EU watchdog tells banks to get ready for full Brexit

LONDON (Reuters) - Banks using Britain as a gateway to the European Union must fully execute their plans for serving the bloc’s customers before a Brexit transition period ends in December, the EU’s banking watchdog said on Wednesday.

Britain left the EU in January and financial firms continue to have unfettered access the bloc under transition arrangements that end on December 31.

Many big banks have already opened up hubs in the bloc to continue serving customers there. The European Banking Authority said that these banks must now finalise the “full execution” of their Brexit plans, as agreed in their new licences.

“In particular, financial institutions should ensure that associated management capacity, including appropriate technical risk management capabilities, is effectively placed ahead of time,” EBA said.

Next step coming as previously posted. The real Brexit fight will be here.

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Breaking down the language barrier as you put it is simply impossible. Freedom of movement is an individual right but it's something you have to undertake on your own. If you're going to move somewhere keep in mind you're moving to a different culture, a different language and you should plan accordingly.

You shouldn't have to learn it (especially if you're only going to be there for a while) but it will limit your interactions.

And it's not just national languages. Regional/minority languages are extremely strong in some areas. No EU official language is going to make national/regional languages go away.

And aside from that, English is a de facto lingua franca everywhere, with French and Spanish in some places too. Are there kids in the EU that don't learn English ?

Yes, you can use your English skills to order a pizza anywhere in Europe. But have you ever tried running a business in a non-English speaking country in English? You are at a major disadvantage if you get anything done at all. Compare that to India where English is an official language.

This is also why it is easier for the UK to attract talent from all over the world. And the UK will keep, or even capitalize on this advantage after Brexit.

So I say, break down the language barrier and make English an official language in every EU member state.

Making English official won't do anything about daily use.

Look at the situation of Irish language in Ireland. It's official, mandatory for public servants yet outside of a few pockets extremely limited.

bennett123 wrote:

So far as I see, no FTA have been signed with Japan or New Zealand yet.

Furthermore, there is no confirmation from either country and no indication what the terms will be.

The one with Japan is upcoming

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/uk-close-to-securing-post-brexit-continuity-trade-deal-with-japan

However, it apparantly almost copy paste with the one Japan concluded wiith the EU.

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

And aside from that, English is a de facto lingua franca everywhere, with French and Spanish in some places too. Are there kids in the EU that don't learn English ?

Yes, you can use your English skills to order a pizza anywhere in Europe. But have you ever tried running a business in a non-English speaking country in English? You are at a major disadvantage if you get anything done at all. Compare that to India where English is an official language.

This is also why it is easier for the UK to attract talent from all over the world. And the UK will keep, or even capitalize on this advantage after Brexit.

So I say, break down the language barrier and make English an official language in every EU member state.

Making English official won't do anything about daily use.

Look at the situation of Irish language in Ireland. It's official, mandatory for public servants yet outside of a few pockets extremely limited.

It's the same with Swedish in Finland, yet you can speak English almost everywhere. Except when interacting with government officials, because they are not by law required to speak it.

Since almost everyone in Europe has been taught English for a couple of decades by now, making it in official language should not be too much a burden. There may be a risk of English overtaking the native language in popularity over time (like in your example of Ireland), but at least the language barrier would be gone and people would move around Europe much more easily than now. Very much like the common English language has done for people moving between Ireland and Britain.

AeroVega wrote:

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Yes, you can use your English skills to order a pizza anywhere in Europe. But have you ever tried running a business in a non-English speaking country in English? You are at a major disadvantage if you get anything done at all. Compare that to India where English is an official language.

This is also why it is easier for the UK to attract talent from all over the world. And the UK will keep, or even capitalize on this advantage after Brexit.

So I say, break down the language barrier and make English an official language in every EU member state.

Making English official won't do anything about daily use.

Look at the situation of Irish language in Ireland. It's official, mandatory for public servants yet outside of a few pockets extremely limited.

It's the same with Swedish in Finland, yet you can speak English almost everywhere. Except when interacting with government officials, because they are not by law required to speak it.

Since almost everyone in Europe has been taught English for a couple of decades by now, making it in official language should not be too much a burden. There may be a risk of English overtaking the native language in popularity over time (like in your example of Ireland), but at least the language barrier would be gone and people would move around Europe much more easily than now. Very much like the common English language has done for people moving between Ireland and Britain.

Dealing with the government is the least of your problems when starting a business. There's the issue of your customers, workers, and the society you're living in etc. just going on with their daily life in a language other than English.

That's the real barrier, you can always find someone who can file your taxes in the local language.

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal. With Macron standing firm on fisheries as the status quo as the reason or no deal.

I’m starting to support Macron demand either CFP or no deal

A101 wrote:

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal. With Macron standing firm on fisheries as the status quo as the reason or no deal.

I’m starting to support Macron demand either CFP or no deal

Yeah we know, you support a no-deal option. So you actually support no trade deals option as of the 1st of January for Great Britain. Just the broken WTO rules to trade on and trade barriers within the country, for Northern Ireland. That is a point of view to take, I guess...... Don't know if the people actually voted with that in mind in 2016. But that's how it was played anyway.

I suspect once the no deal break is done, if either side wants a trade deal it would be done sooner rather than later, however, since there are opinions that the deal with the EU MUST be done first before a deal with the USA - or is that any other country - it may drag on.
The only reason why a deal has not yet been done is because both sides are attempting to preserve the status quo.

Olddog wrote:

EU watchdog tells banks to get ready for full Brexit

LONDON (Reuters) - Banks using Britain as a gateway to the European Union must fully execute their plans for serving the bloc’s customers before a Brexit transition period ends in December, the EU’s banking watchdog said on Wednesday.

Britain left the EU in January and financial firms continue to have unfettered access the bloc under transition arrangements that end on December 31.

Many big banks have already opened up hubs in the bloc to continue serving customers there. The European Banking Authority said that these banks must now finalise the “full execution” of their Brexit plans, as agreed in their new licences.

“In particular, financial institutions should ensure that associated management capacity, including appropriate technical risk management capabilities, is effectively placed ahead of time,” EBA said.

Next step coming as previously posted. The real Brexit fight will be here.

This is the biggest UK export that never really shows in the export / import balances... To "real" product exported or imported only financial flows and invoices.

LJ wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

So far as I see, no FTA have been signed with Japan or New Zealand yet.

Furthermore, there is no confirmation from either country and no indication what the terms will be.

The one with Japan is upcoming

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/uk-close-to-securing-post-brexit-continuity-tra
de-deal-with-japan[/url]

However, it apparantly almost copy paste with the one Japan concluded wiith the EU.

including free car export from japan, UK not ant more financial hub and the list go on... what is in it for uk?

A101 wrote:

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal.

Funny how you make it sound it something new.
IRC he mentioned this date right after the first negotiation round, indicating that given the nature of the deal UK was seeking the ratifying process on EU side would take 2 months. Thus, to be in line with UK goal to not extend the TP, an agreement must be found before Oct 31st to avoid no deal on jan 1st.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal.

Funny how you make it sound it something new.
IRC he mentioned this date right after the first negotiation round, indicating that given the nature of the deal UK was seeking the ratifying process on EU side would take 2 months. Thus, to be in line with UK goal to not extend the TP, an agreement must be found before Oct 31st to avoid no deal on jan 1st.

Last time with A50 it was the same story... In the end the EU27 and EU parliament took less time then westminster as I remember it...

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal. With Macron standing firm on fisheries as the status quo as the reason or no deal.

I’m starting to support Macron demand either CFP or no deal

Yeah we know, you support a no-deal option. So you actually support no trade deals option as of the 1st of January for Great Britain. Just the broken WTO rules to trade on and trade barriers within the country, for Northern Ireland. That is a point of view to take, I guess...... Don't know if the people actually voted with that in mind in 2016. But that's how it was played anyway.

No actually; I support the previous Government position of no deal is better than a bad deal.

It seems Macron is a supporter of that adage as well

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal.

Funny how you make it sound it something new.
IRC he mentioned this date right after the first negotiation round, indicating that given the nature of the deal UK was seeking the ratifying process on EU side would take 2 months. Thus, to be in line with UK goal to not extend the TP, an agreement must be found before Oct 31st to avoid no deal on jan 1st.

Well actually no; Barnier position was for an extension as he believed that a deal could no be done in the remaining timeframe

olle wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal.

Funny how you make it sound it something new.
IRC he mentioned this date right after the first negotiation round, indicating that given the nature of the deal UK was seeking the ratifying process on EU side would take 2 months. Thus, to be in line with UK goal to not extend the TP, an agreement must be found before Oct 31st to avoid no deal on jan 1st.

Last time with A50 it was the same story... In the end the EU27 and EU parliament took less time then westminster as I remember it...

Well, once WA was concluded between negotiators UK even needed to reset their parliament, when on EU side it just followed the planned process. A good reason to be slower, and a reminder that democracy is quicker when you work in full transparency.

I was a bit too optimist, Barnier mentionned the october 31 in early june :

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... ch_20_1017

We can only take note that there has been no substantial progress since the beginning of these negotiations, and that we cannot continue like this forever.
Especially given the United Kingdom's continued refusal to extend the transition period.

On our side, as President Ursula von der Leyen has said, we were always open to the possibility of a one- or two-year extension, as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. Our door remains open.
But if there is no joint decision on such an extension – as I understand this to be the case – the UK will leave the Single Market and the Customs Union in less than 7 months.
Taking into account the time needed to ratify a deal, we would need a full legal text by 31 October at the latest, i.e. in less than 5 months.

For unknown reasons, on June 15, PM Johnson decided to set a deadline for negotiation to "end of summer". Than 10 days later said " no reasons why talks could not be wrapped up by the end of July".
But it's the EU's deadline, set earlier, which didn't moved since and is motivated that our friend A101 decided to mention, of course.
And like it's not sufficient, he's again looking at declaration from one MS head of state to try to invent a story. Sorry but the EU chief negoiator is Michel Barnier, Macron will have his word during the Council when Barnier will present the result of its negotiation, before that it's just posturing.

The Guardian has an exclusive with Phil Hogan. According to him the negotiations have started to progress two weeks ago as the UK team seems to realise that time is running out (and get pressure from UK business groups). In addition, Hogan mentions that there may be an alternative should the UK not wanting to abide by EU state aid rules....it would just exempt EU companies from the legislation when compateing with an UK company..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/uk-negotiators-have-only-engaged-with-issues-in-last-week-or-two-says-eu

LJ wrote:

Hogan mentions that there may be an alternative should the UK not wanting to abide by EU state aid rules....it would just exempt EU companies from the legislation when compateing with an UK company.

Strange, but ok. The UK can do whatever they want in their country. The other way around, no joy of course. So UK companies can't compete with the EU, but EU companies can compete in the UK. Great idea.......

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Hogan mentions that there may be an alternative should the UK not wanting to abide by EU state aid rules....it would just exempt EU companies from the legislation when compateing with an UK company.

Strange, but ok. The UK can do whatever they want in their country. The other way around, no joy of course. So UK companies can't compete with the EU, but EU companies can compete in the UK. Great idea.......

Why would EU companies want to do business in a country with inferior standards and no protections for their citizens, are those not founding principles of the EU?
I suspect they may be allowed but I may also suspect they will not be interested in the little UK business, their reputations may be harmed in their home market.

A101 wrote:

No actually; I support the previous Government position of no deal is better than a bad deal.

Great statement, guess what, nobody is in favor of a bad deal. So it is a truism and says nothing about anything.

So it all boils down to your own perception of a "bad" deal. Unless you subscribe to the point of view that the EU has more too loose than the UK, the proposed framework - as far as it is publically known - is fair and just.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Hogan mentions that there may be an alternative should the UK not wanting to abide by EU state aid rules....it would just exempt EU companies from the legislation when compateing with an UK company.

Strange, but ok. The UK can do whatever they want in their country. The other way around, no joy of course. So UK companies can't compete with the EU, but EU companies can compete in the UK. Great idea.......

Why would EU companies want to do business in a country with inferior standards and no protections for their citizens, are those not founding principles of the EU?
I suspect they may be allowed but I may also suspect they will not be interested in the little UK business, their reputations may be harmed in their home market.

Business is a-moral mostly, I do not know many entrepeteurs who actually founded their business on priciples. The EU is another metter, but they can only uphold the standerds within the EU. But you are right, not many companies would be interested in setting up a special UK production line with inferior products. So yeah, strange but ok.

Grizzly410 wrote:

olle wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Funny how you make it sound it something new.
IRC he mentioned this date right after the first negotiation round, indicating that given the nature of the deal UK was seeking the ratifying process on EU side would take 2 months. Thus, to be in line with UK goal to not extend the TP, an agreement must be found before Oct 31st to avoid no deal on jan 1st.

Last time with A50 it was the same story... In the end the EU27 and EU parliament took less time then westminster as I remember it...

Well, once WA was concluded between negotiators UK even needed to reset their parliament, when on EU side it just followed the planned process. A good reason to be slower, and a reminder that democracy is quicker when you work in full transparency.

I was a bit too optimist, Barnier mentionned the october 31 in early june :

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... ch_20_1017

We can only take note that there has been no substantial progress since the beginning of these negotiations, and that we cannot continue like this forever.
Especially given the United Kingdom's continued refusal to extend the transition period.

On our side, as President Ursula von der Leyen has said, we were always open to the possibility of a one- or two-year extension, as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. Our door remains open.
But if there is no joint decision on such an extension – as I understand this to be the case – the UK will leave the Single Market and the Customs Union in less than 7 months.
Taking into account the time needed to ratify a deal, we would need a full legal text by 31 October at the latest, i.e. in less than 5 months.

For unknown reasons, on June 15, PM Johnson decided to set a deadline for negotiation to "end of summer". Than 10 days later said " no reasons why talks could not be wrapped up by the end of July".
But it's the EU's deadline, set earlier, which didn't moved since and is motivated that our friend A101 decided to mention, of course.
And like it's not sufficient, he's again looking at declaration from one MS head of state to try to invent a story. Sorry but the EU chief negoiator is Michel Barnier, Macron will have his word during the Council when Barnier will present the result of its negotiation, before that it's just posturing.

Well after that rather large post, you haven’t actually refuted the claim by the MS that it happened in the meeting between Barnier and French Mp’s and with the position in Paris remains the same regardsless of posturing

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No actually; I support the previous Government position of no deal is better than a bad deal.

Great statement, guess what, nobody is in favor of a bad deal. So it is a truism and says nothing about anything.

So it all boils down to your own perception of a "bad" deal. Unless you subscribe to the point of view that the EU has more too loose than the UK, the proposed framework - as far as it is publically known - is fair and just.

Fair & just from an EU perspective

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No actually; I support the previous Government position of no deal is better than a bad deal.

Great statement, guess what, nobody is in favor of a bad deal. So it is a truism and says nothing about anything.

So it all boils down to your own perception of a "bad" deal. Unless you subscribe to the point of view that the EU has more too loose than the UK, the proposed framework - as far as it is publically known - is fair and just.

Fair & just from an EU perspective

Nope, more than fair and just in the perspective of the given situation. Japan just says: take it or leave it.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Of course, you can’t put a number on it as its impossible for them to estimate what way the economy will move if we remained or left, that’s why it’s a myth its theoretical and cannot be proven right or wrong. Even treasury was estimating that trading with the EU on a CETA type deal might cost the UK economy between 4.9% & 6.7% growth over 15 years not that the economy will shrink by that much as some describe it. But once again it is a forecast an estimate, theoretical, speculation. No one I know can accurately predict the future

So if you take the current UK GDP of 2.21 Trillion as base and lose the growth the treasury predicts we could lose you are looking at somewhere between £108,290,000,000 (4.9%) £148,070,000,000 (6.7%) growith or more if and when the GDP increases?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Great statement, guess what, nobody is in favor of a bad deal. So it is a truism and says nothing about anything.

So it all boils down to your own perception of a "bad" deal. Unless you subscribe to the point of view that the EU has more too loose than the UK, the proposed framework - as far as it is publically known - is fair and just.

Fair & just from an EU perspective

Nope, more than fair and just in the perspective of the given situation. Japan just says: take it or leave it.

It’s basically a continuity agreement useing the current agreement as a template for trade to flow with ease. The UK/JPN can expand on the agreement at a later date. No big deal.

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Making English official won't do anything about daily use.

Look at the situation of Irish language in Ireland. It's official, mandatory for public servants yet outside of a few pockets extremely limited.

It's the same with Swedish in Finland, yet you can speak English almost everywhere. Except when interacting with government officials, because they are not by law required to speak it.

Since almost everyone in Europe has been taught English for a couple of decades by now, making it in official language should not be too much a burden. There may be a risk of English overtaking the native language in popularity over time (like in your example of Ireland), but at least the language barrier would be gone and people would move around Europe much more easily than now. Very much like the common English language has done for people moving between Ireland and Britain.

Dealing with the government is the least of your problems when starting a business. There's the issue of your customers, workers, and the society you're living in etc. just going on with their daily life in a language other than English.

That's the real barrier, you can always find someone who can file your taxes in the local language.

Well, I'm only speaking from personal experience. Your experience with living and working in a non-English speaking EU country other than your own may be different.

sbworcs wrote:

So if you take the current UK GDP of 2.21 Trillion as base and lose the growth the treasury predicts we could lose you are looking at somewhere between £108,290,000,000 (4.9%) £148,070,000,000 (6.7%) growith or more if and when the GDP increases?

Could you attribute it to the correct person, please, thanks.

A101 doesn't seem to subscribe to these kinds of analyses, so in the end we would never know what the economic success or failure of Brexit actually is, because there isn't a paralel universe - as far as we know - were Brexit didn't happen to compare it against. I will and have accepted the number of £ 130bn now and. £ 200bn at years end.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Apparently Barnier has now set a October 31 deadline to conclude a trade deal. With Macron standing firm on fisheries as the status quo as the reason or no deal.

I’m starting to support Macron demand either CFP or no deal

Yeah we know, you support a no-deal option. So you actually support no trade deals option as of the 1st of January for Great Britain. Just the broken WTO rules to trade on and trade barriers within the country, for Northern Ireland. That is a point of view to take, I guess...... Don't know if the people actually voted with that in mind in 2016. But that's how it was played anyway.

No actually; I support the previous Government position of no deal is better than a bad deal.

It seems Macron is a supporter of that adage as well

to know what to walk away from I think UK should define and express what is a good deal and what is a bad deal. I feel I never really got that from any brexiteer. Defined the good deal I would like to understand what a brexiteers expect from EU, based on condition that something UK would not accept, it cannot expect EU to agree to either like respect sovereign on both sides, respect the democratic system and process on both sides, respect that no side will accept to work against their sovereign interest red line, in EU case protect the single market.

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Breaking down the language barrier as you put it is simply impossible. Freedom of movement is an individual right but it's something you have to undertake on your own. If you're going to move somewhere keep in mind you're moving to a different culture, a different language and you should plan accordingly.

You shouldn't have to learn it (especially if you're only going to be there for a while) but it will limit your interactions.

And it's not just national languages. Regional/minority languages are extremely strong in some areas. No EU official language is going to make national/regional languages go away.

And aside from that, English is a de facto lingua franca everywhere, with French and Spanish in some places too. Are there kids in the EU that don't learn English ?

Yes, you can use your English skills to order a pizza anywhere in Europe. But have you ever tried running a business in a non-English speaking country in English? You are at a major disadvantage if you get anything done at all. Compare that to India where English is an official language.

This is also why it is easier for the UK to attract talent from all over the world. And the UK will keep, or even capitalize on this advantage after Brexit.

So I say, break down the language barrier and make English an official language in every EU member state.

I guess it depends on the business you're running. If it's customer facing, you need the local language, no ifs or buts. Are you telling me street vendors in India don't speak some of the local language ?

Now I've heard of pubs in France where nobody speaks French, in those villages full of English...

Also, isn't there a big country full of English speaking people, where quite a number of inhabitants don't really speak English and go by with Spanish ? Has English or Spanish been made official languages there ?

With more and more interaction with governments of all levels happening online, and automatic translators improving, you can do quite a lot without having to change what is official and what isn't.

BTW in France we do have language laws, but they're made to fight English taking over ! Not as well known or discussed as the ones in Québec but they exist nonetheless, for example if you sell something with an instruction manual in France, it must be in French. Usual to see one in multiple languages nowadays, but the Japanese and Chinese and Taiwanese had to adapt at first. Musical radio station must air at least 40% of music in French...

If inter-EU free trade agreement was beneficial overall, I see no sensible logic in the EU shooting itself in the foot by scrapping free trade with the UK. I see stupid logic - political logic in which the EU wishes to deter any other wavering members from leaving, too.

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yeah we know, you support a no-deal option. So you actually support no trade deals option as of the 1st of January for Great Britain. Just the broken WTO rules to trade on and trade barriers within the country, for Northern Ireland. That is a point of view to take, I guess...... Don't know if the people actually voted with that in mind in 2016. But that's how it was played anyway.

No actually; I support the previous Government position of no deal is better than a bad deal.

It seems Macron is a supporter of that adage as well

to know what to walk away from I think UK should define and express what is a good deal and what is a bad deal. I feel I never really got that from any brexiteer. Defined the good deal I would like to understand what a brexiteers expect from EU, based on condition that something UK would not accept, it cannot expect EU to agree to either like respect sovereign on both sides, respect the democratic system and process on both sides, respect that no side will accept to work against their sovereign interest red line, in EU case protect the single market.

You would have to go over the various Brexit thread to get an idea of that, everyone has a different perception on it.

From my point of view our troubles started with the appointment of a pro-EU negotiations team with May being more of an appeaser than someone whom was trying to get the best deal for the UK, from the start from Cameron’s declaration that leaving the EU meant leaving the CU/SM that was well known.

A withdrawal agreement is just that a withdrawal of the entire UK from the customs territory of the EU. The only thing needed to be settled from a withdrawal agreement was the financial aspect nothing more

AeroVega wrote:

Since almost everyone in Europe has been taught English for a couple of decades by now, making it in official language should not be too much a burden. There may be a risk of English overtaking the native language in popularity over time (like in your example of Ireland), but at least the language barrier would be gone and people would move around Europe much more easily than now. Very much like the common English language has done for people moving between Ireland and Britain.

It is one of the official languages of the European Union and will remain so due to Ireland and Malta, and it is also used in practice between officials, in commerce and just between citizens of different cultures in Europe, but it is a bizarre misinterpretation to expect that people will just ditch their native languages and replace them with english within their own regional cultures.

Expecting that means completely misunderstanding what Europe actually is, let alone the European Union.

The European Union actively supports the cultural diversity between and even within its member states and in quite a few cases it's actually only the EU supporting certain regional cultures.

Speaking different languages is a completely normal and appreciated part of being european and the weird idea that we'd all suddenly ditch our own languages in favour of english may appeal to some people in England dreaming of an Empire 2.0, but the idea of becoming a culturally homogenized colony of England has extremely little appeal to anybody else and even less so now with Brexit.

For most of us it's just normal to speak multiple languages, including out own regional one. If you're not able to do that, you're just limiting and excluding yourself.

par13del wrote:

I suspect once the no deal break is done, if either side wants a trade deal it would be done sooner rather than later, however, since there are opinions that the deal with the EU MUST be done first before a deal with the USA - or is that any other country - it may drag on.
The only reason why a deal has not yet been done is because both sides are attempting to preserve the status quo.

Not at all!

For the UK Johnson politically needs to prove that everything will completely and totally change with Brexit and he and his supporters are so steeped in a visceral hatred of anything european that they're even cutting off their own nose to spite the EU by rejecting even collaborations which would be massively in the UK's interest but have the inexcusable defect of having "european" or "EU" in their names.

For the EU it is completely outside of any discussion that as a third country the UK simply cannot continue with the same privileges it had as a member, but the EU offers cooperation on multiple levels as it does to other third countries. It is perfectly obvious, however, that if you want to play on the EU's court you need to commit to sticking to EU rules (level playing field) or you'll stay outside the door.

So no, not at all "status quo". That ship has been rowed out of port, got its flood valves opened and was sunk to the bottom of the sea by the UK's own leadership!

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Hogan mentions that there may be an alternative should the UK not wanting to abide by EU state aid rules....it would just exempt EU companies from the legislation when compateing with an UK company.

Strange, but ok. The UK can do whatever they want in their country. The other way around, no joy of course. So UK companies can't compete with the EU, but EU companies can compete in the UK. Great idea.......

Why would EU companies want to do business in a country with inferior standards and no protections for their citizens, are those not founding principles of the EU?
I suspect they may be allowed but I may also suspect they will not be interested in the little UK business, their reputations may be harmed in their home market.

You're misunderstanding what that's about:

It is effectively telling the UK: "Okay, so you don't want to sign up to level playing field rules but instead you want to try competing unfairly against us? Well, two can play that game, but be aware that we're quite a bit bigger and quite a bit less desperate than you are, but not in any way less ruthless when it comes down to it; So your choice!"

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

No actually; I support the previous Government position of no deal is better than a bad deal.

It seems Macron is a supporter of that adage as well

to know what to walk away from I think UK should define and express what is a good deal and what is a bad deal. I feel I never really got that from any brexiteer. Defined the good deal I would like to understand what a brexiteers expect from EU, based on condition that something UK would not accept, it cannot expect EU to agree to either like respect sovereign on both sides, respect the democratic system and process on both sides, respect that no side will accept to work against their sovereign interest red line, in EU case protect the single market.

You would have to go over the various Brexit thread to get an idea of that, everyone has a different perception on it.

From my point of view our troubles started with the appointment of a pro-EU negotiations team with May being more of an appeaser than someone whom was trying to get the best deal for the UK, from the start from Cameron’s declaration that leaving the EU meant leaving the CU/SM that was well known.

A withdrawal agreement is just that a withdrawal of the entire UK from the customs territory of the EU. The only thing needed to be settled from a withdrawal agreement was the financial aspect nothing more

As I remember it ms may appointed Davis Davis and Mr johnsson as negotiator and forreign minister the 2 most important position. Mr Davis showed to be not as efficient as negotiator as mr barnier I must admit.

Ok. Leaving CU/SM. Why negotiate then? WTO here we come! How was a goodbposition in Ireland onevof the most important areas in the A50 negotiation? Is the current model to in everything but on the map leave NI to ROI like mr Johnsson did or ms may model to try to keep it in the union best?

Does by the way ms may or mr johnsson government reflect best that 2 nations of 4 in the UK union voted to stay in EU? What is a good outcome of negotiations reflecting this fact? Some might say that while mr johnsson now ignoring this fact he jepordize the junion. Is this a good outcome or was ms may approach with NI better?

Ms may and brexiteers including mr johnsson wanted to keep eu financial institutions in london and keep passporting rights / free movement for uk financial setvices and personal in EU. What is a good outcome considering that financial district stands for a mayor uncounted part of uk exports?


If financial industry gets free movement shall uk music industry get free movement as well?

Uk car industry and suppliers exports 90 % of ots production to EU and is in many cases us or japanese manufactorers. Is no tarriff no quota good enough or does delays at borders creates a problem?

FTA japan EU became much simplier to negotiate after uK departure including 0 tarriff 0 quota for japanise cars to EU and german swedish cars to japan. Should a good income have been to continue having a veto over EU FTA in order to protect the future of Japanese car manufactoring in UK?

Shall UK be part of erasmus that has been a great tool to the uk export industry "universities"?

Shall UK be part of the duropean health card system, the blue card?

Shall UK universities have access to EU funding for research? Until reasent uk universities got huge fundjng for research projects making them ranking very high internationally.


The list can be long. The last question shall uk be able to participate in some of the mentioned or is it ok if EU demands take nothing or nothing at all?

AeroVega wrote:

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

It's the same with Swedish in Finland, yet you can speak English almost everywhere. Except when interacting with government officials, because they are not by law required to speak it.

Since almost everyone in Europe has been taught English for a couple of decades by now, making it in official language should not be too much a burden. There may be a risk of English overtaking the native language in popularity over time (like in your example of Ireland), but at least the language barrier would be gone and people would move around Europe much more easily than now. Very much like the common English language has done for people moving between Ireland and Britain.

Dealing with the government is the least of your problems when starting a business. There's the issue of your customers, workers, and the society you're living in etc. just going on with their daily life in a language other than English.

That's the real barrier, you can always find someone who can file your taxes in the local language.

Well, I'm only speaking from personal experience. Your experience with living and working in a non-English speaking EU country other than your own may be different.

For multinational companies speaking English is something of an official working language, but that doesn't mean business in non-English speaking countries can be conducted in English.

I can give you a couple examples. There is a Dutch company (communications related) in the same estate I work. The staff looks like it's split halfway between local and Dutch, with a few assorted other foreigners (there's a very evidently Scottish guy and at least two Americans).

Dutch is the working language of the Dutch there, and in communicating with the home office. Those who can't speak Dutch (i.e. every non-Dutch) switch to English instead and if a workgroup is made of exclusively local people they'll work in Spanish. But the relation with local customers are conducted almost exclusively in Spanish either by local staff or Dutch staff with decent enough command of Spanish, because more often than not you have to adapt your offerings to the customer to have a chance.

It's that pressure that makes it almost a requirement to speak the local language, and making English official is not going to change that.

Of course, like Aesma said there are pockets and niche markets where you can get by just speaking English. There's a whole cottage industry of providing service to (mostly) British people in coast communities in English. From plumbers and dentists to tax advisors and lawyers. It works the other way around, too, I have a friend working in Google in Ireland. So many of their staff are Spanish that within their workgroup it's become something of a working language too, to the point that every new recruit for the last few years has been Spanish speaking.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

olle wrote:

Last time with A50 it was the same story... In the end the EU27 and EU parliament took less time then westminster as I remember it...

Well, once WA was concluded between negotiators UK even needed to reset their parliament, when on EU side it just followed the planned process. A good reason to be slower, and a reminder that democracy is quicker when you work in full transparency.

I was a bit too optimist, Barnier mentionned the october 31 in early june :

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... ch_20_1017

We can only take note that there has been no substantial progress since the beginning of these negotiations, and that we cannot continue like this forever.
Especially given the United Kingdom's continued refusal to extend the transition period.

On our side, as President Ursula von der Leyen has said, we were always open to the possibility of a one- or two-year extension, as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. Our door remains open.
But if there is no joint decision on such an extension – as I understand this to be the case – the UK will leave the Single Market and the Customs Union in less than 7 months.
Taking into account the time needed to ratify a deal, we would need a full legal text by 31 October at the latest, i.e. in less than 5 months.

For unknown reasons, on June 15, PM Johnson decided to set a deadline for negotiation to "end of summer". Than 10 days later said " no reasons why talks could not be wrapped up by the end of July".
But it's the EU's deadline, set earlier, which didn't moved since and is motivated that our friend A101 decided to mention, of course.
And like it's not sufficient, he's again looking at declaration from one MS head of state to try to invent a story. Sorry but the EU chief negoiator is Michel Barnier, Macron will have his word during the Council when Barnier will present the result of its negotiation, before that it's just posturing.

Well after that rather large post, you haven’t actually refuted the claim by the MS that it happened in the meeting between Barnier and French Mp’s and with the position in Paris remains the same regardsless of posturing

Difficult to discuss on detail when you didn't even bothered to provide a link to what you are commenting.
I have trouble finding recent interaction of Barnier with french Parliament. Brexit is not a topic in France, the only recent reference I found is within an interview of the newly appointed Minister of European affairs, Clément Beaune, on French national radio France Inter. Only report I could find in english :
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... ent-Beaune

The interview is 24min long and the mention of the EU-UK negotiation is like 1min30 long, during which he basically repeats what any commentator would say : We want a deal, a fair deal. After a minute of speach, to conclude the topic the interviewer offered him a "il vaut mieux pas d'accord qu'un mauvais accord ?" which is literally "Better no deal than bad deal then ?" and he acknowledged repeating it.

What a non story if it's the reference you took in your initial comment !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7va0lv

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Well, once WA was concluded between negotiators UK even needed to reset their parliament, when on EU side it just followed the planned process. A good reason to be slower, and a reminder that democracy is quicker when you work in full transparency.

I was a bit too optimist, Barnier mentionned the october 31 in early june :

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... ch_20_1017


For unknown reasons, on June 15, PM Johnson decided to set a deadline for negotiation to "end of summer". Than 10 days later said " no reasons why talks could not be wrapped up by the end of July".
But it's the EU's deadline, set earlier, which didn't moved since and is motivated that our friend A101 decided to mention, of course.
And like it's not sufficient, he's again looking at declaration from one MS head of state to try to invent a story. Sorry but the EU chief negoiator is Michel Barnier, Macron will have his word during the Council when Barnier will present the result of its negotiation, before that it's just posturing.

Well after that rather large post, you haven’t actually refuted the claim by the MS that it happened in the meeting between Barnier and French Mp’s and with the position in Paris remains the same regardsless of posturing

Difficult to discuss on detail when you didn't even bothered to provide a link to what you are commenting.
I have trouble finding recent interaction of Barnier with french Parliament. Brexit is not a topic in France, the only recent reference I found is within an interview of the newly appointed Minister of European affairs, Clément Beaune, on French national radio France Inter. Only report I could find in english :
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... ent-Beaune

The interview is 24min long and the mention of the EU-UK negotiation is like 1min30 long, during which he basically repeats what any commentator would say : We want a deal, a fair deal. After a minute of speach, to conclude the topic the interviewer offered him a "il vaut mieux pas d'accord qu'un mauvais accord ?" which is literally "Better no deal than bad deal then ?" and he acknowledged repeating it.

What a non story if it's the reference you took in your initial comment !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7va0lv

Here’s a couple straight off the bat.


https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/07/post ... ermen.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ill-fight/

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well after that rather large post, you haven’t actually refuted the claim by the MS that it happened in the meeting between Barnier and French Mp’s and with the position in Paris remains the same regardsless of posturing

Difficult to discuss on detail when you didn't even bothered to provide a link to what you are commenting.
I have trouble finding recent interaction of Barnier with french Parliament. Brexit is not a topic in France, the only recent reference I found is within an interview of the newly appointed Minister of European affairs, Clément Beaune, on French national radio France Inter. Only report I could find in english :
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... ent-Beaune

The interview is 24min long and the mention of the EU-UK negotiation is like 1min30 long, during which he basically repeats what any commentator would say : We want a deal, a fair deal. After a minute of speach, to conclude the topic the interviewer offered him a "il vaut mieux pas d'accord qu'un mauvais accord ?" which is literally "Better no deal than bad deal then ?" and he acknowledged repeating it.

What a non story if it's the reference you took in your initial comment !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7va0lv

Here’s a couple straight off the bat.


https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/07/post ... ermen.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ill-fight/

Really ?

The FR24news is a rather strange mix of storys without quote or temporality. "private negotiators in Brussels", "A high level EU source said:", "EU diplomats have said", "the French representative criticized ".
For someone like you who once dismissed an article I presended because the author wasn't a QC and only a law professor I'm surprised you can believe what's written in here.
If anything the "In the meantime, Mr Barnier has set a new deadline of October 31 for the closing of negotiations." makes clear this text can't be given much credit, as the october 31 deadline was presented before Von der Leyen - Johnson conf call.

And the Telegraph article seems to be about the Clément Beaune interview I commented earlier. out of 24min interview, only 1min30 on the EU-UK negs to state banalities.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Difficult to discuss on detail when you didn't even bothered to provide a link to what you are commenting.
I have trouble finding recent interaction of Barnier with french Parliament. Brexit is not a topic in France, the only recent reference I found is within an interview of the newly appointed Minister of European affairs, Clément Beaune, on French national radio France Inter. Only report I could find in english :
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... ent-Beaune

The interview is 24min long and the mention of the EU-UK negotiation is like 1min30 long, during which he basically repeats what any commentator would say : We want a deal, a fair deal. After a minute of speach, to conclude the topic the interviewer offered him a "il vaut mieux pas d'accord qu'un mauvais accord ?" which is literally "Better no deal than bad deal then ?" and he acknowledged repeating it.

What a non story if it's the reference you took in your initial comment !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7va0lv

Here’s a couple straight off the bat.


https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/07/post ... ermen.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ill-fight/

Really ?

The FR24news is a rather strange mix of storys without quote or temporality. "private negotiators in Brussels", "A high level EU source said:", "EU diplomats have said", "the French representative criticized ".
For someone like you who once dismissed an article I presended because the author wasn't a QC and only a law professor I'm surprised you can believe what's written in here.
If anything the "In the meantime, Mr Barnier has set a new deadline of October 31 for the closing of negotiations." makes clear this text can't be given much credit, as the october 31 deadline was presented before Von der Leyen - Johnson conf call.

And the Telegraph article seems to be about the Clément Beaune interview I commented earlier. out of 24min interview, only 1min30 on the EU-UK negs to state banalities.

Only thing I brought up was the new deadline by Barnier of October 31 and macrons insistence of the French fisheries position. You can bring up all the other stuff if you want dosnt change the fact that it’s showing what Barnier & Co talked about

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Dealing with the government is the least of your problems when starting a business. There's the issue of your customers, workers, and the society you're living in etc. just going on with their daily life in a language other than English.

That's the real barrier, you can always find someone who can file your taxes in the local language.

Well, I'm only speaking from personal experience. Your experience with living and working in a non-English speaking EU country other than your own may be different.

For multinational companies speaking English is something of an official working language, but that doesn't mean business in non-English speaking countries can be conducted in English.

I can give you a couple examples. There is a Dutch company (communications related) in the same estate I work. The staff looks like it's split halfway between local and Dutch, with a few assorted other foreigners (there's a very evidently Scottish guy and at least two Americans).

Dutch is the working language of the Dutch there, and in communicating with the home office. Those who can't speak Dutch (i.e. every non-Dutch) switch to English instead and if a workgroup is made of exclusively local people they'll work in Spanish. But the relation with local customers are conducted almost exclusively in Spanish either by local staff or Dutch staff with decent enough command of Spanish, because more often than not you have to adapt your offerings to the customer to have a chance.

It's that pressure that makes it almost a requirement to speak the local language, and making English official is not going to change that.

Of course, like Aesma said there are pockets and niche markets where you can get by just speaking English. There's a whole cottage industry of providing service to (mostly) British people in coast communities in English. From plumbers and dentists to tax advisors and lawyers. It works the other way around, too, I have a friend working in Google in Ireland. So many of their staff are Spanish that within their workgroup it's become something of a working language too, to the point that every new recruit for the last few years has been Spanish speaking.

I totally can mirror my own experience in this, except for UK companies. At UK companies and partly USA based companies the expectation is that the customer shall communicate in English.

French companies understands the language needs even if they do not admit it. The problem for French companies is rather balance between focus on customer vs internal management. My experiience is that if there is a problem a german company will react "customer" and whole company is focused. In a french company the orginastion will first verify with top management.

I see this as one major factor why German, dutch, swedish companies is much more successfull in export to for example Asia then UK ones.

Any FTA nor Brexit will not change this.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Difficult to discuss on detail when you didn't even bothered to provide a link to what you are commenting.
I have trouble finding recent interaction of Barnier with french Parliament. Brexit is not a topic in France, the only recent reference I found is within an interview of the newly appointed Minister of European affairs, Clément Beaune, on French national radio France Inter. Only report I could find in english :
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... ent-Beaune

The interview is 24min long and the mention of the EU-UK negotiation is like 1min30 long, during which he basically repeats what any commentator would say : We want a deal, a fair deal. After a minute of speach, to conclude the topic the interviewer offered him a "il vaut mieux pas d'accord qu'un mauvais accord ?" which is literally "Better no deal than bad deal then ?" and he acknowledged repeating it.

What a non story if it's the reference you took in your initial comment !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7va0lv

Here’s a couple straight off the bat.


https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/07/post ... ermen.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ill-fight/

Really ?

The FR24news is a rather strange mix of storys without quote or temporality. "private negotiators in Brussels", "A high level EU source said:", "EU diplomats have said", "the French representative criticized ".
For someone like you who once dismissed an article I presended because the author wasn't a QC and only a law professor I'm surprised you can believe what's written in here.
If anything the "In the meantime, Mr Barnier has set a new deadline of October 31 for the closing of negotiations." makes clear this text can't be given much credit, as the october 31 deadline was presented before Von der Leyen - Johnson conf call.

And the Telegraph article seems to be about the Clément Beaune interview I commented earlier. out of 24min interview, only 1min30 on the EU-UK negs to state banalities.

I must say that inside EU27 and I follow news from Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland and sweden the brexit negotiation is yesterday news. UK left, now it is a question to clean the mess and limit the damage.

But compared to Covid19, Supporting the south economical package and new EU budget brexit is barely mentioned.

It is only a small crowd like the few here on Anet still caring.

The more intestesting is for example today USA removing troops from germany and what seems to be a personal vendetta Trump vs Merkel. But even here I think that USA and UK misjudge EU27. The German and EU reaction of this will not be to try to be nice to USA and UK, but quietly replace Nato with EU army and defence. This will take time and it will be tricky but in 15 years time it will be a fact. One big looser of this will be UK defence industry and US defence industry and Uk influance in NATO.

I do not know the detail of M Macron's position but I do think it is economic nonsense to put at risk the welfare of French industries such as wine and auto production by arguing about whether a non-EU country should forego its rights to control of fishing in waters under its control.

Neither Johnson here nor leading EU politicians there seem to recognise that they are heading for a lose-lose outcome when a situation not so far from the status quo ante should be easy to achieve.

Art, don't worry for Macron he also can play 5-cushion billiards

Express writes that japan demands place of origin canot be uk if EU or other non uk content is too high. That means that market access with 0 quota tarrif will be limited.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... eal-brexit

But the positiv is that uk hss its first FTA ready to sign if it wants already tomorrow!

Japan to uk. We are bigger then you and you look desperate...

I guess we will hear a lot about Rules Of Origin in the coming years....

art wrote:

I do not know the detail of M Macron's position but I do think it is economic nonsense to put at risk the welfare of French industries such as wine and auto production by arguing about whether a non-EU country should forego its rights to control of fishing in waters under its control.

It's that third country asking for access to the EU single market. Of course access requires compliance with the rules. That is trivially obvious and watching the UK government trying to twist that totally normal request into an insufferable imposition is not unexpected under the circumstances, but still a bit of an absurd spectacle.

It's just the UK's choice whether they want access and stick to the rules or just have no preferential access (including for the UK fishing industry, by the way).

Neither Johnson here nor leading EU politicians there seem to recognise that they are heading for a lose-lose outcome when a situation not so far from the status quo ante should be easy to achieve.

For the EU the loss would be incomparably greater if they would allow the UK to access the single market without having to stick to the same rules as every other country, the member countries included.

So no deal is actually only the second-worst outcome and as they say: "no deal is better than a bad deal!"

For the UK, well, none of the EU proposals is even halfway as bad as no deal will be, so the situation is not at all in balance there.

But it's simply the UK's choice.

A101 wrote:

Only thing I brought up was the new deadline by Barnier of October 31 and macrons insistence of the French fisheries position. You can bring up all the other stuff if you want dosnt change the fact that it’s showing what Barnier & Co talked about

Why do you refuse to get the fact straight ? The october 31 is NOT a new deadline at all. And Emmanuel Macron didn't say anything about fisheries for month*, we can merely say that his Minister of European affairs mentionned fisheries when reviewing the ongoing topic he have to deal with and giving few words on the UE-UK negotiations... Nothing more than that, really.

Klaus wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Since almost everyone in Europe has been taught English for a couple of decades by now, making it in official language should not be too much a burden. There may be a risk of English overtaking the native language in popularity over time (like in your example of Ireland), but at least the language barrier would be gone and people would move around Europe much more easily than now. Very much like the common English language has done for people moving between Ireland and Britain.

It is one of the official languages of the European Union and will remain so due to Ireland and Malta, and it is also used in practice between officials, in commerce and just between citizens of different cultures in Europe, but it is a bizarre misinterpretation to expect that people will just ditch their native languages and replace them with english within their own regional cultures.

Expecting that means completely misunderstanding what Europe actually is, let alone the European Union.

The European Union actively supports the cultural diversity between and even within its member states and in quite a few cases it's actually only the EU supporting certain regional cultures.

Speaking different languages is a completely normal and appreciated part of being european and the weird idea that we'd all suddenly ditch our own languages in favour of english may appeal to some people in England dreaming of an Empire 2.0, but the idea of becoming a culturally homogenized colony of England has extremely little appeal to anybody else and even less so now with Brexit.

For most of us it's just normal to speak multiple languages, including out own regional one. If you're not able to do that, you're just limiting and excluding yourself.

Whoah, who said anything about ditching your native language? I think an official common language is necessary for European integration to be successful, but that does not mean that there is no place for regional languages. I would be perfectly happen if that common language would be Spanish or German or French, but English is obviously the most pragmatic choice. It's really not such a crazy idea.

https://yougov.de/news/2013/08/09/umfra ... ch-als-zw/

59 Prozent der Deutschen würden es begrüßen, wenn Englisch in der gesamten Europäischen Union als zweite Amtssprache eingeführt werden würde.

https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economie/b ... 23471.html

Vlaams minister van Onderwijs Pascal Smet (sp.a) vindt dat Brussel Engels als officiële taal moet erkennen

https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/suomi-tarv ... -kieleksi/

Samaan aikaan englannista on tehtävä virallinen palvelu- ja asiointikieli. Tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että Suomessa on oikeus saada palvelua englanniksi ja kaikessa julkisessa asioinnissa englanti nostetaan tasaveroiseksi suomen ja ruotsin kielen rinnalle.

https://www.libremercado.com/2018-06-22 ... 276620691/

La primera en pronunciarse ha sido la presidenta de Lituania, Dalia Grybauskaite, que ha pedido que el régimen lingüístico "no se puede separar de la realidad". "El inglés es el idioma más popular de comunicación de la Unión Europea y la gente va a seguir utilizándolo.

https://www.european-views.com/2018/07/ ... heres-why/

Now the EU should seize the window of opportunity that will be opened when the British veto goes away to make progress with sensible integration to the benefit of the rest of its hundreds of million Europeans.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/0 ... n-language

The EU is proud of its everyday multilingualism, which becomes more fluent and accessible with every year as the use of machine translation tools grows. Yet the adoption of English as a common language should be seen not as a challenge but as a complement to this tradition. Europe is about diversity, and its patchwork of languages and dialects must be promoted and protected. But it is also about the sort of unity that is possible only with a common tongue, even imperfectly spoken. Universalising English while upholding the EU’s native languages would be not a betrayal of the cosmopolitan European ideal, but its affirmation.

Are you for real ? Now that the UK has left you want us to learn english to make your life easier? What about you try to learn some basic sentences in the language of the country you want to go or visit ?