What's happened to Brexit?

  • It's gone all gone quiet on the Brexit front. Are we still leaving or have the remainers and May's poor election result overturned things?


    Where are the negotiations? One meeting so far...


    We're meant to be busy repealing/incorporating decades of EU law. Have I missed something, what's going on there?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • It's gone all gone quiet on the Brexit front. Are we still leaving or have the remainers and May's poor election result overturned things?


    Where are the negotiations? One meeting so far...


    We're meant to be busy repealing/incorporating decades of EU law. Have I missed something, what's going on there?

    Well we clearly aren't privy to detailed progress reports - so all are we getting are snippets. I notice that Hammond is still at it !! According to the press, he has apparently claimed that "We'd be mad not to stay as close as possible to the EU"....to where does he think we are going to move......and how??? Seriously though, that sort of comment can only be pleasing to hear by the EU side of the negotiating table......but debate on the Great Repeal Bill is due to begin on Monday....and there are all sorts of rumours flying around about the incorporation of various amendments, many of which will /would please the EU if adopted.

    Far too many politicians are still hoping for another referendum....even if it is via acceptance or otherwise of the proposed deal.... which in itself would be most unusual...............and to my mind, unwarranted.

  • Hammond is definitely a loose cannon. May needs to get a grip and give him a slap down.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • When Stevlin mentioned that Hammond was trying to block Brexit or words to that effect, I took Hammond at his word when he said on Andrew Marr's programme that he was fully behind Brexit. Won't make that mistake again.

    but debate on the Great Repeal Bill is due to begin on Monday

    Thanks. I didn't know. I've got to have a look at the parliamentary website at some point as I assume they'll have a agenda on there on what's coming up.


    On another referendum, I think that's what they want too, as they didn't get the result they were expecting. A bit like the EU in general, if you don't get the response you won't, have another referendum until you do. Makes a democratic system a total joke.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Hammond is definitely a loose cannon. May needs to get a grip and give him a slap down.

    I agree............but she should have done it before the election. She needs Hammond and his political 'friends' as close to her as possible now, after her disastrous election result. She claims that she will remain PM until the 5 years are up......I wouldn't bank on it though.

  • When Stevlin mentioned that Hammond was trying to block Brexit or words to that effect, I took Hammond at his word when he said on Andrew Marr's programme that he was fully behind Brexit. Won't make that mistake again.

    Thanks. I didn't know. I've got to have a look at the parliamentary website at some point as I assume they'll have a agenda on there on what's coming up.


    On another referendum, I think that's what they want too, as they didn't get the result they were expecting. A bit like the EU in general, if you don't get the response you won't, have another referendum until you do. Makes a democratic system a total joke.

    Wrt the EU, what is that democratic system that you are referring to? Is it the Parliament, which at least has elections......?

    Albeit, "The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament's opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it". http://www.europarl.europa.eu/…L00004/Legislative-powers

    That sounds like a glorified stalemate to me....

    But the fact that EU Directives must be incorporated by all EU countries into their national legislation......whether or not OUR, or their elected Parliament, ( or even the various Executives), agree with it.

  • According to the press, Barnier has apparently warned that until the UK accepted the principle of paying the so called 'divorce bill, there would be no grounds to talk about future relations.................so why the hell doesn't May instruct Davis to say Bye,Bye?......and maybe refuse to pay the next subsidy until that condition is removed, ( which we are still be obliged to pay whilst in the EU), until the EU accept that there will be no divorce bill - only the payment of what we truly owe....which will be nought if/when we do leave the EU.

    Naturally, the UK civil service mob's priority is to uphold the UK 'always pay its share' reputation.......even if it means we ultimately pay more than our 'fair' share.

  • The negotiations continue tomorrow, lets see what happens.


    Will we tell them to "go and whistle" or cave in, in regards to the divorce bill.


    I don't like how the EU has already dominated the agenda of the talks, divorce first, future trade deal later. How are we supposed to negotiate with them, when we give them all they want up front? So much for parallel talks on these issues...


    Although it would be catastrophic for us, in one sense I wish May does instruct Davis to say bye bye if the EU thinks they are going to get billions off us for nothing.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • And that is the point! How can we pursue meaningful negotiations if the EU's opening gambit remains a fixed stumbling block. But blocking negotiations progress is a binary function.......... so we'll soon see the mettle of Davis I guess. I will be disappointed now if Davis and co don't return home from those discussions on Monday afternoon.................at the latest. That presumably will of course require them to change their return flights, so perhaps I should allow a bit of leeway, and let them return on the Tuesday morning.....after telling Barnier that negotiations are over until he is prepared to enter meaningful discussions on a variety of Brexit issues that require sorting.

    I don't believe it will be catastrophic for the UK - and certainly no more so than for the EU, which can ill afford such a loss.....but at least the UK CAN replace the loss of a not -so- advantageous trade deal .....whereas the UK market for the EU is really having the cake with all the cream.

    The UK will at least start with a near £10 billion bonus!!

  • There have been quiet rumblings in EU businesses about losing the UK market. No doubt these will increase in volume if it starts to look likely. If our public servants have anything about them they will be reminding EU businesses of what they might be losing and trying to stir things up. Hopefully there's a lot going on behind the scenes we're not aware of...

  • David Davis attended a Lords committee earlier in the week (available on iplayer) and he was saying his biggest challenge is actually telling the EU countries directly without the Brussels filter, that it's in their interest that we all find a way to get a deal that benefits everyone.


    I do recommend members watch it, if you have the time, but priorties first....Winter is almost here.;)

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • David Davis went to Brussels on Monday and then left after one hour leaving his staff to continue Round 2 of the Brexit negotiations.


    Later on today Davis will head back to Brussels and he (and hopefully us too) will learn what has been discussed, agreed or not agreed.


    There will be a joint press conference between Davis and Barnier expected some time this afternoon.


    Lets hope for some actual details, finally!

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Davis and Barnier joint press conference around 11.15am.


    Edit: 11.45am - still waiting for the press conference.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • The press conference has finished, here is my summary:


    Barnier said this week that the negotiations are Round 2 of the Brexit talks.


    Round 1, in June, was talks about how to organise the talks.

    Round 2, according to Barnier, was presentation of respective positions.

    Round 3, which will be next month, will be on clarification of the respective positions.


    He said there was now greater clarity on the three main things they have been discussing which is EU rights, money and Ireland. Barnier said there was clear "convergence" and "divergence" on these issues.


    From Barnier's point of view, he wants UK clarity on the points of divergence. He said the UK has "recognised" its financial obligations, but wants further clarity and agreement. According to him, this will not be in incremental steps.


    On Ireland, the Common Travel Area and the Good Friday agreement, Barner says the UK needs to clarify what happens after Brexit and more discussion are needed, but there are overall widespread agreements.


    On EU citizens rights, Barnnier stressed that EU's position of the role of the ECJ post Brexit.


    ====


    Davis said he was encouraged on all issues.


    A joint paper will be issues by the EU and UK on the matters of convergence and divergence.


    On money, Davis said that there had been "robust" and constructive talks. He stressed that flexibility is required on both sides.


    On Ireland, he said that both sides are committed to the GFA.


    David made no direct remarks on citizens rights.


    =====


    In response to reporter questions:


    Sky News asked if there would be a net flow of money out of the UK to the EU. Davis said he didn't recognise that term and the UK would meet its international obligations and rights.


    On the question of the citizens rights, Barmier answered a question and said that the requirement that EU citizens after Brexit come under the jurisdiction of the ECJ is not a political one, but a legal one. He said EU's citizens' rights and EU law can only be dealt with and protected by the EU court.


    In response to Davis quoting Churchill earlier in the week, Barnier also made a quote from a historical figure, "the price of greatness is responsibility." He said that applies to all.


    Barner was asked if there would be "give" on the EU's side as the UK had already conceded on some points like its financial obligations and the organisation for the talks. Barnier said the negotiations had only just began and it was not at that point yet when concessions should be considered.


    Both said that some talks had taken place on many other issues like what happens to goods on the market after Brexit, policing and other things.


    That's about it!

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Here's the BBC article on what I just said:



    The UK must say where it stands on the EU divorce bill before talks on a trade deal can start, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator has said.


    Round 2 Brexit talks

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I posted a link in the Brexit info thread which gives a link to the EU's Brexit page and all their positions papers on their negotiations with us.


    They are very keen on the rights of the ECJ, but unreported by our media, as well as our financial commitments to them, they are committed to refund to us money already paid into the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Central Bank (ECB).


    It's well worth having a flick through the various documents to see what their positions are.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • We missed our opportunity from the word go! When Barnier said post Brexit trade deal negotiations would only start after the' withdrawal fee' is agreed, we should have given them a resounding Thatcher "NO""- we won't accept that. After all, both sides at times appear to forget that advantageous trade tariffs work TWO ways. From the first minute we should have made it quite clear that we will accept no 'withdrawal fee' whatsoever.......We have more than 'paid our way' - and we will continue to 'play cricket' until we leave - but ONLY procedural withdrawal issues and a post Brexit deal will be discussed - starting with citizen rights.....and incidentally, post Brexit, all non-criminal EU citizens will have the SAME rights that ALL legal immigrants to the UK have......and emphasise that post Brexit, the EJC will have NO jurisdiction whatsoever in the UK.

    If they then wish to continue to play hard ball ...... then Davis should just smile, and repeat "When you are ready dear boy".......

    They must realise, ( and certainly the Germans in particular do), that the removal of tariffs opens up the UK market to severe competition for them.....AND, this can/will be increased as we expand advantageous trade deals with MANY non-EU countries................


    But then......we Brits aren't particularly famous for playing 'hard ball' are we?

  • I don't know. Up until now, everyone assumed, especially in the EU, that our country hadn't done any preparatory work. Then a 100 of our civil servants turned up at Brussels on Monday morning and we outnumbered them two to one and spoke on subjects they were ill prepared for.


    I think the issue the EU are going to be tough on is with the ECJ and the issue we are going to be tough on is the money. So, both sides have something substantial to compromise on there.


    Having watched the press conference between Davies and Barnier today, I got quite positive vibes from it, but it is early days...:)


    I think the hard ball will come from both sides right at the end when it comes to making a final agreement or not.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Being well prepared to 'discuss' the EU's claims, (demands), illustrates my point. We should have refused to work to their agenda - the principal reasons for Article 50 are in fact to negotiate the subsequent trade deal basis and arrange for an orderly cutting of ties. There was no such thing as a 'withdrawal bill' mentioned in the Article, even though outstanding commitments would clearly have to be honoured......

    We did apparently , as you say, contrary to expectations, seem to be far more prepared than was expected - nevertheless, we should not have allowed the EU to dictate the agenda. The agenda would normally be discussed and agreed.....

  • Supposedly, it was agreed.


    I would need to check the text of Article 50 again, but it mainly relates to the withdraw process, but it does acknowledge about future relations too, but the withdraw process is the main part of it, so that's what the EU is focusing on.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Supposedly, it was agreed.


    I would need to check the text of Article 50 again, but it mainly relates to the withdraw process, but it does acknowledge about future relations too, but the withdraw process is the main part of it, so that's what the EU is focusing on.

    Article 50 was introduced to incorporate for the first time, a formal procedure for any EU member state to withdraw from the union. It certainly does reference the negotiation of the withdrawal procedure , and also clearly states that the basis of the subsequent trade agreement is to form part of that negotiation, ( without referencing a requirement to pay any 'withdrawal or divorce bill)

    The UK didn't 'agree' the agenda - it was not negotiated - they finally accepted it. The UK wished to discuss/agree citizen rights - but Barnier insisted that nothing would be discussed until the UK agreed the withdrawal bill....which was indicated to be a ridiculously high amount.

  • I don't know if you've read any of the EU documents on their various positions on Brexit, Stevlin. But they make clear that the withdraw "bill" is not a one way street. They have to pay us too.


    In the Brexit info, there's a link to the EU's Brexit page which has all the documents on there, it's worth a skim through of them. But as I said yesterday, one of the documents does say that the EU is committed to refund us money already paid into the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Central Bank (ECB).


    This also comes down to politics in the end, despite Barnier saying that the issue of the ECJ post Brexit on EU citizens rights, was a legal one. It is not, in my opinion. It is pure politics.


    They're terrified that they haven't worked out how they are going to plug the massive funding hole when Britain leaves the EU. They should have thought of that when Cameron went to see them, cap in hand, after a deal. Talking of money, how many times have the auditors certified the EU accounts?Zero. Says it all.


    I think everything is to play for here and I reckon I know what the final outcome will be. The money and the ECJ being the key drivers.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.


  • There is clearly a requirement to 'settle' up the accounts when leaving any institution, but that is not a 'withdrawal bill' - it is as I say, merely settling the accounts. Even the Europhilic UK HoL legal committee have agreed that there is no legal withdrawal bill commitment, merely a requirement to settle up by EACH side paying up/receiving their due liability/asset share. Notice the latter term 'asset'. For the 46 or so years that the UK has been a member of the EU, it has been one of the major contributors to the EU budget. It does therefore, have a not insignificant 'entitlement' to a share of the £mult-billion capital assets now owned by the EU.....including the sumptuous House(s) of Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg, so it is inconceivable that the UK 'owes' the EU anything like the £80 billion quoted by Barnier, despite that repayment of the UK share EIB etc capital.

    And the EU reference to the EU 'pension' commitment is another nonsense. Individual members of the EU staff have built up a pension fund, again, with a UK contribution as appropriate. That 'responsibility' ends with Brexit.....and the admin staff identified with the UK will have their 'fund' available to transfer to their next employer's pension fund, or held until they qualify for their pension payments to commence.

    The latest claim that EU citizens should retain EJC rights should be kicked into the long grass immediately.....it is pure nonsense.

  • What this all comes down, especially the "bill", is the transitional period, should there be one.


    I suspect there be a transitional period of at least 2 years. What the EU want to know, is that, we've made commitments to them prior to our vote up until 2020-2021, so they want to know that we will keep to these commitments. I think we should, but Davis needs to be clever and get a deal out of them before the bill is agreed. Of course they want to talk about the bill first.


    One hell of a bun fight is coming, perhaps during next month's talks. We want to move onto talking about a future deal and they won't allow that until the bill, or at least the process to agree the bill, is sorted out. The next European Council meeting is in October, so they want the withdraw arrangements sorted out before then, but how can we agree to that when we do not know, what, if any, deal we may get?


    If we agree to their request that the ECJ still has jurisdiction in Britain post Brexit and/or post transitional deal, whatever government is in power at the time, will not be there for very long.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • No we shouldn't! We more than pay our way, but the future budget commitments were clearly predicated on the basis that the UK remained a member of the EU......so the budget needs revising, and adjusted to suit........simples! It isn't as if any future 5 year budgets/ government expenditure plans etc. are exactly written in stone is it? - they are intentions based on the assumptions made at the time of budget preparation remaining more or less accurate.

    A post Brexit UK/EU trade deal is not really a problem in principle.....both sides benefit, and trading will not stop, but will undoubtedly be influenced,, but unless the EU are intent , (as the reputed anglophobic Barnier has stated), to ensure that the UK is worse off, ( which they cannot do - other than from the EU trade aspect, and which will be more self harming to them, as they obviously have the larger balance of trade), but the default position is already established.


    I believe that in reality, the UK hold most, if not all of the aces....but unfortunately, I don't have , and wouldn't place much faith in the UK negotiators.

    Irrespective of the post Brexit trading basis, the EJC should have absolutely NO jurisdiction in a sovereign UK..... . The laws of a sovereign state are applicable to ALL residents in that state.....other than in the EU, I would expect that principle to be universal.

  • You can't work budgets like that.


    You have to plan for a period of time, then set the amount, otherwise no one knows how much money will be available to spend on the various EU budgets, so disagree with you on that, Stevlin.


    They're not written in stone, but each EU department and agency has to know in advance how much money they have to spend on themselves, ie their staff costs, and how much will be available to distribute externally.


    As David Davis has said in regards to a post Brexit trade deal, we are currently in the EU. Our laws and standards are aligned with their's, so there's no work to be done to change our systems to align ourselves with them, because we're currently part of them. So, a trade deal should be "easy", but this is where the politics aka the French, get involved.


    I think our negotiators are probably very good. The cream of the Civil Service is now working on Brexit and a lot of external recruitment happened as well to gain expertise from various companies and bodies. It all depends on the orders from the top and on this, I do have some faith in May, based on what I've heard so far, but, not sure about Davis.


    Agree about the ECJ.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • You can't work budgets like that.


    You have to plan for a period of time, then set the amount, otherwise no one knows how much money will be available to spend on the various EU budgets, so disagree with you on that, Stevlin.

    Budgets are merely anticipated expenditure over a future period - but no government has a magic crystal ball, so national budgets are rarely, if ever met.


    In the vast majority of cases, an overspend is the result, ( which greatly increases national debt if a country goes on spending sprees as the UK has done for decades now), and more often than not, the budgeted expenditure is even more than the planned/anticipated revenue!


    They're not written in stone, but each EU department and agency has to know in advance how much money they have to spend on themselves, ie their staff costs, and how much will be available to distribute externally.

    Indeed - but they know beforehand that not everything goes to plan, and that unforeseeable issues arise, so include a contingency, but in government, that doesn't even have to match the known revenue, hence the planned borrowing.


    As David Davis has said in regards to a post Brexit trade deal, we are currently in the EU. Our laws and standards are aligned with their's, so there's no work to be done to change our systems to align ourselves with them, because we're currently part of them. So, a trade deal should be "easy", but this is where the politics aka the French, get involved.

    It isn't about meeting standards etc, it IS about the basis of the subsequent trade agreement, and of course the smoothing as far as possible, of those issues that will be encountered with our withdrawal from that political entity, but, as you say, the French will be as difficult as they can be, so we shouldn't put up with any sh1t from Barnier. The world is our oyster and if necessary, we should just end negotiations .


    Only about 6% of EU businesses trade with the EU, so lets not get carried away. An amicable agreement with them would be much preferable, but if they are awkward, we should just call their bluff and walk away. The default deal is already established.


    I think our negotiators are probably very good. The cream of the Civil Service is now working on Brexit and a lot of external recruitment happened as well to gain expertise from various companies and bodies. It all depends on the orders from the top and on this, I do have some faith in May, based on what I've heard so far, but, not sure about Davis.


    Agree about the ECJ.

    I have no idea of what you base that comment on!! If our negotiators were any good, we would not have joined under the ridiculous terms that we did!! And naturally, that rapid recruitment of UK resources is made up of well experienced 'trade 'negotiators' etc, and pigs might fly.


    Even some commonwealth countries have realised our dearth of such, and have offered to help.


    Well May outranks Davis, and I suspect will be required to endorse any agreement, but I also am not convinced about May either. After all, politicians are experts at stating what the electorate wish to hear, but coming up with the 'goods' is frequently lacking.

  • Only about 6% of EU businesses trade with the EU, so lets not get carried away.....an amicable agreement with them would be much preferable....but if they are awkward, we should just call their bluff - and walk away - the default deal is already established.

    Do you mean World Trade rules?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Do you mean World Trade rules?

    Yes....the basis of a great deal of the UK's global trade.........and thank you for 'sorting' my post ' - it is extremely simple on other forums - but I will endeavour to use your instructions if the need arises again.

  • Stev, I've just made use of this quote a post feature and find it's actually easier than other forum software. One just has to forget about what one knows and learn this one. Highlight, click to save, go to blue link that says "quotes" down the bottom of page and click install quotes. Boom. Easier than I thought it would be. In fact, it's brilliant as you can use quotes from elsewhere as well.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.