Manufacturers reject ‘no deal’ Brexit approach The representative group for manufacturers is calling on the government to reject a "no deal is better than a bad deal" approach to Brexit, warning the UK’s manufacturing sector would bear the brunt. This week Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50. However, the Institute for Government - a charity working to …
The 2 years will run it's course, they'll vote on extending the deadline within the EU and they'll agree to it. So there'll be another 6/12 months of negotiation, and then both sides will say they won when really both have had to make massive concessions.
But no matter, we'll all be in the Winchester until the whole thing blows over.
Have you actually read what invoking Article 50 actually means? We have 2 years to make a deal. If in 24 months from invoking Article 50 we have no deal negotiated then we revert to WTO rules. No ifs, no buts, no extensions. The EU cannot extend negotiations without breaking their own rules.
"Have you actually read what invoking Article 50 actually means? We have 2 years to make a deal. If in 24 months from invoking Article 50 we have no deal negotiated then we revert to WTO rules. No ifs, no buts, no extensions. The EU cannot extend negotiations without breaking their own rules."
You need to re-read Article 50 from something that isn't the Daily Fail or The S*n.
If, at the end of negotiations, there is no deal a vote can be cast whereby the EU member states can agree to extend the time for negotiations. You can read the actual wording here, but to save you the trouble of clicking:
"1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
unanimously. In other words, individual member states can threaten to withhold unless they get things their way - wouldn't mind betting some very nervous people in Gibraltar are getting very irritated by the sweeping, and occasionally offensive, generalisations made by a lot of UK politicians right now.
If, at the end of negotiations, there is no deal a vote can be cast whereby the EU member states can agree to extend the time for negotiations.
They can, but it would be against their interests, plus, one veto and it's fucked. They are dumb, in Brussels, agreed, but not that dumb!
If in 24 months from invoking Article 50 we have no deal negotiated then we revert to WTO rules. No ifs, no buts, no extensions. The EU cannot extend negotiations without breaking their own rules.
Untrue.
According to this (PDF) section 3 of Article 50 says:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Their own rules (however flawed) do make explicit provision for this.
Their own rules (however flawed) do make explicit provision for this.
The probability of a unanimous decision which is needed for this to happen is about NIL. This has little to do with herding cats, it has more to do with chickins coming home to roost and having diarrhea.
UK meddled, messed and subsidized for two decades every single lunatic it can find around Russian borders. It also dragged the EU into that game in Ukraine.
That bill is yet to be paid.
Hillary paid the bill for her, her family and her party doing it for decades. UK has not paid yet.
So anything May promises, begs or asks for will be countered by a significant sum of money and gas by a person with little hair and a name starting with V. I can also bet that it will be done in such a way that it will become clear who called the bill in - same as in USA. Just so that we know that meddling in other countries politics is not something that comes for free - you have to be able to pay the price for it when the bill is called.
The chess pieces for this already being put in place - this is the actual reason "suitable" politicians are moving into place in some of the Eastern European countries. Just enough of them to ensure that this can be done. No point wasting money on more than needed. They are already elected or are being elected at the moment (most recent snap elections in the region were on Sunday). Just in time for the negotiations.
Unlike a few I'm more than happy to admit I was wrong. However as pointed out, the chances of every state agreeing to an extension is pretty much nil. It doesn't even need to be a member state, it took Canada 9 years to get a trade deal with the EU because a single German province kept voting no.
Face it, May goes into these negotiations not just with a hand tied behind her back, but with a blindfold, last meal for the condemned and a 28 gun firing squad facing her.
... it took Canada 9 years to get a trade deal with the EU because a single German province kept voting no ...
When you use easily verifiable historical facts to argue your position, it helps if you get these facts straight. Signing of the CETA was held up by Wallonia, which a province of Belgium, not Germany.
We've proven ourselves more than capable of shooting ourselves, so it wouldn't surprise me if any deal is scuppered at the last minute by our own stubbornness and lack of compromise.
And I was close, I was going from memory, so Germany/Belgium wasn't too bad. And the delay may have been just a few months, but it took them years to get to that point. Or do you think Canada managed to negotiate a trade deal in just a couple of months?
The EU also has two years time to vote on changes in their own rules. If they _want_ to negotiate for longer, then they _will_ negotiate for longer. Whether they want to is an entirely different question, but there is no question that they can.
Yes, but the EU is very good at breaking its own rules! Under EU rules, Greece and Portugal - and possibly Italy and Spain - should never have been admitted to the Euro, as their economies did not meet the required criteria. They were allowed in anyway, because they were "trending in the right direction"! That worked well, didn't it?
My home town is close to a major fishing port. When we joined the EU at first, Britain was the only country enforcing EU fishing quotas, with fishery inspection vessels checking every trawler they came across in British waters - much to the detriment of local fishermen. How the Spanish and French fishermen screamed about the unfairness of it, when they got caught up in the net - because their governments were just ignoring the rules.
Don't get me wrong! I understand the importance of fishing quotas. What I cannot stomach is other countries just ignoring their obligations under the supposedly universal rules.....
Don't get me wrong! I understand the importance of fishing quotas. What I cannot stomach is other countries just ignoring their obligations under the supposedly universal rules.
Quotas have their own problems but you're basically right that the expansion of the EU to include Spain and Portugal made overfishing in the North Sea a bigger problem. But you have to ask yourself: how effective is the UK going to be if it's outside the club? Will it be able to push for stricter quotas in the parts of the Atlantic and North Sea that are outside its territorial waters?
As for following the rules, this is a perennial problem with Germany being surprisingly one of the worst offenders: notably in matters of air and water pollution. But compliance has by and large got much better over the last ten years. Greece is a complete mess but if the alternative is a failed state next to Turkey… Elsewhere the EU is often seen as a way to discipline otherwise wayward governments with the EU bailouts being a form of, er, soft power.
Wow. What you have written is patently untrue. However I am flabbergasted at the amount of upvotes you have for posting a complete pack of lies!!
If both parties (the EU and the UK) agree to an extension it will happen.
Although as the 27 EU states cannot agree on anything in 2 years an extension is unlikely to occur admittedly.
Source :
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf
Pertinent paragraph:
"If no agreement is concluded within two years, that
state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member
State concerned decide jointly to extend this period."
I voted leave.
Apparently i am an uneducated xenophobic racist. Clearly i am more educated than you regarding Article 50. Oh, and i have visited over 50 countries. Loved them all (except maybe the US and Australia). So maybe i am Xenophobic to English speaking countries.... Don't let that confuse your stereotype though.. :)
So there'll be another 6/12 months
We all know that there is a significant amount of prosac contamination in UK drinking water, but I never expected it is that high.
The vested interests both economical and political are already stacked up against dragging this on. There is also a significant amount of vested interest against everything UK is asking for.
Eastern Europe is not going to play ball on the subject of free movement of labor. If all the unemployed from there which came to the UK to work and are doing the dirty jobs which no Brit will take go back they will have to deal with them. Similarly, all the professionals they paid to be trained (nurses, doctors, etc) which came here would be very welcome back. They will play hardball.
Western Europe is salivating at the perspective of banking jobs moving out of the UK and will similarly play hardball.
Politicians in both East and West are salivating at the perspective of moved manufacturing consuming some of their structural unemployment. They will play hardball.
Just to be clear - I am not sucking this one out of my finger - I actually know people up to PM/MP level in more than one Eu country and this is based on my first hands observations.
Check what article 50 says about the extension - it requires unanimity: "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
Thereby you just need a single state, say for example Poland, angry because UK denies entry to its plumbers, to hinder an extension. May may try to play poker, but with 28 players, it could become a Russian roulette...
There's no way to get a deal with the EU. They're intransigent no matter how much it benefits them and have a habit of focusing on silly side issues at the expense of dealing with the core issue. There's no way they'll agree to any deal as far as I can see, and I doubt an extension will either be acceptable to either the EU or the UK electorate.
I'm fine with all this because I voted for Brexit and we don't want a deal, multilateral trade deals are abusive. Just saying if you think there's going to be UK access to the single market as it looks now you might need a reality check. Duties are the price that we pay for accessing markets.
As for manufacturers they're welcome to move out the UK - but they should recognise that duties apply both ways.
They're intransigent no matter how much it benefits them
That has still to be seen. If May, as she indicates she will do, goes into negotiations effectively saying "fuck you, we're prepared for these negotiations to fail, despite the massive collateral damage this will cause to both sides," then it's hardly a good strategy for dealing with the other member states. You brought them to the negotiating table so if you want to soften their perceived intransigence, this strategy is pretty much guaranteed to achieve the opposite.
That has still to be seen.
There's a fairly large catalogue of evidence this is the case though, it takes the EU way way too long to do trade deals even when they're reasonably simple - and even then deals usually hang on a knife edge because of some nonsense.
If May, as she indicates she will do, goes into negotiations effectively saying "fuck you, we're prepared for these negotiations to fail, despite the massive collateral damage this will cause to both sides," then it's hardly a good strategy for dealing with the other member states.
I don't think those are the words she'll use up front but I suspect it's where it'll end up within 12 months.
You brought them to the negotiating table so if you want to soften their perceived intransigence, this strategy is pretty much guaranteed to achieve the opposite.
Fairly sure it's just a play to buy time to get diplomacy back up to speed. I'm a brexiteer as I said, I have no problem dealing with the EU as long as we're outside it and I don't particularly wish them ill although many groups of voters that will be left inside it should - I just don't see a deal being a thing that's going to happen beyond very broad issues. Certainly duty-less single market access is an impossibility as far as I can see. A EU-UK banking regulation agreement (or treaty) is fairly likely - the EU needs the cash flows and the Euro trading centre that London is and it'll save the EU from having to move the EBA which is looking like it'll do more damage to solidarity within what remains that Brexit ever could so it's a win-win for both sides. Intel, Europol, things like that look likely. Just not the single market. Again, that's fine, the EU is not a big export partner for the UK and it's not like those exports will cease to exist merely lose volume. 10% of not much is not much, and it's easily filled by trade expansion outside the EU. That's how we win.
Before somebody cries - despite the noise that's made if the EU cuts off London from the EU financial markets the jobs don't magically appear in Paris and Frankfurt what happens is the banks move to New York and Hong Kong and the funding flows into the EU slow down dramatically. They're welcome to give it their best shot though, I'll supply the popcorn.
In all these discussions, whether in El Reg or down the pub it's worth us remembering that among the 52% that made up the "clear majority" of voters to leave the EU there is a group of determined Hard Brexiteers whose attitude to the EU is nothing short of hatred. No rational discussion is possible with that group, because any suggestion of anything that is less than a clear and complete break with any and every aspect of the EU is seen by them as a threat. To these any mention of a down side to Brexit is seen as a betrayal, treachery and subversion. Waverers and doubters, let alone Remainers ("remoaners" in their minds), in other words, are The Enemy. To them it is clear and evident that the rest of the world will be queuing up to buy British goods when we're free from any association with Europe. British manufacturing will suddenly be producing goods that the world will want to buy at advantageous prices. That EU workers will vanish away and British companies will offer higher wages to ensure that British workers will want to take the nastier jobs that have been performed by Eastern Europeans - but without putting prices up for British consumers ( which is exactly what one such Brexiteer told me would happen the morning after the vote). We'll be able to " take back control " and have solid and well enforced consumer protection laws that haven't been written by the EU And all the British people living and working in Europe will, err Oh, what? Be allowed to stay there while we won't accept Europeans here?
But at least we'll all be able to eat well. We will just need to catch the flying pigs and the chickens coming home to roost.
Ouch.
Calm down Mr Angry. I am sure it will be fine. I do seem to remember we had things like Kite Marks and British Standards before EU consumer protection laws. Or are you in your mid twenties and have failed to understand that this country functioned very well before the EU was invented?
We even had electricity and roads you know! Not as nice as those EU funded lovely roads you get in France these days admittedly but they still existed.
Chill out. It will be fine.
"I do seem to remember we had things like Kite Marks and British Standards before EU consumer protection laws."
Yup. But in those days appliances were much more expensive than they are today because the standards were specific to each market so the markets were smaller. And if you, or that nice Mr Dyson, want to export appliances today (or in two years' time) they'll need to have the quality marks required by the market you're selling to, i.e. CE for the UK's nearest neighbours and UL/... for the US. At least the UK currently has an input (valued, from what I gather from a colleague) into CE standards - about to lose that.
"Or are you in your mid twenties and have failed to understand that this country functioned very well before the EU was invented?"
I'm in my mid-fifties and can remember some bits of the UK which worked quite well a few decades ago and some which didn't (winter of discontent??). I'm also v aware of the bureaucratic crap one had to deal with in those days when exporting/importing stuff. And at the risk of being personal, it sounds like you're not. Have _you_ failed to understand how much hassle exporting, or temporarily taking kit abroad (carnet? that'll be 200 quid http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/docimages/14106.pdf) used to be? And as far as democracy is concerned, your directly elected MEP can vote on EU decisions about trade, under WTO it's only the governments - so less democracy, more unelected bureaucrats - that doesn't sound like taking back control.
Apols for the rant, not in a good mood. Good night.
Again, that's fine, the EU is not a big export partner for the UK ...
I am not sure whether your definition of "big" is the same as used by the rest of the humanity.
According to https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/, about 44% of UK exports in goods and services went to other countries in the EU in 2015, while 53% of our imports into the UK came from other countries in the EU in 2015.
I have no doubt the UK can and will survive and possibly even thrive without these trade links - but it is foolish to dismiss their possible disruption as something that will magically sort itself out with no pain to everybody involved.
Those numbers are only what they are because we're *forced* to push trade to the EU. Point still stands, 10% (which is beyond an extreme worst case) loss (which isn't going to happen for many many reasons but lets pretend it did) equates to 4% real terms. 20% would be an ~8% worldwide trade gap to fill and frankly if 20% happened it'd be the end of the entire economic system globally because there's no reason for EU exports to fall 20%. They're going to fall worst case to whatever the tariff figures would be minus currency fluctuations (thanks Obama) and we already know what those numbers are. And that's worst case scenario territory.
people in Gibraltar are getting very irritated by the sweeping, and occasionally offensive, generalisations made by a lot of UK politicians right now.
*crickets*
I'm sure Spain will have them back. I was offended by the idea that the UK should base its entire foreign and trade policy on the votes of 20k people.
"I'm sure Spain will have them back."
Thats nowhere near the point - it's not up to this government to trade away their rights, any more than it should be trading away anyone else's. Thanks for showing that at least some Leave supporters aren't interested in genuine negotiations though.
Thats nowhere near the point - it's not up to this government to trade away their rights
Their rights aren't being traded away. They can stay as they are and leave the EU with the UK or they can hold a referendum and be either an independent state (I'd advise against this, strongly) or become part of Spain and remain in the EU (gl with the tax thing). That's not a trade, that's they can chose their future. I'd put good money on what they'd chose to do because I know the reality. Gibraltar has a lot of options here, they can do whatever they like, but the idea the UK should drop everything for them is patently absurd.
Thanks for showing that at least some Leave supporters aren't interested in genuine negotiations though
I have no problem with negotiations with people that have found grip on reality. There's no grip to be found with the average remainer is the problem. The other thing we've learned is a basic grasp of economics, politics and democracy escapes them - which shockingly is probably why they want to be in the EU in the first place.
"Again, that's fine, the EU is not a big export partner for the UK and it's not like those exports will cease to exist merely lose volume."
I regularly drive past a specialist shipping packer. Not the sort of place that shoves stuff in standard containers. They deal with the big one-off jobs, the sort you see as wide loads on the motorway (some of those wide load escort vehicles are hanging around from time to time).
No doubt the businesses that use this firm sell to a world-wide market. But at present the EU won't really be an export market for them - it's their home market. And they're going to lose 28/29ths of that. The sad fact is that a lot, maybe a majority of the employees of those specialist firms probably voted for Brexit. Will they wish they hadn't in a few years time?
Duties are the price that we pay for accessing markets.
Duties are the least of anybody's worries: trade moved beyond duties years ago: the real issue will be non-tariff barriers. E.g. the UK will only be able to offer financial services that conform to EU regulations; Nissan and Toyota (we can assume Vauxhall doesn't have much of a future anyway) will only be allowed to sell cars to the EU that meet EU exhaust and safety norms, etc.. This is why financial service companies that do not already have subsidiaries elsewhere in the EU (Luxembourg is popular) are busy looking for offices. Small, brass plate offices for now maybe but with the potential for significant expansion.
Spain can not risk Scotland breaking away from the UK while the UK is still in the EU and might scupper its chances of joining the EU if it does become independant. There will be no extension and lots of other countries will look to expand their own industries at the expense of the UK's. Just look at Paris and Frankfurt going after the banks. This will be short, sharp and incredibly painful. Lets not forget this is not just ecomonics, it is politics and May wants out of the ECJ at any cost, UK ecomony be dammed.
I think you might be confusing the European Court of Justice, which deals with disputes between European states, with the European Court of Human Rights, which is the one May hates because (eg) they don't think that GCHQ should always be spying on everyone.
When we leave the EU we will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ (I'm pretty sure), but we will still be covered by the ECHR.
May has set independence from the ECJ as one of the conditions of "brexit means brexit".
Unfortunately the ECJ is used as a de facto common court for hundreds if not thousands of regulations and agreements that are not directly related to the EU (e.g. the european Open Skies agreement allowing airlines to fly wherever they damned well please), because it works within the common EU law. Unpicking that within a 24 month timeframe will be impossible.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/753997/Theresa-May-Brexit-ECJ-influence-European-Court-of-Justice-Michael-Gove
The ECJ has slapped various UK goverments but the tories in particular around when they have abused UK citizens (just see the whole data protection saga as an example). May wants out so she can have free riegn to do what ever the hell she wants to whom ever she wants when ever she wants. Make no mistake, Brexit is being used as an excuse to destory the legacy of the post WW2 generation that put things like the ECJ in place to prevent the horrors of the 30s coming back to bite future generations. The ECHR is next on her hit list.
It is unravelling, but between the crisis there and Brexit, a united Ireland has never seemed more plausible.
If Northern Ireland go and Scotland go, what will those of us left do about the Union Jack? We will be left with two flags, which are literally St George and The Dragon, so I imagine that will go well.
Which is not something one is keen to do, but the best case scenario appears to be that the UK gets the same deal as other EEA countries, which can be summarised as applying the same rules as the EU (including freedom of movement of people, goods, services, and capital; plus rule of law, democracy, human rights, and all that) but having no say on what the rules are in the first place.
EEA is the least-worst option for UK industry.
But it will piss off the right-wing voters who (largely) wanted Brexit and they are Mrs May' voter base for now.
What do you expect a politician to do? What is best for the country, or what keeps themselves on the gravy-train?
EEA requires an EFTA membership (UK was a founder member, but left for EEC membership). However, EU has sad that they are not interested in extending the EEA agreement to new EFTA states or update the agreement any more than needed to. No other EEA like agreement are going to be made in the future.
Either a country is a member of EU or not. That was the line Switzerland got to hear when they almost voted them self out of the 120 deal package they have with EU at the moment.
Currently to join you have to be a member of the EU or EFTA.
However, we are already a member of it, and we are bigger than the EFTA. Therefore there is no reason if the EU wanted to, we couldn't be a member, even if EFTA didn't want us dominating it.
The EU would bend over backwards to keep us in the EEA, providing we don't insist on a deal that makes the other deals look bad. (However we will, and we'll end up in the WTO, with half our industry moved out of the country and the other half owned by other countries.)
@Jess, No. While UK can join EFTA a membership of EEA requires a agreement between EU commission and EFTA states. Currently new EEA states are only added on the EU side (EU membership does not mean automatic EEA membership, the EEA agreement is updated as new EU members join).
EEA members are also required to adopt EU laws in everything except.
1. Agriculture.
2. Customs union.
3. Euro.
4. Other issues that might not fall under the EEA agreement.
Everything else, this includes Schengen has to be adopted into laws of EEA member state. This does not happen automatically as is the case with full members of the EU. EEA member also don't have any say how EU set it's laws and makes decision.
For UK to re-join EFTA and then join EEA would making leaving the EU a pointless act for UK.
A week is a long time in politics. May could be gone within a year (for all sorts of reasons). The populace might have a general change of opinion in light of circumstances in other parts of the world.
The position we start negotiating with is not necessarily where we end up. (For good or for ill) So while EEA membership is not politically possible at the moment, it might be a concept that Europe considers in 18 months time.
the best case scenario appears to be that the UK gets the same deal as other EEA countries, which can be summarised as applying the same rules as the EU (including freedom of movement of people, goods, services, and capital; plus rule of law, democracy, human rights, and all that) but having no say on what the rules are in the first place.
Neither remainers or brexiteers would like this option which makes it *extremely* unlikely. I think we'd remain in the EU before this happened which would lead to a lot of "over my dead body". The next option to a sensible deal would be we just leave and let the EU get on with it.
Looking at the Brexit situation from the US, it seems that nobody in the UK has thought this out, words are one thing but this has unimaginable consequences that nobody wants to talk about. The whole vote was about borders - and the UK is a country without internal borders, walk in and out of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland freely. That's going to end.
You can not leave the EU and own Northern Ireland unless you want a war - Ireland's only hope for peace is going to be to unite and stay in the EU.
Scotland barely missed voting to leave a year ago and voted then overwhelmingly to stay in the EU - the Scots, as Renton points out have never liked being "...COLONIZED by wankers." and will almost certainly vote to leave the UK.
So that leaves the UK with Wales, the UK will give up the EU and be left with Wales?
You can talk all you like, but nobody in the government seems to be listening. It's time to admit that the Brexit vote was just a trial run for the recent US election - you were duped, just the same way that we were.
" it seems that nobody in the UK has thought this out"
Because no one did. The last prime minister called this election to pacify his own right wing, safe in the knowledge he'd comfortably win. Unfortunately he was weak, succeeding only because the opposition were an order of magnitude weaker. With neither he nor his opposite numbers willing to actually try and campaign on the benefits of the EU the result was inevitable and entirely unplanned-for.
The last prime minister called this election to pacify his own right wing, safe in the knowledge he'd comfortably win.
This, a hundred times. He gambled the entire country for the sake of party politics and to cement his own position. It was a spectacularly stupid gamble to take, and now all the dominoes are falling. I'd say that this is not unlike the domino effect that cause the first World War, with parochial local politics somehow managing to ensnare the whole fucking continent. The sort of clusterfuck that the EU originally set out to avoid happening again, I might add.
"He gambled the entire country for the sake of party politics and to cement his own position."
Probably a serious mis-statement of his thinking. The right-wing eurosceptics were a menace for decades. He would have expected to win and thus not see it as a gamble. I think it was a ploy to get the eurosceptics back into their box. It didn't work with all the ominous consequences you mention. If it had you'd probably have been praising him for a brilliant out-manoeuvring of the Gove faction and UKIP.
Unlike the Trump campaign though it has been the "popular press" propagating lies about the EU for decades which did the damage. If you ask the average "man in the street" about any of the topics to be found on this list http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ they will believe the myths to be true.
The owners of the Mail, Express and Sun are vehemently anti-Europe and have pushed the agenda for years with a steady drip-feed of front page lies (many of which have to be withdrawn and apologised for afterwards but the damage is already done).
Fox News is nowhere near as pervasive as the British tabloid press. The USA has a population of 325m; even at its most watched (around 12m for the presidential debates) Fox News reaches fewer than 4% of Americans. The Daily Mail, Metro (which is owned by the Mail and pushes the same stories) and Sun sell (or gives away in the case of the Metro) 4.5m copies per day, more than all other British newspapers put together. It is estimated that every copy of the Sun bought is read by at least 4 people, the Daily Mail by 2; I can't find a figure for Metro but given that it is given away on railway stations and is often read and left on trains for the next person to read it is probably similar to the Sun. , so the total reach is in the order of 10-20% of the UK population. In addition many of the Euro lies pedalled by these papers are reported on the front page with page filling headlines. It is virtually impossible to go into a newsagent, petrol station or supermarket without reading these headlines, resulting in many people believing these lies because they never see beyond the headline, or see the retraction when it's printed (in one year the Daily Mail printed over 200 retractions and major corrections to stories)
is it popular? [Genuine question - I don't know it's viewing figures or anything. ]
The closest I come to Fox channels is watching drama on one of them in the Baltic states where it is very useful: I can watch US stuff with the local language subtitles on, just to see how I get on (very very badly, usually). Am guessing that even if I was American I wouldn't be the sort of viewer Mr Trump would be trying to reach though.
..."and will almost certainly vote to leave the UK...."
Well they can vote to leave the UK but that'll not stop them having to leave the EU I'm afraid, they're are in the EU as a part of the UK.
No matter what they do, Scotland will leave the EU, either as a part of the UK or, if independent, on it's own, and will have to apply to join and suffer the time and requirements that takes, including, creating their own currency.
No.
If they achieve independence before and the UK breaks up, while still in the EU, they can't be chucked out of it, unless the whole UK were. And if that were the case why is anyone bothering with article 50?
Politically, even if it were the case that if part of a country becomes independent to remain a member and gets chucked out while the part that wants to leave remains a member, that would be so ridiculous that if the EU didn't work around it so that Scotland in effect never stopped being a member, it would lose its credibility.
Also you would have the interesting possibility that if NI and Scotland both voted for independence, England and Wales could quit the UK, leaving it still a member of the EU and get out without Article 50.
..."If they achieve independence before and the UK breaks up, while still in the EU, they can't be chucked out of it, unless the whole UK were"..
No,
As was discussed many times during the Scottish independence referendum, one of the "tenets" of EU membership is that each country has their own currency; Scotland fails at the first hurdle in this regard as they have no currency of their own and creating a currency from scratch is no quick task. There are many more requirements for membership that Scotland also fails at the moment.
If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, either before or after the two years from article 50 trigger, it will still have to leave the EU.
"Scotland will leave the EU, either as a part of the UK or, if independent, on it's own, and will have to apply to join and suffer the time and requirements that takes, including, creating their own currency."
They already have banks that issue their own bank notes (ignoring for the moment that the UK tax payer owns a substantial slice of that).
...."They already have banks that issue their own bank notes (ignoring for the moment that the UK tax payer owns a substantial slice of that)."....
They have that but they don't have their own currency; they use the pound, the pictures on their notes being different does not make it their own currency.
> Well they can vote to leave the UK but that'll not stop them having to leave the EU I'm afraid, they're are in the EU as a part of the UK.
The situation that you refer to has no clear answer at the moment. Either Scotland or Catalonia¹ will be the test cases and likely determine what happens in the future in similar circumstances.
¹ New Caledonia not included on account of its special status.
Almost right.
The vote actually asked about the EU, but the single market is larger than that, The EU plus the EFTA (whose members except Switzerland, that has its own weird arrangement are all members of the EEA).
The Conservative manifesto has a big commitment to the single market, which seems to have been forgotten, and also promised to honour the ADVISORY referendum (which they have remembered).
We could leave the EU and remain in the EEA (and customs union) with none of the problems anyone is worried about. If we seek to do that the EU will bend over backwards to make it happen within the 2 years.
However that would not please any of the hard right and Mrs May wants their votes back, so we are going to have a hard Brexit which will cause all the issues you highlight and more.
If the UK does break up, which a hard Brexit would seem to ensure, then there will be no UK (unless Scotland NI and Gibraltar stay together and keep the title) and England and Wales will simply become Britain (Great Britain means the whole island, Britain when not used as an abbreviation for GB means England and Wales.)
Sliver lining - finding the right name in drop down boxes will be so much easier.
It was not about borders for me, and I am not stupid. It was about creeping federalism.
Common trading block, yes please. A US of E? NO THANKS.
I know I'll get voted down to buggery because it doesn't fit the view of all Leavers as 60 year old racists, but there were a lot more of us than you think who, although we like European people and European cultures, could see no choice but to vote Leave as these because it was the only way we could see of stopping this federalism.
I have also 11 year old child. And I too considered their future more than my own, but I think I did it from a better understanding of the practicalities of what a Brexit vote would lead to. And how a UK within EU was in a better position to thrive than one outside.
And looking at the right bunch of incompetents that ended up in government positions following the vote, I think I choose right even if majority of voters disagreed.
And yet Realpolitik may prevail.
" I think I did it from a better understanding of the practicalities of what a Brexit vote would lead to"
How exactly have you any idea what level of understanding I have?
Your comment is typical of those who voted Remain and congratulated themselves on their intellectual superiority.
Do you really think that the economic chaos that will be caused by your Brexit vote is a good thing for your 11 year olds future, wasn't "ill-considered"? Especially as it was, by your own admission, brought about by a perceived federalism that doesn't actually exist.
> I have an 11 year old child. Do you think I am not concerned about her future?
I certainly am concerned about your child's future, and not necessarily because of Britain leaving the EU.
> Idiot.
What a most cogent argument! Is that what you teach your offspring?
Please do remain civil. If you cannot accept a diversity of views and criticism, public debate may not be your thing.
Civil? That's hilarious. Being labelled as racist, xenophibic and stupid is not hugely civil, and yet that is all that happens. That's what all us Leavers are, isn't it? Daily Mail-reading working-class? None of us could possibly be intelligent, well-educated professionals, that doesn't fit the easy profile does it?
I am happy to be accused of being wrong. I am not happy at being accused of not thinking very carefully which way to vote.
I cannot believe you have been voted down for stating that you considered your choice carefully and took your 11 yr old daughter into that consideration.
Just because you downvoters disagree with the posters voting choice, what he stated seems perfectly sensible and doesnt warrant a downvote.
Some people need to get a grip.
> I cannot believe you have been voted down for stating that you considered your choice carefully and took your 11 yr old daughter into that consideration.
I cannot believe that either. What I can believe, however, is that he was downvoted because he did not explain clearly what his/her actual concerns were, or because people strongly suspected those may have been based on false premises.
I did ask for clarification above, but so far none has been received.
> Some people need to get a grip.
Starting with those in government, it would appear. :-)
People nostalgic of a power and empire long gone - and which will never return - are unable to understand the issue Europe will have to face in the near future. China, India, Russia (another nostalgic), USA are much bigger, and a bunch of far smaller European states that shares only a commercial area just to satisfy some economic greed would be just easy preys - just like Italy was inside Europe in the past, small states that could only look for bigger allies abroad, and usually become "colonies" of those same allies. The deal effectiveness of a 400-500 million people "federation" - including some of the more powerful economies - is still much more than a 60 million single state. "Divide et impera". It's an old way to achieve power, when you're bigger.
And if Scotland eventually breaks the "United" Kingdom, it will be funny to see that the fear of "federalism" and the nostalgia of the "Empire" just led to a far smaller, less powerful Kingdom... which maybe will become just a "colony "of the ex-colonies, the "federalism" by definition.
@ LDS
"People nostalgic of a power and empire long gone"
What worries me is I only ever hear this from people against leaving. I never hear of people wanting to leave to start up the empire. I do hear the leave argument of getting out of an old and obsolete model of world power (such as the US, USSR and EU). Of course Iceland getting a trade deal with China before the EU is amusing.
"The deal effectiveness of a 400-500 million people "federation" - including some of the more powerful economies - is still much more than a 60 million single state. "Divide et impera". It's an old way to achieve power, when you're bigger."
Ah the nostalgia. Federation of larger, stronger economies. Days of empires. So glad we dont want to go back to those times. erm........
"And if Scotland eventually breaks the "United" Kingdom, it will be funny to see that the fear of "federalism" and the nostalgia of the "Empire" just led to a far smaller, less powerful Kingdom"
If Scotland leaves it will be amusing. But I doubt it will happen until they give the English the vote (like it or not England would likely vote them off and enjoy the savings while Scotland begs the EU to let them be Greece 2). I am very amused to hear Scotland beg to leave us so they can join the EU and complain at them. I do feel bad for them being told they can leave the UK and be part of the EU though without mentioning the huge deficit and that they must reapply as a single entity not the united one. Wonder if they will want to keep the pound, BBC, UK but for whatever they complain about this time, etc.
You will get a preview when UK alone will have to deal with EU. And then when UK alone will have to deal with the others. The world is today a little bigger than it was at the dawn of the XX century. More players, and bigger. Western Europe and its states are no longer the centre of the world - which rules the rest.
You may have missed how much pressure China is putting in the Pacific, and how it's expanding in Africa - and it does because it is big - in many different ways. India will follow. Russia had decided to expand in the Middle East and Africa too, and it may think to regain some of the "lost" territories in Europe.
Larger economies mean larger opportunities. If you believe "smaller is better", you're going to be deluded. Iceland trade deals are so small and so little important that they are quite easy to make. If you can't see the difference from a treaty between EU and China, well, it's clear your geopolitical assumption are based only on playing Risiko.
You also may awake one day, and found that Scotland has gone. Even Slovakia wanted independence, and it wasn't the richest part.
> You may have missed how much pressure China is putting in the Pacific, and how it's expanding in Africa
Indeed. I've seen both first hand. They pretty much dominate Africa already, btw. You may laugh, but that has given them access to (and locked us out of) significant natural resources.
One observation that never ceases to amaze me in this backwards debate is how leave voters are accused of racism, nationalism and wanting to pull up the draw bridge. Yet the argument made for remain is a fear of the world. That other countries are bigger and scary to negotiate with and what if they wont play nice, etc.
One AC made an interesting comment about China venturing into Africa, and Africa will benefit from increased trade and working with the more developed world. Yet the EU forces tariffs to lock out these people because it protects members of the cartel.
I couldnt believe the racist/xenophobic view that if we leave the EU we will be dominated by the US. And of course people didnt like me pointing out that being on your knees to please the EU because you dont want to be on your knees pleasing the US is still on your knees.
What I dont understand is the spite from the staunch remain voter wishing doom on the UK because we had a democratic vote that didnt go their way. All the cries to abandon democracy from the people pretending it exists with the EU. And somehow these people seem to believe they have a voice in the EU while the EU has ignored its own agreements and promises. This is the first vote on our membership to the EU and after years of being forced to be a member of this utopia by undemocratic means we voted out.
What I do understand is the lack of arguments supporting the remain cause. The constant fall back to topics of old empires and xenophobia is almost always brought up by the staunch remain voter who rejects the possibility that decisions could be based on actually good reasons- economy, trade, democracy, border control. I have to laugh when I am told that the vote wasnt won based on any of these very good reasons but because of xenophobia and old empires. The reality disconnect must be what allows the damage done to Greece and Ukraine to be ignored.
Or the IMF getting their predictions hopelessly wrong (whilst being run by a crook), or the 'expert' in the BOE (Mark Carney) that decided a rate cut right after Brexit would be a wheeze... that certainly didnt help the pound did it.
Yes, experts seem as good as my 1yr old toddler at predicting future economics.
> It was not about borders for me, and I am not stupid. It was about creeping federalism.
Could you please elaborate on what is it exactly that you consider "creeping federalism", and how do you propose to survive in a globalised world without an effective single market of respectable size, something which cannot be achieved without extensive harmonisation including in areas which may not be entirely obvious?
Thank you.
"You can not leave the EU and own Northern Ireland unless you want a war - Ireland's only hope for peace is going to be to unite and stay in the EU."
Where on earth do you come up with that nonsense from? (Rhetorical question, I know you answered it in your first sentence.)
Why do you think the Common Travel Area that includes Ireland and the UK will have to end? It already includes territories that are not in the EU.
"Why do you think the Common Travel Area that includes Ireland and the UK will have to end?"
Because the CTA has never existed where the UK and Republic of Ireland were in different border regimes. When it started both were independent states, all was fine. Then both were in the EU , all fine again. Now one will be in the EU other will be out, in that case keeping the CTA means the EU having to give unrestricted access to EU territory for non EU citizens, and vice versa, i.e. crossing the Irish "border" in either direction. I can imagine this will require a unanimous vote from the other 27 members before it will be permitted, and all it will take is Spain worried about possible implications for Catalonian independence or somthing like that to block it.
I disagree. It pre-dates the EU. It is only for people, not goods and services. EU countries are responsible for their own immigration policies for non EEA citizens.
What has to end in the event of a hard brexit is the open border. It will have to be similar to travelling to and from the Schengen Zone is at present.
This would seem to be much the same as the control system at the height of the troubles.
Not a good situation.
"Why do you think the Common Travel Area that includes Ireland and the UK will have to end? It already includes territories that are not in the EU."
Once UK is out of EU they become none EU citizen. That means they fall right into this group of rules regarding border travel into EU regardless of Schengen status of that country (different set of rules).
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-exit/non-eu-nationals/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/what-should-i-avoid/how-to-enter-the-eu/crossing-the-eu-borders_en
There are going to be border post at the N-Ireland border with Ireland after 2019 when the UK leaves the EU formally (with an agreement or not). One travel zone is not a possibility under current EU laws that apply in Ireland. If Ireland applies to join Schengen area after UK leaves the EU then a whole new rules are going to apply, along with the requirement of Schengen visa for UK nationals.
Why do you think the Common Travel Area that includes Ireland and the UK will have to end? It already includes territories that are not in the EU.
Who was talking about it ending? And the problem is about the borders no who is allowed to cross them.
Currently the CTA is effectively like the Schengen zone. Because all the area within in it are members of the customs union and they share area entry policies.
If the UK leaves the Customs union and the single market, then the border will have to become a customs border. Otherwise it is a back door in and out of the single market. (No control of people, but control of what they bring with them, back to how it was in the time of the troubles, basically)
If the UK ends freedom of movement. It will have to become a border controlling people. Because EU nationals will require a visa to enter the UK, (or at the very least to be recorded).
If it isn't then the whole concept of 'controlling our borders' becomes complete nonsense, because that is the only border we don't control.
In which case why are we decimating our economy by leaving the single market?
"it seems that nobody in the UK has thought this out"
Well, a bunch of people did think about it, and came to the conclusion, "no, that's a terrible idea, lets not do that". Unfortunately we're told that the country is "tired of experts", and so just over half the country (that bothered to vote) voted to leave the EU, without any clear plan as to what that meant or how to get there.
@ phuzz
Well, a bunch of people did think about it, and came to the conclusion, "no, that's a terrible idea, lets not do that".
Erm you might have been sleeping. We thought about it, finally had a vote on it and even after all this time trapped in the EU we voted out. Which means there has been no votes yet ever for the UK to be part of the EU but a vote against.
As for negotiating our way out, why? The EU can stomp their feet all they want, it is funny to hear them change their mind time and time again and realise shafting us is shafting them more. They thought it was funny to threaten the finance sector until they realised the Euro needs London. They wanted to throw us out without any half measures, but beg us to give them money so they can keep spending. They talk about taking the banks as if they are owned by us or can be stolen by them HA. Such stupidity let them think they had this vote in the bag and that the EU population loved them (they woke up quickly after that).
We shouldnt be gits to them but we are leaving and while a deal could be of mutual interest it is not a requirement. And of course if we are ok outside of the EU it will give trapped members hope. So if the EU really has to try to punish us it will be a great demonstration of how bad they have it in the political union.
What planet are you on?
They don't want to throw us out.
We are going to leave.
They don't want us to go.
They will offer half measures, but only ones that are consistent with what other EFTA and Customs Union members have.
They will offer us continuing membership of the customs union, (Turkey style)
They will offer us continuing EEA membership (or something equivalent) based on Norway's arrangement.
The may even offer us bank passporting for a figure based on the difference between Norway and Switzerland's contributions.
But unless our government actively seeks these out at the outset, then businesses will assume a hard brexit and start relocating all the non-UK EEA work to an area that will remain in it. (In fact some already have.)
Given our economy has spent the last 30 - 40 years becoming a service industry for the single market, this will hurt. Badly. (In effect we are self inflicting a trade embargo, because outside the single market, many services are impossible. The trade embargo with Russia hit it far harder than they are prepared to admit. Russia is far bigger than us. And they would not have businesses leaving to keep their customers, so they still retained the resources).
All the EU has to do is make reasonable offers and keep rejecting our unreasonable demands, and we are stuffed good and proper.
The only hope is that all this hard brexit nonsense is just a ploy to appease the UKIP voters and will be dropped once A50 is started.
He was referring to Financial 'experts'. The ones that over the last few years have got most financial predictions spectacularly wrong.
Surely you knew that... but thought of a 'clever' reply anyway. Which frankly just showed you took the previous comment completely out of context. So not really very clever at all.
as a brit living in the usa and now also an american citizen your talking rubbish. it was not all about borders and people that say it was are the british equivalent of those in the usa that claim that all republicans are racists.
CONTROL of immigration (like control of the mexican border) was one part of it.
So was control of british laws.
So was a breakdown between a lot of the people and the liberal elite who still think that if they keep telling people they were stupid that they will change their minds.
So was parts of the uk that felt disconnected from westminster and let down (like the rust belt here).
so was people that could see the EU was trying to become a country which was not what the british wanted.
there was a lot going on....
EEF is today warning that loss of access to both the single market and the customs union would "condemn the manufacturing sector to a painful and costly Brexit" saying the notion of a "no deal is better than a bad deal" is "unacceptable".
Single market is ALL-fsck'ING-READY out of the question (dixit May) ... as for customs union, well, doesn't look good, does it ... customs union (free movement of goods) comes with the single market, doesn't it ? They have repeated several times, already: "We will not grant you any of the four freedoms separately!"
So access to any of these two, which are actually one and the same, named "common market", means you will have to let foreigners in, don't want to, fair enough ... we are very happy to take what remains of the British industry and, of course, your nice banking sector, you see, we have stock exchanges here, too ... thank you very much, bye bye, don't forget to close the door when you leave!
Can't somebody tell these overpaid taxmoney suckers that they have ABSOLUTELY NO clue what they are talking about. Feynman, the UK is in deeper shit than I thought, hiring these nutters for the job!
Popcorn & Champagne ready ;-)
"thank you very much, bye bye, don't forget to close the door when you leave!"
You people are really cruel and heartless. You only want us to shut the door to stop others following us out, we wouldnt do that to the poor victims.
"They have repeated several times, already: "We will not grant you any of the four freedoms separately!""
And we are grateful, thank you so much and goodbye. And will you please tell Junker to stop blaming brexit for the fall of the EU. We do not wish to take credit away from your politicians.
@codejunky
I am a Brit, I warned you all BEFORE THE REFERENDUM that you did not have a leg to stand on, I studied economics, FFS. The World Won't Listen ? Tough! I was not even allowed to vote!!!!!!!!! I will need to give up my British citizenship because of RACIST fsck'ing B@ST@RDS and other idiots who voted leave ... I am sorry, but, the British people just voted the collapse of the United Kingdom, sorry, not my fault, not my call ... I tried as hard as I could to stop this, you would not listen .... Now, I have to become French or German, thank you very much but .... you know Karma ? B@ST@RDS get what they deserve!
Now, I have to become French or German, thank you very much
note, "patriotism is an infantile disease" (Albert Einstein) it is not so much becoming French or German or whatever that bothers me ... it is the bloody paperwork for no good reason ... and the bloody oath, I think, regardless of citizenship, I will have to withhold my laughter! With the silly patriots watching our every move, I understand it is quite difficult .... I have to go through that because YOU LOT decided to flush your economy down the drain ... I do feel bitter, very miffed
... again, Nigerian, Algerian, Thai, French, Belgian, German, I could not care less ... It is the straight face I am worried about, I am not a good actor ... :-\
@ Hans 1
"I am a Brit"
Good for you. So why is it you want the UK to be badly punished as your comments usually seem to desire? I too am a brit and I voted leave and I dont want the UK nor the EU to be punished.
"I warned you all BEFORE THE REFERENDUM that you did not have a leg to stand on"
And I dont believe a word of it. Falling back to no special deal and going back to WTO rules will still be fine for the country and free us up. My fear is a special deal where we lose what has been won, our exit from the political union the EU.
"I will need to give up my British citizenship because of RACIST fsck'ing B@ST@RDS and other idiots who voted leave"
Why would you have to give up your British citizenship? Is it a British rule that you must give it up? And as well as a few racists and probably some idiots there are also those who voted out for very good reasons, as brits living here and wanting better for this country.
"I am sorry, but, the British people just voted the collapse of the United Kingdom, sorry, not my fault, not my call"
What world do you live in? Plenty of countries are outside of the EU and still exist. Even more so it is the EU currency the Euro which is impoverishing countries, its own members! It is the fear of collapse of countries within the EU and of the Euro area which is a global concern and has been since the crash.
"Now, I have to become French or German, thank you very much"
Wow. So Britain has decided to deport you to France or Germany and decided to remove your passport from you and of course will not let you have it back. Do the guards dress like storm troopers too? Or are you there by choice, because you want to be in Germany or France and by their rules you have to give up your british passport? And if you 'have' to be over there then why are you complaining that we here are trying to make this place we live better?
"Falling back to no special deal and going back to WTO rules will still be fine for the country and free us up."
The pixie dust view.
"My fear is a special deal where we lose what has been won, our exit from the political union the EU."
Reality seeping through. At some point you're going to cotton on to the real killer. That will happen and we won't be part of the decision-making process. The control that could be won back was an illusion.
@ Doctor Syntax
"The pixie dust view."
Why? The EU already fear that we will succeed without the need of the cartel. While there was a lot of lying and scaremongering during the referendum the truth is not that leaving will cripple the country unless we implement bad policies. That is it. We will stand as good a chance as any other developed country.
"Reality seeping through."
This would be the comments from the EU about them breaking up, brexit could be the doom of them, we must not be allowed to succeed or the failure that is the cartel will be exposed and so on. That cutting off the banking sector sounds a great idea until they realised they needed the banking sector to trade their currency, and it aint gonna up and move just add an office over there to bypass their laws. The reality is making the doom predictions sound daft.
"The control that could be won back was an illusion."
Except for the control being won back to the democracy we vote for.
And of course, NO ONE ON HERE picks you up for your insults do they? I use the word "idiot" and am told this:
"Please remain civil. If you cannot accept a diversity of views and criticism, public debate may not be your thing."
Whereas you can call me a racist bastard, oh and an idiot as well, and no one bats an eyelid.
Where's the censure for this AC?
Utter hypocrites.
> Where's the censure for this AC?
Did you mean to have a comma somewhere in there ("Where's the censure for this, AC")?
> Whereas you can call me a racist bastard, oh and an idiot as well, and no one bats an eyelid.
A bit of a technicality, but I believe "Hans 1" called you either one or the other. Either way, he seemed incoherent if not deranged so I am surprised that anyone paid any attention to his post. I certainly did skip it on first read (only found it now via text search for "racist"). Incidentally, I do not believe he is British, as he claims, and would be very disappointed if he was indeed, for that would mean the art of offending with polite words is being lost¹.
¹ Inconveniently for some, an EUR-LEX search does not reveal this to be dictated by any Regulation, Directive or other instrument coming from Brussels.
I believe that is a negotiating ploy, however I do believe that the provision of services will not be separated from freedom of movement.
Goods can be dealt with by the customs union, that would suit the EU, we are a service economy. It would also make the Irish Border our problem only. (Control of EEA citizens crossing).
Bank Passporting, I'm sure they would sell us that because it would avoid a huge budget hole. Though I guess the politically acceptable figures will not match for both sides, so will probably be a non-starter.
If they give us services without freedom of movement and a Norway style contribution, it would undermine the whole EU.
The loss of the ability to sell services (or more likely the loss of the actual companies) will be what cripples us.
> please tell Junker to stop blaming brexit for the fall of the EU
Actually, the EU is alive and well and concerned with getting things done quietly rather than expending all its energy (and the taxpayers' money) in politicking¹.
For those interested, there was a related article in the Spiegel a couple of months ago.
¹ My only significant criticism is that the European Parliament has consistently failed to prove useful for anything other than as a dumping ground for national undesirables and, amusingly, anti-Europeists such as whatever his face was, the UKIP caudillo, and that wretched woman from France.
@AC
"Actually, the EU is alive and well"
I will agree as far as alive. Well is only true if you ignore all the various crisis they are stacking up but not resolving. And yes Junker has already commented that brexit could break up the EU, as if it wont be the many other problems they have.
"My only significant criticism"
As long as we ignore Ukraine, Greece, Euro in general, migration crisis and the push back against the federalisation of the EU causing popularity in anti-EU parties, few if any of which are mainstream parties.
you are making the mistake of assuming that the lie of the land 2 years hence will be the same as now.
Once A50 is triggered, the EU could - if they so wished - completely rewrite their rules on how nations join. If these rewritten rules pave the way for an easy Scottish entry to the EU - with the Euro as currency - there is nothing the UK can do about it.
It will be interesting to see what direction the EU takes post-A50 once it has lost the UKs vote. I really hope they agree to increase visas for Indians.
first off, the Spanish view on Scotland is far more diverse and complex than the Daily Mail has told the UK it is, since it's almost axiomatic that the vast majority of Mail readers only speak English (well, sort of). Certainly there is a very mainstream view that Scotland/rUK and the Basque Country/Spain are not analogous situations anyway. So an independent Scotland is not incompatible with the Basque country being ruled from Madrid (bearing in mind how Spain is constituted - again a mystery to the Mail-reading UK population).
It's all moot anyway, if Spain carry through with their threat/promise to put Gibraltar at the top of any Brexit conditions.
Besides, as the UK should know - having made the accusation in the first place - the EU is home to some humungous horse-trading. If it suited the EU to allow an independent Scottish entry to the EU, then I am sure some deal with Spain could be done to arrange it. Probably very similar to the deal the UK got to allow loads of eastern Europeans into the EU very much against the wishes of France and Germany.
What, you mean you didn't realise it was the UK that pressed the EU for Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovena, Hungary and Slovakia to join the EU ? You thought it was the EU forcing the UK to accept ?????
Indeed. The take-home message being that trying to treat Spanish politics the same as UK politics with a suntan is to completely miss several points. And the UK media has managed to miss them all. So much so that it can't be an accident ...
As a UK/Italian citizen, I am relaxed about whatever Brexit throws up, as I will be able to flit around the UK and Europe with no visa or work permit. The fact my (UK) employer has quietly started noting employees with dual nationality speaks volumes. If there are losers in Brexit (which to be honest isn't a very big if) then it will be mononational UK citizens (and their children) who will lose their freedom to work and live in Europe. They will lose this freedom because it's clear the UK will not offer it to EU nationals as stands.
The core problem of Brexit, is that the people tasked with carrying it out broke the cardinal rule of drug dealers - never get high on your own supply. They actually believed the bullshit they flooded the electorate with, and are now perplexed when it turns out that the EU is more than a match for them - despite being full of Johnny Foreigner.
> the Spanish view on Scotland is far more diverse and complex than the Daily Mail has told the UK it is
The Spanish *government's* view on Scotland is that if it: a) splits from the UK, and b) becomes a member of the EU, Catalonia is lost to them, and if Catalonia goes on those circumstances, the rest more or less follows.
Their fear of this happening is only barely topped by their even bigger incompetence, as evidenced by their submissions in the matter of Kosovo, which can be read online.
In the meanwhile, and least they were to win any friends, you can still be fined for speaking Catalan.
Honestly be surprised by any other result other than no deal.
Some of the EU-Pro brass has already talked about wanting to punish the UK for leaving and will put up conditions the UK has already said it isnt willing to give up.
Then after all is said and done the EU has to get ALL members to agree on it, and this regardless of how well or badly the talks have been, this is where it will all fall down, someone somewhere will use this as their own political leverage against not necessarily the UK, but for their own wranglings within the EU.
For example Germany has a lot vested in the UK, and would be extremely painful just to give it up (car industry in particular, not saying they couldn't just that rather they wouldnt) so what would stop say Greece throwing in a spanner to help themselves? (we all know the situation in Greece and their current view of the Germans)
I dont doubt their will be trade agreements but I just dont seeing it as part of the talks.
Free-trade is the best deal for all sides, unfortunately the world is run by fuknuggets.
memo to self; "Make a note of the word "fuknuggets". I like it. I want to use it more in conversation."
General Melchett.
PS I wonder which way he would have voted? What's the quote .. "if nothing else, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.' Ok, I think we can guess.
They really don't have to do that.
They can simply offer similar existing arrangements with other non EU countries (EEA, customs union) and let us reject them, knowing that pretty much anything else will be impossible to negotiate in the time frame. (Look at the Swiss bespoke deal, for time scale).
We will punish ourselves.
I believe we will be offered the option of remaining in the customs union. (Like Turkey).
I also believe we will be offered the option of EEA membership (maybe even standalone).
When we reject EEA membership, I suspect they might look at the arrangements Norway (EEA) and Switzerland (effectively EEA without banking and will a lower cost) have.
By looking at the difference, (Both have freedom of movement, and Norway pays twice as much per head) it could be possible to come up with a value for the banking.
That would give a fee for the banking of somewhere in the region of half net our per head contribution, and no freedom of movement. Of course this would have to become a possibility pretty early on, or the banks would a;ready have left.
But, I reckon we will be leaving with no deal, because of our intransigence, rather than the EU's.
I dont underestimate our own bunch of fuknuggets to royally screw it up (face it you'd have to be a complete 'tard not to)
But in this case based solely on what is being said and the general attitudes being displayed I would put the EU at the higher chance of spanner throwing that the UK (but that is not to dismiss the UK).
Frankly I am more in favor of a Hard Brexit, as unappetising as that is to swallow.
But I feel that would slap these rejects into reality and see this is about trade and people lives, NOT degenerating into political dick swinging.
Was there any claims of Russian meddling in the referendum. Putin is all for Le Pen and against the EU as it would be easier for him to deal with individual European countries than with an united block. Then there is that new! American twat, the ambassador to the EU who says he will "reign in the EU" and then there is the Twitter twat. I suppose the logic is that the EU has become a disturbing world economy.
""We have a manufacturing sector?"
Yes, I believe we do, but a significant proportion of it, if not the majority, is now owned outside the UK."
Yes, I believe you are right, and a significant proportion of it will suffer, and a significant portion is also based in regions that voted leave.
Quite aside from the fact that any deal with the EU will have to be backstopped by the ECJ* - no matter how much that makes the average Mail reader pop their eyes is the little fact that the EU will insist - will *have to insist* that the UK honours the ECHR when trading into Europe.
This means that despite what Brexiteers might want, there will be no flooding Europe with cheap tat produced in countries that do not recognise human rights. It's worth noting it was one such concern which stalled the CETA agreement with Canada for a while.
*Yes, that's right. The UK will end up having to suck up anything the ECJ rules on** whilst celebrating at the freedom to not have a UK member on the court.
**Or jog on. The EU hasn't signed a trade deal that doesn't sit beneath the ECJ, and it ain't gonna start now.
They're already pretty much inescapable if any agreement to be reached. Section 218(11) of the Lisbon Treaty - "A Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties. Where the opinion of the Court is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised."
So - if anyone asks the opinion of the court, and it says "err, we don't like this bit here", any agreement does not come into force until agreement amended, or the Lisbon (and other) treaties changed. No matter what happens, some form of agreement is needed - unless the Leave side wants a hard border in Northern Ireland, that at least will need to be agreed.
Short answer: No.
Long answer is that companies doing business with those countries will be expected to monitor the conditions of supply, and ensure they meet a standard agreed in the trade deal. This is one of the UK lesser-publicised gripes with "EU law trumping UK law". The UK would love to be able to ignore the conditions in the sweatshops of the Far East, but that pesky EU insists on trying to raise welfare standards. So "kinda" ...
not for the people who are in charge of negotiating a deal. They would have failed to obtain an acceptable deal, and if they have a shred of decency they will have to resign and leave public life. Of course, if they don't think a good deal is achievable, they could save themselves time and resign now.
Yeah right.
Britain has always been the petulant kid in the EU playground that didn't want to have to obey the same rules as everyone else and threatened to take their ball home if they didn't get their way. Well, we've all seen that game and, eventually, everyone else gets pissed and tells them to bugger off and take their ball. When they come back, cap in hand, to rejoin the game, they will lose all their special exemptions to the rules, as will we.
This is absolutely the worst time we could invoke Article 50. With the French General and German Federal elections this year, we won't even know who we're negotiating with for at least 6 months. That leaves us with 18 months to get a deal sorted. In order to make sure the 2 years is up before the next UK General election, presumably so the next government can't step in and kill Brexit at the last minute, Theresa May seems to be doing everything in her power to sabotage it.
The EU don't want their club to fall apart. With the French and Dutch exit movements trying to gain traction, the EU will want to demonstrate to those countries that this is a bad idea and the easiest way to do that will be to show them what a crap deal Britain got.
The UK is a member of the WTO under the auspices of the EU, rather than in its own right. The WTO have indicated that the UK won't be removed from the WTO and have to reapply if we leave the EU. However, they indicated that the schedule of tariff rates will need to be negotiated with the other 168 countries. This isn't going to happen overnight and is likely to be from a point of weakness so the UK quite possibly won't get as good a deal we have as EU members.
I can't see how this can go well for us.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
