Forums Forums National News Brexit payment

They are not shifting on any of them though. Not for us, not for anyone. It is what the EU is based on, they believe in it and value it and they are not going to make a special case for the UK.

The sooner our negotiator accept this the better. Davis in particular, seems to live in a fantasy wor where he dreams up 'agreements' and proposals which break one or more of these principles, attempts to blur them, or pretend they can be played off against money but it is quite clear the EU is not having any of it. He has failed in very case. I think he believes his own propaganda. A very dangerous state to get into. May should have chucked him I reckon.

When we were in the EU, we supported these same four freedoms.

But now the EU are saying although they are implicitly linked we can only negotiate them separately but you can't have one without the other.

They can't argue its a take it or leave it package but at the same have staged negotiations for different parts, its a contradiction.

The default position both sides should negotiate from is a hard Brexit ie we are a full member of the EU until we aren't. The negotiations should then be about agreements beyond the hard Brexit which clearly should be negotiated in parallel not stages. Its a new relationship not a modification of the old relationship.

But that would be a modification of your profits, we have made a loss year after year in the EU "investment".

In any case if you withdraw early from a with-profits fund the actual earned income is not withdrawn. You would miss out on any final bonus's (by definition and policy) and incur an admin fee. You always have the option to sell your share of the fund on so someone else can benefit from the final bonus in a shorter period of time.

But in this instance Brexit is 100% doing what the EU agreed and what we committed to, it was an open ended agreement that could be terminated by either party at any time. Article 50 is an EU "rule", there is not mention of future commitments by either party.

I think the EU are saying they are ALL non-negotiable.They have said it several times in several different ways. And as they are in charge of these negotiations, they can enforce their views.

Why can't you brexiteers accept this and move on?

Well, that's true. We are not going to get free trade without free movement of people. So Mrs May signed up for a lot more than she realised when she agreed to 'no borders'. In practice, no borders = free trade = free movement.

Nothing to do with Article 50 or any other articles. It is a matter of what the EU is prepared to offer nations outside the EU which is entirely up to them.

Anyway, it is looking increasingly unlikely to happen. More and more people are calling for another referendum, and even Farage has indicated he is sympathetic to it. Perhaps he has seen the latest poll:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/second-eu-referendum-would-reverse-11837325

which has 55% remain against 45% leave.

(You must remember that what Farage needs is for the campaign to leave to continue indefinitely. He has no job or function once we leave.)

Bring it on, I'm fairly confident of the result. There has been a lot of exposure to the UK of what the EU is like, the more people see of the EU, the less they like.

Admittedly there is also exposure of what May & co are like which will swing it the other way a bit.

How can any of the two parties be "in charge" of negotiations? That is not possible.

If anything the instigator could be classed as "in charge" as they started the negotiation, the responder certainly has nothing to claim to be "in charge" of other than their own negotiation.

Despite most, if not all economists concluding that a no-deal brexit would be a disaster for the UK, the Express is telling its slack-jawed readers that a no-deal brexit will cost the EU £500 billion. The UK will benefit to the tune of £650 billion! I expect they are stupid enough believe this nonsense too.

The claim is attributed to 'leading economists' although who they are leading and where to is unclear. My bet as to the correct answers to these questions is "Lunatics" and "Over the cliff".

The economists saying it will be a disaster is a good thing, they are very rarely correct. Look at the UKP against the Dollar or Euro, absolutely nothing like the economists forecast.

Furthermore the economists are usually investors, it pays them to to make others think the market is going in the opposite direction to what it is.

I haven't bought a copy of the Express. But I don't for a moment expect it to give any more detail than "Experts have said..."

I am not at all sure economists are investors. I've only known two well, both academics, and neither invested a penny because it could be taken to affect the papers they wrote. I assume this is generally the case with academics, just as researchers receiving grants from private companies are expected to declare this in the papers they write.

The UK is asking the EU to make arrangements for brexit. The EU has little to gain from doing so and that puts them in charge in practice. They need to do nothing, unless they want to.

The UK, by contrast, having left the union is therefore in the position of asking for special status by the EU. There is no obligation for them to grant it. I'd say that puts them firmly in charge, wouldn't you?

The EU is losing its second largest net contributor, that alone is going to be a massive impact on most of the EU countries. Some countries who have special CAP deals are also going to have an additional hit. The impact on the EU is huge but unlike the UK, the EU will have no plan B that allows them to negotiate significant new deals with other countries without the EU imposing its usual 15% fee.

You cannot think of the UK as a twenty-eighth of the EU when it comes to finance, the majority of the EU countries are net-recipients. The impact to the EU is similar to Wirral not collecting any council tax.

The EU cannot be thought of being in charge of negotiations because its in a position of strength because it isn't, the UK gains an enormous amount of flexibility, the EU loses some of theirs.

The Prime objective of the EU was peace in Europe, it is very difficult to say what the main objectives are now apart from building a German empire.

The final nail in the coffin for me was the way the Lisbon Treaty was brought in by purposely bypassing democracy, the treaty had massive impacts but was virtually only supported by the political elite. It was the sign of things to come.

DD


I seem to remember a few things before the LT that were softening us up to sleepwalk into a State of Europe. The only time i really had any interest in politics.. Think it was the late Sir James Goldsmith and a few authors who pressed the button for me plus talking to a load of war veterans every time i took my father the British Legion.

The only reason we may not be able to have similar relations with European countries will be EU law and legislation