It’s not been the best day for the British Government. Theresa May had to accept that Japan’s immediate priority was its trade deal with the EU, which should not be surprising given that it gives access to half a billion people compared to our 60 million.
In the joint press conference held by Japanese Prime Minister Abe and Theresa May, Mr Abe stopped short of committing to a rapid new trade deal after Brexit, saying only that the two leaders would discuss the issue.
Instead, the Japanese Prime Minister stressed the need for a smooth and orderly Brexit that minimises disruption for Japanese investors in the UK.
Alistair Carmichael said:
Theresa May went to Japan seeking a new trade deal, she’s now had to admit the biggest priority will be completing the one the EU is already negotiating.
Once again the promises of the Brexiteers have been dashed on the rocks of reality.
It’s a sign of the Prime Minister’s weakness that rather than going abroad to fight for British jobs, she’s been forced to desperately fight for her own.
The chances of the UK getting a trade deal with Japan before Brexit are about as slim as the odds of Theresa May staying on to fight the next election.
Meanwhile, in Brussels, the Brexit negotiations aren’t going well for our Brexiteers. At a joint press conference, Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, warned there has been “no decisive progress” on key issues and there were issues of “trust” between the two sides.
Tom Brake said:
The government is stuck in a Brexit quagmire of its own making, and risks taking the country down with it.
Five months on since Article 50 was triggered, progress in these talks has been almost non-existent.
The Conservatives remain hostages of their own hard-line Brexiteers, while the EU continues to show an overly rigid approach.
At this rate, Britain is headed for a disastrous Brexit. It shows why we need to give people a chance to exit from Brexit through a vote on the final deal.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Legacy of the 204 bus service #dundeewestend
Green party candidate tries to evict Labour opponent
Michael BG
Thelma Davies
Daniel Stylianou
Joseph Bourke
Ricky Treadwell
76 Comments
We’ll the Brexit Bulldog aka Benny Hill has been sent back to redo his homework. How sad, how predictable. Cue brave Brexiteers to flood the thread to say isn’t so. Remember my bravehearts you believe we can fly, you believe we can reach the skies, or Tinkerbell will die.
Yes, the Brexit Bulldog is certainly in some trouble. No doubt the master negotiator will have gone away to redouble his efforts to make sure he can come up with a deal that is even worse than “no deal” and obviously far worse than the status quo. No doubt our PM (the one who wants to go on and on) will be very proud of him!
I fear the Brexiteers are rapidly reaching the point when they will have to “release the Mogg”. I’m sure his impression of a seventeenth century leprechaun will have the brave Brexiteers dancing round, they do love their unicorns living on summit uplands, Tinkerbell and other imaginary friends.
I take it that the EU can do a deal with Japan before the UK?
The Japanese will do a deal with the EU and the Japanese firms currently in the U.K. will move their organizations into the EU. Another master stroke by the Brexit Bulldog!
Davis is congratulating himself for making ‘concrete progress’…. Barnier said there was no “decisive progress” …
Small wonder a German observer coined the word…“paralleluniversum”
Brexit is simply falling apart. With a bit of luck it will take May, Davis and the rest of TUKIP with it.
What I can’t understand is, if the EU has negotiated 45-plus trade deals with outside countries from which we as a part of the EU benefit, why the Brexiteers think it an advantage for us to negotiate them separately after leaving. Of course the Japanese think first of having a deal with the entire EU, and won’t other countries think the same?
The body language of Barnier was very telling. He was agitated, mumbling and stabbing his papers continuously on his lectern, shows he is either out of his depth, or is frustrated that he has to look over his shoulder and placate 27 countries, without a secure mandate to do what needs to be done. Or, maybe it’s as simple as the German elections in October, which are obstructing Barnier, but it cannot continue for too long.
Barnier is being obstructive and we need this to move forward. At the very least he could reciprocate the offer of securing the status of ‘foreigners abroad’, by matching the offer made by Davis and May. Why is Barnier holding both UK citizens in Europe, and EU citizens in the UK to ransom, purely out of bloody-mindedness?
And what is a ‘divorce bill’? If the UK has made contractual obligations, then yes they should be supported financially until that contract term ends. But again, you cannot in an emotional fit of pique just pluck a figure from the air, call it a ‘divorce bill’, and expect any serious consideration that the UK will pay it.
The EU side are beginning to behave like petulant children, and I can see a time perhaps in early 2018, when David Davis will simply have no option other than walk away from their pettiness. And to be honest my anger at these deplorable EU bullies is growing to the point where he has my full support for the ‘walk away option’ if it becomes necessary. Brexit is going to happen, stop stalling.
Well to be devils advocate as no brexiteers are here yet… We can make pillows from whatever we want soon.
Tories messing up the negotiations aside what I fear is the great repression… Er repeal bill coming up and we should fix our sites on that as there will be many devils in those details.
Sheila,
The brave Brexiteer press have been trying to shoot down Bernier. Why the Telegraph is full of grandiose plans to talk to Merkel or Macron and side step Bernier, the result of this is they’ve been told to go and speak to Bernier. You can look at body language to your hearts content and it won’t change a thing you still have to speak to him. So by all means come up with excuses with why he is this or that but until we are told otherwise he is the man we have to deal with and wishing it otherwise is pointless.
Remember Sheila it looks like we need them more than they need us and in that situation it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out who has the whip hand.
@frankie
Much as I am also a fan of ‘Dead Ringers’ LibDems need to be careful.
IMO the referendum comprised 10-15% ‘Belligerent Leavers’ 10 – 15% ‘Adoring Remainers’ and 70-80% ordinary voters who just watched listened and though as much as they could, and then on one particular day had to vote Remain or Leave.
Just as the Tories have aligned themselves too close to the BL’s if the last election has any sort of lesson it is that the Libdems have aligned themselves too closely to the AR’s. If Corbyn is doing anything right at the moment he is trying to stay in touch with the 70/80%. If we are to stand any sort of chance of a come back we need to do the same in our own way. Naturally people are going to feel anxious throughout this process and how parties react and engage with that anxiety is the real game in town. I like hearing from Sheila Gee as I see her as a bellwether for the Leave side. Not a BL but somebody who quite reasonable came to a different conclusion than I did. It is her opinion you have to see changing if you want to Exit Brexit. Taunting and pointing fingers is not the way to do it.
P.J the only thing that will change anyone’s mind is reality. It is possible that Brexit goes so well I’ll change my mind, it is more likely that it will go so badly that people like Sheila will change their mind. As to the 70 percent they just want it over, but it can’t be. They may in the end settle for being in the EU single market and customs union for ever (which is basically what Labour are offering) with no input into the rules. in that case the Brexiteers will be right we will be at Brussels beck and call with no power to change what they want, that truly would be ironic to have totally lost control to the EU while trying to do the opposite.
I am 110% behind the EU and their approach to the wayward, argumentative, combative UK position.
Brexit should not be happening, it has little basis except feuds in the Tory party and is disastrous for us, the people of UK and for the overall UK in the world.
Time to be perfectly open, honest and vocal about this. We intend to remain in the EU and be a leading nation in its forward development. For our economies and our people.
Hear hear, Anthony Watts. ‘Onward goes the pilgrim band’, as we should. P.J., it’s relatively easy to keep the 70-80% from opposing you, as Corbyn has done, by prolonged ambiguity, but it won’t wash in the long run – in the long run the principled and consistent ones will be the ones who count.
Frankie, alert! I believe the Mogg Leprechaun was to have been released on the Radio 4 Any Questions tonight – I couldn’t listen then being out, but will tomorrow at 13.10. That programme is generally worth listening to, and hoping for Lib Dem-type responses on Any Answers, straight after the Saturday repeat. (Not sure why the Mogg is a lebrechaun, but I’m sure he belongs in the Brexiteer faeryland, as you discern. Can’t be a unicorn though – a long time ago I learnt to sing, ‘Sure as you’re born, God didn’t make no unicorn.’ Still, I suppose in faeryland even that can happen … ‘From ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggetty beasties, good lord deliver us!’ )
The EU’s negotiating stance is entirely sensible and logical, and here is why: Assume a UK decision to crash out immediately without negotiating for 2 years. Being outside the single market and the customs union and trading at WTO-terms would be disastrous, but legal (not legitimate). Same for having no more flight connections, euro clearing, or nuclear fuel-supply. In trade matters, the UK has no ongoing rights or obligations after leaving (I am ignoring the goods in transit problem now for clarity of argument).
The three subjects of the separation agreement are different: the fate of expats, existing financial committments and peace in Northern Ireland constitute ongoing obligations (some temporary, some eternal) which survive the date of departure.
The UK’s insistence on negotiating the optional without committing on the necessities is shocking from an ethical standpoint, and undermining all trust required to have a future trade agreement. Not only the EU, the whole world is watching this behavior of a country that wants to be trading-“partners” with them all.
There is no point in negotiating. The EU has a fixed position and is trying to secure payments. You either pay or you don’t. IMO Britain should pull out of the talks. At the moment there is nothing to talk about.
Brexit is often compared to a divorce, although of course that’s a very poor analogy in all sorts of ways.
When a couple are seeking a divorce, but are unable to reach an amicable agreement about money, custody of children etc, they are required to go through a process of mediation before they go to court. This mediation focuses on helping couples to reach a solution without having to resort to going to court. Sessions are supervised by people who are trained in handling difficult issues sensitively, and who are required to be unbiased and non judgmental. They try to ensure that neither party tries to dominate the negotiations. The couple are discouraged from talking about who is to blame. The whole focus is on making sure that is a solution is found that is fair to both parties. There is never any suggestion that one person should be “punished” for causing the breakup of the marriage.
A very poor analogy. But it does seem to me that the Brexit negotiations ought to be supervised by some unbiased third party. perhaps representatives of non EU countries, which are not too close to either party? Though admittedly it’s hard to think of any country that would not have either present or historic reasons to be biased, either for or against, one or both parties.
Brexit is very complicated cry the brave Brexiteers. We should just run away from talks, but to where, well that they are not sure about. One way or another my brave Brexiteers you are going to have to face up to the consequences of your vote. It looks like it will be either hard Brexit and the economic harm that will do or staying in the Eu’s single market but not getting to set the rules; either way being worse of than we started, well done a heads we lose, tails we lose situation all down to you.
@Glenn,
you are essentially saying: to hell with peace in Northern Ireland, EU citizens in the UK (and UK citizens on the continent), and long-term EU programs the UK subscribed to. Trumpism at its best. Fair enough, but then be consistent: forget about future trade deals with anybody, and accept the national misery that comes with WTO-terms throughout and for as long as it takes the UK to return to the civilized world.
Staying in the EU doesn’t mean you get to set the rules . The idea that it does is as arrogant as it is delusional. IMO it’s basically the 28stater version invoking the non existent “special relationship” as an excuse for the short-sightedness of signing the Maastricht agreement, Interestingly both Britain’s disastrous M.E escapades and the current E.U fiasco have their roots in Thatcher’s final years in office and the blundering Major government’s attempts at maintaining the illusion of being global power brokers.
Arnold
I’m saying no such thing.
Arnold Keil
“The UK’s insistence on negotiating the optional without committing on the necessities is shocking from an ethical standpoint”
This assumes that a ‘divorce bill’ has some legitimacy and is a necessity. As I said, contractual obligations with the EU ought to be met in full, but a tantrum invoked ‘divorce bill’ is a total joke. Given that Barnier has already buckled under pressure, from, ‘must be met in full’ to ‘significant progress’, maybe the next climb down for the flush faced Barnier is to erase the petulant words ‘divorce bill’ from EU demands, and replace it with ‘Ongoing contractual obligations’, which everyone would agree as proper and valid?
As for negotiating necessities and optionals, it is perfectly possible to do ( EU/UK citizens), (Northern Ireland), and (UK financial obligations), in parallel rather than series. It’s called multi-tasking. But Barnier’s bully-boy stance can be summarized as akin to holding a gun to the head of trade talks, with the demand, ‘Give us the divorce money, or the Trade Talks get it !’. They are playing a very dangerous and foolish game with that threatening attitude, because the British are an exceptionally tolerant bunch if everyone can commit to ‘Playing nice’.
It astonishes me how few can see, that for all of its perceived size, the EU is a very fragmented and weak entity lashed together with an ill-considered Euro, and ‘Maastricht duct tape’ which no European citizen ever asked for in the first place. So of course the real flaw in Barniers inflexibility is that it only takes one of the 27 to ‘crack’ first, over some obstacle to their nation’s present trade position, then the rigid Barnier dam breaks. Place your bets on which of the 27, breaks first?
Glenn,
how would “pull out of the talks” resolve these issues then?
@Katharine Pindar
‘Onward goes the pilgrim band’
Onward to a Pyrrhic victory, irrelevance and annihilation.
In case you hadn’t noticed we just polled 7.4% and lost 375 deposits.
Please tell me what is principled about voting for a referendum and not accepting the result.
I am a remainer to the core but I will take no pleasure in seeing this country diminished and impoverished. There will be no salvation for the faithful. We are all in this together and none shall be spared the consequences of this thing.
So I prefer to be a bit more Machiavellian and concentrate on tactics to achieve an end. It doesn’t mean you have to abandon your principles, just be a bit more clever about the way you go about them.
The comments on this thread reflect what used to happen before we had voted to Leave the EU. No-one who supported the EU ever raised a word of criticism just as no-one who wants to “exit from Brexit” has any criticism now of the EU negotiating stance. I really don’t think it realistic to have a requirement that talks be consecutive when time is so short. Tackling all issues concurrently would seem far more sensible.
Most of us are enthusiastic supporters of the democratic government in Westminster. But that’s never stopped us from speaking out against it when it has done something stupid – like invading Iraq or introducing a Poll tax or whatever. We can all think of lots of examples.
But can we think of any examples when those who have supported the EU have ever found any fault with it? Does a support for the EU really have to mean that there cannot be a single word of criticism?
But Arnold paragraph 2 of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty clearly states that the EU is to negotiate the arrangements for withdrawal with the seceding state “TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR ITS FUTURE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNION” (my emphasis) so by refusing to discuss even the framework of our future relationship until sufficient progress is made (whatever that means) is made on the withdrawal agreement then the EU not the UK is clearly in breach of it’s Treaty obligations. Why would any country want to be part of an organisation that plays fast an loose with it’s own rules. Speaking as a remain voter in the referendum I for my part no longer wish to remain in the EU and in the event of a referendum on the deal AKA a second referendum would vote to leave whatever the alternative.
@ Sheila Gee,
“divorce-bill”, “contractual obligations” are the same. Nobody in the EU has ever asked for more than is owed. Introducing this artificial distinction and colorful adjectives prevents you and other Brexiteers from seeing that the EU is a community built on (not always warranted) trust. Your Government’s course of action is (in my view rightly) perceived as a breach of trust. Living up to past commitments is always expected from partners who want to enter into any ongoing relationship.
Your gun-analogy is therefore completely misplaced. It is the UK which is saying: “first show me an attractive new deal, then I will talk about honouring our existing one.” And the EU, in my view rightly, says: “first show me that I can trust you.”
Or, stressing the divorce-analogy, the UK says: “I want a divorce, because I need to take all my decisions myself and without your interference. However, I still find you very attractive, and would like to spend my holidays with you, and before you agree to that, I will not commit to maintenance payments.”
It is the 28th that is already breaking.
@ Peter Martin,
in this context, I find indeed nothing to criticize on the side of the EU. Criticizing the EU is anyhow a rather futile exercise, because it is the result of a compromise among 28 sovereign countries, which was reached under much more amicable circumstances.
Today’s EU is, in my conviction, much better than the one these 28 could reach a consensus on today. This is why there are (European) contracts. Members must be able to rely on each other, irrespective of a country’s current mood.
An EU which is liked by a majority of citizens of all member-states at all times would not be a “union”, but would have to be something very loose and inconsequential.
Andrew Tampion,
I believe exactly this is happening: it is the UK Government’s unmistakeable declaration to leave the single market and the customs union, end ECJ jurisdiction, freedom of movement of people, and budget contributions that neccessitates settlement of the Northern Ireland situation, the status of expats and all financial obligations. Had the UK government, e.g., declared that it wishes to become an EEA-member, the separation discussion would be much more straightforward.
I am afraid that I do not have the pleasure of understanding your reply Arnold. If the terms of the Treaty require that the framework of the future relationship between the EU and the seceding state must be part of the negotiation how can the refusal by the EU side to take into account the framework until other matters are resolved to the EU’s satisfaction be anything other than a failure by the EU to follow it treaty obligations. Say what you like about the UK government but it has followed it’s obligations under Article 50.
Glen,
When you are part of a club you get to be involved in setting the rules, after you leave you don’t. Now if we stay in the single market we get to live with whatever rules the EU set, if we don’t we just end up looking into the single market as a third party country. Not hard to understand, either way you lose influence and trade. We are special cry the brave Brexiteers we will get a special deal , no you won’t would be my bet.
When you join a club you do not get to make the rules. You abide by the rules of the club. At best you can make suggestions and they can be accepted or rejected.
@ Arnold Kiel,
“An EU which is liked by a majority of citizens of all member-states at all times would not be a “union”, but would have to be something very loose and inconsequential.”
I find this to be a very arrogant and anti-democratic viewpoint. Nearly all German people I have spoken to lament the loss of their DM. Most French and Italian people believe that the euro has caused more trouble than it is worth. My understanding is that most European people want the EU to be more like the old EEC and EC. It’s the move to the EU with its insistence on a common currency and common borders which is a step too far for most.
So it’s quite possible to be pro EC/EEC and anti EU. The EU is quite different from its predecessors. I don’t believe that many would agree with your viewpoint that the previous organisations of EEC/EC were “loose and inconsequential”.
But your viewpoint is just one of many. The majority opinion, and not just in the UK, is that “Europe” should be a collection of freely trading nation states, each with its own currency, each with its own laws, each with its own Parliaments, each with the right to control its own borders.
We in the UK tend to be far too introspective about the EU. We tend to ask why there is so much opposition to the EU but we don’t tend to ask what sort of EU would be acceptable to the vast majority. I don’t believe the answer to this question is much different in Munich or Manchester. The Brits don’t want to be Germans and the Germans don’t want to be Brits. We both want to be on friendly terms with each other and we want to trade freely.
But we don’t want to share the same currency!
Peter Martin, you seem extraordinarily certain that you know what ‘most French and Italian people believe’, what ‘most European people want’, and what ‘the majority opinion’ is. In your comment on Arnold, the phrase ‘Pot calling the Kettle black’ did rather come into my mind! I wouldn’t pretend to know myself what most people in Europe think (though I would guess there is a variety of opinions there), but I do remember that the Greeks, for all the painful austerity that has been forced on them, didn’t want to leave the Eurozone.
Andrew Tampion,
the UK has made it clear that the future framework will exclude freedom of movement, common jurisdiction, single-market- and customs-union participation as well as budget contributions. Apart from that, the UK wants to retain all benefits. In light of this positioning, Ireland, people, and money are the obvious loose ends to be finally settled, because the UK rejects ongoing obligations.
Not only is the UK refusing to committ on these issues, it is also publishing the above summarized “future framework” (an impossible wishlist of all benefits and no obligations). The EU, therefore, knows enough about the intended future framework to formulate separation requirements.
As the negotiation is already at risk of failing on these rather simple matters, I fully understand the EU’s refusal to enter into another subject where the UK’s starting position (even where it is not constructively ambiguous) promises a further impasse that adds to the real chance of a complete breakdown of the Brexit process.
Peter Martin,
I believe you are wrong in your assessment of the euro’s popularity in the eurozone.
I think Peter Martin has got it spot on. I speak to many Europeans as part of my work and the only ones who like the Euro are the Germans, they like it because it is 20% weaker than if they still had the Deutch Mark and so gives them a competitive edge. Incidentally I don’t know any leaver who has changed their mind but I know lots of remainers who think the EU is now trying to shaft us and can’t understand why the Lib Dems haven’t “moved on” and accepted the referendum result.
Strange Martin how you know all these Europeans who don’t like the EU but no country other than us want to leave it.
Recent years have seen turbulent shifts in public attitudes toward the European Union. Down just a year ago, before the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, public sentiment about the European project has rebounded. Even British voters, who narrowly elected to withdraw from the EU, have markedly improved their views of the Brussels-based institution.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/
I think you are falling into a trap a lot of Brexiteers seem incapable of avoiding and that is to project your opinion onto others. We all do it but Brexiteers seem more prone than most. After all after Brexit it was going to be
Brexit SPREADS across Europe: Italy, France, Holland and Denmark ALL call for referendums
POLITICIANS across Europe have called for their own referendums in the wake of Britain’s historic decision to quit the EU.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682339/Brexit-spreads-across-Europe-Italy-France-Holland-Denmark-all-call-for-referendums
Only it didn’t happen did it Martin, the whole they’ll follow our example fizzled out so fast you would have thought it never started; well it never did, did it other than in the fantasy world of the Brexit press.
The facts at this time are no country other than ours intends to leave the EU. Much as we try we can’t manufacture a break in the common front the EU have put up we have failed to date and to be brutally honest given the calibre of the Brexit leadership they will probably continue too fail. It is looking increasing likely that come March 2019 we will either be looking at hard Brexit or a fudge that give the EU what they want and us very much less. As to the EU shafting us, they may very well happen, but ask yourself who put us in a position that this could happen, because even if all the remainers rallied to your cause we would still be in the same position, to shaft or not to shaft is not in our gift any more it is at the discretion of the EU.
crankier congratulations a whole post in which the adjective “brave” is not applied to the word brexiteers once.
On the substantive point Marine Le Pen called for a referendum on Frexit and got 38% of the vote. Short is a majority but a percentage that cannot be so casually dismissed. Also Emmanuel Macron has stated that the EU must reform or risk Frexit (BBC 1st May 2017).
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that no other country intends to leave the EU, yet.
Apologies that should read “frankie, congratulations” failure on my part to spell check my IPads spell checker at fault
Arnold I think we are talking about different things. My point is simply that I do not think that based on it wording Article 50 gives the EU the option of treating the separation of the UK from the EU and the future relationship as concurrent stages in the negotiating process. In any case as others have pointed out it makes no sense to try to resolve the Irish border problem before the future relationship between the EU and the UK is decided. Unless of course the EU has decided as you suggest that no deal acceptable to the EU is possible in which case the EU and not the UK is at fault for any Hard Brexit.
As far as the UK’s negotiating position is concerned it is very simple (however incompetently the present Government may be carrying it out): we offer tariff free access to our markets along with frictionless border arrangements to the EU in return for the same in return. The UK is willing to consider participation in some EU programmes, such as Erasmus on a case by case basis and to pay a fair fee for membership.
It makes little sense to talk about ongoing obligations since by definition leaving brings to an end ongoing obligations except those which are freely negotiated as part of the future relationship.
As I said above, comparing Brexit to a divorce is a very poor analogy, but…
Imagine that a woman has decided she wants a divorce. Her husband makes it clear that he intends to punish her financially for walking out on the marriage At the same time, he claims that he thinks they could still make a go of it, if she would just forget all this “silly nonsense” about wanting to be “free”.
He sneers at her for believing she can make a life for herself. He tells her she will never find a job that will give her a lifestyle as good as that which she enjoyed as his wife, and that at her age she is not likely to find another relationship. He reminds her that he gave her a nice home, and a comfortable lifestyle. So what can she possibly have to complain about? If she persists with this absurd pursuit of “independence”, she will face a life of poverty. He and his lawyers will see to that. So hadn’t she better admit she has made a big mistake?
How does the wife respond to these attempts to threaten her and undermine her confidence? Does she decide she had better stay married after all? Of course not. This revelation of such a vindictive side to her husband’s nature, convinces her that she would rather walk away with nothing than stay married to such a man. She reminds herself that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and resolves to prove her husband’s dire predictions wrong, by making a success of life as a single, independent woman.
A very poor analogy, but…
frankie, I actually said most Europeans don’t like the euro, with regards to the EU itself they are generally lukewarm preferring the old EC, which is probably true of most Britons too.
“most Europeans don’t like the euro”
This is compete and utter tommyrot; an ignorant display of wishful thinking. In the EU, not even political weirdos are against the Euro. Even Le Pen claimed,, who wanted to take France out of the EU, said that she would keep the Euro!
In Europe the Euro is appreciated for making life so much simpler and trade transparent. Your suggestion that Germans like the Euro because it makes their imported goods more expensive is risible.
Catherine Jane Crosland 3rd Sep ’17 – 8:03am…….A very poor analogy, but…
A very poor analogy… NO ‘but’..
Try the divorce where the woman tells her husband that she doesn’t want to stay in the relationship and would rather go out and ‘play the field’ whilst keeping all the good bits in the home…
Expats, well I did say it was a very poor analogy.
But even in the scenario you give, the divorce courts would, these days, actually take a “no blame” approach, and would say that the wife was entitled to at least some of the “good bits in the home”. Especially if she had put a great deal of her own money into the home over the years.
The Brexiteer plan appears to be hope the EU fails and everything will be great. Problem with that is if the EU does fail there will be chaos and many political careers will end. How sad cry the Brexiteers can’t come soon enough. The problem with that my dear Brexiteers is the people in charge of the EU will move mountains to ensure they don’t fail and one way to ensure that is to have a broken impoverished UK as an example of what happens if you leave. So you may want this or that but it is not in the interests of the other side to give it you.
As our fate becomes more clear the numbers wishing to leave the EU seem to be dropping, strange that. An irony isn’t it that B
……. rexit seems to have rejuvenated the EU.
It is tempting to use divorce as an analogy but that assumes there is a court or third party that can enforce a ruling there isn’t. A better analogy I feel is leaving a gang, at the end of the day the gang enforce their own rules and it’s up to them what they do. Now they may think let’s remain friends but that doesn’t happen often more likely it’s make an example of them. Before someone says civilised countries don’t do that, well I think firstly they do and secondly we are not as civilised as we think. So we await gang justice and it is likely to hurt a lot.
PS Screaming EU bad won’t help other trade blocks are the same and all will be looking to get the best deal for them out of a weakened UK, not so great for us.
@ Katharine,
“you seem extraordinarily certain that you know what ‘most French and Italian people believe’, what ‘most European people want’… ”
If there’s one point that Arnold and I might agree on, it would be that the present structure of the EU did not come about because there was any popular clamour for it. As far as I know French, German, Italian people tend not to be asked to ratify Treaties such as Maastricht and Lisbon. When countries have had a vote, like in Denmark, there’s been a no. And if there is a no first time some small details are altered and we have another vote until we have a yes. Like in Ireland.
If the EU hadn’t been so much of a hurry and was prepared to go at the pace that its population was happy with then, the PTB wouldn’t have been so reckless as to experiment with one currency shared between 19 countries. There’s no economic rationale that this can possibly work. So I do believe its a lack of democracy that has landed the EU in the mess that its in. If it wasn’t in a mess we wouldn’t have had a vote for Brexit.
Frankie, but don’t you feel some doubts about your support for the EU, if you believe it would actually be vindictive enough to want to see “a broken impoverished UK” (see my comment at 8.03 am) ?
@Catherine Jane Crosland,
a misconstrued analogy: in the UK-case, the wife is the main earner, and the husband just asks her to continue to shoulder her part of the mortgage they took out jointly. And she answers: no, but I want to use the house. Her future poverty is entirely of her own making.
Frankie, just saw your comment at 10.47 am. Well, surely if you had become involved in the sort of gang that tries to prevent members from leaving, and seeks revenge on any who do leave, then the only right course of action would be to get out of this gang as quickly as possible. I’m not saying that your analogy of the EU as a gang is necessarily a fair one. But I’m slightly puzzled by your attitude to Brexit. In several comments, on various posts, you seem to attribute highly vindictive motives to the EU. Yet you seem to suggest that we should wish to stay in it anyway. Out of fear?
Catherine Jane Crosland 3rd Sep ’17 – 8:03am:
A very poor analogy, but…
Sounds like a good analogy to me. You might also have mentioned that this woman has a well-paid job in financial services and makes a disproportionately large contribution to the household budget while being in deficit with the distribution of household chores.
Martin 3rd Sep ’17 – 9:25am:
In the EU, not even political weirdos are against the Euro. Even Le Pen claimed, who wanted to take France out of the EU, said that she would keep the Euro!
‘What does France’s National Front stand for?’ [May 2014]:
http://www.france24.com/en/20140528-france-national-front-policy-eu/
@ Arnold,
” And she answers: no, but I want to use the house.” ????
What house are we talking about here? Trade between the UK and EU is highly skewed towards EU exports. The UK is effectively a very good customer for the EU.
If I had my way I’d be saying we wanted balanced trade after Brexit. Then there wouldn’t be any metaphorical “house”. But that is not the offer as I understand it. So if there’s any suggestion of anyone using a house for free it’s not going to be the UK.
Peter Martin,
I am all for continuing EU-UK free trade, which is indeed of mutual benefit and not a concession. The single market construct, however, is based on having a level playing field, e.g. with respect to external customs (customs union), product standards, rules of origin, rule enforcement (ECJ), the four freedoms, the freedom of establishment, etc. The house-analogy refers to wishing free trade without complying with the underlying, EU-governed set of rules.
@ Catherine
“I’m not saying that your analogy of the EU as a gang is necessarily a fair one.”
Arnold Kiel has supported the “gang” analogy by calling for our “Unconditional Surrender”. And it’s a dilemma. Do we stand up to the gang or risk their ire by leaving? I can well understand that many former leavers might have switched sides out of fear of being kneecapped.
I think our answer should be “Neine Danke. Wir gehen”. We’ve been through worse before.
@ Arnold Kiel,
Shouldn’t trading rules be mutually agreed between those who wish to trade with each other? Are you saying it has to be EU rules only with all your trading partners or just with the UK?
I know it will take some time to establish new rules and there might have to be a period of WTO rules while that’s done, but I’d hope we’d be able to work something out without too much delay. It cannot be on the basis that the EU sets the rules and the UK meekly accepts though.
Peter,
But, how can you say that? Frankie and Mr Kiel are making the EU sound soooo attractive!
@ Martin,
“I speak to many Europeans as part of my work and the only ones who like the Euro are the Germans, they like it because it is 20% weaker than if they still had the Deutch Mark and so gives them a competitive edge.”
I’m not sure its majority opinion in Germany but I’ve heard this argument too. I’d say it’s more prevalent amongst the generally better off. It’s typical of the difference between our two countries. We like a currency that is 20% stronger because we like our cheap overseas holidays and we don’t want petrol to be too expensive.
Neither have it right. We should both prefer to have our currencies valued so that trade balances. It doesn’t make any sense for Germany to continually swap more goods and services for less in return. It doesn’t make any sense for us to have to borrow to fund the deficit. And someone has to!
The history of westerners getting a good trade relationship with Japan has two models:
1) the Dutch, diplomatic one, and
The American, Trumpian way.
The Dutch way (still fondly remembered in Japan) is: hire a small Island in a Japanese harbour city, stasy there for decades, visit the governnment (then: the Shoguns, and in the final stages the emperor) once a year, and in the mean time try to get to know as much as you can about Japan, Japanese culture, flora and fauna.
This seems to chime with the prospect that Britain will have to wait years and years until its trade relation with the EU is sorted out; only after that is Tokyo willing to start talking seriously. We kept the relation warm while everybody else (the Portugese and Spaniards; se Janmes Clavells novel Shogun) was kicked out. Western culture to this day is called “Dutch learning” in Japanese…
Or the American way: barge in with your biggest navy ships and break Japan open. That didn’t go down well with everybody in Japan, and is still resented by present-day Japanese jingoist (some with remarkable acces to Abe and his LDP top people).
😉
There seems to be a general presumption that one can define what are “reasonable” and “unreasonable” negotiating tactics. That’s basically nonsense. It’s possible for one side to make excessive demands. But unless you have done that, then apart from threatening violence, pretty much any negotiating tactics are valid if they achieve the best outcome for your side.
From the EU perspective, Britain has obligations to meet, and so the EU simply cannot decide how generous it might like to be with a trade deal until it knows whether Britain intends to meet those obligations. What might the UK government seek to achieve by refusing to settle the divorce bill first? Presumably, they hope to force down the divorce bill. Well, the EU won’t want that, will they?
At that point, negotiation becomes a simple question of strength. It’s pretty obvious who has the strength. One side has set out a clear framework and stuck to it, and has talked about “educating” its interlocutors about what is realistic. The other side has blustered, oscillated between talking tough and backing down, and made petulant complaints of “blackmail”. It looks as if May just wants to spin out her personal survival by delaying bad news from Brussels. The EU can afford to sit and wait. We can’t.
Syriza thought that bravado, intransigence and delays were smart tactics, and that they could win (or at least, gain kudos at home) by talking tough to the EU. In the end, the delays led to financial chaos in Greece, followed by the capitulation of the Greek government. It looks as if we are on the same disastrous road. The sooner we setlle that divorce bill, the smaller it will be.
Ah dear Glen and what is your solution, ah yes reality is frightening let’s run away. A common theme to many Brexiteers solutions,world is full of frightening trade blocks, let’s run away. It seems to be a default solution if you don’t like something run away. We don’t like the EU so run away, the problem is it’s still there and all you can do is wish it away. The problem is for all your wishing it isn’t breaking up and barring a miracle will still be in place long after we are gone.
We have decided to leave a trading block when every other country in the world seems to be doing their best to join one. Why are they doing that, because size gives you strength and being small doesn’t, it just leaves you at risk from the bigger boys. So the only solution we will be left with is join another one, personally I prefer the EU to NAFTA or the Chinese but Brexiteers may prefer following the USA.
Now you may say actually we have a plan, feel free to share it because so far apart from hope, pray and runaway we haven’t seen one.
Catherine the world is full of gangs, the EU is probably the least worse of them. We have no police man to enforce the rules or referee to rule that unfair so if the EU decide to shaft us expect no one to rush to our aid. The ones with power make the rules, unfair you cry and it is but as I tell my children the world isn’t fair get over it. Like it or not the EU has the whip hand and we shall see how they use it.
PS if you know anything about gangs the safest thing to do if you leave one is run or join another one. Unfortunately no one has worked out how to move the UK so run isn’t an option open too us and the other gangs ain’t exactly local.
Franny,
Do go on!
@ Peter Martin,
sure, a bespoke deal is possible, but it will take a long time to negotiate and ratify, and will always be less free than single market membership. That would be fine if this approach produced any meaningful benefits. But it will not: most EU immigration is necessary, so filtering out the unneccessary (should that continue at all in the current atmosphere) is therefore not worth the effort, and the already receding ECJ-obsession is blown-up nonsense. Add to this the unavoidable financial settlement, and the business case for staying is overwhelming.
Arnold,
The business case is overwhelming, but Brexiteers care nothing for that too them it’s all emotional. Being free is all, free to do what,
well they tend to differ on that. The sad fact is when the business cost comes due and we all have to pay it, I’d put a small wager the ones screaming loudest about the cost will be the Brexiteers. They’ll blame the EU forgetting it was their vote that put us in this mess, but no matter who gets blamed the cost will still be there.
@ David Allen,
The BIG difference is that Greece chose to share a currency with the Germans and so Greeks had their bank accounts frozen until they came to heel. That’s not possible with the UK. We had the good sense to keep out of that one.
If it were possible then I’m sure the EU would do the same to us.
We’ve got a much better hand than the Greeks had in these negotiations.
The Brexit plan. We have a great hand of cards, why we have Mr Bun the Baker and Mrs Bun as well, they only have four Aces and a King. This will not end well, to paraphrase Matthew d’Ancona
On Planet Brexit, the radio signal from Earth is growing weaker by the day.
Peter Martin,
Yes, our position in negotiating with the EU is different from that of Greece. The EU does not control our currency. It could, however, deny us half our export market at a stroke, if it so chose. It could shut down most of our air traffic and create chaos at our borders. It could wreck our worldwide trading agreements, and leave them in ruins, for quite long enough to bankrupt our industries and leave us starving for lack of food imports.
But hey, isn’t that the sort of dangerous challenge that attracts real men, like Boris, David Davis, and Liam? Let’s go for it. Let’s take huge risks, and tell the EU to take a running jump, just to see what they will do. That’s the way we can prove our manhood, right?
David Allen,
your assessment is right, but it is not the EU that could do these things to the UK. The UK insists on doing them to itself.
@frankie 1st Sep ’17 – 5:38pm
‘It is possible that Brexit goes so well I’ll change my mind,’
Is that what this is about? Trade?
In my mind it is not about trade at all. Trade can, and will be sorted out. As the Brexiteers say the incentive is there for the EU as well as the UK. Dutch flower growers will not want to see their flowers wilting at the border any more than UK food exporters. Yes, I think we will lose out in the long run but I don’t see a cliff edge.
The issue with the EU goes deeper than trade. In linking trade to the four freedoms the EU made the challenge to the Nation State. The EU has got a ‘Tiger by the Tail’ in the Euro and it will inevitably lead to a EU wide tax system and re distributive fiscal adjustments. The second challenge to the Nation State.
Following on from this will come the increased standardisation of social benefits. security and defense. The third challenge to the Nation State.
Personally, I have factored these things into my decision making and would prefer the UK to be involved to regulate these changes. I feel the opportunities of being involved in an integrated Europe as far outweighing the benefits of the British status quo.
The development of the EU is going to be fraught with challenges and will need to be handled with care. We are currently witnessing the fall out from the second of these challenges. What I don’t understand is why the EU is being so clandestine about the road map for Europe. Better to be open, build the vision and move at a pace that brings the peoples of Europe together.
Isn’t the difficulty for the EU, P.J., that some of their states are in the Eurozone and some like ourselves outside it? Some will want further integration, with for instance an EU Finance Minister, but others are suited to staying in the outer zone, and perhaps looking to having more subsidiarity and democratic developments such as the Parliament being able to initiate policy, elected Commission President and so on. Should it not be for ourselves in due course to propose the developments which will suit us?
In any case the EU leaders have many problems besides Brexit, notably the migrant influx and the increasing authoritarianism in Hungary and Poland, though the threat of far-right populist movements seems to have been defeated for the moment. This great institution needs our active involvement and support.
In linking trade to the four freedoms the EU made the challenge to the Nation State
Well, that’s the whole issue, isn’t it: lots of people do not wish to see the Nation State dismantled.
If the EU had been willing to countenance multi-level membership — say, an ‘inner core’ who want to carry out the political union, and around them an ‘outer tier’ who want to participate in the trading unions but not merge their political systems — then the UK would never have left, we’d have just stayed in the outer tier forever.
(Or even better, ‘Europe à la carte‘ where each nation could choose which bits of the EU it wanted to be part of and which it didn’t).
But, they weren’t willing to be flexible — it was ‘ever closer union’ or nothing — and so we’re leaving. A pity, but you can hardly blame us for getting off the bus when it turns out that the destination is not somewhere we want to go.
You’re describing what we’ve got now and want to keep, Dav. We haven’t left, and if we stay, nobody is going to force us into ever-closer-union. Other nation states in the EU are nationalistic and patriotic too!
We haven’t left, and if we stay, nobody is going to force us into ever-closer-union
Perhaps you and P. J. should get your story straight? One of you thinks that the EU is inevitably a fundamental challenge to the integrity and nature of the nation-state; the other thinks that the EU is entirely compatible with strong sovereign nation-states.
You can’t both be right (unless you’re suggesting an ‘inner tier’ / ‘outer tier’ model); which is it?
Yes, inner and outer tier models, Dav, as I said before. Developing what we have now.