Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
XXL

BREXIT / British Politics thread

584 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Rachelle of London said:

It does make sense. Governments like the ones you posted above being fed up that their people will have to get a visa to stay in the UK (the same as every other country in the world) really have no right being offended by that when they're not even welcoming their doors to others. Why is there so much concern about how Europeans are going to survive when there are immigrants from all over the world that follow the same process.

British citizens living in Europe should have to apply for visas to remain in those countries. Once we're out of Europe. 

But Chelle,  are you aware that the Calais camp is right now the most horrible part of Europe precisely because the UK don't let the refugees get into the islands?  What's that propaganda about the East countries? 

East countries defended themselves when West countries said that those refugees should stay in the first European country they step in,  which is absurd and unfair.  

I'm seriously doubting that some European citizens are getting the correct information in their media 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the visas,  you are right.  Once UK is out all will have to renew their residence papers.  In both directions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cattura_zpswj5zss3e.png

 

 

The last week has underlined the basic reality of British politics - Brexit will define Theresa May's premiership. Almost certainly the prime minister knew that, but this week the currency markets confirmed it. Brexit talk can put the pound under pressure. The strong hints that curtailing immigration is a greater political priority than preserving access to the EU's single market sent sterling to a 31-year-low against the dollar.

Theresa May's new-found evangelical fervour for Brexit and Global Britain cannot disguise the fundamental dilemma that the UK faces when it triggers Article 50 next March and the negotiations to leave the EU begin. The government wants to control EU migration while retaining as much access as possible to the single market. On almost a daily basis European leaders say that the two aims are incompatible.

The drumbeat is incessant. Only this week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said again that "full access to the single market is linked and inseparably bound up with the acceptance of the four fundamental freedoms - also including the freedom of movement for people". Mrs May's stance was equally firm: "We are not leaving the EU only to give up control of immigration all over again."

Many interpreted this as the UK being willing to sacrifice access to the single market in order to deliver on reducing immigration. The prime minister, however, was quick to insist she still wanted to give "British companies maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the single market". There will be many twists and turns but it is possible to sketch out the most likely scenarios.
 

 

_91558639_hi035653066.jpg

 

 

The UK should be able to draw up a divorce agreement in order to leave the EU by 2019 but it is more than likely that the terms of the future trading relationship will not have been settled. So the UK will argue for a transitional period - say up to five years - in order to negotiate a free trade agreement. During that period the UK would still trade and operate within the single market and accept EU rules.

It would give some certainty to business although a timetable of five years may be optimistic. The Canadians took seven years to negotiate their free trade deal and it still hasn't been ratified. The politics of a transitional agreement would be difficult to sell. The European Parliament - and some European states, like France - might see it as too much of a concession. At the very least they would demand continued contributions to the EU budget or a one-off payment. The problem for Theresa May is that when she comes to election time in 2020, Brexit may not feel like Brexit.

If a transitional deal was to prove impossible, there is another scenario that carries far greater risks for the British economy. The UK leaves the EU without a trade deal and has to fall back on the trading rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) with the prospect of tariffs and tariff barriers. The tariffs on cars are 10%. Negotiating terms with the WTO would not be straightforward. The financial services sector would face strong headwinds as it is not covered by WTO rules.

The big political question for the UK government is how big a fight it is prepared to put up to stay in the single market and the customs union. There is an argument, stated by some senior British officials, that the current hard line coming from Europe's capitals is for political show. Sooner or later European self-interest will intrude.
 

 

_91559467_hi035044292.jpg

 

Germany exports 800,000 cars each year to the UK and the country's car companies have huge investments in Britain. The head of the German automotive industries has said that "punishing Britain makes no sense". The EU sells far more to the UK than the other way round. Undoubtedly there will be pressure from European businesses to strike a sensible trade deal but that will not necessarily trump the politics. On Thursday, Angela Merkel insisted she would not be put under pressure from European industry associations.

British ministers also believe that their hand will be strengthened in negotiations by the resilience of the UK economy. The UK is witnessing growth in services and manufacturing, while the eurozone economy is slowing - another reason, it is said, for the EU political establishment to reach a compromise with Europe's second-largest economy.

One compromise being considered is striking deals to cover specific sectors if full access to the single market was not possible. Take the UK car industry, for example. It employs, when supply companies are included, nearly 800,000 people and it accounts for 4% of GDP. Could a special deal be done for cars? Without it, would some of the big manufacturers move to continental Europe?

Chancellor Philip Hammond has spoken of addressing the "specific needs" of the financial sector. Could a deal be done to extend what is called "passporting" - allowing financial companies and banks to sell their services across the EU? It would be a messy solution and what would the EU demand in exchange for such concessions? A large contribution to the EU budget at the very least. The UK would have to pay for access.

European politics is not set in stone but considerable sections of official Europe are not looking for an easy divorce. For political reasons, they need to demonstrate to their own Eurosceptic voters that the UK is hurting. The French President Francois Hollande is all for taking a tough line. "There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price," he said on Thursday. "Otherwise we will be in negotiations that will not end well." This is also a widely-held view in the European Parliament and that body will have to approve any deal done under Article 50 as well as any free trade deal.
 

 

_91558641_hi035342718.jpg

 

But in the midst of much hard-line comment there was also a hint of realism from Mrs Merkel. She defined the key question as: "How much access to the single market does Great Britain get and, in a reciprocal way, how much access to the British market do we get? And how ready are we to link this access politically so that the four freedoms are defended?"

Those questions offer the prospect of a meaningful negotiation. There was a further indication this week of just how sensitive the negotiations will be. The suggestion from the home secretary that companies may have to declare how many foreigners they employ was widely reported across the EU, with much of the commentary hostile. It led the chancellor to say that there would have to be "give and take", insisting that skilled people from the EU would still be able to work in the UK.

The government knows leaving the EU will not be smooth. It has already warned about "bumps" in the road. The biggest fear is of an early rebuff that when, next year, Britain sets out what it wants from the EU, the other 27 members dismiss it, so unnerving financial markets and opening up new uncertainties.

Within the government there is a fault-line between the pragmatists and the Brexit believers. The pragmatists are wary of what leaving the single market will do to investment, the wider economy and the City of London. The believers are focused on new trading opportunities away from the single market and the EU's customs union. Managing those tensions will take considerable political skill but turbulence is inescapable.
 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-37586928

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people in the Brexit camp need a reality check. It is absolutely unclear to me what they actually expect. Do they seriously believe nothing will change or they will get access to the single market without accepting the rules that apply to all members? I repeat what I have said many many times before, the best the UK can get is a deal similar to the Norway one. That basically means the UK pays as much money as before, all laws and regulations apply as before but the UK will no longer have a say in making those laws and regulations. Hopefully for the UK, the City of London has not left in big parts for mainland Europe or to Dubai or Singapore in the meantime. The idea that the UK government wants to have a 5 year transition phase is exactly what the British economy needs. Prolonged uncertainty. But I guess as long as the UK enjoys a growth thanks to higher exports and tourism simply because of a low pound, everything is fine and Brexiteers can still pretend how the Brexit has not caused any problems to the UK at all, still ignoring the hard fact that NOTHING has happened to far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raider of the lost Ark said:

I think some people in the Brexit camp need a reality check. It is absolutely unclear to me what they actually expect. Do they seriously believe nothing will change or they will get access to the single market without accepting the rules that apply to all members? I repeat what I have said many many times before, the best the UK can get is a deal similar to the Norway one. That basically means the UK pays as much money as before, all laws and regulations apply as before but the UK will no longer have a say in making those laws and regulations. Hopefully for the UK, the City of London has not left in big parts for mainland Europe or to Dubai or Singapore in the meantime. The idea that the UK government wants to have a 5 year transition phase is exactly what the British economy needs. Prolonged uncertainty. But I guess as long as the UK enjoys a growth thanks to higher exports and tourism simply because of a low pound, everything is fine and Brexiteers can still pretend how the Brexit has not caused any problems to the UK at all, still ignoring the hard fact that NOTHING has happened to far.

 

Amen

I guess retaining the Sterling Pound and not being part of Schengen was not enough 

The ridiculousness of all of it is how British politicians who were/are in favour of Brexit have misleadingly "sold Brexit" to UK voters who have expressed the same concerns over the efficiency of the EU as a political construct other EU member countries people have voiced. You cannot expect to enjoy the advantages of single market access while telling all other 27 nationalities that they're going to have to sort out the immigration and refugee crisis issue on their own, That's very convenient, arrogant and wholly unrealistic. The same pro brexit politicians who washed their hands clean of everything the moment they got the result they so pushed for by the way

And all the nonsense about Poland, Bulgaria and Romania I have read in some posts in this thread. I hope some do know the British political class have championed the entrance of ill-fit economies such as those of those Eastern European countries mentioned the most (and by ill-fit I mean not fit to cope with the absurd demands of Brussels in terms of austerity and common monetary policy, never mind the 28 different fiscal systems etc), simply because they wanted to make the Franco-German engine of the continent less dominating. But now they complain about Polish immigrants? They probably have no idea about the millions who have entered (and that have been welcomed) Greece, Italy, France and Spain in the last 20 years alone, due to their geographical position. 

The fact that the UK entered the single market project when their economy was in the gutter during the 70s and hugely benefitted from a participation which was rife with discounts of all sorts speaks volumes in itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37625067

Pound falls further against the euro and the dollar

 

Traders in London

 

The pound has extended its losses against both the dollar and the euro in late trading on Tuesday.

Against the dollar it has fallen more than 2%, at one point dropping below $1.21, while against the euro it fell below €1.10.

Sterling has now fallen about 19% against the dollar since the UK's vote to leave the European Union, to lows not seen since 1985.

One analyst said it was "trading like an emerging market currency".

At one point the pound hit $1.2088 against the dollar on Tuesday evening and against the euro it touched €1.0939.

The pound is at its lowest level since Friday's flash crash, when it tumbled to around $1.18 before recovering.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten pound note

 

Neil Wilson from ETX Capital said the mood around the pound had been extremely negative in recent days and that it was "now trading like an emerging market currency."

He also said comments by a senior Bank of England official had not helped.

Michael Saunders, a member of the Bank's interest rate-setting committee, said earlier that the pound could still "fall further", but that the recent sharp drop was not an immediate cause for concern.

 

Bank threat

The comments were interpreted as a signal that the Bank could keep interest rates lower for longer.

 

Earlier in the day, some traders had said sterling came under pressure from reports that US banks Citi and Morgan Stanley could move staff out of London, adding to worries about foreign investment leaving the UK.

"It really isn't terribly complicated. If we are outside the EU and we don't have what would be a stable and long-term commitment to access the single market then a lot of the things we do today in London, we'd have to do inside the EU 27," said Rob Rooney, chief executive of Morgan Stanley International.

Traders also pointed to leaked documents, warning that a withdrawal from the EU single market could cost the Treasury more than £66bn a year, as a reason for the drop.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pound was absurdly high anyway.  It should be nearer to euro and dollar.  This drop will benefit in the short time,  exports will be easier and oil is still cheap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

European countries are already championing to attract businesses from the city with cheaper offices and secure space.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The struggle is real. I have just read that the UK might run out of Marmite because Unilever wants more money because of the low pound and Tesco is unwilling to pay more for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pound in your pocket is now worth far less, that's the long and short of it. Joe Bloggs, that was tricked into thinking he was sticking his fingers up to the establishment (and anyone with a non-English surname) might just have second thoughts when he's out buying his cigs and bottles of cider and scraping his pockets to find the extra £ he needs to pay for it.

From a personal pov, I know of three large construction contracts that have been cancelled (so far) as a direct result of the uncertainty over Brexit . Investment has stagnated, and the sheer confusion and cluelessness that's going to continue for years has hardly even started.

Sickening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kim said:

The pound in your pocket is now worth far less, that's the long and short of it. Joe Bloggs, that was tricked into thinking he was sticking his fingers up to the establishment (and anyone with a non-English surname) might just have second thoughts when he's out buying his cigs and bottles of cider and scraping his pockets to find the extra £ he needs to pay for it.

From a personal pov, I know of three large construction contracts that have been cancelled (so far) as a direct result of the uncertainty over Brexit . Investment has stagnated, and the sheer confusion and cluelessness that's going to continue for years has hardly even started.

Sickening.

 

Hey Kim, do you think that a second one could soon be a reality.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/nicola-sturgeon-challenges-may-with-second-referendum-bill-scottish-independence-snp-conference

... along with independence this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ft.com/content/df4885fa-9160-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

‘Hard Brexit’ or no Brexit, Donald Tusk warns UK

Idea that Britain can retain benefits after leaving is ‘pure illusion’, says European Council chief

 

 

The president of the European Council has told the UK that the only real alternative to a “hard Brexit” or clean break from the EU is to remain a full member of the bloc.

Speaking at a conference in Brussels, Donald Tusk dashed the hopes of those hoping Britain could remain inside the EU’s single market or negotiate some special form of association. The tenor of the UK’s referendum campaign had been to “radically loosen relations with the EU, something that goes by the name of ‘hard Brexit’,” he said.

“In my opinion, the only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit,” Mr Tusk said. “Even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility.”

Since Theresa May, UK prime minister, suggested London would opt for a clean break from membership of the single market in her party conference speech this month, the pound has taken a battering on foreign exchange markets as investors worry about the economic implications.

In remarks that are likely to infuriate prominent Brexiters in the British government, Mr Tusk set out a bleak picture for the negotiations to come between the UK and the rest of the EU, saying that there would be no winners, only losers. “This scenario will in the first instance be painful for Britons,” he said.

Paraphrasing UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson’s campaign trail claim that a post-Brexit Britain would “have the EU cake and eat it too”, Mr Tusk said: “The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table for anyone. There will only be salt and vinegar … The words uttered by one of the leading campaigners for Brexit …[were] pure illusion.”

Taking questions after the speech, Mr Tusk extended an olive branch to London, saying that he had not encountered a single leader on the continent “who is happy with this result of the British referendum”.

He said he was “absolutely sure” that “in the future, if we have a chance to reverse this negative process, we will find allies, I have no doubt”.

 

Turning to the exit talks, Mr Tusk said that the promises of the Leave campaign in the referendum to “take back control” by rejecting “freedom of movement” for workers and ending contributions to the EU budget meant that there was no realistic chance to negotiate a “soft Brexit” where Britain retained substantial ties to Europe.

In stark terms, Mr Tusk said that it was “useless to speculate about soft Brexit”.

Mr Tusk also said he expected the exit talks to last considerably longer than the two years foreseen under the so-called Article 50 procedure in the EU’s treaties. “I think the process will be much longer than two years,” he said.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has to take the hit

Should it be the supermarket, the supplier or should YOU the consumer pay the price?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XXL said:

 

 

 

She's the only one so far who has shown to be consistently true to her words and keeping her promises, unlike those lying deceitful Brexit turds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pjcowley said:

She's the only one so far who has shown to be consistently true to her words and keeping her promises, unlike those lying deceitful Brexit turds.

Exactly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the consequences...,  are people really talking about fucking MARMITE????????? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karbatal said:

With all the consequences...,  are people really talking about fucking MARMITE????????? 

It's a symbol for how complicated the situation is. Of course, it shows the British customer what a Brexit / low pound means for their shopping basket when it comes to foreign goods. Basically they have to pay more for the same stuff. Now people will argue that Marmite is a British product. Made in the UK. Made with British ingredients. How can this be affected by the exchange rate of the pound? Marmite is owned by Unilever. Unilever is Dutch/British group. This group consists of Unilever NV with headquarters in Rotterdam listed at the Amsterdam stock exchange and Unilever PLC with headquarters in London listed at the London stock exchange. (Unilever is also listed at NYSE). For some reason Marmite seems to be owned by the Dutch part of Unilever . The balance sheet of Unilever NV is in Euro. That makes Marmite basically an imported product when it's really not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with Scotland? If Scotland got a second referendum and this time the result was to leave the British Union... would Scotland be automatically in the EU or would it have to start as a third country all the proccess? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, karbatal said:

What's with Scotland? If Scotland got a second referendum and this time the result was to leave the British Union... would Scotland be automatically in the EU or would it have to start as a third country all the proccess? 

Very good question. I guess, technically Scotland on its own is not part of the EU, just like Wales or England and Northern Ireland aren't either. They are only part because they are part of Great Britain which is a member of the EU. In result Scotland will need to apply. But I'm pretty sure it will get preferential treatment for a very quick joining of the EU considering that basically all policies and rules are already implemented in Scotland. I don't know about the Euro, that's a whole different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really fascinating because in Spain we are facing the segregation from Catalonia. From Madrid it's always a bunch of meneacing opinions and Brussels has said that it's against any segregation and that Catalonia will have to wait years and years to enter the EU. 

But now this Scotland thing happens and surely Brussels would be so happy to accept Scotland, so Catalonia will ask for the same treatment (in case there's ever a referendum in Spain). 

Of course, our Spanish Government very fast answered yesterday that is against any segregation of Scotland. Spain will try to make things complicated in Brussels!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Raider of the lost Ark said:

Very good question. I guess, technically Scotland on its own is not part of the EU, just like Wales or England and Northern Ireland aren't either. They are only part because they are part of Great Britain which is a member of the EU. In result Scotland will need to apply. But I'm pretty sure it will get preferential treatment for a very quick joining of the EU considering that basically all policies and rules are already implemented in Scotland. I don't know about the Euro, that's a whole different story.

I guess scotland´s situation will be different, they won´t be at the end of the line.They have been saying that they want to be in the EU,and if they leave the UK, it will be because they think they can be fast enough in the Union.there is no case of  hurt egos - feelings between scottish people and the EU.Actually, it will work as a huge Fuck U to the brexit lovers

 

catalonian or basque counrty´s situation is different. First of all, is not legal to have a referedum asking for the independence. And,Spain hasn´t been fucking EU, unlike the brexiters.SO the escenario is totally different, both inside spain and outside from here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0