Opening gambits in EU / UK exit negotiations;

[eugenonegin]

Negotiations seem to be going smoothly:

"Taking questions in the House of Commons, Mr Johnson also denied reports Chancellor Philip Hammond and First Secretary of State Damian Green had said there will be a transition period of at least three years after Brexit, when the UK will remain under the jurisdiction of the Europe Court of Justice.

And he was asked if there was a strategy, either public or private, for what would happen if there was no agreement on Brexit.

"There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal," he replied.

His comments come after No 10 sources played down suggestions that Theresa May plans to walk out of Brexit talks in September to show defiance over EU demands for a divorce bill worth tens of billions of pounds.

'Shocking complacency'

Mrs May has said that her view going into the Brexit negotiations was that "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Mr Johnson's comments seem to be at odds with Brexit Secretary David Davis, who told the BBC last month that the government had "worked up in detail" the "no deal" option on Brexit."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40571123

Edited July 12, 2017 by eugeneonegin

[keithisco]

I am fairly certain that Johnson should not be allowed to respond to the negotiations questions because he is just not "clued up" enough. David Davies is the one who should answer all such questions, and it is him who I would rather listen to.

I've said before that Boris is out of his depth at the Foreign Office, he should be replaced and my suggestion would be someone with a lot more experience in diplomacy - perhaps IDS

[stevewinn]

regardless of what's in the public domain it would be absolutely foolish not to have a policy in place for no deal, I think we can safely say The UK government will have a plan for that option, Its just not for publication or for broadcast by the media, and who is surprised such sensitive information would be leaked by the quislings. alerting the EU to highly sensitive information.

The plan is so sensitive, and of national importance that it should be guarded at all times by a bodyguard of lies.

[eugenonegin]

UK "sleep walking into food insecurity after Brexit":

Prof Erik Millstone from Sussex University, who compiled the study with Lang and Prof Terry Marsden from Cardiff University, said the lack of government action was baffling.

“We are surprised at the failure of the government to address a huge set of issues related to food and agriculture,” he said. “They give the impression of sort of sleepwalking into this.”

The 88-page report notes that large elements of EU agricultural and fisheries policies would need major reform even if Britain remained a member. But it warns that departure from the EU raises such urgent complications for food and agriculture that without focus on the issue “the risk is that food security in the UK will be seriously undermined”, leading to dwindling supplies and erratic prices.

It adds: “There are also serious risks that standards of food safety will decline if the UK ceases to adopt EU safety rules, and instead accepts free-trade agreements with countries with significantly weaker standards.”

After 50 years of generally stable supplies and prices, the authors say, the UK could return to the sort of volatility last seen in the 1930s and earlier...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/17/uk-sleepwalking-into-food-insecurity-after-brexit-academics-say

Edited July 17, 2017 by eugeneonegin

[stevewinn]

7 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

UK "sleep walking into food insecurity after Brexit":

Prof Erik Millstone from Sussex University, who compiled the study with Lang and Prof Terry Marsden from Cardiff University, said the lack of government action was baffling.

“We are surprised at the failure of the government to address a huge set of issues related to food and agriculture,” he said. “They give the impression of sort of sleepwalking into this.”

The 88-page report notes that large elements of EU agricultural and fisheries policies would need major reform even if Britain remained a member. But it warns that departure from the EU raises such urgent complications for food and agriculture that without focus on the issue “the risk is that food security in the UK will be seriously undermined”, leading to dwindling supplies and erratic prices.

It adds: “There are also serious risks that standards of food safety will decline if the UK ceases to adopt EU safety rules, and instead accepts free-trade agreements with countries with significantly weaker standards.”

After 50 years of generally stable supplies and prices, the authors say, the UK could return to the sort of volatility last seen in the 1930s and earlier...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/17/uk-sleepwalking-into-food-insecurity-after-brexit-academics-say

I love these findings, why would the UK's food security be under threat, we'll still be importing exporting food the same as we do today. who else are they going to sell it to? and what's even more laughable is the safety rules and standards, so after Brexit wereall of a sudden going to abandon or lower food standards and safety. don't be silly. more remainer bull crap.

 

 

[keithisco]

21 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I love these findings, why would the UK's food security be under threat, we'll still be importing exporting food the same as we do today. who else are they going to sell it to? and what's even more laughable is the safety rules and standards, so after Brexit wereall of a sudden going to abandon or lower food standards and safety. don't be silly. more remainer bull crap.

 

 

Absolutely right... we shall also be able to buy our food  on the World market and not have to pay the CAP premiums that we are currently forced to pay to support inefficient French and German farmers. Also, it should be remembered that Food Safety (as opposed to Food Security) was championed by the UK in the EU, the only danger will be if the EU decides to backslide on measures that we got through. The EU was great at adding pointless regulations on size, shape, weight etc. but clueless on Safety without UK input. The UK has the highest standards of animal husbandry anywhere in the world and I dont see that ending anytime soon,.

[keithisco]

The 2nd round of talks are happening now and hopefully on thursday, during the press conference, we might find out just what the EU is demanding from the UK in terms of the monetary Divorce Bill. Should be interesting  

[stevewinn]

2 hours ago, keithisco said:

The 2nd round of talks are happening now and hopefully on thursday, during the press conference, we might find out just what the EU is demanding from the UK in terms of the monetary Divorce Bill. Should be interesting  

We need to start asking the questions from our side, How much is this 'divorce bill' going to cost the EU, Hopefully if the EU Demand X-amount they'll also tell us what the UK is getting/entitled to. Also, What price is the EU going to pay to access the United Kingdoms single market?

What we already know is - when the UK leaves so does 16% of the EU budget. If we Leave without a deal we have no legal obligation to pay any settlement. 

The EU want money, guaranteed payments from the UK before they proceed any further with the talks. Don't be surprised if the talks stall with the UK being blamed for not giving into EU demands. - (good contest the amount starting with facts and figures,and due diligence of EU accounts which will expose massive corruption, waste and bureaucracy, it'll be like opening the EU's closet full of skeletons)  

https://twitter.com/daviddavismp?lang=en

Edited July 18, 2017 by stevewinn

[eugenonegin]

4 hours ago, stevewinn said:

We need to start asking the questions from our side, How much is this 'divorce bill' going to cost the EU, Hopefully if the EU Demand X-amount they'll also tell us what the UK is getting/entitled to. Also, What price is the EU going to pay to access the United Kingdoms single market?

What we already know is - when the UK leaves so does 16% of the EU budget. If we Leave without a deal we have no legal obligation to pay any settlement. 

The EU want money, guaranteed payments from the UK before they proceed any further with the talks. Don't be surprised if the talks stall with the UK being blamed for not giving into EU demands. - (good contest the amount starting with facts and figures,and due diligence of EU accounts which will expose massive corruption, waste and bureaucracy, it'll be like opening the EU's closet full of skeletons)  

https://twitter.com/daviddavismp?lang=en

For a start, we can sack all the UK MEPs (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/what_do_they_do.html) .  We certainly don't need them if we are leaving.

That'll be a big saving.

[keithisco]

17 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

For a start, we can sack all the UK MEPs (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/what_do_they_do.html) .  We certainly don't need them if we are leaving.

That'll be a big saving.

You actually raise a very interesting point here... the UK WILL leave on 29th March 2019 at the latest and the UK will not be fielding any candidates for the 2019 elections, but if we are saddled with a transitional arrangement AFTER 2019 then we will not have any say on new laws and regulations that could have an effect on UK goods

[stevewinn]

anecdotal account apparently one of our bosses who attend a meeting in Germany (cannot mention what industry or company for obvious reasons) but a great number of (related to that industry) businesses in the EU member countries are not happy with the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier and his approach to the talks. they think he is not looking at the 'sensible approach' and is to fixated on his main brief of punishing the UK - as to prevent other countries leaving. So the public front put on by Michel Barnier is not actually supported by those outside of the EU institution.

Also, off the record / unofficial word is in the event of a 'No Deal' WTO - The UK is not going to impose any Tariffs on imported EU goods for at least the first three years. So supply chains are unaffected and continue like we see today. As a consumer economy, importing far more than we export this approach will boost the economy as non-EU imports under WTO (prices) will fall due to the UK no longer having to impose the EU external tariff. The value of the pound versus the Euro means our exports to the EU are already cheaper than the average 4% tariff rate so any import tariff charge by the EU is mitigated and so UK exports to the EU should remain similar to today.

Its an interesting approach. and one i never thought we'd seriously consider - I was of the opinion, If the EU puts tariffs on UK goods then we put tariffs on EU goods in a tit-for-tat. but the bigger picture of the above seems to benefit us more especially the cheaper imports from non-EU countries. so as the EU trade flows so will cheaper WTO world trade the train of thought also gives rise to the strong possibility that more companies in the EU will set up in the UK, as they'll have the best of both worlds, having their cake and eating it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by stevewinn

[keithisco]

22 hours ago, stevewinn said:

anecdotal account apparently one of our bosses who attend a meeting in Germany (cannot mention what industry or company for obvious reasons) but a great number of (related to that industry) businesses in the EU member countries are not happy with the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier and his approach to the talks. they think he is not looking at the 'sensible approach' and is to fixated on his main brief of punishing the UK - as to prevent other countries leaving. So the public front put on by Michel Barnier is not actually supported by those outside of the EU institution.

Also, off the record / unofficial word is in the event of a 'No Deal' WTO - The UK is not going to impose any Tariffs on imported EU goods for at least the first three years. So supply chains are unaffected and continue like we see today. As a consumer economy, importing far more than we export this approach will boost the economy as non-EU imports under WTO (prices) will fall due to the UK no longer having to impose the EU external tariff. The value of the pound versus the Euro means our exports to the EU are already cheaper than the average 4% tariff rate so any import tariff charge by the EU is mitigated and so UK exports to the EU should remain similar to today.

Its an interesting approach. and one i never thought we'd seriously consider - I was of the opinion, If the EU puts tariffs on UK goods then we put tariffs on EU goods in a tit-for-tat. but the bigger picture of the above seems to benefit us more especially the cheaper imports from non-EU countries. so as the EU trade flows so will cheaper WTO world trade the train of thought also gives rise to the strong possibility that more companies in the EU will set up in the UK, as they'll have the best of both worlds, having their cake and eating it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

 

I would add to that my experiences talking to my Spanish friends in Madrid...they are fairly fuming with Barnier "winging" his negotiations beyond that which the EU27 had originally agreed. There was no mention of the European Courts holding sway over the UK after Brexit. Apparently it was something mooted by France and Germany but was never voted or agreed on.

Spain most definitely does not want to lose its preferential trading terms with the UK on its cars, fruit and veg or to alienate its tourist trade.and are pointing to Hotel investment and new builds being put on hold until a deal is struck-which they will vote against if it in any way effects their fragile economy. The Visegrad group (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) have also been at work behind the scenes holding a number of unofficial meetings with Spanish emissaries and I am told to expect at least one extraordinary meeting between them and the EU negotiators.

On todays news: bit of a damp squib really-I was hoping to see what the EU version of the Divorce Bill was going to be, but in the end Barnier (despite the EU being "fully prepared") didnt have a figure to give but instead insisted that the UK declare what it is prepared to pay!! Sorry Barnier, if you think there is a bill to be paid then YOU present it and the UK will then consider whether or not it is reasonable...Perhaps we will get more detail next week

  

[Space Commander Travis]

 Pf course, the Spanish govt. might well have an interest of their own in seeing that it's made as difficult as possible to slip the loving embrace of the EU, so as to discourage others from trying mightn't they, Keith, in view of the fact that not inconsiderable portions of Spain might be encouraged to attempt, through legal means this time, to break away from the motherland... 

[stevewinn]

54 minutes ago, keithisco said:

I would add to that my experiences talking to my Spanish friends in Madrid...they are fairly fuming with Barnier "winging" his negotiations beyond that which the EU27 had originally agreed. There was no mention of the European Courts holding sway over the UK after Brexit. Apparently it was something mooted by France and Germany but was never voted or agreed on.

Spain most definitely does not want to lose its preferential trading terms with the UK on its cars, fruit and veg or to alienate its tourist trade.and are pointing to Hotel investment and new builds being put on hold until a deal is struck-which they will vote against if it in any way effects their fragile economy. The Visegrad group (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) have also been at work behind the scenes holding a number of unofficial meetings with Spanish emissaries and I am told to expect at least one extraordinary meeting between them and the EU negotiators.

On todays news: bit of a damp squib really-I was hoping to see what the EU version of the Divorce Bill was going to be, but in the end Barnier (despite the EU being "fully prepared") didnt have a figure to give but instead insisted that the UK declare what it is prepared to pay!! Sorry Barnier, if you think there is a bill to be paid then YOU present it and the UK will then consider whether or not it is reasonable...Perhaps we will get more detail next week

  

interesting accounts starting to emerge now from member states, it was always going to happen, if Barnier puts the political survival of the EU above before all else not taking individual members interests and economic logic into account then trouble lay ahead for the EU.

As for Barnier and the divorce Bill, The reason he cannot give us a figure is because there is no legal basis, according to the EU's own legal team and our own House of Lords, Article 50 itself makes it clear on leaving we have no legal obligations. That is why Barnier is hell bent on getting money, he and the EU know come March 2019 we can walk away and no money paid. the clock monsieur Barnier hears ticking is the EU's time running out.

We need to highlight the starting position on the Divorce Bill. The Divorce Bill does not exist, our legal obligation on leaving is Zero. where is our British Media asking and pointing out this information? Their to busy going along with whatever the EU says without question and expect our country to kowtow in the same manner.

 

 

.

[eugenonegin]

13 hours ago, stevewinn said:

interesting accounts starting to emerge now from member states, it was always going to happen, if Barnier puts the political survival of the EU above before all else not taking individual members interests and economic logic into account then trouble lay ahead for the EU.

As for Barnier and the divorce Bill, The reason he cannot give us a figure is because there is no legal basis, according to the EU's own legal team and our own House of Lords, Article 50 itself makes it clear on leaving we have no legal obligations. That is why Barnier is hell bent on getting money, he and the EU know come March 2019 we can walk away and no money paid. the clock monsieur Barnier hears ticking is the EU's time running out.

We need to highlight the starting position on the Divorce Bill. The Divorce Bill does not exist, our legal obligation on leaving is Zero. where is our British Media asking and pointing out this information? Their to busy going along with whatever the EU says without question and expect our country to kowtow in the same manner.

 

 

.

No to both.

The UK is leaving a huge economic bloc with enormous trading power.

It is reported today that EU migration won't stop for 3 or 4 years at least, after Brexit. Most probably, never, as there are so many "Remoaners" in government.

When we get down to the nitty-gritty, sorting out where our various industries locate (such industries as we still have), there will be so many individual deals done that the Post-Brexit UK will be indistinguishable from the Ante-Brexit UK.

The disadvantage will be we will have lost goodwill.

But on the other hand, the UK will have shown some backbone and we may have more clout- as long as we still have a negotiating position within the EU.

 

[stevewinn]

5 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

No to both.

The UK is leaving a huge economic bloc with enormous trading power.

It is reported today that EU migration won't stop for 3 or 4 years at least, after Brexit. Most probably, never, as there are so many "Remoaners" in government.

When we get down to the nitty-gritty, sorting out where our various industries locate (such industries as we still have), there will be so many individual deals done that the Post-Brexit UK will be indistinguishable from the Ante-Brexit UK.

The disadvantage will be we will have lost goodwill.

But on the other hand, the UK will have shown some backbone and we may have more clout- as long as we still have a negotiating position within the EU.

 

If we leave with no trade deal the UK will still trade with the EU, Its a fallacy to think otherwise. - The UK's biggest single biggest trading partner is the USA the UK does not have a trade agreement with the US.

As for reports of EU migration continuing for 3 to four years. in the context of your point: The official response: Downing Street dismissed the reports and said it was not the government's position.

further on the point of immigration, of course EU citizens will still come to the UK after Brexit, just like citizens of the world currently do, EU citizens will just have to face the same requirements as everyone else. Which will stop the discrimination against non-EU citizens.

On the Nitty-gritty, Its public knowledge, UK civil servants involved in Brexit are doing a sterling job, having positions and counter positions on every EU position, trouble is the EU are being caught on the hop with such detailed questioning by the UK's representatives. (civil service) The UK turned up with 98 Civil servants (Brexit team)

The picture below was used by our own anti-Brexit Media stating the UK was not prepared, because on the face of it The EU side have papers/folders a mound of bureaucracy. The UK side looks/is empty handed. Difference is or what the picture doesn't tell you is, the UK is negotiating from a single position and as a result our representatives know their brief; The EU on the other hand have 27 differing positions, and represented by not individual member civil servants but by EU apparatchiks. That picture sums up perfectly for me what the UK is leaving behind levels and levels, pages and pages of bureaucracy. 

 

 

 

 

[keithisco]

21 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

 Pf course, the Spanish govt. might well have an interest of their own in seeing that it's made as difficult as possible to slip the loving embrace of the EU, so as to discourage others from trying mightn't they, Keith, in view of the fact that not inconsiderable portions of Spain might be encouraged to attempt, through legal means this time, to break away from the motherland... 

I think that "bogeyman" for Spain was put to bed a long time ago when Nicola Sturgeon suggested that an Independent Scotland would have immediate rights to re-join the EU, and she was told in no uncertain terms that they would have to "join the queue"- and neither did they meet the convergence criteria with the debts that Scotland is running under the SNP's watch.

 

[RAyMO]

Looks like full brexit is likely to be stalled with the cabinet pretty clear that a transition or implementation phase will be needed - anything from 2-5 years.

As to the divorce bill it looks like the cabinet accept there will be costs.

does this transition period present problems to Brexiteers - increasing the possibility of a fudged Brexit? or something called Brexit that is not actually Brexit?

Edited July 23, 2017 by RAyMO

[stevewinn]

57 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Looks like full brexit is likely to be stalled with the cabinet pretty clear that a transition or implementation phase will be needed - anything from 2-5 years.

As to the divorce bill it looks like the cabinet accept there will be costs.

does this transition period present problems to Brexiteers - increasing the possibility of a fudged Brexit? or something called Brexit that is not actually Brexit?

We have to be clear what a transition period actually means. If it means the UK has to remain part of EU institutions then that's not Brexit, and our democratic system will have to be questioned, even the majority of remainers at the end of the day believe in Democracy over a foreign political system/union and if Democracy is thwarted then rebellion will be on the cards. (through the ballot box, and whichever party it is will be finished, go out of existence)

As for the Divorce Bill; It doesn't exist, The demands for payment from the EU have no legal basis whatsoever. Our House of Lords and the EU's own legal team have stated there is no legal basis. the UK's commitments on the day we leave is ZERO.  The EU demand money because the UK represents 16% of the EU's budget. if that money stops instantly then the EU is in trouble, its why the EU wants to secure the sum of money up front, they want the UK to tell them how much were willing to pay, but equally the EU wont tell us what they'd give us in return. -

House of Lords report.

 

Quote

 

However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong.

Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement

is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend

negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that

if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning

ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease

to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make

any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining

Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget

created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage

the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the

ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring

financial commitments provides an important context.

 

 

On the matter of the 'Divorce Bill'  we where told the UK's annual contribution to the EU is €12Billion, But the EU is asking for €100Billion to cover the next 5 years that's €20Billion per year have they inadvertently highlighted the true cost of UK membership? 

If their is a transition phase on say goods and services then that would be acceptable, if however that means EU institutions remain that to me as a Brexiteer would not be acceptable - with that said, i also realise during these negotiations there are going to have to be elements which i don't agree with but will accept.

[RAyMO]

according to the most recent update on the talks:

Britain has agreed in principle to meet its financial obligations as it leaves the EU, to cover things like the cost of relocating London-based EU agencies and the pensions of EU officials.

source

Well the size of the bill has not been agreed but the principle has been conceeded.

I read Liam Fox is saying he believes any transition period should end by 2022 before the next general election. Is he implicity stating the Brexit may not survive a general election after the details are agreed and known?

 

Edited July 23, 2017 by RAyMO

[keithisco]

3 hours ago, RAyMO said:

according to the most recent update on the talks:

Britain has agreed in principle to meet its financial obligations as it leaves the EU, to cover things like the cost of relocating London-based EU agencies and the pensions of EU officials.

source

Well the size of the bill has not been agreed but the principle has been conceeded.

I read Liam Fox is saying he believes any transition period should end by 2022 before the next general election. Is he implicity stating the Brexit may not survive a general election after the details are agreed and known?

 

It would help if you sourced information that corroborates what you say. That editorial is fairly old-hat and is the BBC's interpretation that simply does not have any substance. In the EU's Position Paper on the financial settlement they demand that the UK pays ALL of the costs for relocating the 2 agencies (Medical and Financial) including paying for new premises somewhere in Continental EU. This I would agree to if the UK demanded that they be relocated-the UK has not

Equally, in the Position Paper, the EU demands that the UK pays ALL of the costs of the exit negotiations (which of course includes any plenary sessions held by the EU27 to discuss Brekit... again I do not accept that we are liable because it represents a blank-cheque for their hopeless bureaucracy to rack up undefined expenses.

I totally agree that any commitments made by the UK up to and including March 30th remain vaild, however, any other commitments that were not to be delivered after this date is solely the responsibility of the EU27. If we chose to remain in certain Scientific, Educational, and Trade bodies then we would pay for that (as we do now). No issue there. What I do have issue with are the other 2 pages in the Position Paper telling us we have to pay for such things as the Cohesion fund, payments to Turkey for migration favours, European Development Fund, European Defense Agency, European Union Institute for Security Studies, European Union Satellite Centre and many more-from which we will get no benefit.

Link to EU27 Financial Position Paper

[stevewinn]

4 hours ago, RAyMO said:

according to the most recent update on the talks:

Britain has agreed in principle to meet its financial obligations as it leaves the EU, to cover things like the cost of relocating London-based EU agencies and the pensions of EU officials.

source

Well the size of the bill has not been agreed but the principle has been conceeded.

I read Liam Fox is saying he believes any transition period should end by 2022 before the next general election. Is he implicity stating the Brexit may not survive a general election after the details are agreed and known?

 

On the point of financial obligations, the only legal obligations the UK has is up-until the time we leave. After that there is no Legal obligations whatsoever for any kind of payment. Any payments are therefore outside of this and are not legal obligations but goodwill.

Lancaster house speech, Government white paper and our Article 50 letter to the EU state our position.

Article 50 letter in full. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604079/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf

Quote

We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU

In accordance with the Law, are obligations are Zero and any payments will be in the spirit of the UK's post-Brexit partnership with the EU.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2017 by stevewinn

[Space Commander Travis]

21 hours ago, RAyMO said:

Looks like full brexit is likely to be stalled with the cabinet pretty clear that a transition or implementation phase will be needed - anything from 2-5 years.

As to the divorce bill it looks like the cabinet accept there will be costs.

does this transition period present problems to Brexiteers - increasing the possibility of a fudged Brexit? or something called Brexit that is not actually Brexit?

Mmmm, a fudge Brexit. 

[Space Commander Travis]

20 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached

Really? Well, that is good news. Good to see that the French seem to have made provision to reintroduce that method of dealing with recalcitrant politicians. Who do you think out to be first in line? Mr. Tusk? Ms. May if she continues to do nothing but shout "Brexit is Brexit!" without coming up with any actual plans? 

[stevewinn]

 

Also,

 

Quote

 

Brexit: UK-EU freedom of movement 'to end in March 2019'

Free movement of people between the EU and UK will end in March 2019, UK government ministers have said.

From that date EU workers moving to the UK will have to register, at least until a permanent post-Brexit immigration policy is put in place.

But Home Secretary Amber Rudd has sought to reassure business there will not be a "cliff edge" in terms of employing foreign workers after Brexit.

She said policy would be evidence-based and take into account economic impact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40734504

 

Also,
 

Quote

 

Brexit Negotiations.

A report in the Telegraph which said Mr Barnier had told a private meeting of ambassadors that the next phase of negotiations would be delayed by two months because of the wrangle over how much the UK owes the bloc.

The report said Mr Barnier had claimed the EU would not talk about trade or the UK's future relationship with Brussels until "sufficient progress" had been made on the other "divorce" issues. European Commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva would not be drawn on what was said at the meeting with ambassadors.

 

Its clear, the only concern for the EU is money. - That is why most Brexiteers have said concentrate on other trade deals with the numerous willing countries from around the world. and go WTO rules with the EU. with no deal we have no legal obligations to pay a penny of the EU demands. and that's the trouble. No-one as ever told the EU NO!

On trade: The UK wants a Free Trade deal with the EU, they don't want one with us, We want to keep trading with the likes of German car makers, French wine makers, Danish pork farmers, Dutch fishermen, florists,  trouble is where the UK wants to Leave the political project and continue with good relations and sustain a stable economy not just for the UK but also with our friends and allies such as the Dutch etc the EU on the other hand just want to punish the UK, and that's fine, let them punish the UK, Where big enough to take it and brush it off but when they are also punishing their own members, - members who have long historic trade and co-operation with the UK which pre-dates the EU. then they lose out, It simply highlights what we in the UK realised long ago the EU does not represent its members interests.

So, when the talks stall or no deal is achieved I hope the people of Denmark, Netherlands etc... know who to blame - and that's the problem with the EU and trade, in these negotiations The UK is represented by UK politicians with the UK interests at heart. the poor Dutch, Danish etc... are represented by non-Dutch or Danish politicians but by Europhiles who care little for your country.  

Its up to the Member states, such as Ireland, France, Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands, etc... to lobby Michel Barnier in the interests of your citizens and country.