Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: EU 'to prepare' for future trade talks with UK

The EU is to begin preparing for its post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK, while refusing to discuss the matter with the British government.

An internal draft document suggests the 27 EU countries should discuss trade among themselves while officials in Brussels prepare the details.

The draft text could yet be revised.

EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said a lack of compromise over the UK's financial commitments was impeding progress - saying "they have to pay".

Speaking in Luxembourg, Mr Juncker used the analogy of someone covering the bill after ordering 28 beers at a bar to explain the EU's position - and added that the Brexit negotiating process was taking longer than expected.

As the fifth round of talks ended in Brussels on Thursday, the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said there was "deadlock" over the UK's Brexit bill.

He said there had not been enough progress to move to the next stage of post-Brexit trade talks - as the UK had hoped - but added that he hoped for "decisive progress" by the time of the December summit of the European Council.

The draft paper submitted to the 27 EU states by European Council president Donald Tusk, suggests free trade talks could open in December - should Prime Minister Theresa May improve her offer on what the UK pays when it leaves.

The BBC's Europe correspondent Adam Fleming said the paper has been described as an "opening to the UK" to encourage the government to reach a deal with the EU.

The document calls for talks - about a transition period and the future relationship - to move to the next phase "as soon as possible".

The draft conclusions - to be put to EU leaders next Friday - also call for more concessions from the UK on its financial obligations and the rights of European nationals who wish to stay after Brexit.

The paper confirms Mr Barnier's assessment, that there has not been "sufficient progress" on three key elements of a withdrawal treaty for leaders to agree to open the trade talks now.

But it says the leaders would welcome developments on these key issues: the rights of three million EU citizens in the UK, protecting peace in Northern Ireland from the effect of a new border and Britain's outstanding "financial obligations".

The council would then pledge to "reassess the state of progress" at their December summit.

Bernd Kolmel, chairman of Germany's Eurosceptic Liberal Conservative Reformers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there appeared to have been little progress between the first and fifth round of talks - something he described as a "disaster".

He called on the EU to expand the talks to include its future relationships and trade with the UK.

Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."

The document states that in order "to be fully ready", EU leaders would ask Mr Barnier and his officials to start preparing now for a transition - albeit without actually starting to talk to the UK about it.

"The European Council invites the Council (Article 50) together with the Union negotiator to start internal preparatory discussions," the draft reads.

Meanwhile, a crucial plank of the government's Brexit legislation faces a raft of attempted amendments by MPs as ministers seek to steer it through Parliament.

The EU (Withdrawal) Bill will end the supremacy of EU law in the UK and incorporate existing Brussels legislation onto the UK statute book.

Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom said going through the proposed changes was "taking a bit of time" as she confirmed there would be no debate on the bill next week.


Why exactly is there such an argument about the money? I would assume we have obligations that we need to meet, Im sure May has already said anything we legally owe we will pay - so what is the issue? They want extra?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Have started working my way through this, which is interesting:

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Briefing-on-EU-UK-finances-2.pdf

Looks like we are #2 net contributor, to the tune of 13-15 billion if Im reading it right. Thats no sum to sniff at losing...

This was always public and would have been taken into account when the EU set up their position.

I am sure they could charge for similar access that we want to have to other countries but do not as they value the benefits that having closed membership based upon the 4 pillars over contributions.

 

[Gutter Boy]

15 billion between 27 countries....not such a big deal. You also need to subtract the billions the EU spends on the UK.

No - that's net contribution (i.e. including the agricultural subsidies and money for Cornwall etc. we receive).

That's why a £50b divorce bill won't be so bad - it will pay for itself in just over 3 years

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

15 billion between 27 countries....not such a big deal. You also need to subtract the billions the EU spends on the UK.

I believe that is already subtracted.

It is a sizeable chunk when only 3 members actually put into the pot more than they take out.

Looking at the table its enough to cover the net cost of several nations.

This was always public and would have been taken into account when the EU set up their position.

I am sure they could charge for similar access that we want to have to other countries but do not as they value the benefits that having closed membership based upon the 4 pillars over contributions.

Again, we are pulling a huge rug from under them. Genuine, practical, financial implications.

Its a little different from "it might be nice to have a deal with XYZ but its not worth compromising our beliefs for".

Its more like "We are going to be compromised one way or the other, which compromise do we accept for the benefit of the Union?"

 

[Gutter Boy]

Why exactly is there such an argument about the money? I would assume we have obligations that we need to meet, Im sure May has already said anything we legally owe we will pay - so what is the issue? They want extra?

I think it's about where do you draw the line

- Commitments up to Brexit day March 2019
- Commitments up to the end of this EU budget cycle in 2021 (what we've already promised)
- Spending commitments already made but which go far into the future - i.e. the Estonian motorway that was agreed by the European parliament in 2016, but which won't actually be built until 2027.
- Overhead commitments already made but which go far into the future - i.e. pensions of current eurocrats, that could go potentially 80 years into the future

That's before you even get on to the UK's claims over the EU's assets, as well as its liabilities

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I see, thanks

 

[r-u-s-x]

Why exactly is there such an argument about the money? I would assume we have obligations that we need to meet, Im sure May has already said anything we legally owe we will pay - so what is the issue? They want extra?

I don't think we legally owe anything -EDIT removed detail as GB explains it better / more accurate than me above

We are desperate to move on to the trade negotiations but the EU will not move on until the "divorce bill" is settled, hence us moving they are maintaining their position. In hindsight we lost our only piece of leverage with enacting A50- perhaps should have said we will not allow any new legislation until things we need to agree to are settled (veto everything).

It now comes down to who is better at the negotiations stage and who needs who the most.

 

[the dza]

Hopefully, Richard Leonard will win the Scottish Labour leadership contest and then Scottish Labour will start to get it's act together with a proper left-winger in charge, as opposed to the dross of Jim Murphy followed by Dugdale. If so, I predict Labour to come back strong in Scotland, at least when it comes to Westminster elections.

Nothing is set in stone, a lot can happen between now and the next election. As things stand though, Labour has a lead of 2 points across the polls (margin of error of 1%, so some polls show a tie, some 3 or 4 point Labour lead) and that'd make Labour the largest party and forming the next government, be that minority or a coalition. A remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago and no small feat considering the opposition from media, the right of the Labour Party as well as the actual opponents in government.

Good timing, today a couple of Yougov polls:

https://twitter.com/x/status/918774024070664192

https://twitter.com/x/status/918813102682071040

The Scottish one in particular is very good for Labour.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Good timing, today a couple of Yougov polls:

https://twitter.com/x/status/918774024070664192

https://twitter.com/x/status/918813102682071040

The Scottish one in particular is very good for Labour.

I can't believe Scottish Tories would have dropped that much - they seem to be riding high at the moment.

I would have thought both English parties would probably have grown a bit at the expense of the SNP, especially the way Sturgeon exposed her powerlessness over Brexit.

 

[the dza]

I can't believe Scottish Tories would have dropped that much - they seem to be riding high at the moment.

I would have thought both English parties would probably have grown a bit at the expense of the SNP, especially the way Sturgeon exposed her powerlessness over Brexit.

I can -- I don't think a lot of the voters up there who voted for pro-unionist parties really wanted a Tory government, but they may have bought the hype about a Labour wipeout. That didn't happen, so those voters may move away from the Tories next time. That's what I think will happen. We'll have to see how the future polls go.

And Ruth Davidson has to be the most over-rated politician around at the moment. Just because the Tories are awfully proud of themselves for having a lesbian in the ranks who gets a bit of airtime doesn't make her anything special. I think the more scrutiny she comes under, the more she'll be exposed as a complete non-entity.

 

[DTA]

I can -- I don't think a lot of the voters up there who voted for pro-unionist parties really wanted a Tory government, but they may have bought the hype about a Labour wipeout. That didn't happen, so those voters may move away from the Tories next time. That's what I think will happen. We'll have to see how the future polls go.

And Ruth Davidson has to be the most over-rated politician around at the moment. Just because the Tories are awfully proud of themselves for having a lesbian in the ranks who gets a bit of airtime doesn't make her anything special. I think the more scrutiny she comes under, the more she'll be exposed as a complete non-entity.

Agree with first half of this completely... Exactly my thinking.

I think Ruth Davidson does have a little something about her though. And is probably the best they have in their ranks, but considering the state of the Tories at the moment that is perhaps not saying much.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I can -- I don't think a lot of the voters up there who voted for pro-unionist parties really wanted a Tory government, but they may have bought the hype about a Labour wipeout. That didn't happen, so those voters may move away from the Tories next time. That's what I think will happen. We'll have to see how the future polls go.

And Ruth Davidson has to be the most over-rated politician around at the moment. Just because the Tories are awfully proud of themselves for having a lesbian in the ranks who gets a bit of airtime doesn't make her anything special. I think the more scrutiny she comes under, the more she'll be exposed as a complete non-entity.

I thought Davidson was impressive on Andrew Marr again last week. As she was in the EU referendum (even though she was on the wrong side) when she first came to people's attention in England

She has a nice balance of affability, authenticity, charisma and a bit of steel. There are very few people in British politics who tick all four of those boxes.

I think (hope) we are long past the idea of candidates being judged (positively or negatively) on their diversity profile. Just as Clive Lewis being the first non-white leader or Angela Rayner being the first actual working class leader of Labour (the Tories have had John Major, while Alan Johnson only got to deputy) would hopefully be unremarkable. We are better than America where that kind of thing is a thing.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

If by status quo you mean the "standard politician", I agree.

I said up thread, rather flippantly - but 100% honestly, for 20+ years I cannot for the life of me tell politicians and political parties apart. They are not Red / Blue / Yellow, rather all just shades of beige.

And they serve themselves, not the country, which is IMO criminal and should not be allowed to continue.

Which makes the whole party divide (just look at elements of this thread) rather amusing. Its like arguing whether diced onions or chopped onions are tastier.

The thing is, those alleigances were born in times when politicians actually stood for something. Wanted something. Had a plan to achieve it. A genuine ethos.

Wouldnt it be nice to get back to those days?

I like Farage because he was always about freeing the country from the EU, i would not say he had any integrity because of his dodgy financial record(believe he was hiding some from tax man)

It is why I like Corbyn, he seems genuine and a man of beliefs, think they pander to minorities to much(travellers) and not sure he wont bankrupt us, but we will get there anyway.

For me it is now about voting for ideas, the idea of Corbyn is nice, the idea of Brexit was and is beautiful. I could never vote for a Trump because he has no philosophy he is one of those that just want to be in power like Blair, Cameron. I do think we are getting back towards getting leaders who believed in things.

A lot may have hated her, but you knew what maggie stood for, with the benefit of hindsight the whole no society thing and not helping the north after it lost its traditional industries were massive mistakes. But you always knew what she stood for and she won 3 elections doing that.

Maybe others could look at that and think hang on if we actually stand for something the public might vote for us. It is why I am going with Corbyn and I have not voted Labour for 20 years and then that was just the one time as I could not face Major being in power any more.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I believe that is already subtracted.

It is a sizeable chunk when only 3 members actually put into the pot more than they take out.

Looking at the table its enough to cover the net cost of several nations.

Again, we are pulling a huge rug from under them. Genuine, practical, financial implications.

£500m per nation on average. Not even close to the sums needed to build Spurs stadium.

Why are you concerned with 'pulling a huge rug from under them' incidentally?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think this is fundamentally the issue with modern politics. I actually like detail, I l ike facts, and I like to make informed decisions.

I was begging for some of that during the referendum. People are fed flimflam and kept in the dark. They really shouldnt be. I found those images offensive. And not because they were by they nature, but because it was a blatant "You fudging fools" up middle finger to the public they were served to.
For me, some common sense, some straight and factual talk, would have cut through all of the hogwash being pushed from all sides. Nobody even tried. People dont know what the EU is? What it does? fudging tell them! Then they can make a proper decision. Cameron failed spectacularly there. And he wasn the only one.

You seem to have issue with us setting up our own Customs department, Im not sure why. I look at it as a necessity, rather than a burden, not sure what the big deal is. If we are to be independent of course we need such things. Is it a problem to have one?

This is where its back to principal. It doesnt matter to many if what you say is entirely correct, it matters that what we are involved in is not what we signed up to. It matters when huge mandate changes are essentially put through via the back door. It matters when when votes are re done until the desired result is found. That sort of thing sows distrust in an organisation that is already a different entity to that which we joined. And, honestly, is that unfair? How you weigh that against the good that comes from the EU is of course another matter and personal preference. And I do sense a real binary line of thinking going on here (in general, I mean). Leaving means leaving. As if we will just put up a wall around our shores and never so much as glance at Europe again. Its weird. If common sense ruled little would change in our trading and co-operative practices, its what would suit all sides.


When a person from Europe can turn up, claim welfare, start a life and just "move in" without our being able to deny it, we do not have control of our borders. Effectively our state is taken out of our hands. And as you know, our welfare state is straining under a great burden.

No, Im not saying that is BECAUSE of immigration. However, with hundreds of thousands of people adding to an already huge population - it adds pressure to vital resources. And we can do nought about it. There are plenty of issues other than immigration around these services, I readily acknowledge.

And again, when talking immigration, people immediately turn binary. Who honestly thinks it will simply stop? Anyone? And who can honestly argue that being able to be selective in who we attract is a bad thing?

Incidentally, on immigration, I hate the whole double standard the EU membership brings. Mr French just drives over and settles down. Ive indian friends who have been through the process, and my GHod its horrific. Personally Id much prefer a single method that applies to all, fundamentally thats just fair. Ideally its simplified enough that its not too lengthly or horrific, but sturdy enough we can use it to our advantage.

I couldn't agree more about the malaise of politics. People are attracted to Trump, UKIP, Corbyn, the right in Europe because they are sick of the same old same old. They want to shake things up and to have something new. Almost everything is refreshed or re-branded but politics has the same format, and until recently the same parties with the same sound bites.

You say 'straight factual talk' is a way to cut through the crap, but then talk about emotive issues without any facts. Did you know we have more immigrants from non-EU countries than from the EU? They can also 'claim welfare, start a new life' etc and we can't do the reverse as we can in the EU if we so wish. We could control this non-EU immigration now if we wanted to. Do you have any facts on the EU migrants who come to the UK? They are generally well educated and studies show they provide a net contribution to our economy. They don't cost us overall but contribute. Young working EU migrants are not a strain on the UK. Straight talking factual: their absence will hinder us, not visa versa.

Out of curiosity why are you sympathetic to Indian people moving and settling here, using our welfare services etc, but not EU people who are genetic cousins, tend to be highly educated and can easily contribute to our economy rather than claim benefits?

If common sense ruled little would change in our trading and co-operative practices. Not my words but yours, and again I agree with you. Why hinder trade and stop co-operation with our neighbours?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It is emotive, as well as logical, as well as illogical at times and of course something where knowledge makes a huge difference.

Last I looked at migration numbers it was near 50/50 EU and Non EU. 50% we cannot control, and 50% we can.

Why was I bothered about my friends? Well firstly because its simply unfair. To my mind an immigrant is an immigrant. Showing preference to a Cypriot over an Indian is discrimination. My friends were professionals, earning good money, contributing, who were unable to really build a life because at any time they could lose it. They found love, wanted to marry, buy a home and start a family - and all of it was shrouded in uncertainty while they went through a lengthly and difficult process. All the while other immigrants, the ones with the positive discrimination, come along and settle down without any issue.

Wouldnt it be better if we had 100% control and no discrimination based on race?

And lets be honest here - talking of contribution again is going back to the playground binary antics. We leave the EU. We stop free movement. Do you really think that means NO immigration at all? Really?

Or do you think at least in the short term little actually changes (except, hopefully, a sensible visa system for all). IMO more likely. BUT we have the ability to then change things as we see fit.

Maybe we have a boom and are welcoming all. Maybe we struggle and make restrictions so that our services can still function. Maybe we do the Aussie thing of attracting talent in areas we really need.

It just seems to me fairer, more sensible and is ultimately a fundamental right of a nation.

Removing absolute freedom to move is not the same as removing freedom of movement. Theres nothing to suggest it would hinder our trade or co-operative practices, aside from the fact the EU stamp their feet and refuse to entertain the idea.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

£500m per nation on average. Not even close to the sums needed to build Spurs stadium.

Why are you concerned with 'pulling a huge rug from under them' incidentally?

Its more than enough to cover many of the nations that take money out of the Union. Thats what is important. Without it, its money that France and Germany need to find, or the EU needs to find by cutting back. Either way, it is impactful and I think naive to dismiss.

Looking at some crude charts it looks like our contribution would have covered Poland and Bulgaria entirely as of 2015.
Or Hungary, Greece and Romania.
Or Cyprus, Croatia, Estonia, Malta, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Portugal, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Spain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/
[ Yes, I appreciate its a telegraph article and a bit of a rough sumation ]

Has a little more gravity than "just a stadium each" doesnt it? Especially when it appears the EU finances arent exactly ship shape as it is.

Why am I concerned? Im not. Concerned that is. Thats their problem. And THATS my point.

Everybody keeps saying how we are stuffed, we are going to suffer, they will be fine...

And yet, clearly, they stand to lose substatially as well. Which, IMO, should be recognised as it balances views on the negotiations and the situation in general.

Ive seen so many (not you) almost gleefully slamming the UK, as @parklane1 would point out - mostly remainers - as if the UK is the only party that stands to lose.

I simply do not think that is true. And that is my concern, if thats the word.

 

[monkeybarry]

Its more than enough to cover many of the nations that take money out of the Union. Thats what is important. Without it, its money that France and Germany need to find, or the EU needs to find by cutting back. Either way, it is impactful and I think naive to dismiss.

Looking at some crude charts it looks like our contribution would have covered Poland and Bulgaria entirely as of 2015.
Or Hungary, Greece and Romania.
Or Cyprus, Croatia, Estonia, Malta, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Portugal, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Spain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/
[ Yes, I appreciate its a telegraph article and a bit of a rough sumation ]

Has a little more gravity than "just a stadium each" doesnt it? Especially when it appears the EU finances arent exactly ship shape as it is.

Why am I concerned? Im not. Concerned that is. Thats their problem. And THATS my point.

Everybody keeps saying how we are stuffed, we are going to suffer, they will be fine...

And yet, clearly, they stand to lose substatially as well. Which, IMO, should be recognised as it balances views on the negotiations and the situation in general.

Ive seen so many (not you) almost gleefully slamming the UK, as @parklane1 would point out - mostly remainers - as if the UK is the only party that stands to lose.

I simply do not think that is true. And that is my concern, if thats the word.

I don't think anyone with a respectable view thinks only the UK will suffer.
What most people recognise is that the UKs position is the weakest of the two.
And also that we seem disorganised and dragging our heals in a set of negotiations that WE CALLED.
The EU will clearly only move on and into positions it wants because a) that's how negotiations work and b) the onus is on the UK as we called the talks.
Right now we are like a little brat had a house party but wants someone else to plan the clean up and only wants to do the easy bits.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It is entirely legitimate to leave. Its not petulance or being a brat.

That said, we are certainly disorganised which could really skew how we are viewed.

Our position is weakest how?

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Leaving is the hard option. It involves a heap of work not to mention the tough negotiations.

There is definitely an issue with how unprepared we are and the quality of the people navigating our path thru this.

But we still have to consider what we are leaving. Europe is full of basket case economies. It's an experiment that is highly likely to fail. We are not like the 'united states', we are individually not young (as countries), we all have long histories and are very different. Shared trading is a great idea, open borders, central control, unelected leaders, not so great. It's not like we're leaving the Playboy ranch.

I often wonder how would we feel if we were the Germans.....propping up one country after another. I'm sure we'd all me over the moon about being in (not).

My heart said leave. My head said leave. So I voted out.

The lesson is out of the three things you make the big complex decisions on.....it is your gut that matters most.

I want us to do this, this is an oppurtunity, we can really make something of our country, pull together and show we are Great.

BUT the gut said we haven't got the kahunas, the leaders, the wherewithal, or even the interest from the general public (to self interested, self indulgent these days) to aspire to be a greater country. No one wants to suffer to make it to a better place, they can't stomach any sort of journey. It will distract them too much from Facebook and Twitter.

I'm pretty much aligned with @nayimfromthehalfwayline (and ironically we voted differently...he went with his gut), and I've said before I'm very much in agreement with @Gutter Boy s ideology.

.