Car crash by Dianne Abbot on LBC this morning. They really couldn't run an old people's home http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/
Err, this is a political process, not a high court action. But if leaking stuff to the press would benefit either set of lawyers in such an action, they would do it. Your blind trust in May is touching. Juncker, though I don't like him (I like Tusk though), has taken the initiative, May can't say anything other than platitudes and promising to be 'a bloody difficult woman'. Just heard that on the news. What a car crash! Hardly surprising though, she is truly awful, a liability. Labour have a whole squad of them, but she still stands out.
In terms of how the sides are approaching each other, it's like the start of a high court action. Juncker in particular, is prepared to destroy anything to make a point. They'll have to take him off the team eventually. More than one of the 27 will start losing confidence in him. There is already uneasiness showing because all the recipient states expect to keep the same benefits paid to them, yet without the UK, the pot is considerably smaller. This has not yet been properly focused upon, and may be a big lever for the UK when it comes to discussing trade and payments. Actually, in a high court action, the parties would not be able to leak anything in "without prejudice" discussions because it would be covered by legal privilege. That exists to encourage parties to speak freely in looking for a compromise. Perhaps that's the problem here. Nothing can be said in confidence, and anything said might be splashed over tomorrows front pages. It's counter-productive. The first thing they need to do is agree what and what is not confidential between the parties. Otherwise the talks are destined to fail for simple lack of trust between negotiators. They can't even have a heart to heart over a late night brandy without risk of press exposure. I don't have blind trust in anyone, but it's far too early to judge May. Juncker has set out the EU guidelines and expects them to be followed. This is a two way street.
To be fair, you are showing just as much blind trust in the EU's words (leaks) on the negotiations. The same EU who have a slimy toad like Juncker involved in the negotiations who's most memorable quote was this: "when it become serious, you have to lie". So we can be sure that what went on at that dinner was grossly distorted by this toad and even worse, he told the same lies to Merkel. Almost as galling is the glee of many remainers who fall over themselves to believe every single word coming from the EU, so desperate are they for their own Country to fail just so that they can say they were right.They hope for humiliation so that Britain gives up on Brexit. Just like Juncker, who hopes "Brits wake up to the harsh realities before it's too late". He really is a delusional, self serving twat! All he does is patronise the Prime Minister of one of the World's greatest Nations, a Country that Europe has relied upon time after time throughout the last hundred years or so.
Rule Britannia! Let's have everything out in the open, so that we can make some kind of informed judgment. All this bollocks about not giving a 'running commentary' is just so that when it all goes tits up she can blame the dirty foreigners or 'traitors' like me who don't want to give her carte blanche. Irrespective of the size of her majority after the election, there should be a meaningful vote at the end of the process as to whether the deal that she comes up with is good enough. No deal should not be an option.
No-one with a brain can deny that there will be an initial downturn in the finances of the UK over the next few years. Pre-Referendum, some of the smarter people supporting Brexit were avoiding commenting on it, or even denying it - even though they fully understood what the financial downside of the political change they craved would be. The only unknown is how deep will that downturn be and how long will it take us to recover. Governments need money to run public services. People need money to live their lives. The UK needs to import raw materials to continue to produce export goods. Where's that all going to come from whilst we're increasing the size of our overdraft? The long term future may be completely wonderful, and I hope it is, because Brexit won't be stopped. In the meantime, how much collateral damage to ordinary British peoples lives should we accept to get there? Once we do, will we all feel the pain was worth it? Would it be better to take all the pain in one huge hit or would a slower, less aggressive withdrawal be better for "hard working people"? Self harm is not a patriotic act - it's a delusional one. Some smart, manipulative people want it because there's no other way they will get the political climate change they crave. Some of you just want Britain to be "Great" again. It already is. Don't ruin it. Project Fear is dead. All hail Project Ostrich!
Fair point on believing Junckers Col, he truly is a devious toad. But it's the only version of events I have access to, and no one on the UK side has actually denied any of the specifics or offered an alternative version, even David Davies who has just given a rather good interview on the radio. "It's just spin" is a completely different statement to "it's not true". And to date I have no reason to believe May more than Junckers. As for the enemy within Remainers hoping everything will collapse, I have already posted on the fact that if you believe something is genuinely wrong you have a duty to speak up, particularly in the time before anything is decided, and in that context I want massive pressure on May in order to get the softest possible Brexit. There is no 'good' outcome for me, but there are least worst ones, and no deal is definitely the worst possible. But I am sure you are right, there are some Remainers who want the whole thing to fail so they can crow. But there are also a group of ultra hard line Brexiters, some of whom are Tory MPs, who not only want a complete break and no deal but seem to hope for acrimony. And I feel they have a disproportionate influence to their numbers. The 'great nation' stuff I won't be drawn on, other than to say I'd prefer it if we were a generally happy nation rather than an unhappy divided 'great' one. I'm beginning to understand the difficulty with the migrants' rights issue, which I thought would be relatively straightforward - it seems that the EU wants the EU constitution to be the jurisdiction which guarantees the rights of EU citizens in the U.K. post Brexit, on the grounds that anything agreed in the negotiations may not be complied with down the road if it's only under UK jurisdiction. Even I think this is unreasonable, any migrant has to accept the jurisdiction of the country they move to, and unless its enshrined in the kind of treaties we are leaving you cannot have extraterritorial jurisdiction.
isn't the short a**e Malta Prime Minister, the one threatening Britain on the Brexit issue, embroiled in some Tax scandal involving his wife? FIFA couldn't hold a candle to all the corrupt bureaucrats sitting in Brussells
I'd like to see more projections on likely outcome if we leave without a deal. That is our stripped down, fall back position. I'd like to have the best possible gauge on how it would affect the UK, but also how it would affect the EU. It seems increasingly clear that if no deal is struck, the EU have a major problem with funding since we have been the second largest net contributor (£8.6 bn in 2016). We paid net, £32bn in five years. Countries like the Netherlands are already saying they will not pay a penny more as a result of Brexit. So if we walk away without a deal, the EU will have to dramatically cut funding to the net recipients in the EU which will cause huge ructions in the organisation. Since we are here, before negotiations, with a hysterical Juncker claiming it's likely no deal can be arrived at, let's see a worst case scenario for both sides. I suspect a "no deal" outcome is almost inconceivable for either. Shove Juncker and his Nazi aid, Selmayr, to one side, and get Barnier and Davis to start finding common ground
Here are my uninformed guesses. ( the Nazi reference is beneath you, but well done, a step away from Godwin), Won't the EU have a funding gap in any case when we leave, even with a deal, assuming that we won't be contributing £ going forward, unless we agree to a 'pay to play' trade deal, which seems unlikely with the current rhetoric? Making a deal with us doesn't make the problem go away for the EU, as far as I can see, and strengthens their collective desire to get the maximum financial settlement from us to soften the blow. If we leave without a deal trade with EU countries will continue, perhaps at different levels and with more bureaucracy and possibly with some sectors suffering more than others on both sides of the channel. Some, probably not many, businesses will relocate out of the UK. But the £ (or possibly € I forget) 290bn the EU exports to us won't disappear neither will the £/€240bn we export to them - may be reduced a bit. These are hard wired trade flows. I would guess that the £ (rallying!) will settle at a permanently lower level (which may be justified) which will leave exports competitive even with tariffs (I think regulation is the real burden here WTO tariffs are generallly quite low, already offset by the fall in £) but will hike import costs. So some inflation and possibly lower imports. We will find it takes a long time to negotiate trade deals with other countries. Collaborative (pan EU) research initiatives with central funding will involve fewer and fewer British components. The UK will try to make itself very attractive to inward investment with ever lower corporate tax rates. I suspect that many sectors (health, finance, agriculture) will persuade the government that they need access to EU and non EU labour, and I will speculate that in policy terms we may have something that looks tough but isn't in practice, and will be poorly implemented anyway, just like the current non EU migrants policy. I would like to think that we will do the right thing by EU migrants already here. But immigration will fall and there will be some EU citizens already here who will leave because the fall in the £ makes the UK a less atttractive place to migrate to. Some UK pensioners residing overseas (not just in the EU) will return to the UK because the value of their pensions has fallen - unless U.K. inflation puts them off. If the economy is chugging along there will be more job opportunities for Brits, but those exist already. Failings in the U.K. education system to equip people with relevant skills will be cruelly exposed. Long term issue around funding pensions with an aging population which we have anyway, will be exacerbated as we will lose young net contributors to the finances. Those communities currently complaining of being 'swamped' by immigrants won't feel any different in the short term, and will be unhappy about it. The UK will give up on its pretence of taking refugees (I think it's safe to assume a Tory government until at least 2022). There may be some tension about where the border checks with France take place. By 'no deal' I assume you include no agreement on the Ireland/N Ireland border. I don't know enough about the technicalities of this, but suspect that the Irish and British governments will sort something and the Irish will insist that the EU accepts it. If the Northern Irish economy suffers the offer of joining with the Republic and re-entering the EU becomes more atttractive and there may be a referendum in a few years, I can't second guess the outcome. Likewise with Scotland, I don't think they will have a referendum in the short term, especially if the Tories pick up a few seats in Scotland in the election, but again in a few years there may be one and if the economy isn't great the 'nothing to lose' momentum could swing it for independence. Gibraltar will have some uncomfortable times with heavy border controls but that will probably settle down. They voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, perhaps (again in a few years) they will take up the standing offer of joint citizenship and shared sovereignty with Spain, which gets them back in the EU with British passports. The majority of Brexit voters will come to realise that 'taking back control' has made very little difference to their real lives. Laws made in Westminster will feel just like laws made in Brussels. We have had 10 years of austerity and stagnant living standards, we will have another 10 years, which won't feel any different to now - just a bit **** - because government finances will be under huge pressure and the EU cash dividend will feel like a drop in the ocean. Unless you are chronically ill or dependent on benefits, in which case it will feel very **** indeed. All uneducated speculations, and doubtless will be criticised as doom and gloom (there are far worse scenarios that could be painted involving recession etc) I have genuinely tried to be honest within the restricted bounds of my understanding. And all predictated on the EU remaining as an entity, even if not a thriving one, which I think it will. It will be much worse for everyone if it doesn't. All may be irrelevant anyway if Trump, Kim and Putin decide to blow everything up. Sorry for the long post. I don't really care if nobody reads it, it's been good to think things through. Better do some work now.
I see the Project Fear campaign has restarted again in earnest: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...in-to-jeremy-corbyn-with-tax-bombshell-advert After the previous referendums does anyone believe anything these people say now?
It was rather a cheap shot a Selmayr, but it serves as a reminder to myself, who we are dealing with here. If his master, Juncker, describes him as a "Monster", then Christ knows what his enemies think of him. 1. Fund flow. Yes, the EU has a problem. There aren't any other deep pockets to rope in, so they are going to have to condition the Receiving States to expect considerably less in the future. A large capital sum will lessen the blow temporarily. I think the Pay to Play is definitely on the cards if we can reach a deal and again, would help smooth things transitionally. But all this is dependent on the deal. Quite aside from the damage to lost trade by member states, the EU need a deal to oil its wheels 2. Trade. I think your analysis is about right from what we know at present. It doesn't look gloomy, and here's the important bit. It doesn't suggest there'll be a falling off the Cliff Edge that Farron and the like are banging on about. As you say, over a longer period our trade will rely more on outside the EU, and the EU will try to become more self sufficient including in financial services where they are pretty dependent on London at present. I really think the government needs to nail the Cliff Edge idea with some frank, objective analysis, otherwise it's just platitudes from Remainer politicians without anything more. 3. Northern Ireland. Yes, a no-deal would mean the UK and Ireland reach a solution together. There may have to be a harder border along the Irish Sea. I suspect Scotland and Gibraltar are not going anywhere fast, but there could be some bumpy periods with no-deal 4. The UK after Brexit. Some unnecessary Brussels red tape will go for ex-EU work. We will be free to make our own deals with other countries. The government will be held to account on migration levels. We rely on our own courts for justice. We will save £8-10 bn per annum on a no-deal.
Bloody hell we broadly agree. The only bit I'm not sure about is how big a hole us leaving blows in the EU budget. According to the Telegraph, our net contribution, after the rebate and EU spending in the U.K. is deducted, is £6.5bn p.a. This is the amount the recipient nations get from us. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/ Now this is a huge amount of money to us mere mortals, but in the context of national finances it's not that much - less than 6% of what we spend on the NHS in England and Wales, and that is underfunded by £20bn compared to health spends in other developed countries. So we won't have that much extra to spend, especially if we continue to cover the EU subsidies to agriculture and development (though of course we get to spend it how we want without the red tape) and more importantly in terms of your point about EU finances, if we agree to a divorce settlement of say £20bn that's three years of our contribution covered, so at least the problem is delayed and they have time to think of other ways to raise the money. Pay to play or in the worst outcome tariffs may contribute. The Germans could probably cover it with coins they find down the back of the sofa, but Merkel et al won't be mentioning it pre election.
The one other point that may be an argument for the UK is that the EU currently has a deposit lying in the bank (presumably for contingencies like this, so it might tide them over on a no-deal basis) of in excess of £100 bn, mostly accrued during the time the UK was a member. There is an argument - I don't know about the legalities - for the UK's proportionate share to be taken into account in calculating amounts the UK owes on leaving. As I say, we're going to get bombarded by cliff edge talk by Farron, Clegg and the others, over the next month at least. I'd really like to see a reliable and independent analysis of the UK's position if the talks break down and we go forward on WTO rules. Who could write such a report, God knows, since every economist seems to have an interest somewhere these days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39789915 I suppose what we lose in International Finance we gain in fruit pickers or baristas...
May is now accusing the Europeans of using threats to try to influence the result of the General Election. Barmy.
