As somebody with huge experience with German Industries (BDI) and on the board of many well known German companies he is well aware of the potential damage that could be caused to German industry by a brexit no deal. With the threat of Trump loading huge import duties to German products it could be double trouble.
This may well be so SH. but the EU negotiating team do not have Germany's economic interests as their central concern. It is a well known fact that Germany has a trade imbalance which is negative for the EU. and this could balance it out a little.
Are the German public ready and willing to meet the EU budget shortfall after Brexit, estimated to be between 5 to 9 bn for Germany? could be a bit of a bunfight between member nations.
I have mentioned already that Britain is not the major payer that you think it is - compared to it's 16% of the GDP of the EU it contributes only 12% of the budget, of which it gets half back in subventions. In real terms it is the 3rd largest payer in, but if you take rebates, subventions etc. into account and then balance this against GDP then it is on 8th place. Don't worry - the others will survive without the UK.
From the House of Commons Library: In 2015/16 the UK paid £13.6 bn after the rebate with £2.8 bn of public sector receipts so Uk's net figure £10.8 bn. The Eu also allocate funding to UK organisations worth another £1-1.5bn I never doubted they would survive, I asked if the German people are ready to increase their contributions to cover the shortfall?
There are later Treasury figures available. The UK paid £8.1 bn after the rebate for 2016-2017 with further sums through Erasmus+ coming back of another £1.5 bn, meaning that the UK paid less than it did any year since 2011-2012. If you work that out it is less than half of what appeared on the bus. We shouldn't be worrying about how the EU is going to share this around, they are large enough to cope.
It's not a question I can answer because I haven't spoken to all the German people. In all accounts Britain will still be paying for quite some time yet so we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I doubt that compensating for Britain's absence will be more of a burden than it has been paying for the GDR for all these years. You are clutching at straws SH. somehow in the hope that Germany can come to the rescue and secure Britain a good deal - nothing could be further from the truth. There is no way that Britain can get a better deal than the one it has already - that is the only 100% truth. Many of the people I speak to here are genuinely sad that Britain is leaving, but this is not for economic reasons - there is more a sense that Britain belongs in Europe. Anyway - whatever happens London remains only 2 hours train journey from Brussels and that isn't going to change. The real sadness is that many people in Europe do not like the way the EU. is heading and feel that the way forward is to strengthen the hand of the MEPs (those we actually elect) as against the EC. on the other hand - we need to 'win Europe back' for the people, to democratize it again - and Britain belongs in that struggle, not on the fringes.
I'm not clutching at straws for a deal, I prefer no deal to a bad deal. I expect Herr Henkel will not be the only one to disagree with the 'punish the UK at all cost' attitude. The German people should blame their own leader Merkel for not giving Cameron some leeway, in my view he did not need so much to alter the result. The French and Swedes are now asking to add some flexibility to rules on immigration. Due to the Brexit result the UK will not be part of shaping the EU, Germany will have lost a valuable partner, they often had similar outlooks. There does seem to be several different camps emerging within the EU, after Brexit there will be plenty of challenges to the EU project.
There are several points you could expand on. Who knows what is a good deal or a bad deal when the government doesn't seem to know what it is they want. If they do they are not doing very well at letting the population know. Far to many things were said that have been found to be impractical. Eg: Gove no fishing in our waters, now finds the problems with that. We all know that any deal will not be as good as the present one. It certainly cannot be otherwise it would split the EU, something that is further away than ever. The EU has become what it is with the UK largely shaping the single market and customs union. Having created something with the larger nations to throw it all away seems odd. Normally you continue to build with partners through discussion, not throw away all of the gains you have made over the years and start from scratch.
I would certainly like to expand on some of these points. I think the idea that the UK do not know what they want is over egged. There is disagreement within the cabinet, that is for sure. Hammond, probably your preferred line, is at odds with the majority I suspect. I'm sure a compromise position can be established. It is not surprising that each individual cabinet minister is trying to protect their own sector of responsibility, but there will undoubtedly be horse trading, some will lose ground. I would imagine all brexiteers realise the eventual deal with the EU will not be as good as at present but are looking to greatly expand trade deals with the rest of the world to more than make up for any loss. Time will tell on that one. Your analogy with presumably business partners is fair one but there are occasions where one partner is isolated by collusion of the others. In the EU's case there has been major pressure to move towards a United States of Europe with common tax and spend policies. This was never what the UK originally signed up for. It was also obvious to the UK's fellow partners that this direction would never be tolerated in a eurosceptic Britain. Brexit was a divorce waiting to happen. The ball really is in the EU's court to concentrate on a fruitful future between the two entities, if their main aim is to punish the UK for daring to leave then all sides will suffer. I am even more convinced my vote for Brexit was the correct one.
My preferred line is one where plain common sense wins through. Can it be right that RBS that is 71% owned by the taxpayer is having to spend tens of millions of pounds to set up in Amsterdam so that the profitable part of it's business can continue to operate after Brexit? Can it be right that the Commercial Broadcasters Association, hardly mentioned so far, that has dozens of companies in London beaming into the EU will have to move out. You can go on with dozens of examples, but the point that they all make; no one knows what the government position is, what they want to achieve, and why so much time has been wasted. Horse trading may be the way that the UK government works, but the EU has clearly written down rules and regulations, often put in place at the request of the UK. These are in place so that all countries know where they stand, and it is simple to see these will not change to suit one country. I can read these regulations on the web, but there is nowhere I can find out similar information about the current position from the UK government. Why? Simply because there is no common position in government. We now know that 67% - 71% of people,depending on which survey you read, see the sense of remaining in the single market, indeed see it as far more important than reducing immigration, 27%. It is not surprising that people are confused as they were told they could stay in the single market and have the benefits of the trade, yet not pay anything towards the costs. The election was supposed to give an enlarged mandate to sort the disputes out. Of course that mandate was not given, so throwing even more confusion about trying to find a way forward. You use words such as collusion and punishment, but this is not the case. As I said the rules are there for all to read and if the UK didn't wish for new ones to be put in place they had the ability to use their veto. The fact that it has hardly ever happened is because the governments had already found a common position before changing the rules. The UK is used to a confrontational form of politics, PMQs as an example, but is it fit for purpose in this modern age? Discussion, no matter how long it takes is far better. It would be an advantage for all concerned if the government comes up with a sensible set of requests, let people know what they are, and show how these will benefit the UK population. Without this sensible approach the country will continue to look for an alternative.
It was made clear by everybody from Cameron, Osborne, Farage, almost everybody including the key players on the EU side that staying in the single market was not an option. Several EU leaders have called on the terms offered to the UK to be designed so as to avoid encouraging others to follow the UK's lead. This is an attempt at collusion and punishment. The government's priority is to negotiate the best possible deal not to try to justify their actions to the British people. The population has already given the UK government a mandate to ensure the Uk leaves the EU. The leaders of the UK's financial industry have almost unanimously stated a few jobs will be lost but many more will be created as London's unique position will not be challenged.
Our current Foreign Minister claimed that Britain would remain a member of the EU’s single market while introducing a points-based immigration system to limit the right of EU citizens to work in Britain. British people would still be able to live, travel, study and buy homes on the continent but the same rights would not be automatically extended to EU citizens in the UK, he wrote in The Telegraph. Britain would also be freed from sending “a substantial sum of money” to the EU budget, which he said “could” be used for the NHS. Johnson insisted the only change – “and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation”. I know people who voted for that, not what is transpiring now. They did not vote in the General Election, withdrawing their mandate for the government.
Less than 25% of the population actually - not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? Added to that British Citizens working and living abroad who have a vote in the General Elections were not given a vote in the referendum even though it directly affects them. London's position has been challenged. All the Banks are moving staff or opening EU hubs. Logically how can the financial sector stay hear post Brexit? They deal within the EC, not outside it. Even Lloyds of London is opening up in mainland Europe (Brussels I think). So don't underestimate the future lack of investment in this country, even if we grow it will be small compared to other countries.
That was one persons view, practicably everybody on the leave, remain and EU officials said leaving the EU meant being outside of the single market. There was no ambiguity, the masses chose the correct decision based on the ample mountain of information available. The recent general election resulted in 82% of voters choosing political parties that had voted for Brexit in parliament. The anti Brexit parties did extremely poorly.
London will remain the top financial city in the world, other European cities do not even make the top ten. Several company leaders have confirmed some small offices will be opened in Europe but these will have a minimal impact on jobs.
Ah, another distortion. The problem is that the MP's do not have the courage to get us out of what is fast evidently becoming an unfathomable mess. Even though the "result" was advisory only; even though the people were lied to by the brexit campaign; even though the majority of the printed media did so and the likes of sky; even though this mess is purely down to the tory party saving its own skin - those who supposedly were pro-Europe should have told nazinige where to go. ukip would have been exposed for the fascist, self centred, ignorami that they are and proper politicians could have set about improving the EU from within and actually implementing the stricter border controls that were already at our disposal. What really sticks in my craw is the fact that we, the people, have been continuously and maliciously lied to by wealthy magnates and treated with utter contempt. However brexit turns out in the long run it is the manipulation of so many by so few for their own personal gain that I cannot abide.
MP's voted to trigger article 50 by 498 votes to 114, Labour MPs voted more than three to one in favour of triggering article 50. Even 22% of Lib Dems MPs failed to oppose.
Brexit supporting parties gained 82% of the votes. Anti Brexit parties struggled to gain any support. It actually showed increased support for Brexit.
