The UK hasn't been the place to be for a long time - I think some people just hope that leaving the EU will make their own lives better, in a kind of nebulous, intangible way. It's a pipe dream, of course.
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.
Always have time for Sir Ivan Rogers.
Interesting from the Guardian
She's trying to scare her MPs into backing her .
As I've said for months I'm expecting a general election soon.
She's not going to go through with it.
JRM and the other ERG crew prefer Chequers to Corbyn.
JRM and the other ERG crew prefer Chequers to Corbyn.
And so they should.
If that is what it has to be then, worse case, we can refine Chequers over time.
Corbyn in No. 10 would totally eclipse any disaster that Brexit brings.
probably also some Everton fans who think they will win the league this season.
Disagree on Corbyn. Apart from my tax bill exploding, won't really mind a Corbyn premiership. Even though I'm not a fan of the cult personality around him.
On the back of whatever clusterfeck Brexit turns out to be, a Labour victory in a GE will be the perfect storm.
There'll be a run on the pound and businesses will be jumping ship left right and centre. Unemployment will sky-rocket.
Which part of Chequers never ever being acceptable to the EU don't British people understand ?
Can't believe this is still being considered as an option in the UK press.
Can't believe this is still being considered as an option in the UK press.
If you follow the May dialogue closely, she appears to have dropped the word 'Chequers' and she doesn't seem to be reiterating exit from the Single Market or the Customs Union.
I think there's a lot going on behind the scenes.
Norway??
Yes way.
In Barnier's speech yesterday he said "The UK wants to and will leave the Single Market and the Customs Union."
Norway does not solve the border problem or customs checks, not only in Ireland but elsewhere as well.
If the UK aren't leaving the CU nor the SM they may as well stay in the EU, that's the best deal they'll get.
I have the opposite view, I think the EU have given up trying to get a coherent position from the UK and just concentrating on making the UK take responsibility for resolving the problem of the border in Ireland.
I also think the EU doesn't want a UK change of government at the last minute so not making life too unpleasant for May.
What’s the take on Tony Blair’s comment this morning that, if we hold referendum 2, we’ll get a better deal as a continuing member of the EU (in other words, the ability to impose additional controls on immigration). Wishful thinking from yesterday’s man or a message delivered from someone with relevant contacts within the EU?
From Barnier's speech yesterday, part 1 and part 3 were originally in French but have now been translated into English , part two was already in English above.
Mr President, my dear Christoph LEITL,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Firstly, I would like to welcome you, in the diversity of your responsibilities, your enterprises and your countries.
It is a great opportunity to be able to gather you here, at the heart of European democracy that is the European Parliament. I would like to thank Eurochambres and all of you for having taken the time to come and share your ideas on the functioning of Europe and the direction it should take.
This is the right time for it!
Our European Union needs to listen to and take into account the views of entrepreneurs and business leaders, in all their diversity.
And the subjects discussed today show clearly what the added value of ambitious action at European level can be, for your enterprises and for European citizens.
To increase our competitiveness and address the challenge of skills through training, mobility, the integration of migrants, the fight against youth unemployment.
To find new markets through trade and investment agreements – Cecilia Malmström has spoken to you about this – which must benefit our SMEs and create jobs, while encouraging sustainable development.
To invest together in the technologies of the future and deepen our single market to adapt it to the new digital realities.
These are examples of positive projects, which correspond to the commitments and initiatives – I am thinking of the Juncker Plan – undertaken by the European Commission.
It is on these subjects that the EU-27 must focus in order to build a stronger Union, on the basis of what, in my view, is our main asset, our main capital – our single market, that ecosystem of standards, certifications, rights, regulations, supervision and jurisdiction that we have constructed together and on which we worked hard together when I was the Commissioner responsible for the single market. I am thinking, for example, of the simplification of public procurement, and the European patent.
It is also for this positive agenda, an agenda of progress for Europe and Europeans, that the unity we have built between the 27 Member States and the European Parliament in this negotiation with the UK must be useful.
By setting our course for the medium and long term, we will address together the challenges facing Europe on the economic, industrial, technological, geopolitical, ecological and demographic fronts.
The challenges facing us today obviously include Brexit, which is raising concerns for many entrepreneurs and enterprises, as well as numerous citizens and communities.
In view of this concern, I would like to tell you clearly where we are now, and what remains to be done to reach an agreement on an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Firstly, I would like to welcome you, in the diversity of your responsibilities, your enterprises and your countries.
It is a great opportunity to be able to gather you here, at the heart of European democracy that is the European Parliament. I would like to thank Eurochambres and all of you for having taken the time to come and share your ideas on the functioning of Europe and the direction it should take.
This is the right time for it!
Our European Union needs to listen to and take into account the views of entrepreneurs and business leaders, in all their diversity.
And the subjects discussed today show clearly what the added value of ambitious action at European level can be, for your enterprises and for European citizens.
To increase our competitiveness and address the challenge of skills through training, mobility, the integration of migrants, the fight against youth unemployment.
To find new markets through trade and investment agreements – Cecilia Malmström has spoken to you about this – which must benefit our SMEs and create jobs, while encouraging sustainable development.
To invest together in the technologies of the future and deepen our single market to adapt it to the new digital realities.
These are examples of positive projects, which correspond to the commitments and initiatives – I am thinking of the Juncker Plan – undertaken by the European Commission.
It is on these subjects that the EU-27 must focus in order to build a stronger Union, on the basis of what, in my view, is our main asset, our main capital – our single market, that ecosystem of standards, certifications, rights, regulations, supervision and jurisdiction that we have constructed together and on which we worked hard together when I was the Commissioner responsible for the single market. I am thinking, for example, of the simplification of public procurement, and the European patent.
It is also for this positive agenda, an agenda of progress for Europe and Europeans, that the unity we have built between the 27 Member States and the European Parliament in this negotiation with the UK must be useful.
By setting our course for the medium and long term, we will address together the challenges facing Europe on the economic, industrial, technological, geopolitical, ecological and demographic fronts.
The challenges facing us today obviously include Brexit, which is raising concerns for many entrepreneurs and enterprises, as well as numerous citizens and communities.
In view of this concern, I would like to tell you clearly where we are now, and what remains to be done to reach an agreement on an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Looking beyond a difficult separation, which we hope will be an orderly one, the most important matter, in the common interest of our countries and of economic stability and growth, will be our future relationship with the United Kingdom.
We must now define the outline, the framework and the parameters of that future relationship.
To be clear, once the UK has left the Union the future relationship will be the subject of a new negotiation, in fact several negotiations – undoubtedly about ten parallel negotiating tables – during the transition period, until the end of 2020.
In parallel with the withdrawal agreement, we are therefore working with the UK on a joint political declaration that will describe this future relationship.
Last March, the EU-27 Heads of State or Government, with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, clearly expressed the wish for a very ambitious partnership with the UK for the future. This ambition is shared by the European Parliament and its President, Antonio TAJANI.
Obviously, in our discussions with the United Kingdom, we are taking on board the positions set out in the UK's July White Paper. Since July, we have discussed all the chapters of that White Paper with the UK negotiators at both the technical and political level.
This White Paper is useful, as it allows us to benchmark our proposals against the UK proposals and identify points of convergence. We have found many such points. For example:
With regard to our future economic partnership, however, certain UK positions set out in the White Paper do not correspond to the European Council's guidelines or to my mandate.
We agree that our future relationship is to be based on a free trade area without tariffs or quotas. This is a very important point.
But we have two points of divergence with the UK proposals, since these two points clearly contradict the foundations of our single market.
First, with regard to customs:
Let's take two examples:
o The remainder, 69 %, covers compliance with other Union regulations, such as environmental rules. It's on these regulations that the UK would like to be able to diverge from us. For steel, the figures are even more eloquent.
And, as you know well, in certain economic sectors where the margins are low, minor divergences in regulations can create a significant competitive advantage for the UK if it remains in the single market for goods while diverging for all the rest.
This is why many business leaders, including here in Eurochambres, have asked us clearly, in all the countries of the Union, not to do anything in this negotiation to weaken the internal market – which, after Brexit, will still represent 60 %, in some cases more, of our trade. And the survey you have just done shows clearly your commitment to that internal market.
We have therefore proposed to the UK, taking into account our principles and the UK's red lines, an economic partnership founded on an ambitious free trade agreement, doubtless accompanied by a customs cooperation, a regulatory cooperation, and also a level playing field commensurate with such a free trade agreement.
It is this partnership that we wish to outline in our joint political declaration with the UK and that will be the basis of our future economic relationship.
Nothing will prevent us from enriching this economic relationship in the course of the negotiations, provided that our principles are respected.
*
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The negotiations with the United Kingdom are being conducted intensively this week, day and night, with the objective set by the leaders of the 27 Member States that the agreement be within reach at the time of the European Council on 17-18 October, next Wednesday!
In this way we will try to maximise the chances of an orderly withdrawal and minimise the costs of Brexit for our enterprises.
In the event of no deal, these costs would be very high, firstly for the UK but also for some sectors of our economy. That is why ‘no deal' is not, and has never been, our scenario – even if our responsibility is to be prepared for all options.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to be sincere with you: even in the event of an agreement, there will be adjustments for many of your companies as a result of the UK's decision. It can't be business as usual.
To help your enterprises to address these adjustments, the European Commission has published over 70 Brexit preparedness notices. These notices concern numerous economic sectors, from e-commerce to maritime transport, the energy market and financial services. I would like to thank Eurochambres and its members for your support for this preparation. The Task Force that I head is at your disposal.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to conclude on a more personal note in my capacity as the person in charge of this negotiation, under the control of the European leaders and the European Parliament.
I would like to tell you what I think, as someone who voted for the first time, in his country, in 1972, in favour of the UK joining the European Union.
I campaigned for the Yes vote and I have never regretted that vote, because I believe in strength through unity. I believed then – and it is still more true today – that it was better to be together to secure respect and defend our interests and values.
I believe that Brexit has no added value. It is a negotiation with no positive outcome, a lose-lose game.
Its result is important for the future of Europe, beyond our relationship with the UK.
On our side, we will try to reach an agreement that is the fairest and the most precise on the separation and the most ambitious for the future, while defending the rights of European citizens and enterprises and preserving the foundations of the European project.
To achieve this, I will continue to conduct this negotiation to the end on behalf of the Union and respecting the principles set out by European leaders and the European Parliament from the very first day after the referendum.
I will continue to do this calmly, without any aggressiveness, with a lot of respect for a great country that will remain, in any case, our ally and our partner.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Looking beyond a difficult separation, which we hope will be an orderly one, the most important matter, in the common interest of our countries and of economic stability and growth, will be our future relationship with the United Kingdom.
We must now define the outline, the framework and the parameters of that future relationship.
To be clear, once the UK has left the Union the future relationship will be the subject of a new negotiation, in fact several negotiations – undoubtedly about ten parallel negotiating tables – during the transition period, until the end of 2020.
In parallel with the withdrawal agreement, we are therefore working with the UK on a joint political declaration that will describe this future relationship.
Last March, the EU-27 Heads of State or Government, with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, clearly expressed the wish for a very ambitious partnership with the UK for the future. This ambition is shared by the European Parliament and its President, Antonio TAJANI.
Obviously, in our discussions with the United Kingdom, we are taking on board the positions set out in the UK's July White Paper. Since July, we have discussed all the chapters of that White Paper with the UK negotiators at both the technical and political level.
This White Paper is useful, as it allows us to benchmark our proposals against the UK proposals and identify points of convergence. We have found many such points. For example:
- In the area of internal security, foreign policy and military cooperation.
- In numerous areas of sectoral cooperation, for instance in aviation and transport.
- In the United Kingdom's participation in Union programmes, for example research programmes, where we will be willing to use all the tools at our disposal for our relations with non‑EU countries in the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework.
- In areas where we are willing to look at recourse to unilateral equivalence or adequacy decisions. I am thinking for example of financial services and data protection.
With regard to our future economic partnership, however, certain UK positions set out in the White Paper do not correspond to the European Council's guidelines or to my mandate.
We agree that our future relationship is to be based on a free trade area without tariffs or quotas. This is a very important point.
But we have two points of divergence with the UK proposals, since these two points clearly contradict the foundations of our single market.
First, with regard to customs:
- The United Kingdom would like to preserve an autonomous trade policy, and be able to negotiate its own agreements, while remaining in our customs area.
- The United Kingdom would like to apply its own external tariffs while collecting European customs duties for us.
- We know that the United Kingdom wishes to take back control of its borders, its policies and its money and we respect this choice. But the British Government must in turn accept that we need to retain control over our customs borders.
- The United Kingdom has asked to be aligned with many – but not all - of our standards for goods, so that it can preserve its current participation in our internal market for those goods alone.
- At the same time, the UK wants to remain free to diverge from the set of regulations governing the factors of production of these goods, whether it be services, labour, capital or social and environmental rules.
Let's take two examples:
- On the regulatory cost of chemical products:
o The remainder, 69 %, covers compliance with other Union regulations, such as environmental rules. It's on these regulations that the UK would like to be able to diverge from us. For steel, the figures are even more eloquent.
And, as you know well, in certain economic sectors where the margins are low, minor divergences in regulations can create a significant competitive advantage for the UK if it remains in the single market for goods while diverging for all the rest.
This is why many business leaders, including here in Eurochambres, have asked us clearly, in all the countries of the Union, not to do anything in this negotiation to weaken the internal market – which, after Brexit, will still represent 60 %, in some cases more, of our trade. And the survey you have just done shows clearly your commitment to that internal market.
We have therefore proposed to the UK, taking into account our principles and the UK's red lines, an economic partnership founded on an ambitious free trade agreement, doubtless accompanied by a customs cooperation, a regulatory cooperation, and also a level playing field commensurate with such a free trade agreement.
It is this partnership that we wish to outline in our joint political declaration with the UK and that will be the basis of our future economic relationship.
Nothing will prevent us from enriching this economic relationship in the course of the negotiations, provided that our principles are respected.
*
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The negotiations with the United Kingdom are being conducted intensively this week, day and night, with the objective set by the leaders of the 27 Member States that the agreement be within reach at the time of the European Council on 17-18 October, next Wednesday!
In this way we will try to maximise the chances of an orderly withdrawal and minimise the costs of Brexit for our enterprises.
In the event of no deal, these costs would be very high, firstly for the UK but also for some sectors of our economy. That is why ‘no deal' is not, and has never been, our scenario – even if our responsibility is to be prepared for all options.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to be sincere with you: even in the event of an agreement, there will be adjustments for many of your companies as a result of the UK's decision. It can't be business as usual.
To help your enterprises to address these adjustments, the European Commission has published over 70 Brexit preparedness notices. These notices concern numerous economic sectors, from e-commerce to maritime transport, the energy market and financial services. I would like to thank Eurochambres and its members for your support for this preparation. The Task Force that I head is at your disposal.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to conclude on a more personal note in my capacity as the person in charge of this negotiation, under the control of the European leaders and the European Parliament.
I would like to tell you what I think, as someone who voted for the first time, in his country, in 1972, in favour of the UK joining the European Union.
I campaigned for the Yes vote and I have never regretted that vote, because I believe in strength through unity. I believed then – and it is still more true today – that it was better to be together to secure respect and defend our interests and values.
I believe that Brexit has no added value. It is a negotiation with no positive outcome, a lose-lose game.
Its result is important for the future of Europe, beyond our relationship with the UK.
On our side, we will try to reach an agreement that is the fairest and the most precise on the separation and the most ambitious for the future, while defending the rights of European citizens and enterprises and preserving the foundations of the European project.
To achieve this, I will continue to conduct this negotiation to the end on behalf of the Union and respecting the principles set out by European leaders and the European Parliament from the very first day after the referendum.
I will continue to do this calmly, without any aggressiveness, with a lot of respect for a great country that will remain, in any case, our ally and our partner.
Thank you very much for your attention.
The EU can deliver a message without using Blair imho. Its not particulalry helpful and a bit too late tbh.
Influence, yes. Impose, no.
It won't be. The UK has not been the place to be for a while, it isn't working for many of its citizens and is actively getting worse.
Its shit.
Pro-Brexiters seem to think we can dictate everything to Europe and they don’t matter at all.
It’s delusional self-grandeur, pure and simple.
But we won the war innit?
You mean you won the battle, it's zee Germans that are winning the war... Or something...
Nah, we won in 1945 and that’s all that matters.
Oh and 1966.
The only two years that anything matters and there’ll be hell to pay if anyone forgets how proud we are of it!
There are interesting rumours coming out from the logistics industry that they are being made to sign NDA's before attending briefings given by government to walk them through the impact of likely scenario's of a deal or no deal brexit.
Implies that the government is terrified of the facts getting out and influencing public opinion. Wonder if there are any anti brexit logistics owners that might break ranks in a similar way to this guy did and release the full briefing info?
Implies that the government is terrified of the facts getting out and influencing public opinion. Wonder if there are any anti brexit logistics owners that might break ranks in a similar way to this guy did and release the full briefing info?
What I can't believe is that there are people that still actually think there is something workable called BREXIT and that it's one political party or another's incompetence (or even more incredibly an uncooperative EU) that is holding the delivery of that dream up.
BREXIT exists, it's just not quite as rosey as the voters were led to believe … and EVERYONE will be worse off if it's allowed to continue. FFS even after 2 years people haven't worked it out. They are still screaming that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do anything other than head blindly into the abyss
Flying in the face of all the information that has come to the fore since 2016 – that the public were lied to and betrayed, that the public were manipulated, and that the public voted a certain way given the "factual information" they were fed – people still seem to think that there is a workable solution for the fairy tale that is BREXIT and they lay the blame at the feet of the people who are trying to deliver the impossible, or the people who are trying to point out the impossibleness of the situation … rather than the people who lied and promised "the impossible" in the first place.
What I can't believe is that there are people that still actually think there is something workable called BREXIT and that it's one political party or another's incompetence (or even more incredibly an uncooperative EU) that is holding the delivery of that dream up.
BREXIT exists, it's just not quite as rosey as the voters were led to believe … and EVERYONE will be worse off if it's allowed to continue. FFS even after 2 years people haven't worked it out. They are still screaming that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do anything other than head blindly into the abyss
Flying in the face of all the information that has come to the fore since 2016 – that the public were lied to and betrayed, that the public were manipulated, and that the public voted a certain way given the "factual information" they were fed – people still seem to think that there is a workable solution for the fairy tale that is BREXIT and they lay the blame at the feet of the people who are trying to deliver the impossible, or the people who are trying to point out the impossibleness of the situation … rather than the people who lied and promised "the impossible" in the first place.
It's not impossible. It's very easy to exit. How much it'll hurt is another story
I said delivering the BREXIT that everyone was promised … you know, the one they voted for … THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE
Of course it's possible to "EXIT" it's right there in the name BREXIT … but if BREXITeers would have campaigned for pain and hardship, currency drops, fewer jobs and less security with no friends or hope on the horizon except Donald Trump I'm not sure the vote would have gone quite the same way.
What did they vote for though? The talk before the election was very clear that leaving the customs union was not part of the deal.
Brexit explained
Is that Jim'll Paint It?Brexit explained
In my opinion … I think they definitely voted for that (the few that understood what they were even voting about did anyway). In fact, that was the whole point of the vote … to "take back control, of laws, trade and borders" and swim in the ocean of money and respect that they were promised doing so would accrue.
EDIT: If you are referring to the promises that we would "definitely" remain in the customs Union, made by the likes of Farage and Boris, these were always questioned and never substantiated other than pointing at other inferior trading partnerships. And are part of the lies and mistruths that I'm referring to when I say the public voted on false promises.
Where is the £350m a week saving? It's £500m a week extra in spending and counting
We were promised no divorce costs? It's actually c.£40bn
etc …
Last edited:
Brilliant
I'm still yet to really hear any convincing argument that 'taking back control' wasn't just a dog whistle for 'kick out the foreigns'.
Yeah, but I'll probably get a hell of a lot more crap on here than I normally do if I call them racist as well as stupid
I don't think that it's the case. It's a just a tool to convey the idea that Brussels was illegitimately leading the UK, it's more about pretending that UK leaders weren't responsible that it was the bureaucrats.
Certainly for those in government being able to blame Brussels for their feck ups and policies is a tried and tested tactic. Invariably though when Brexiteers were pressed on what they would like to 'take control' back of the answer was immigration and the idea that it was the nebulous job stealing, benefit claiming foreigner who was to blame for them not having had a pay rise in 10 years. Those ideas may have been stoked by politicians for far longer than the run up to the referendum, but they require a receptive audience to lap them up.
It might have made good political sense for Vote Leave to prod that sore with a little bit of wink, wink, nudge nudge 'you know who is to blame for this really' talk, but whether they were doing it because they genuinely believed it or because they thought it would get people to vote for them hardly seems to matter.
And hell, vote leave have been kind enough to leave a record of their tactics up so we don't even need to guess at what they were trying to do: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Last edited:
The reason I tell you that is because of the double discourse with on one hand "take control of the borders" and on the other "we will give more opportunities to people from outside the EU". While the racist minority of leavers were focused on targetting southern europeans and Polish, they missed the fact that the other leavers are apparently planning the exploitation of third world countries which are made of the visible minorities that racists absolutely do not want.
That's why I don't think that from a political standpoint Leave is racist, it's made of manipulative hardcore capitalists who intend to shaft everyone when they get hold of all the power.
It's only double discourse if you assume that they actually meant the whole world rather than 'America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the white bits of South Africa'. Accepting that argument though would mean ignoring the pictures they used of a Muslim family sneaking under some barbed wire (apparently in an attempt to get to Europe) alongside their scaremongering about Turkey and other 'poorer countries' joining the EU.
It's just another example of their paper thin defence.