But if you wanted to have a cosy dinner with them, they are apparently available and willing.
Is that from personal experience Surbiton, or did Jeremy Corbyn tell you that was the price of his inability to fill in a simple form correctly?
"Dave Hartnett, the out-going HMRC chief executive, was wined and dined 107 times by big firms' tax lawyers and advisors between 2007 and 2009, the report revealed."
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
The Nasty Party comments were the ones that brought May to prominence. The right wing press leapt all over her after she delivered them. She learned then never to cross it, but to pander to it instead. See, most recently, her incredibly brave decision to back down at the first sign of turmoil over NI rates for the self-employed.
I think you're in your hyper-partisan mode now because of the election.
Shame.
Nope - it is my honest and consistent assessment of Theresa May.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
Talking to my Irish colleagues, united Ireland is emotionally interesting (but even then there are real doubts) but practically they can't see it working. The thought of what it will do to Irish politics, which is horribly fragmented today, unnerves them hugely. The idea of SF having greater influence is anathema. And that's without getting to the DUP....
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
The EU budget period ends in 2020. So just about when we leave. Up to that time as members we will be paying for what we agreed to at the start of the period. The annual eu budget is 145 billion. Demanding we pay 60 billion is bollox. The eu makes a big deal about how admin is less than 1% of its spending. No wonder May is keeping her powder dry.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
1st rule of negotiation.
They ask for 10. They want 8 And would be happy with 6 So it's worth 4 And you offer 2.
There are still some who believe that we hold all the cards.
There are some very interesting discussions about exactly what proportion of EU assets (EUR140bn) we are entitled - should it be based on percentage of gross contributions since year dot, or population, etc etc. You can make a case for it being as low as 7%, or as high as 20-25%.
Ultimately, the bill stuff is rubbish though. We will take responsibility for paying British MEPs and Eurocrats' pensions (because we'd likely lose that one in court if it came to it), we'll agree a transitional period with a reduced fee (which will count against the total), and the share of assets will be offset.
Mrs May will be able to declare that not a penny will go to Brussels. Various EU functionaries will claim that we paid €50bn. Everyone has a little victory. What's not to like?
All that makes perfect sense, but it does require the EU27 to back down ignominiously on their (completely bonkers) insistence that we agree the outlines of an exit bill before knowing what we're exiting to. OK, they might be able to fudge it with some flim-flam about agreeing principles, but they've made that politically hard for themselves. (And we'll start with the perfectly reasonable: "The British principle is that we pay what we are legally obliged to, not a centime more, unless you're gonna make it worth our while to pay more").
What is incomprehensible to me, and worrying, is that the EU27 have boxed themselves in on their bonkers position. It looks suspiciously like groupthink from a meeting where they couldn't actually agree on much, except that everyone wants the Brits to pay as much as possible. But it's a negotiating dead-end.
If we're entitled to 1/15th of the EU assets then I vote for Luxembourg.
But if you wanted to have a cosy dinner with them, they are apparently available and willing.
Is that from personal experience Surbiton, or did Jeremy Corbyn tell you that was the price of his inability to fill in a simple form correctly?
"Dave Hartnett, the out-going HMRC chief executive, was wined and dined 107 times by big firms' tax lawyers and advisors between 2007 and 2009, the report revealed."
We're down to blogs. This is frightening. I've never seen somebody melt down over one my flippant comments like this before. Even JWisemann didn't combust to to this extent even after I pointed out that he had just claimed life got better under Communism for the 40 million people who died of starvation.
It's surreal. Relax. Calm down. You may be an unpleasant person but I don't want you to have an actual stroke.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
Talking to my Irish colleagues, united Ireland is emotionally interesting (but even then there are real doubts) but practically they can't see it working. The thought of what it will do to Irish politics, which is horribly fragmented today, unnerves them hugely. The idea of SF having greater influence is anathema. And that's without getting to the DUP....
You wonder what it would do to Irish politics? Take a look at this thread header where Mr Smithson openly compares leavers with fascists (thats those people who gassed 7 million jews for those with short memories) and is openly cheered on by Mr TSE, an alleged conservative. THAT's what it would do to Irish politics.
Well, Steinmeier said that if the UK refused to continue Roumanian immigration after exit, Germany would regard it as a unfriendly act. So Germany, to reduce its own immigration problems, wants free movement to continue. I can't see how Steinmeier's statement can mean anything else. If it can't be continued publicly it must be continued by insisting on rights for a family life extended to brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, children and grandchildren. That is why Germany wants the rights of EU immigrants to be settled first, with the promise of free trade as the bait, to be settled sometime never.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
The best way to punish someone is to make them do it to themselves. The game is to agitate just enough that we end up voluntarily taking the diamond-hard option. When it goes horribly wrong at that point (for us) they can look at their spotless, blood-free hands, and examine their spotless, blood-free consciences, and say "You saw how reasonable we've been, you saw how we tried and tried to get a solution. Look what happened anyway. You don't want to copy that, do you?".
No, that doesn't work. Suppose we give in on the first point in the hope of a favourable final deal, and say, OK, we'll pay the whole lot, or we haggle over the figure and end up saying we'll pay €30bn. What then? Are they still in a position to say, 'Thank you very much, that settles the exit bill. Now, if you want a trade deal, then you're also going to have to contribute annually to the cost of running the Single Market, otherwise it's WTO terms'.
You only need to look at this for ten seconds to see that it is literally impossible to do it as the EU27 insist (with zero legal justification) that it should be done.
...
.
I am 80% certain that's exactly what's going to happen. We just haven't realised it yet. The 20% scenario doesn't bear thinking about.
Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
We have all seen how badly she handles PMQs, even up against Corbyn, is frightened of TV debates or even real voters.
The slightest thing completely knocks her off her game.
Just imagine how she will handle the real negotiations once they start...
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator - which is an entirely different skill from debating or interacting with voters.
May managed to make one pro-eu (sort of) speech during the referendum campaign and then for the rest of the campaign did nothing in particular - and did it very well.
And if you think Mrs May is going to be literally sitting at one side of a table with the other 27 leaders at the other then you are hopelessly naive. The negotiations will be done by the civil service, mainly, in dotting i's, crossing t's and advising the politicians.
"and if you think..." Good of you to correct me in an opinion which originated from your own head, not mine.
I'm far from an admirer of May, but what evidence we have suggests that she is tenacious (can anyone imagine Cameron, for example, lasting that long at the Home Office ?), fairly bloody minded, and determined to get her own way. All positives when it comes to overseeing what is likely to be a tedious and argumentative process. That she appears to be both vindictive and somewhat unimaginative doesn't really figure in the process.
I won't be voting for her, I didn't vote for Brexit, and it's not entirely clear to me what her Brexit red lines will be - but purely as a negotiator, there are far worse options on offer.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
Talking to my Irish colleagues, united Ireland is emotionally interesting (but even then there are real doubts) but practically they can't see it working. The thought of what it will do to Irish politics, which is horribly fragmented today, unnerves them hugely. The idea of SF having greater influence is anathema. And that's without getting to the DUP....
You wonder what it would do to Irish politics? Take a look at this thread header where Mr Smithson openly compares leavers with fascists (thats those people who gassed 7 million jews for those with short memories) and is openly cheered on by Mr TSE, an alleged conservative. THAT's what it would do to Irish politics.
Nope. The Nazis gassed the Jews (and many others), the Facists in Italy were fairly lakadasical in their anti-semitism, at least before 1943.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
The fact that you think the typical example of a negotiation is one which takes place in "a Bedouin market" suggests to me that you don't have much hands-on experience of negotiating things. You cannot tell whether the opposite party is "completely open and serious in their position on this" because if that is the way it looks at first sight, that may just be because he is a good negotiator.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
Are you nuts Sean? If it ends up like this we're screwed. They have all the cards, we have none, we play ball. It's that simple. Was chatting to a senior Indian diplomat over Easter and he reckoned the UK would take any deal (however bad it is) from the EU. All this posturing from May is just sabre rattling nonsense.
An interesting view. How do you see the position if Scotland decides to leave the UK? Will Scotland be in the same position that the UK is in vis-a-vis the EU?
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
May definitely wants no.1 . That is why we have the election. She has seen Treasury projections of Brexit. That is why she needs a bigger majority to make deals including the divorce bill.
The election will give her approximately 4 years to conclude things. She also knows that once the details come out, many Brexiters will start accusing her of betrayal but, equally, many soft-Brexiters or, indeed, many Remainers will come over to her side.
You will hear the word "Betrayal" a lot in the next 2 / 3 years.
For sure, they will sign away everything and the mugs will pay for it , we will keep all the bad bits, higher taxes etc and eth rich will line their pockets. You only need to look at teh May fanboys/fangirls on here to see that.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Michael Fallon.
He'd scare the bejesus out of everyone as he does in the UK. They would all come away from the negotiating table feeling slightly unnerved and then wake up the next day to find the head of their favourite pet in their bed.
Not a bad shout, actually, Topping, but i'd want to see some evidence of some negotiating wins from him first.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
Are you nuts Sean? If it ends up like this we're screwed. They have all the cards, we have none, we play ball. It's that simple. Was chatting to a senior Indian diplomat over Easter and he reckoned the UK would take any deal (however bad it is) from the EU. All this posturing from May is just sabre rattling nonsense.
An interesting view. How do you see the position if Scotland decides to leave the UK? Will Scotland be in the same position that the UK is in vis-a-vis the EU?
The two scenarios are very different. Scotland leaving creates a new sovereign state so the questions are immediate and practical. Brexit merely involves tearing up a series of treaties, but the UK that's left at the end of it is the same UK that was there at the start, just greatly diminished.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
What would we do? We'd be absolutely buggered.
Yep. We'd be looking at a 5-10% drop in GDP. But politically if it became Us V Them I think we'd accept it. You can surely see the emotional dynamic which would kick in.
The EU seems to think we would be too scared of No Deal. I think they are wrong.
I think the emotional dynamic becomes much less compelling when you lose your job, can no longer pay your mortgage or take your family on holiday; when prices and taxes go up; and public services are cut even further.
You're wrong. As Hitler said, you only have to promise your people blood, sweat and tears, and they will follow you anywhere.
If the EU follows through on their rhetoric of trying to hurt us, and dismember the UK, we will unite (most of us) and tell them to Do One. Fuck them. They will be seen as an enemy, we don't yield meekly to enemies. We fight.
I sincerely hope this doesn't happen. But I have no doubts that it could.
LOL, all the millionaires will be lining up for their Dad's Army uniforms, Sean will be an old Pike or more likely Corporal Jones
Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
We have all seen how badly she handles PMQs, even up against Corbyn, is frightened of TV debates or even real voters.
The slightest thing completely knocks her off her game.
Just imagine how she will handle the real negotiations once they start...
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator - which is an entirely different skill from debating or interacting with voters.
May managed to make one pro-eu (sort of) speech during the referendum campaign and then for the rest of the campaign did nothing in particular - and did it very well.
And if you think Mrs May is going to be literally sitting at one side of a table with the other 27 leaders at the other then you are hopelessly naive. The negotiations will be done by the civil service, mainly, in dotting i's, crossing t's and advising the politicians.
I have seen photos of Mrs May dressed in a remain shirt campaigning for Remain in her constituency. Accompanied by other remain campaigners from other parties. Including Lib Dems.
So what? She makes no bones of having supported and voted for Remain in the EU referendum. She has now accepted and is working for the majority who voted Leave ..... good for her ...... it's called democracy.
That was in response to the claim she had only made one speech during the campaign and nothing else, to prove she did do other things.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
1st rule of negotiation.
They ask for 10. They want 8 And would be happy with 6 So it's worth 4 And you offer 2.
There are still some who believe that we hold all the cards.
We hold some, they hold some - how each side plays them will determine the final deal. The only proviso is that the UK government (Tory presumably) will never agree to anything that they can't sell to the British public as that wold be a party-extinction event.
The current EU deal - we pay £8.5 billion for access to the EU market on an 'equal footing' basis. (we won't mention the ways each country tends to promote its own businesses, nor how the EU panders to companies by subsidising movement of manufacturing over to low-wage economies in the EU).
The no-deal basis.
1) Immigration 100% under British control - the EU have no say on who can come to the UK - obviously that applies to UK nationals in the EU, equally to EU nationals in the UK.
2) No payment to the EU - as a result the UK has to pay tariffs on goods sold there.
3) No liability for EU pensions (no claim on EU assets either of course)
4) UK not bound by tariffs imposed by the EU on imports from countries outside the EU.
5) UK initially bound by WTO tariffs - gradually reduced as FTAs are negotiated.
6) UK not bound by EU law (good, bad or ugly) - yes companies will have to adhere to EU dictacts regarding safety and stuff like that on the products they sell to the EU - but they do that anyway.
7) The EU has to find £8.5 billion a year to maintain its current programme.
There is plenty there that the EU would rather not take place - so there is certainly a desire to come to the table no matter what the current rhetoric is. Also: The Eu (other than Germany) is fundamentally weak - the Southern and Eastern European countries are bleeding the Northern ones dry and the social policies are reducing the competitiveness of the EU and imposing a considerable strain on the finances of most of the countries.
Comments
http://hmrcisshite.blogspot.co.uk/
It's surreal. Relax. Calm down. You may be an unpleasant person but I don't want you to have an actual stroke.
Take a look at this thread header where Mr Smithson openly compares leavers with fascists (thats those people who gassed 7 million jews for those with short memories) and is openly cheered on by Mr TSE, an alleged conservative.
THAT's what it would do to Irish politics.
I'm far from an admirer of May, but what evidence we have suggests that she is tenacious (can anyone imagine Cameron, for example, lasting that long at the Home Office ?), fairly bloody minded, and determined to get her own way. All positives when it comes to overseeing what is likely to be a tedious and argumentative process.
That she appears to be both vindictive and somewhat unimaginative doesn't really figure in the process.
I won't be voting for her, I didn't vote for Brexit, and it's not entirely clear to me what her Brexit red lines will be - but purely as a negotiator, there are far worse options on offer.
The no-deal basis.
1) Immigration 100% under British control - the EU have no say on who can come to the UK - obviously that applies to UK nationals in the EU, equally to EU nationals in the UK.
2) No payment to the EU - as a result the UK has to pay tariffs on goods sold there.
3) No liability for EU pensions (no claim on EU assets either of course)
4) UK not bound by tariffs imposed by the EU on imports from countries outside the EU.
5) UK initially bound by WTO tariffs - gradually reduced as FTAs are negotiated.
6) UK not bound by EU law (good, bad or ugly) - yes companies will have to adhere to EU dictacts regarding safety and stuff like that on the products they sell to the EU - but they do that anyway.
7) The EU has to find £8.5 billion a year to maintain its current programme.
There is plenty there that the EU would rather not take place - so there is certainly a desire to come to the table no matter what the current rhetoric is. Also: The Eu (other than Germany) is fundamentally weak - the Southern and Eastern European countries are bleeding the Northern ones dry and the social policies are reducing the competitiveness of the EU and imposing a considerable strain on the finances of most of the countries.