par13del wrote:

Well, the EU and Spain already have an agreement on Gibraltar who is also by some UK standards and integral part of the UK, so the difference is?????

I've probably missed something, but what's the post-Brexit agreement between gibraltar and EU/Spain? The last thing I heard was that the matter wasn't resolved.

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

What Davis mean is; I know I spread BS but the DUP got my government by the balls.

Well, the EU and Spain already have an agreement on Gibraltar who is also by some UK standards and integral part of the UK, so the difference is?????

Do you really know what you are talking about? Or do you even read what you post?
There is nothing agreed to by the EU and the UK regarding Spain. If there is, please post the agreement.
Secondly, there is already a "hard" border between Gibraltar and Spain. Could you please tell me where it is between the ROI and NI. I must have missed the last time I was there.

par13del wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-gibraltar/eu-offers-spain-veto-right-over-gibraltar-in-brexit-talks-idUSKBN1722AS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... gotiations
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 59656.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39453535

And your point is?

There is nothing in writing agreed to yet. None of your links support what you have written as fact.

And, what does that have to do with the border in ROI/NI? I'm still waiting for the location of it!!

Ireland and Spain and EU members, due to NI and Gibraltar, Brexit does create some challenges and in some quarters opportunities for them, good bad or indifferent, that's is all the post was addressing.
As seen in this thread, the ramifications of Brexit goes beyond just the leaving, there is the bar bill, honoring commitments, whether one can be trusted to honor commitment going forward, legal system not up to snuff, how it affects Gibraltar, status of NI and the DUP not wanting a hard border, etc etc etc

mmo wrote:

And, what does that have to do with the border in ROI/NI? I'm still waiting for the location of it!!

It has to do with the post which quotes Davis talking about Brexit not having anything to do with the UK being a sovereign nation etc etc etc.
It was in that regard if the EU and Spain are already talking about Spain having a veto what is the difference with Ireland getting the same.....
No one said there was a hard border in Ireland, we are discussing the option of not having one while leaving the common market.

You seem to have a strange idea of Gibraltar and Spain. There is a physical border between the two and if the rules are relaxed for now, it is just because the EU made that a condition for Spain to join the EU. What do you think could happen when Gibraltar leaves the EU with the UK ? If Spain want to close that border (and shut down that scam taxes area) I very much doubt that EU oppose to that

Olddog wrote:

You seem to have a strange idea of Gibraltar and Spain. There is a physical border between the two and if the rules are relaxed for now, it is just because the EU made that a condition for Spain to join the EU. What do you think could happen when Gibraltar leaves the EU with the UK ? If Spain want to close that border (and shut down that scam taxes area) I very much doubt that EU oppose to that

Quite agree, and in relation to the (scam tax area) if they put more effort behind it the extra long lines at the border on days when they have increased inspections could become permanent in which case both sides would come to an agreement much quicker.
The naval incursions are not having the desired effect.

LONDON (Reuters) - Forty members of parliament from Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party have agreed to sign a letter of no-confidence in her, the Sunday Times newspaper reported.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN1DB0UC

So still a mess in UK politics, not good at this time of a decisive time for the UK for the next 25 years or so.

I quite enjoy the debate about the integrity of the UK in the same week that many UK dependencies with various provisions made specifically so that they're the UK without being the UK are in the news for helping all kinds of financial tax avoidance schemes.

Aesma wrote:

I quite enjoy the debate about the integrity of the UK in the same week that many UK dependencies with various provisions made specifically so that they're the UK without being the UK are in the news for helping all kinds of financial tax avoidance schemes.

An issue which can derail this thread, but in general, two things:
1. All the funds put in these tax havens are not shipped out by boat or some non-descript aircraft in the dead of night, they are sent out by the financial institutions of the UK and various other member nation banks using financial transfer mechanisms created and invented by the developed world to more closely control the developing world, all about control.

2. The one honest statement in the whole issue is tax avoidance, no one ask why decent UK citizens are voluntarily shipping their funds out, not wanting to pay their fair share of tax and lack the intellectual capacity to put mechanisms in place to ensure funds are not shipped out.
As they are all mighty, it is easier to play victim and hold others accountable, after all, you have to see and live with these people every day.

However, as it relates to Brexit, the principle is the same, deflect away from the core issues which from day one has not changed and all sides just dance around it. A vote was given in a form that they never expected to loose. The EU has its 4 pillars never to be broken, so what offer do they expect from the UK. The UK keeps harping on trade talks while not wanting the 4 pillars which come with trade. The EU wants a divorce payment which is not necessary for trade but has to be paid before trade discussions can be held, and everyday everyone is told how important EU /UK relations are to everyone.

Logically TM made one wrong decision by trying to have a balanced cabinet between leave and remain, to be sarcastic, in the same way that after an election, the government is evenly split between the opposition and the winning party, oh wait....
She is the PM and we have to accept her word that she wants to do what she thinks is best for the country, however, they gave the people a choice and as public servants, even if they have to hold their nose.... if you cannot do that don't take the job.

Reading the UK press on-line every day is a never ending entertainment.

Olddog wrote:

Reading the UK press on-line every day is a never ending entertainment.

English media will cause the breakup of uk in the way they act. Not only leaving EU.

Such egocentric and unpatriotic!

Should be fun to see what the RoI parliament think of the deal UK is suggesting. Unless UK has already forgotten they their agreement ....

olle wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Reading the UK press on-line every day is a never ending entertainment.

English media will cause the breakup of uk in the way they act. Not only leaving EU.

Such egocentric and unpatriotic!

Why is it unpatriotic?

The majority of them do want Brexit to be reversed, and they only do that because they believe that's the best thing for their country. That's very patriotic from their point of view.

Eyad89 wrote:

Why is it unpatriotic?

The majority of them do want Brexit to be reversed, and they only do that because they believe that's for the best of the country. That's very patriotic from their point of view.

How does the referendum vote factor into this logic, a genuine question. Parliament gave the vote in their fashion and decided that they would implement the result.

Aesma wrote:

I quite enjoy the debate about the integrity of the UK in the same week that many UK dependencies with various provisions made specifically so that they're the UK without being the UK are in the news for helping all kinds of financial tax avoidance schemes.

As such we should welcome the Brexit (and especially a hard Brexit). The UK has always protected these tax havens to the point that it ensured that its depenencies wouldn't be put on an EU black list or at least have some exemptions. Now with the UK leaving the EU, they lost this protection and in the end this will mean the end of a lot of tax avoidance schemes as being on the black list will make money transfers (without being identified) from the EU to these tax havens more difficult. Also not a good sign for Malta, Luxembourg and The Netherlands as they loose a good ally on this subject.

Oh I'm sure the EU will find exemptions for it's beloved son of Luxembourg.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Oh I'm sure the EU will find exemptions for it's beloved son of Luxembourg.

Which is the whole point of tax havens, ensure that the haves can secure their funds from the tax man, and when the masses get up in arms ensure that you can join the marches as one of them while slamming the foreign and ungrateful minions who continue to thwart the will of the people by having these ungodly lax rules that allow all and sundry to hide money and avoid their fair share of tax. Shame on them...

LJ wrote:

The UK has always protected these tax havens to the point that it ensured that its depenencies wouldn't be put on an EU black list or at least have some exemptions.

Bermuda an Turks are full UK colonies, and even though they have some independence, they did find a way to remove a corrupt PM in Turks so I think they could find a way to kill the tax shelter schemes. On the other hand one has to ask why the UK put all manner of rules and regulations on them, then place their funds in independent countries Barbados for example while using various UN, EU and USA constructs to restrict the movement an increase information sharing for things originating within the UK and EU, I suspect in general the information gathering is illegal at home or would face stiff opposition if put into local law.

Oh and they have been on EU blacklist, it was the hammer to get the information sharing agreements, not much about inbound transfers, after all, why would the locals want to know the origin of money coming into the economy.

We just learned from Barnier today in the Journal du Dimanche, that the EU started to prepare for a no deal and from El Pais that a second EU team was secretly created some time ago to work on that case.

PS Junker will be history next year, so Luxembourg protection....

Edit: Found an english link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... el-barnier

On the EU side that should be easy, both sides already have mechanisms in place for non-EU trade, the share of the budget can be distributed evenly or projects reduced or time frames lengthened, all other EU rules, laws and regulations will remain unchanged. Increased tariffs on UK goods into the EU will offset some of the financial shortfalls.
Dealing with third nation citizens is also something that both sides already do today, many non-EU nationals are living and working in the UK and the EU for many years, so in reality only the little details have to be worked out, the fundamental principles are already in place.

Yes but you need to also create all the procedures and paperwork for the remaining trade with the UK. France for example will need to recruit custom agents, and the shortest formation for a new agent is 2 years. And I don't talk about the new infrastructures needed.

par13del wrote:

Oh and they have been on EU blacklist, it was the hammer to get the information sharing agreements, not much about inbound transfers, after all, why would the locals want to know the origin of money coming into the economy.

But that was before the release of the "Panama Papers" and now "Paradise Papers". At present, the focus is on extremely low (or no) corporate tax rate and transferability laws.

Olddog wrote:

We just learned from Barnier today in the Journal du Dimanche, that the EU started to prepare for a no deal and from El Pais that a second EU team was secretly created some time ago to work on that case.

It would be very stupid not to have a team preparing for a hard Brexit. Not only because one needs a contingency plan, but also to counter a blackmail opportunity by your opponent. However, the question arises if this leak is intentional. This surely sends a message to the UK team.

Olddog wrote:

Yes but you need to also create all the procedures and paperwork for the remaining trade with the UK. France for example will need to recruit custom agents, and the shortest formation for a new agent is 2 years. And I don't talk about the new infrastructures needed.

Hence the reason why the creators of Article 50 established a 24 month period, if only those who were put in place to implement such things would follow their mandates.
Lucky for everyone the UK is an island nation so closing the border with them is easier than France other land borders, for a time they can also enforce a minimum number ports of entry for goods by sea, however, the two year transition period being talked about is not to get infrastructure in place but to find a way to negate Brexit, so time will tell.

LJ wrote:

It would be very stupid not to have a team preparing for a hard Brexit. Not only because one needs a contingency plan, but also to counter a blackmail opportunity by your opponent. However, the question arises if this leak is intentional. This surely sends a message to the UK team.

Well on the UK side, they had a chancellor who only wanted such as a last resort and refused initially to fund such plans, so..............

Olddog wrote:

Reading the UK press on-line every day is a never ending entertainment.

If I was Prime Minister. I would resign. Force an election let Corbyn win. Then say over to you Jeremy.

Result will be a disaster and Tories will be back in 5 years time, Labour will be out of power for a generation.

I never understood why the UK did not try to built a bipartisan team after the referendum. Both party were pro-brexit and the UK could have been in a way more powerful position to negotiate with the EU.

As a side positive effect: https://www.politico.eu/article/federic ... es-sign-up

Twenty-three countries have declared they will participate in a new EU defense cooperation pact, part of a broader push to advance European integration, officials said Monday.

France and Germany proposed the initiative last year as part of their efforts to breathe new life into the European project after Britain voted to leave the bloc.

Britain’s impending departure made it easier to get the project off the ground as London has traditionally been skeptical about EU military cooperation, seeing NATO as the main vehicle for common European defense efforts.

“It’s going to be quite a historic day for European defense,” EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told reporters before the meeting in Brussels at which ministers approved the plan.

Olddog wrote:

I never understood why the UK did not try to built a bipartisan team after the referendum. Both party were pro-brexit and the UK could have been in a way more powerful position to negotiate with the EU.

Both parties were again Brexit and campaigned against it. But indeed a bipartisan team would have been better at this point, now they have to deal with internal politics as well as the Brexit. May is a weak PM on top of that, so internal party politics as well.

Dano1977 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Reading the UK press on-line every day is a never ending entertainment.

If I was Prime Minister. I would resign. Force an election let Corbyn win. Then say over to you Jeremy.

Result will be a disaster and Tories will be back in 5 years time, Labour will be out of power for a generation.

That is quite a cynical way to look at politics. You might be right that it is best for the conservative party, but is it the best course for Brittian? 1,5years are gone after the referendum, if there is a new snap election, then 1 year of the two years of Brexit negotiations are lost, because of the Torries.

Dano1977 wrote:

If I was Prime Minister. I would resign. Force an election let Corbyn win. Then say over to you Jeremy.

Result will be a disaster and Tories will be back in 5 years time, Labour will be out of power for a generation.

I see a lot of merit in that.

That said, Brexit was/is/will remain a Tory legacy issue. If Jeremy stays in the single market, the Brexiteers won't forgive the Tories for bungling two elections. If he leaves and the economy crashes, the younger generation will blame it on the Tories decision to jeopardize the economy through the referendum. They're unlikely to flock to the conservatives.

May would be better off handing the reins to Fox/Gove/Boris. The Tories hopes rely on the immediate socio-economic consequences being tolerable. The Brexiteers appear to sincerely believe they can deliver that. If they can't, Labour are a shoo-in anyway.

I think the Tories are heading for their own GOP moment. Brexit has cemented a split between the populists, leaning in one direction (low-mobility, low-education), and the intellectuals, leaning in the other (high mobility, high education). Going to be interesting.

I personally prefer a no-deal Brexit since it's the most effective way of putting responsibility where it belongs. But then again, I tended to view Brexit as a source of absurdist entertainment. Now I feel pity for my British friends (Remainers and Leavers alike) because this just doesn't look like it's going to end well for anyone.

Dutchy wrote:

Both parties were again Brexit and campaigned against it. But indeed a bipartisan team would have been better at this point, now they have to deal with internal politics as well as the Brexit. May is a weak PM on top of that, so internal party politics as well.

I think you did not follow closely the campaign:
Corbyn was/is pro brexit as a huge part of labour voters outside London.
Cameron made a funny campaign as his attempt at blackmail the EU in February were not as successful as he hoped and his bitterness was obvious for all.

Olddog wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Both parties were again Brexit and campaigned against it. But indeed a bipartisan team would have been better at this point, now they have to deal with internal politics as well as the Brexit. May is a weak PM on top of that, so internal party politics as well.

I think you did not follow closely the campaign:
Corbyn was/is pro brexit as a huge part of labour voters outside London.
Cameron made a funny campaign as his attempt at blackmail the EU in February were not as successful as he hoped and his bitterness was obvious for all.

Huh? I was intrigued. Labour was against Brexit and the Tories were neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... 6#Campaign

The chances of the Conservative Party entering into some kind of bi-partisan agreement with a a man they condemned for his links to IRA supporting politicians, the Assad regime and Iranian state TV were less than John Lennon coming back from the dead.

Although that sentiment is probably the same on the Labour side.

So, the UK has now to get a deal approved with the EU and then Parliament. I can see this going horribly wrong. Again.

The lack of leadership from the UK is evident. Even more concerning is that lack of an alternative leader from within the conservatives that can unite the country. The last thing the UK needs at present is an ideologue from Labour.

This could be a total disaster for the UK and a mess in europe.

Make Boris the PM!!

Yes please, we need more fun

Dutchy wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Both parties were again Brexit and campaigned against it. But indeed a bipartisan team would have been better at this point, now they have to deal with internal politics as well as the Brexit. May is a weak PM on top of that, so internal party politics as well.

I think you did not follow closely the campaign:
Corbyn was/is pro brexit as a huge part of labour voters outside London.
Cameron made a funny campaign as his attempt at blackmail the EU in February were not as successful as he hoped and his bitterness was obvious for all.

Huh? I was intrigued. Labour was against Brexit and the Tories were neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... 6#Campaign

Corbyn is an old leftie that sees the EU as an evil corporate racket (which has some truth to it). Which is in contrast to the Eurosceptic tories who see the EU as an evil commie racket (which also has some truth).

Back in the day the tories were the most pro-EU (trade, business and so on) while Labour were opposed for precisely the same reasons. Now that the EU has taken a social tint on top of that, the roles have somehow reversed, but there's support and rejection of the EU across both major parties.

Ah ok, yo mean Corbyn himself, not the Labor party.

Corbyn and his team of nervis Momentum

Now it seems Mr Bloomberg has altered his stance... BBC report..

"Michael Bloomberg, the businessman and former New York mayor, said London will remain a global financial capital after Brexit.
He told the BBC that the UK's departure from the EU would probably slow the capital's growth, but would not see it eclipsed by a European rival.
London's benefits were its culture and the English language, Mr Bloomberg said.
Recently he called Brexit the "single dumbest thing" a country has ever done.

Mr Bloomberg, whose data terminals are used by many dealers and bankers, last week opened a new European headquarters in London between the Bank of England and St Paul's Cathedral.
The 3.2 acre site has more than one million square feet of office space.
Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme if he would have gone ahead with the major development had be known about the Brexit decision, Mr Bloomberg said: "There's just no question in my mind ... [we] absolutely would have because London is always going to be the financial centre of Europe for the foreseeable future."

There were some cons......

"However, he said the growth rate of the capital as a financial centre would be restrained as a result of the Brexit vote: "Some jobs will move, although they may very well be replaced here, but the growth rate of London a s a financial centre is certainly not what it would be if Brexit doesn't take place."
Mr Bloomberg added: "New York is the financial centre of the United States. London is the financial centre of Europe. It's going to stay that way for a long time."

LAH1 wrote:

Now it seems Mr Bloomberg has altered his stance... BBC report..

"Michael Bloomberg, the businessman and former New York mayor, said London will remain a global financial capital after Brexit.
He told the BBC that the UK's departure from the EU would probably slow the capital's growth, but would not see it eclipsed by a European rival.
London's benefits were its culture and the English language, Mr Bloomberg said.
Recently he called Brexit the "single dumbest thing" a country has ever done.

Mr Bloomberg, whose data terminals are used by many dealers and bankers, last week opened a new European headquarters in London between the Bank of England and St Paul's Cathedral.
The 3.2 acre site has more than one million square feet of office space.
Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme if he would have gone ahead with the major development had be known about the Brexit decision, Mr Bloomberg said: "There's just no question in my mind ... [we] absolutely would have because London is always going to be the financial centre of Europe for the foreseeable future."

There were some cons......

"However, he said the growth rate of the capital as a financial centre would be restrained as a result of the Brexit vote: "Some jobs will move, although they may very well be replaced here, but the growth rate of London a s a financial centre is certainly not what it would be if Brexit doesn't take place."
Mr Bloomberg added: "New York is the financial centre of the United States. London is the financial centre of Europe. It's going to stay that way for a long time."

No, he hasn't. He's simply reiterated a point that some misinterpret because they don't understand it.

Nobody expects any other European city to eclipse London as a financial centre. Just about everyone expects them to take some jobs that might have gone to London in a pre-Brexit era.

As is the case with UK economic growth, the real cost of Brexit is the delta between what would have occurred if Brexit hadn't taken place, and what happens after Brexit takes place. London will remain a financial capital, but like the UK, it won't do as well as it should be doing.

There is an economic cost associated with say, getting only 2000 new City jobs instead of 5000. However, the Brexit crowd will hail that as a success, while Bloomberg et al will contend that missing out on the extra 3000 jobs that would have gone to the City under virtually any other circumstances, amounts to a failure. It's the same thing with the economy - Brexiteers hail anaemic growth in an era in which it should be doing a lot, lot better given the upswing in the global economy (everyone else is doing even better - rising tide lifts all boats and all that).

There's probably some emotional merit in pretending that these types of scraps amount to a feast by virtue of being >0, but that doesn't alter the fact that any self-inflicted decision that forces you to feed on scraps instead of a feast you could have had, is a stupid decision to begin with.

Which, I believe, has been Mr. Bloomberg's point all along.

Culture and English Language. Well culture also meant that qualified persons from other countries could easily immigrate to the UK and work in London - post Brexit that might be different.

Not sure if the links are in this thread but EU officials have already been talking about English being less important after the UK leaves, so if they can pass rules / regulations on a carbon trading scheme that other countries had to follow - whether it stayed does not change the fact that they passed and implemented - so they could eliminate the english language from anything official EU if they so desired.

As for the price of Brexit, not sure anyone has really gone to those who voted in favour and asked how much they are willing to give up / loose to reclaim their "independence".

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... nguage.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... nguage.svg

Which one was less important again?

To whom, the world map or the 27 Nations who make up the exclusive club called the EU, which is one of the largest trading groups in the world.
The EU as stated in this thread and others, has integrated their way of life into their trading scheme, as some stated to prevent conflict again, is there anyone else in the rest of the world who have done similar?
Based on the size of the map, they are punching well above their weight, English is important to the rest of the world, the EU can well make it less important to them, that is all I am saying.

They can not eliminate English as an official EU language as it remains an official language of Malta and the working language of Ireland.

Well we could eliminate Malta from the EU, it would solve a shit load of scams

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Countries_with_English_as_Official_Language.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... nguage.svg

Which one was less important again?

I didn't think the US had an official language. For political reasons Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia don't have French as an official language but in practice it's another story.

Sounds a bit like wishful thinking by the Brits, as English is and will be the working language of the EU, as most people do speak it.