You think that is bad? After the news coming in about an EU backing down, the Sky News story on Brexit is EU citizen in UK worried that after Brexit they will be kicked out of rent accommodation! They just can't help themselves.
The point is Sb is that I said early on that the EU would back down in the end which they have when others said they wouldn't? On another note I did say that they would never adapt or change....I guess the "no deal' scares the 2222 out of them. There is also a story's regarding Italy defying the EU and Denmark becoming more Eurosceptic. Funny how the news id not reporting this?
I heard it all now. Pochettino is blaming Brexit for lack of transfers at Spurs Maybe TF should have used that as an excuse. https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...s/news-story/4792ea3b1044135e7c3d451c8302db75
Frankly I’m more interested in what a potential deal looks like than who has ‘backed down’, whether remainers moan about it etc. A Jersey Model deal is fine with me, though if you look at what it entails I think it meets the ‘vassal state’ conditions for goods (doesn’t cover services). If it helps make it acceptable to extreme Brexiters that it’s presented by the Mail etc as a cave in by the EU, that’s fine, it’s still a deal. It could equally be interpreted as preparing the ground for a face saving way to ‘cave in’ by the UK government (the deal breaches a couple of the ‘red lines’). I’m afraid I also don’t take your predictions into account when thinking about Brexit. Have you looked at what a Jersey Deal is yet? There is Euro scepticism in every EU country, some more than others. Let’s see how many put membership to a referendum, or even vote on staying in the Eurozone if they are in it. The media are obviously reporting on this, even if the Guardian might be ignoring it, otherwise you wouldn’t know about it. Remember the inbuilt bias of your sources though.....
Am I right in thinking that this kind of deal would prevent us from striking trade deals with other Countries? If so, then I wouldn't like it as one of the main reasons I voted leave was to be an independent country, able to do deals freely anywhere.
I think we can strike deals, and would have to in the case of services and for those countries that the EU has a treaty with. but we have to take current and future EU standards and regulations for goods. We would stay in the single market to an extent.
I would be delighted if this turned out to be the case. Perhaps the EU have realised that they could give customs Union membership and border controls as a package since we could (apparently) already exercise border controls (and have no appetite or ability to do so). Selling us what we already have while letting us look like we've battered them in negotiation - superb outcome.
I'm not interested in making much of an EU cave in either (it was the Express that had it on its front page) although I am extremely interested in (a) Theresa May not giving any ground on the Chequers deal and (b) seeing what kind of nerves there are in EU businesses that rely heavily on exports to the UK with October approaching. It's been easy for them to rely on a Brussels brick wall until now, while the UK government continually bangs its head against it (and parliamentarians bang their heads against each other). But with a real prospect of a move to WTO in March and the EU having compromised barely an inch, I'm sure we will see an outbreak of disunity on the Continent if Barnier's hard line persists. We were the second biggest contributor to the EU budget and we're a huge player tradewise (contrary to what some on this board may have you believe!). The EU say they're concerned we'll manipulate our standards and regulations simply in order to get a competitive advantage. Actually, I have some sympathy with this and if we can offer accommodation and assurances while not affecting our ability to trade unfettered with the rest of the world, then fine. But it sounds like they go together, and as Col says, a huge benefit to leaving the EU and one that was in many Leave voters minds in 2016, was the ability for the UK to make trade deals with the growing markets outside the EU.
I think we would have to make our own deals Col, because we would not be covered by any treaties made by the EU. Services aren’t covered at all so we can do what we want there. But I think for goods we would have to maintain EU standards and regulations and accept new ones as they come along, and also stay within the EU VAT agreement (which is good because it means we don’t pay VAT twice on stuff). So we would be a ‘rule taker’. If I think it’s ok I can’t imagine Rees Mogg would find it acceptable, so I might be missing something, I’m going to have another look at it. Sorry, just noticed I have answered this twice, which is what happens when you decide to walk the dog before the rain sets in in mid thought......anyway, here is the gist of the Jersey Model: “The formal relationship between the Channel Islands and the EU is enshrined in Protocol 3 of the UK’s 1972 Accession Treaty, and confirmed in what is now Article 355 (5) (c) of the EU Treaties. Under Protocol 3, the Islands are part of the Customs Union and are essentially within the Single Market for the purposes of trade in goods, but are third countries (i.e. outside the EU) in all other respects. However, the Channel Islands have a close relationship with the EU in many different fields, not simply those covered by the formal relationship under Protocol 3. Both Jersey and Guernsey voluntarily implement appropriate EU legislation or apply the international standards on which they are based.” And here is the detail https://www.channelislands.eu/eu-and-the-channel-islands/#1522224084706-603e80b1-9802 So, out of EU, in customs union and single market for goods, not services, no free movement of people, no prohibition on trade deals (as long as those for goods are consistent with the single market). As this is entirely acceptable to me (and presumably all but the most fanatical remainers) and should be to any Brexit voter with immigration high up their list of concerns, it might have some legs. Interesting speculation about why this is being discussed now - the EU is genuinely concerned that the extreme Leave propaganda is working and that EU ‘instransigence’ will be blamed for a no deal. So in an incredibly Machiavellian move they have made May an offer which looks like a climb down on the face of it but which is impossible for her to accept without breaching her red lines on the Single Market and Customs Union. So if she does reject it the blame switches back to her. They must be delighted with they way that the pro Brexit UK media are presenting this, really strengthens the chances of it happening. I sincerely hope this compromise is seriously discussed and agreed. Nobody gets everything they want but everyone gets something, grown up solution.
As you say, a compromise is probably best all round, as I agree that the 48% should get due consideration. I would still like us to have full, independent control, but I'm not sure it's going to be possible without a no deal outcome. I'd like to see a Jersey type deal as a transition, eventually leading to full independence for the UK. Not sure that's possible though.
Britain’s richest man, multi billionaire industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe, is a Brexit fan. He lived in Switzerland, and moved his company HQs there to reduce his tax bill and because the government asked him to pay a corporate VAT bill, from 2010 to 2016, but then declared he was moving back to the UK ‘for good’. He is now moving his tax residence to Monaco. Of course his company, Ineos, is an incredibly complex web of holding groups and seems to pay its tax in Luxembourg (13%) rather than the UK (19%). With people like this backing Britain we really can’t lose, can we?
Well, if you can live with it and I can live with it, let’s just do it and move on to other, less divisive stuff. I’m sure things will change in the future, both here and in the EU, which might give us cause to revisit, which is fine and correct. I don’t think this would shut up the most extreme Brexiters (who will only be happy with the destruction of the EU) or those remainers who can only think in terms of staying in and being a cog in a United Europe, but they really are on the margins and will just have to put up with it. Entering the third year of paralysis on this stuff, it’s bad for everyone. Sadly I can’t see any reference to the ‘offer’ in the Times, which might mean it’s all made up.
Moggmeister and co won't let that happen Col. We voted to leave which means taking back control of everything. I for one won't be happy if it's not total.
There are at most 70 hard Brexit supporting Tory MPs, to which you can add the 10 Neanderthals of the DUP (apologies to the Neanderthals) and 4 or 5 militant tendency socialism in one country types in Labour. The rest of the commons will vote for a solution which gets us out of the EU therefore respecting the referendum result but with a deal. Your faith in Mogg is touching, but he really is a marginal if noisy figure outside some bits of the Tory party, as is your mate Redwood. You really should be hoping a deal is struck because it’s the only way the Tories have a hope of getting anything close to a majority at the next election.
To be fair I have been pretty accurate with what has gone on with Brexit. Others can sound like they know what they are talking about but keep making mistake after mistake. If the deal is not very good then Boris/Mogg and co will stop it.
It would make me mad if I watched the BBC’s news coverage. Not as bad as SKY but if people buy into these broadcasts then it’s no wonder we get annoyed ... Anyone on here understand that the tone of script is designed to annoy and influence
