Brexit talks delayed. Is it a good sign or bad?

Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • The next round of Brexit talks has been postponed by a week to "allow more time for consultation".


    The fourth round of UK-EU negotiations, due to begin on 18 September, will start on the 25th instead.


    The government said a short delay "would give negotiators the flexibility to make progress".


    There had been been speculation that the talks could be moved to accommodate a major speech by Prime Minister Theresa May on the issue of Europe.

    BBC article

    ====


    Not sure what to think of this at all. What do they need to consult on and with whom? Isn't that the whole point of the negotiations, to talk?


    I said last month that the next round of talks would be crucial, either we start to make progress or we have one major falling out with them.


    Clearly, someone one side needs to back down. We've already said they'll get some dosh and we'll talk about it in parallel with talks on a future deal. They just want to talk dosh first.


    Is this just a little blip, or are things about to unravel with consequences for all of Europe, not just us?

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

  • I suspect it's the EU delaying things, they want us to talk money before anything else plus they want to make leaving as difficult as possible to punish us for daring to leave, they are hoping that we will give up and stay.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • I suspect it's the EU delaying things, they want us to talk money before anything else plus they want to make leaving as difficult as possible to punish us for daring to leave, they are hoping that we will give up and stay.

    I think we should stick our heels in and not attend any meetings for several months to show that we're serious about leaving without a deal if necessary.

    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 this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • I suspect it's the EU delaying things, they want us to talk money before anything else plus they want to make leaving as difficult as possible to punish us for daring to leave, they are hoping that we will give up and stay.

    Yes, I agree. A dangerous hope on their part.


    The EU and Merkel in particular, has made it clear that the EU is everything to them, so they would rather see us leave on bad terms rather than us getting a good deal which might then become an attractive option to another EU country, leaving the EU that is.


    Remember that speech that Merkel gave to our parliament? The EU is everything, we'll see if she means it, above that of German jobs, BMWs and all that. I think she means it.

    I think we should stick our heels in and not attend any meetings for several months to show that we're serious about leaving without a deal if necessary.

    The rumours out of Whitehall last month were that May has said that if this cannot be sorted out by the time of the EU's meeting in October, then she's prepared to simply walk away and the EU may well call her bluff on this.


    They didn't think Britain would vote to leave, we did. Perhaps they should have got the message by now, that we're not sheep and aren't prepared to take orders from the Germans.

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

  • It's quite ridiculous of them to expect us to tell them how much we are going to pay before we know what the offer is, I mean you don't go in a shop and hand your money over before you have decided what you are buying do you?

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • It's quite ridiculous of them to expect us to tell them how much we are going to pay before we know what the offer is, I mean you don't go in a shop and hand your money over before you have decided what you are buying do you?

    That's exactly what they want us to do and I guess we'll find out in a few weeks whether we are going to back down to that demand or not.

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

  • And now a figure of £20 Billion has been mentioned by the PM, why do we need to pay them anything if they won't do the trade deals unless we pay just simply tell them to sick the trade deals where the sun don't shine, we have the rest of the world to trade with rather than being blackmailed into paying a bribe to the little dictators club.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • And now a figure of £20 Billion has been mentioned by the PM, why do we need to pay them anything if they won't do the trade deals unless we pay just simply tell them to sick the trade deals where the sun don't shine, we have the rest of the world to trade with rather than being blackmailed into paying a bribe to the little dictators club.

    I agree entirely - we should indeed pay what we have already committed to etc - but when Barmy Barnier stated no negotiations about future trade deals would take place until the 'divorce' bill was agreed, we should have stated that we were quite happy to delay agreement on what the EU owes the U.K. in repayment of their share of capital assets had been settled.....but oK , let us know when you want to start talks......

  • And now a figure of £20 Billion has been mentioned by the PM, why do we need to pay them anything if they won't do the trade deals unless we pay just simply tell them to sick the trade deals where the sun don't shine, we have the rest of the world to trade with rather than being blackmailed into paying a bribe to the little dictators club.

    I'll guess we'll find out where this is all heading in a month's time when the EU leaders next meet and decide our fate. Various reports from the media suggest they are going to stick with their "rule" that they'll be no discussion on future trade until the divorce bill is sorted out. We either accept that at that point, or walk away.

    I agree entirely - we should indeed pay what we have already committed to etc - but when Barmy Barnier stated no negotiations about future trade deals would take place until the 'divorce' bill was agreed, we should have stated that we were quite happy to delay agreement on what the EU owes the U.K. in repayment of their share of capital assets had been settled.....but oK , let us know when you want to start talks......

    Obviously, we can't be paid back for capital assets. We agreed to pay our share as being part of the EU club, so they get to keep all that, although I suppose we could take a few desks and paintings from the EU buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg.:)


    But what we should be saying to them is, that they get to keep all the EU capital assets which they will still benefit from, we won't. We're leaving, so we'll get no benefit from these assets, but have paid a lot of dosh towards them, second only to Germany. So talk of a massive divorce bill is nonsense. We should pay our fair dues up until Brexit, pension commitments etc, bu that's it. Any talk of post Brexit payments during a "transition" period is scary. The transition would never end...

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

  • Any talk of post Brexit payments during a "transition" period is scary. The transition would never end...

    That's remainers wanting to try and keep us in "transition" until they get into power and can then catapult us right back in but with none of the opt-outs that we currently have plus having to abandon the pound and use the Euro.


    It's why I think that the leave date should be a full separation. Business and government will have had over two years of transition at that point. They just need to get their fingers out instead of trying to not leave the EU.

    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 this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • It's why I think that the leave date should be a full separation. Business and government will have had over two years of transition at that point. They just need to get their fingers out instead of trying to not leave the E

    As well are trying to topple May (and I know this is not the right thread) but I think that's what Boris was trying to do with his article in the Telegraph, reminding everyone, including May, that Brexit is meant to be just that - leaving the EU.

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

  • What is Mrs May going to say tomorrow?


    Brexit doesn't really mean Brexit and I am going to carry on making a mess of it?

  • Brexit seems to mean we leave in 2019, but don't properly leave until 2021, or who knows what happens then.


    As for May's speech, the subject of 20 billion euros might come up.8|:rolleyes:

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

  • I'll guess we'll find out where this is all heading in a month's time when the EU leaders next meet and decide our fate. Various reports from the media suggest they are going to stick with their "rule" that they'll be no discussion on future trade until the divorce bill is sorted out. We either accept that at that point, or walk away.

    What is there for the EU to decide, we have already decided we want to leave, it's not up to them to decide anything, as far as I am concerned there is no bill to sort out we owe them nothing, we should be free to decide which counties we want to trade with on a country by country decision as we would no longer be a member of the EU so not bound by their rules.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • What will happen during this transition period? , will we still be barred from doing trade deals as we must obey EU rules? ,if so what is the point of it?

  • Brexit: PM bids to break deadlock with two-year deal offer


    Theresa May will tell EU leaders there is a shared responsibility to make Brexit work "smoothly" as she attempts to break the deadlock in negotiations.

    In a major speech in Florence on Friday, she will say history will judge Brexit "not for the differences we faced, but for the vision we showed".

    The BBC understands she will propose a two-year transitional deal, after March 2019, ahead of a permanent trade deal.

    It could include payments worth 20bn euros (£18bn) over the two years.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41355642


    Hopefully today is May's Day and we'll see from the EU's response just how cooperative or otherwise they are going to be. If they aren't prepared to negotiate seriously, then we need to start talking to other countries about trade deals now whatever the rules say.

  • What is there for the EU to decide, we have already decided we want to leave, it's not up to them to decide anything, as far as I am concerned there is no bill to sort out we owe them nothing, we should be free to decide which counties we want to trade with on a country by country decision as we would no longer be a member of the EU so not bound by their rules.

    What they're to decide is, is whether they will accept May's 20 billion euros offer.

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

  • What they're to decide is, is whether they will accept May's 20 billion euros offer.

    We shouldn't be offering them anything, we are leaving you don't pay to leave something, you just leave.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • What will happen during this transition period? , will we still be barred from doing trade deals as we must obey EU rules? ,if so what is the point of it?

    I think the "official" point of it, is, it gives time for business' to adapt to the new reality.

    We shouldn't be offering them anything, we are leaving you don't pay to leave something, you just leave.

    The reason for it, is, we agreed to the EU's current seven year budget which ends in 2021, so despite all talk of a divorce bill or paying for access to trade, its neither, it's just paying what we committed to paying. I'm not sure most British taxpayers will understand why we need to pay anything to a organisation after we left it, though. Would you keep paying for some club after you left it?

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

  • Would you keep paying for some club after you left it?

    No and that's my point, I would tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • I'll guess we'll find out where this is all heading in a month's time when the EU leaders next meet and decide our fate. Various reports from the media suggest they are going to stick with their "rule" that they'll be no discussion on future trade until the divorce bill is sorted out. We either accept that at that point, or walk away.

    Obviously, we can't be paid back for capital assets. We agreed to pay our share as being part of the EU club, so they get to keep all that, although I suppose we could take a few desks and paintings from the EU buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg.:)




    On the contrary, it is somewhat obvious that we can, and should be 'paid back' our share of capital assets - it is a natural consideration in any 'divorce' settlement. The .value of such assets should undoubtedly be reflected in any calculation of any liability claim.

    With regard to pensions, it is nonsense to talk about an on going 'pension' commitment. Normally pension provision is funded by contributions from both employee and employer into a pension fund, which belongs to the employee, and moves with him /her to his/her new employer, or pension provider when the pension from the fund is activated - therefore, there is no ongoing commitment by any employer when the employee leaves, or is dismissed.....as the accumulated fund moves with the employee....

  • You've mad that point about pensions before Stevlin, I agree. I just cited that as one example.


    On assets, we're going by our own choice, so I don't see we have a leg to stand on there, but it will be interesting to see how the media report May's speech and the EU's reaction to it, especially when the negotiations restart on Monday.


    Many British people, may argue, like you, that why are we going to pay all this money to the EU when they do get to keep the benefits of all the buildings and other infrastructure that the UK has helped to fund and that should be taken into consideration by the EU towards the "divorce bill."

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

  • The Guardian's Michael Crick, has been told that Michael Barnier will respond to May's speech shortly after she's finished it. So, we won't have to wait until Monday to find out what the EU thinks of this extremely generous offer about to be made to them.

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


  • You've mad that point about pensions before Stevlin, I agree. I just cited that as one example.


    On assets, we're going by our own choice, so I don't see we have a leg to stand on there, but it will be interesting to see how the media report May's speech and the EU's reaction to it, especially when the negotiations restart on Monday.


    Many British people, may argue, like you, that why are we going to pay all this money to the EU when they do get to keep the benefits of all the buildings and other infrastructure that the UK has helped to fund and that should be taken into consideration by the EU towards the "divorce bill."

    But that example isn't really relevant in consideration of any 'divorce' settlement, which was why I felt obliged to raise it again.


    I don't accept your point about our capital assets share either. We aren't talking about getting any of it repaid, merely taken into consideration in any liability calculation. That I believe is common sense, and of course we do 'have a leg to stand on - especially as we are not talking about exiting membership of a club which charges a standard .membership fee' - in fact it just highlights the ridiculous, and irrational nature of requiring membership of a political entity to enable advantageous economic growth to be realised from mutual tariff free trade.

    Clearly, a RFT area would more than suffice for achieving that admiral end - but at least our departure has now exposed the federal ambition of the EU to anyone who was previously sufficiently gullible not to realise that.

    Naturally, there are many, like Cable, who still harbour such ambitions - even now despite the democratic referendum result - but fortunately, they are in the minority. Even several of the keen 'Remain' voters personally known to me, now accept that we should just get on with it.

    Personally, I believe the two-year period that has finally been invoked, (after the wasted 12 months post ref. result), is sufficient for businesses to 'prepare' - it is mere Hammond - like efforts to extend our EU membership for as long as possible.

  • All good points Stevlin, nothing there I can disagree with. You should be in Brussels telling them this stuff, as I'm not so sure our people are.


    On your last point, the only thing I would say is that business' cant prepare when they don't know what to prepare for. Will they have access to the single market and if so, on what conditions? Business' need to know these things and it appears that the Government after all this time, doesn't have answers yet either.


    As for Cable...:cursing: lets hope he never gets to be PM as he thinks he has a good chance! He's certainly confident.

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

  • No mention of 20bn euros in May's speech, but she made clear that the UK would honour its agreement to the current EU budget which lasts until 2021. All she really said was that she wanted a two year transition period post Brexit which in effect, we'll have the same immigration rules, jurisdiction of the ECJ etc. Aren't we meant to leave in 2019, not 2021? Hmmm.

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

  • Farage is currently saying on Sky News that Theresa May doesn't want to leave the EU and wants to keep the status quo, but just re-badge everything. So, in his opinion, he thinks May wants to stay in the EU in everything but name.

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

  • Farage is currently saying on Sky News that Theresa May doesn't want to leave the EU and wants to keep the status quo, but just re-badge everything. So, in his opinion, he thinks May wants to stay in the EU in everything but name.

    I agree , does she think we are stupid?, she said nothing, i heard waffle.

  • When Merkel came and spoke to our parliament two years ago, she made clear that we couldn't have the same arrangement of being in the EU, if we leave.


    May has confirmed that we'd stick to our financial commitments within their seven year budget plan, but otherwise she said nothing else will change.


    I don't the EU will be interested in what they've heard from May today, we'll find out in a minute.


    Nigel, now that you're back, if you get a chance, why don't you give a little intro about yourself to other members in our welcome thread?

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