Another pro-Brexit paper .
As the pound drops again to €1.1250/£1 - when will we hear "what have we done?!"
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Another pro-Brexit paper .
As the pound drops again to €1.1250/£1 - when will we hear "what have we done?!"
But wait. I thought all the people who predicted bad things for the British economy as a result of Brexit were proven wrong because it didn't tank immediately after the referendum result? This is all so confusing...
I'm the only one amazed by the lack of movement/noise/debate re negotiations at this stage? Doesn't seem like there is that much groundwork going on behind the scenes in terms of withdrawal. Taking into account how highly complex, interconnected, and sophisticated current membership is..Not sure how well thought out withdrawal/deal can be achieved in just 20 months from now even with army of specialists in that field, which Britain does not seem to have.
Brexiters prefer a slow agonising demise.
Apparently they don't need a plan because the EU will give in to all the UK's demands.
Talks restart next week -there isn't 20 months because the EU want 6 months to put the agreed terms to the rest of the members so 14/15 months at most to have an agreement which will be just the leaving part and at best some kind of transitional deal. But to get even that the UK have to change stance considerably.
Have the EU stated definitively how much they think we owe them for leaving?
David Davis's evidence to the Lords EU committee on Brexit - Summary
That was one of the less revelatory committee hearings we’ve had on Brexit. That may be because the committee was pressed for time, and with the chair trying to let a large number of peers have a say, there was not much time for proper follow-up questions.
Still, some news seeped out. Here are the key points.
Davis suggested that, because ministers are now talking about accepting some aspects of EU membership during a post-Brexit transitional phase, that was being seen as a watering down of the government’s position. But it wasn’t, because this was always an option, he implied. He may have been thinking about stories like this one, on the front of today’s Financial Times.
View image on Twitter
Follow
BBC News (UK)
✔@BBCNews
Tuesday's FT: "Drugs groups seek court block on NHS price limits" (via @hendopolis) #tomorrowspaperstoday
11:19 PM - 10 Jul 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy
So it’s a whole series of practicalities. And what people are doing, I think, is misinterpreting a statement saying ‘We might have to do something in [the] transition period’ as being an abandonment of the original aim.
He also said that people in Brussels took what they saw in British papers “if anything, too seriously”.
That was one of the less revelatory committee hearings we’ve had on Brexit. That may be because the committee was pressed for time, and with the chair trying to let a large number of peers have a say, there was not much time for proper follow-up questions.
Still, some news seeped out. Here are the key points.
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, rejected claims that the government had softened its stance on Brexit since the election. He said he had read some stories on this “with amusement”.
Davis suggested that, because ministers are now talking about accepting some aspects of EU membership during a post-Brexit transitional phase, that was being seen as a watering down of the government’s position. But it wasn’t, because this was always an option, he implied. He may have been thinking about stories like this one, on the front of today’s Financial Times.
View image on Twitter
Follow
BBC News (UK) ✔@BBCNews
Tuesday's FT: "Drugs groups seek court block on NHS price limits" (via @hendopolis) #tomorrowspaperstoday
11:19 PM - 10 Jul 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy
- Davis said there probably would have to be a transition period - but he claimed it would be for the sake of countries like France, not for the sake of the UK. And it was the transitional period that was leading to mistaken claims that the UK was watering down its stance, he claimed.
So it’s a whole series of practicalities. And what people are doing, I think, is misinterpreting a statement saying ‘We might have to do something in [the] transition period’ as being an abandonment of the original aim.
- He said that his position on a transitional period and Philip Hammond’s were almost identical. You could hardly get a cigarette paper between them, he said. He said the same was true of their views on immigration; neither of them wanted to close the door to immigration, he said.
- He brushed aside Boris Johnson’s claim that the EU could “go whistle” over its Brexit bill demand. (See 1pm.) Asked about this, he said:
He also said that people in Brussels took what they saw in British papers “if anything, too seriously”.
- He said a final deal on the rights of EU nationals would not be agreed soon, because it would end up being part of the final deal. But he said he hoped to reach an interim agreement soon.
- He said the final deal on the Irish border would not be settled until near the end of the process.
- He said British policy on the “divorce bill” for leaving the EU was “not to pay more than we need to”. He also said the government would not accept the EU’s “first claim” without going through it line by line.
- He said the government might publish its own proposal for what the UK should have to pay for leaving the EU, possibly later this week.
- He admitted he did not know how many women were on the UK’s Brexit negotiating team.
I believe David Davis is certifiably insane.
Transition period for the sake of France
It's a pity the uneducated will believe this shite.
It's a pity the uneducated will believe this shite.
David Davis's evidence to the Lords EU committee on Brexit - Summary
That was one of the less revelatory committee hearings we’ve had on Brexit. That may be because the committee was pressed for time, and with the chair trying to let a large number of peers have a say, there was not much time for proper follow-up questions.
Still, some news seeped out. Here are the key points.
There’s been a degree of misinterpretation, I think ... I think the press has over-played any softening, as you put it.
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, rejected claims that the government had softened its stance on Brexit since the election. He said he had read some stories on this “with amusement”.
Davis suggested that, because ministers are now talking about accepting some aspects of EU membership during a post-Brexit transitional phase, that was being seen as a watering down of the government’s position. But it wasn’t, because this was always an option, he implied. He may have been thinking about stories like this one, on the front of today’s Financial Times.
View image on Twitter
Follow
✔@BBCNews
Tuesday's FT: "Drugs groups seek court block on NHS price limits" (via @hendopolis) #tomorrowspaperstoday
11:19 PM - 10 Jul 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy
What has been conflated, I think, a little bit, has been the approach to the implementation stage, or the transition phase - use the phrase you like. Yes, I believe we can get a free trade negotiation concluded, and a customs agreement negotiation concluded, in the period. What will be much more difficult, however, is to get all the practical implementations that go with it. Not so much for us; it will be quite tough to get our customs in the right place in two years, but it’s doable. But to get the French customs in the same place in two years, or the Belgian or the Dutch customs, I think is a different issue. That’s why a transitional period [may be necessary.]
- Davis said there probably would have to be a transition period - but he claimed it would be for the sake of countries like France, not for the sake of the UK. And it was the transitional period that was leading to mistaken claims that the UK was watering down its stance, he claimed.
So it’s a whole series of practicalities. And what people are doing, I think, is misinterpreting a statement saying ‘We might have to do something in [the] transition period’ as being an abandonment of the original aim.
- He said that his position on a transitional period and Philip Hammond’s were almost identical. You could hardly get a cigarette paper between them, he said. He said the same was true of their views on immigration; neither of them wanted to close the door to immigration, he said.
Bluntly, I wouldn’t worry. I mean you will have to get the foreign secretary here to explain his views if you really wanted to. I’m not going to comment on other ministers.
- He brushed aside Boris Johnson’s claim that the EU could “go whistle” over its Brexit bill demand. (See 1pm.) Asked about this, he said:
He also said that people in Brussels took what they saw in British papers “if anything, too seriously”.
I don’t expect we are going to get to a treaty in the immediate future, but what I would hope we would get to is a very substantive heads of agreement which we can initial and say that’s what we want at the end game. That I think will give people a degree of confidence in their own lives.
- He said a final deal on the rights of EU nationals would not be agreed soon, because it would end up being part of the final deal. But he said he hoped to reach an interim agreement soon.
- He said the final deal on the Irish border would not be settled until near the end of the process.
- He said British policy on the “divorce bill” for leaving the EU was “not to pay more than we need to”. He also said the government would not accept the EU’s “first claim” without going through it line by line.
- He said the government might publish its own proposal for what the UK should have to pay for leaving the EU, possibly later this week.
- He admitted he did not know how many women were on the UK’s Brexit negotiating team.
I believe David Davis is certifiably insane.
What is he talking about? The french customs are everywhere in France.
Clearly he has no idea at all what he's talking about, just about every single statement he made in that hearing is either wrong or delusional. None of it makes any sense.
This person is supposedly heading the Brexit negotiations for the UK - it is beyond belief.
Maybe he is talking about the border Police which is different from Customs but even then nothing will really change for France which is an other story for Dover, if France and the UK cancel the Calais agreement.
He said customs, the border police is something else but that changes little. He mentioned Belgian and Holland as well. How will the Uk have all measures in place for imports from and exports to 27 countries .and especially as he seems to suggest it will under WTO rules anyway because they won't be in the single market or the customs union.
Nevermind the Irish border question which will not be "towards the end of the process" neither will the rights of the EU nationals be in the final deal.
I don't think the UK government have taken one bit of notice of what they've been told by the EU and are still under the impression that it is still the cake and eat it deal.
Next week could be a rude awakening for Davis
Some here might find the following funny, frightening, depressing or all of those things..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iteer-argument-call-in-standoff-a7835011.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iteer-argument-call-in-standoff-a7835011.html
Im not sure you can deport eu citizens that easily unless they are involved in crime. I have come across this situation in real life.
Why the feck would you be trying to deport an EU Citizen if they weren't involved in crime?
You can ask an EU citizen to leave after they have become a burden to the government and dont have a job.
In the UK, you can claim benefits after 3 months and if you haven't found a job another 3 months later you can be asked to leave.
Obviously there are a crazy number or flaws in this
I dont know if Belgium deports eu citz that easily, but its possible
I know that France and Belgium do it all the time and the reason is often as simple as unemployment, NGOs complain about it though.
A mate of mine was threatened with it for claiming dole money while out of work
Some here might find the following funny, frightening, depressing or all of those things..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iteer-argument-call-in-standoff-a7835011.html
"Three Thirds of the world".
What do they say about debating with idiots...
I'm not sure that's legal, would like to hear about examples or read about them on the net
UK's stance
5 years – 10 years when the UK can deport individuals for serious reasons of public policy and public security
It's legal, what is illegal is to make it systematic. According to EU laws, it should be done case by case and people should be given time to find a new job but from the moment you are elligible to benefits a country can expel you. Also, if I'm not mistaken it only applies for people that have spent less than 5 years in the country because after that you are a long term resident and have the same right than any other long term resident.
Well my German mate had worked 5 years in Holland and made a claim for benefit after redundancy. Cameron is / was talking about rocking up without a job and making a claim I believe which is something I totally agree with. IMO you should not be allowed to move somewhere and claim a penny without having worked.
Exactly, the threat of deportation was done to spook him off claiming
People are actually expelled, they receive their expulsion notification. It's not just a threat to spook them off.
Based on what?
Based on the numerous reports since 2008. It was a big subject in Belgium a few years ago.
I have seen several reports like this in the last 6-7 years:http://www.euronews.com/2016/03/11/belgium-says-jobless-europeans-not-welcome
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sit...tial-principles-financial_settlement_en_0.pdf
Q: Are you saying that as long as the UK does not accept it has financial obligations, you won’t talk about anything else?
Barnier answers with a single word, in English: Yes.
Q: Are you saying that as long as the UK does not accept it has financial obligations, you won’t talk about anything else?
Barnier answers with a single word, in English: Yes.
James O'Brien was definitely over selling the deporting EU Citizens bit slightly, but the take away is, we've always had the chance to tighten immigration. We just never have done.
Did anyone ask him how much the EU is asking for?
Belgium alleged actions or that I give credits to such reports? In France we do it for Roms and I have heard about other Europeans being expelled but I believe that we are more lenient.
Think Davis will find out next week when he goes through it line by line
So no then.
We have this demand that we say you must agree to pay before we discuss anything else but we do not know how much the demand is for yet.
Why are discussions taking so long to get started, doesn't the UK realise it takes a long time to do these deals.
So no then.
We have this demand that we say you must agree to pay before we discuss anything else but we do not know how much the demand is for yet.
Why are discussions taking so long to get started, doesn't the UK realise it takes a long time to do these deals.
The actual number isn't mentioned but here you have the EU opinion on what and for how long the UK should contribute.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub...-essential-principles-financial-settlement_en
PS: With the general tone of the thread, I feel the need to say that I'm just sharing the information.
It is meaningless without numbers though, isn't it?
No, because normally the UK Exchequer knows exactly how much it represents, the question is do the UK agrees with it or do they think that some elements shouldn't be paid for?
Though obviously for you and I it's a bit more complicated to have an idea about the actual amount without one of the sides telling us.
So why aren't the numbers in there then given the UK and Brussels already know them?
Honestly I'm not sure. My guess is that since we are talking about several dozens of different obligations it's best to not put them in a package until both sides agree on what should be in the said package. They referenced them individually in the annexes.
In this case though, with the EU making it a deal breaker, agree or we don't negotiate on anything else, it is very strange that they don't want to put supposedly obvious numbers next to the supposedly obvious boxes.
At issue here is whether we even take another step or blow the whole negotiation. It is going to be contentious whatever numbers they ask for.I guess I'm hoping they are not stupid enough to get the UK populous behind a no deal Brexit by asking for the moon on a stick.
At issue here is whether we even take another step or blow the whole negotiation. It is going to be contentious whatever numbers they ask for.I guess I'm hoping they are not stupid enough to get the UK populous behind a no deal Brexit by asking for the moon on a stick.