edwardgrundy:

I love the irony there...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

One issue in the EU is that of "non-performing loans", or bad debt. The EU wants UK money to try to ameliorate this problem.

The 2008 financial crisis may be almost a decade old, but there’s still a massive mountain of bad debts sitting in European banks. A number of the continent’s bigwigs are now pleading for politicians to take the problem more seriously. Their answer? Create an E.U.-wide bad bank that could take at least some of the more than €1 trillion in so-called “non-performing loans” across Europe off the financial firms’ hands. It’s a tried and true solution for individual banks, and even for entire countries. The idea is to free the rest of the bank to lend more money to consumers.

Europe’s major financial watchdogs threw their weight behind the idea earlier this week. Andrea Enria of the European Banking Authority, a pan-European financial regulator, and Klaus Regling, who heads the euro zone’s bailout fund called the European Stability Mechanism, both spoke out in favor. The European Central Bank has also suggested it is open to the idea. Standing in their way is Germany. Sources told Handelsblatt that Berlin doesn’t really see the need: “We think it’s good to tackle the problem of non-performing loans,” said one government official in Berlin, “but it’s not clear where the value of a European bad bank would be.”

https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/no-bad-bank-for-europe-says-germany...

In reply to edwardgrundy:


I'm not absolutely certain what you're getting at. But I don't see why someone, even if they argued passionately for Remain both on UKC and in the real world, cannot then dispassionately dissect the aftermath. My daughter works in Switzerland, my son has a place at Technische Universitat von Munchen and I'm signing a joint venture with Europe's largest software company today. I'm the child of immigrants and a European through and through. Though I would vote Remain again for largely emotional reasons (I love Europe!!), what I've learned about Brexit by detaching myself from the emotion has been truly instructive and I've become significantly more sceptical about the EU as an institution and equally excited about the possibilities for trade elsewhere. In the same way, there's much to dislike about the modern Tory party and genuine questions about May and austerity. But in the matter of their competence, whatever one thinks about their policies, there are far fewer questions than with regard to Labour. Linking back to the thread title, May's catchphrase signals one thing to the UK press and public, but also signals her experience and competence to negotiators at the EU. These are hard-bitten practitioners who know the moves of the dance.

I'll just add that I also don't find monotonous whining threads very interesting and I'm happy to offer a bit of contrapuntal balance even if I'll own up to some internal conflict over the matter.

Does that help or have I answered the wrong question? Your post doesn't offer many clues.

In reply to Big Ger:

Isn't that an article about something Germany doesn't want to do? Which doesn't mention the U.K. once.

In reply to BnB:


What is it that you've learned?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Yes.

But if Britain were not removing itself from the financial bureaucratic mess which is the EU, we may have been inveigled upon to chip into the bail out.

I cannot believe that the attempt to force the UK to pay to leave isn't influence d buy these shenanigans somehow.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Are you asking out of genuine interest or because you'd like to add a whine and/or accuse me of supporting stupidity/xenophobia?

In reply to BnB:


Genuine interest.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Without going into enormous detail I realised, despite owning a sizeable business that has traded worldwide for many years, that I was ignorant of the strictures placed on the UK's relationship with the rest of the world. It took Brexit for me to understand why it is not as straightforward doing business in, say, Indonesia, than Italy. I obviously understood why membership of the EU makes things so much easier, but I hadn't realised how membership of the single market was actually making it so much harder everywhere else. It turned out that the EU is a closed shop designed to prevent its members looking outwards at all.

And, as a global businessman (albeit one not as clued-up as he thought he was) this struck me as preposterous. From that recognition it was a simple leap to realise that, in trade terms and in some measure, we probably actually can have our cake and eat it. Even if only because of the enormous disruption to capital, but much more because we already comply with every standard and statute in the EU rules and regulations, the EU is going to cut us a trade deal. Of that I have no doubt. But we will be able to pursue similar arrangements elsewhere. And in markets that will in the fullness of time prove much more fruitful. The impact of leaving won't remotely live up to the scaremongering. It never does. And we will adjust and thrive.

Fiscal integration is coming and the EU appears today to be evolving into an integrated inner (the central axis around France and Germany) with trading satellites sitting at various remove from the centre (Poland, Hungary), some in the market, some half in (Switzerland, Norway). The UK was and is never going to adopt the Euro and it will never sit at the heart of what is a determined project to federalise Europe, so let's happily operate as an important trading partner without all the political bullshit and risk sharing that goes hand in hand with the project.

I can't tell you whether the loss of free movement will be a good or a bad thing. To me it is deeply inconvenient. It makes it harder for my software teams to work in Europe and harder for my son or daughter to pursue their professional ambitions abroad. But we need to balance my selfish needs with the concerns of those competing for jobs and public services at a different point on the economic scale. And it is a disgrace that, during the Remoaner phase (we're all Releavers now!!) of the reaction to Brexit that so many liberals saw fit to label this vast swathe of the population as ignorant racists. The irony. No doubt this influenced my attitude.

I could also point to the "punishment" phase of the EU's response to Brexit. Who wants to be in an organisation that seeks the annihilation of its former partners? But that's human nature and I'm prepared to believe this will be put to one side as the claims of economic self-interest hold sway.

All that being said, I would vote Remain again given a second chance. As I said in my earlier post, I love Europe and my heritage is middle European. But it would be without the same conviction as I did so last year.

I hope this answers your question and it isn't an invitation to go round the same arguments yet again. It's just how I feel.

In reply to BnB:

It doesn't answer my question at all. You appear to have told me you've "learned" some things about the eu, whereas you originally stated you'd learned things about brexit - which was why I asked what you'd learned about brexit. Sorry if that's too subtle a distinction, but it's a written medium and I can only go on what you write.
Ta for the effort though.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Apart from the first paragraph, the whole post is about the consequences of Brexit. If you can't see that I may have miscommunicated, but, on a re-read, I don't think so.

In reply to BnB:

Interesting post, and thanks for taking the time. However I will take issue with one key sentence:

' The impact of leaving won't remotely live up to the scaremongering. It never does. '

That isn't true, sometimes things turn out even worse than the scaremongers predicted. The Depression was worse than Keynes predicted; Nazi Germany was qualitatively worse than the middle classes who just hunkered down and hoped to ride it out predicted; it's early days but Trump does to have the potential for causing mayhem on a global scale. I can see scenarios where ramifications of Brexit give a huge boost to the centripetal forces already at work; and it's only 20 years since parts of what is now a united Europe were convulsed in a real, particularly nasty shooting war.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Some thought-provoking examples there. What I'm fascinated by today is the sheer pace of change. Only weeks ago, we were all reflecting how far to the right the mood of the nation seemed to have moved. Yet yesterday I read that the election has shifted the centre ground determinedly leftwards. For that we have Corbyn to thank and I'm grateful to him for it. I'd genuinely like to see his social aims realised and I'd love to sit down with him and explain how his vision can only be realised by bringing the most influential and powerful alongside, instead of encouraging capital to flee with his divisive rhetoric. But he'd call me a Blairite, and with some justification, as no doubt Tony gave it a good crack once upon a time.

In reply to BnB:

Let’s miss out the first paragraph then and see what you say you're telling me you’ve learned about brexit.


This is speculation, we may have more fruitful arrangements elsewhere, we may not, we may thrive, we may not, but it is speculation and not “learning about brexit”. We unequivocally can’t have our cake and eat it, that’s just silly. Anyway, what did you learn about brexit? That we will be able to make our own trade arrangements? I’ll give you that, and if we do better than the arrangements negotiated as part of the eu (we may, we may not) then that’ll be a good thing.


I don’t know what you’re telling me you’ve learned about brexit here.


I’m not sure what this has to do about learning about brexit, that some people are rude and that you want fewer immigrants?


I’m not sure annihilation of the UK has been stated as an aim, always possible I suppose. But what did it teach you about brexit?

As I said, I was genuinely interested when you said you'd learned things about brexit, because I think we know very little about it. But I can't get too excited about guesswork dressed up as knowledge.

In reply to BnB:

I suppose it was a bit cryptic.

So, in the first post I quoted you were saying May's "no deal better than a bad deal" schtick is a good and strong negotiating position. Then in the second one you're replying to someone saying it's nonsense and agreeing with him. This seemed a bit contradictory. Having said that, perhaps you were agreeing with the end bit of his post - that a mutually beneficial deal will get done and not the first bit.

I think there's a lot less questions because they've demonstrated themselevs wholly incompetent. No need to go round this, though

In reply to edwardgrundy:

It wasn't that I saw it as a "nonsense", more a "dance" that has to be performed before willing partners can make love. Think Beatrice and Benedick!! But let's not over-analyse, I've just written "make love" on a climbing forum

In reply to BnB:

All sorts of wrong!

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Well, if the PM can fantasize about Corbyn "naked before the EU bureaucrats" surely anything goes?

In reply to BnB:

Clothed Eurocrats, naked socialist... that's pretty 'niche'. Each to their own, but I'm not sure we should be taking our que from politicians on this kind of thing!

In reply to Pekkie:
Yes a joke. I'm holding up a mirror to all the gallant Brexiteers. There is a serious yearning amongst some nutters for an Empire 2 solution to the splendid isolation we're marching towards. My only consolation is to visualise the humiliation when they wake up and realise that they have left the house and are standing in the middle of town with no trousers on.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Interesting;

Just a day after Brussels published a paper mapping out its vision of eurozone integration, Mr Soros warned that the single currency area had become "the exact opposite of what was originally intended".

He said: "The European Union was meant to be a voluntary association of like-minded states that were willing to surrender part of their sovereignty for the common good. "After the financial crisis of 2008, the eurozone was transformed into a creditor/debtor relationship where the debtor countries couldn’t meet their obligations and the creditor countries dictated the terms that the debtors had to meet.

"By imposing an austerity policy they made it practically impossible for the debtor countries to grow out of their debts. The net result was neither voluntary nor equal."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/01/dysfunctional-eu-has-plunged...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What they're saying is, as Clegg is saying on QT right now, any deal is better than no deal. No deal whatsoever could be worse than the alternative. If it's so obvious that no deal is better than a bad deal how can they say that?

Also, how on earth do they go on to make any demands at all when they've bluntly said they'll accept anything offered if they have no choice? Do we take on the Euro for example? Well anything's better than no deal so I guess so.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


It doesn't mean anything, it's just a circular statement of the obvious, a deal, to be bad, has to be, by definition, worse than no deal.

In reply to BnB:


Ah, nowt wrong with that....

youtube.com/watch?v=tkBVDh7my9Q&

In reply to BnB:

Frankly I'd like to see where you got that from, the single market is probably one of the most, if not the most open sizeable market in the world. By comparison the US is a protectionist nightmare.

Harsh reality is, when we leave, we lose all the trade deals we have, we have to do it all over again - and in a vastly weaker position.

In reply to Big Ger:


Interestingly, the Telegraph seems to have omitted this little gem from Soros "Brexit will be an immensely damaging process, harmful to both sides.".