Not a bad article here with some useful links for those interested in detail rather than the negative paranoia that exists in most of the media: The first full round of Brexit negotiations has drawn to a close more or less as expected after four days of talks in Brussels. The focus of this round of talks, as Michel Barnier put it, was “to identify the points where we agreed and the points where we disagree”, while David Davis said he was “encouraged by the progress we have made on understanding each other’s position”. The scope of this phase of the negotiations is limited to citizens’ rights, a financial settlement and arrangements for the Irish border, although the EU did reportedly back down on its position that trade would not be discussed at all at this stage, with discussions of import quotas taking placing on the sidelines of the negotiations. Nonetheless, despite these rather narrow ambitions, more has certainly been achieved behind the scenes than the press conference gave the impression of publicly. On citizens’ rights, as was clear from both sides’ negotiating position papers published before the talks, there was already broad conceptual agreement on a wide range of areas, with notable exceptions in others, the most salient disagreement being over whether governance of the agreement should involve the Court of Justice of the European Union. Barnier said that the two sides were “now moving in a common direction” while stressing that there “remains a fundamental divergence on how to guarantee those rights, and on several other points, such as the rights of future members of the family or the export of certain social benefits”. Other potential faultlines have the potential to emerge over the EU watering down its position on preserving the rights of UK citizens in the EU, with the EU now proposing that UK citizens will only have the right to remain settled in the one EU country where they are already living, and rejecting the UK’s offer of continued participation in the European Health Insurance Card scheme, although it is worth noting that the UK has already pledged to unilaterally continue paying for expats’ healthcare abroad should no agreement be reached, while financially speaking the scheme already works out overwhelmingly in the EU’s favour to the tune of over £600m a year, according to 2016 figures. The EU is reportedly also unhappy over the UK’s intention to carry out criminal records checks on every EU citizen seeking settled status post Brexit. Nonetheless, these are all issues that can ultimately be resolved with a sensible degree of give and take from both sides. The joint technical note published by both sides after the press conference already marks 22 of the 44 areas as green (agreed), with 14 red (disagreement) and 8 amber (further discussion) issues still to resolve. That level of progress bodes well in a round of talks which was primarily focused on understanding the two sides’ respective positions rather than the actual business of negotiation. However, it does not make sense to look at the “fundamental divergence” over the legal governance of the agreement in isolation, without considering the other substantive issue being addressed in this phase – the UK’s anticipated financial settlement with the EU, i.e. the ‘Brexit bill’. Fundamentally, this is the EU’s Achilles heel in the negotiations and they are well aware of it – a looming €12bn fiscal black hole is a major problem for a union which relies on the cross-continental redistribution of wealth for a substantial part of its political support. The tactical astuteness of the UK’s decision not to publish a position paper on the Brexit bill but instead to simply turn up and critique the EU’s proposal was underlined by the degree of consternation it appears to have caused on the EU side, with Barnier repeatedly going out of his way to insist on how important it was for the UK to formally set out its position on it. The UK has rightly recognised that this is the area of the negotiations in which it holds the most cards – strategic deployment of financial concessions will be a better way of extracting concessions in other areas from the EU than the UK laying all its cards on the table at once. Barnier has insisted that the EU’s stance, both on the Brexit bill and on the ECJ, is legal, not political, although it would have been surprising to hear him say anything else. There may be a basic legal element to both, but in reality, the EU is as aware as the UK is that a major amount of political discretion has been utilised in reaching its actual negotiating positions. The EU’s demands for the UK to settle its outstanding obligations under the Multiannual Financial Framework (i.e. the EU budget) are probably justifiable in a relatively tight legal sense, but the legal situation is obviously less clear cut when it comes to the EU’s desire for the UK to pay upfront to cover contingent liabilities for Eurozone loans, the mysterious absence of Britain’s share of EU assets from the calculations, or the demand that Britain continues to pay for English teachers in Brussels schools until the end of 2021. No-one on either side of the negotiations is naïve enough to think that there have been no political considerations factored in to the EU’s calculations, at least in private. With citizens’ rights, the main issue appears to be trust, superficially at least, exacerbated by some degree of confusion about Britain’s legal system. The UK, along with other EU member states including Ireland and the Scandinavian countries, has a dualist system of applying international law, whereby a separate piece of domestic legislation must be passed to give effect to international law commitments. This is opposed to the monist system where international law automatically has direct effect in domestic law once ratified, such as in the Netherlands, France or Germany, while the EU’s legal structure itself effectively imposes the monist system on all its member states in areas of EU law. However, this distinction does not make any international agreement any less binding, as appears to be the EU’s concern in the case of citizens’ rights after Brexit – something which the UK has attempted to address in this technical note published last week. If the UK reneged on the EU citizens’ agreement by altering domestic legislation a few years down the line, it would still be liable to any infringement proceedings set out in the agreement under international law in the same way as a monist state which had chosen to disregard or disapply parts of the agreement. In any case, the EU’s suspicions that the UK, a member state which has after all applied EU law with almost excessive rigour over the last few decades, gold-plating thousands of EU directives, would suddenly abandon its centuries’-long respect for the rule of law, are clearly unwarranted. Four months into the negotiations and a full nine months after the UK declared ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ to be a red line, there is no chance that Barnier and his colleagues are not aware that their stance on the ECJ is a dealbreaker as it currently stands. It would be an unprecedented and unjustifiable legal arrangement for modern times, with former ECJ judge Franklin Dehousse comparing it to colonial treaties foisted on China by Britain in the 19th Century. Barnier himself was stumped when challenged today by the Telegraph‘s Peter Foster to name a single example of a country which currently accepted the direct jurisdiction of a foreign court over its citizens in this way, giving a long-winded, rambling answer, which unexpectedly ended in a reference to how the EEA agreement dovetails with the ECJ, despite being outside its direct jurisdiction. While the EEA/EFTA would not represent the optimum model for the UK’s future relationship with the EU, Barnier’s reference to its distinct legal status certainly opens the door to a future compromise along the lines of the joint UK-EU arbitration court which the UK has been arguing for. So, if Barnier is ultimately prepared to compromise on the ECJ, as he knows he eventually must to avoid the negotiations collapsing, why is he still talking about “fundamental divergence” on the issue? Well, largely for the same reason that Britain is still holding out over the Brexit bill. Britain’s ECJ red line is an entirely necessary consequence of Brexit, but it is consequently the central fulcrum in the negotiations. Barnier knows that he can use the ECJ to extract concessions from the UK in the same way that the UK can use the Brexit bill to extract concessions from the EU. For that reason, they are likely to be the last things agreed on by either side in this phase of the negotiations – there is no reason why either side would want to give up their most valuable negotiating weapon until they have used it to extract the maximum possible from the other side. While progress may appear to be slow on the big issues, the technical discussions are progressing apace, with the UK negotiating team clearly far more prepared than its detractors in the UK, and indeed the EU, have given it credit for, while the seeds of compromise on the major political battles have been planted, even if it may well take several more rounds of negotiations before they ultimately come to fruition. There may not have been the major breakthrough just yet, but given how far apart the two sides appeared after the referendum last June, this round of talks has given every indication that the Brexit negotiations are firmly on track towards a positive outcome for both sides.
Sorry, this might be more up your street and it has plenty of pictures http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/flights-grounded-nuclear-plants-offline-10833293
Don't worry too much about dukee, the grim reaper (real one) even says, I think I'm going to top myself after being with duke for a while Much of Brexit will be able to start from march 2019. SOME things will need a transitional period because to put it simply, people are involved. Most who voted for brexit are looking well beyond the next 2 years but it seems some remoaners are unable to look beyond the next headline. I get it, they are afraid of change and it is a change, a big one. Most will say they want to remain in europe but we haven't left it yet and won't leave it after brexit. We are leaving the landlord and becoming our own home owner again. Honestly, the way some like duke paint it, no one will be allowed to travel to europe from the U.K. ever again, the only thing that will change is that we will have to show our passport, whoop de doo. We will still buy their stuff and they will still buy our stuff. so whether it is with a fair agreement or under wto, just like decimalization, the change will come in, we will work through it and in the years to follow, most will say oh yeah, I remember that. For those who paint the eu in the golden child light, then they need to look closer at what we will be leaving behind https://euobserver.com/justice/138568 http://www.euractiv.com/section/jus...gary-poland-and-czech-republic-over-refugees/ https://www.europeaninstitute.org/i...t-austria-pose-troubling-questions-for-the-eu The golden chalice when looked at closer, is only gold plated and is very much the emperors new clothes
I see the duke of chuckles is at it again. I have no problems with transitional periods. It makes a lot of sense in some areas and seems to be what a lot of people in business are calling for. As long as these periods have defined time lines and doesn't morph into trying to stay in the EU along the lines of the 'Soft Brexit' propoganda, I'm fine with it. Of course, Eeyore will portray it as proof we aren't coming out of the EU, we are losing negotiations blah, blah, blah.
Every time people howl that i am wrong though, the reality is that usually i turn out to be right. See. Its slowly being watered down to nothing. The next proposal will probably be a vote on the kind of changes we want to happen as no one will have the balls to pull the plug on a total leave with its consequences. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40680738
I stopped having them 30 years ago. Ahhhhh, 6 weeks of homework free leisure time.....bliss. Now, I get 2 weeks that'll be over in the blink of an eye. Hang on a minute........the negativity of the duke has permiated into my holidays already. God damn it
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/23/labour-would-leave-single-market-jeremy-corbyn Finally.
I'm not impressed with his delay of spelling it out but it's about time he aligned himself with something. Also notice once more how the Guardian avoids opening the comments section when it's news they're reporting which goes against the person they've been backing recently Fickle bastards Same as this little nugget regarding wiping out student debt (or not) no comments section again. https://www.theguardian.com/educati...corbyn-denies-promising-to-wipe-student-debts
See the Telegraph is today reporting that the Tory Party is facing its biggest crisis in 100 years. And all brought on by themselves.
Morning chuckles. It's not even facing it's biggest crisis in the last 20 years. It's just won a General Election, Jeremy Corbyn's pre election promises and posturing as now being seen through and they are getting on with the job of Brexit. Granted, Mrs May probably won't be the lesder of the Conservatives for the next G.E. and some back benchers are being a bit self indulgent, but hardly the biggest issue in the last 100 years. You keep telling us that you are some kind of omnipotent guru when it comes to predicting the future, I suggest you get the history books out on Conservative Party history. Try 1997 & 1990 for starters. The Telegraph did have some interesting stories this morning, granted. Jeremy Corbyn is jumping off the Brexit fence, leaving his Labour colleagues to suffer the splinters The new EU-Canada treaty shows why there’s no Brexit role for the ECJ Donald Trump hails 'new chapter for stronger trade' with UK Poland 'very close' to having voting rights stripped if reforms aren't halted, EU warns Britain is the biggest winner from Emmanuel Macron's war against France's armed forces
Yeah I remember you making that £20 donation when you were correct No different than when Thatcher left, Major left or looking at other parties, Kinnock, Foot, Milliband and you can hardly say the current Labour effort is hardly lets all sit around the camp fire singing kumbai yah, and god knows what is going on in the lib dems, one candidate for the leader and he's 74
BMW seem to be happy investing in the UKs future. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/25/bmw-pledges-build-new-e-mini-uk-car-plant-cowley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/27/foreign-investors-back-brexit-britain/ London school of economics http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/03/20/foreign-direct-investment-will-remain-robust-post-brexit/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...top-destination-foreign-investment-financial/
