Today Donald Tusk stated that trade agreement's between the UK and the EU cannot be considered until after they have calculated what they want to charge us for the impertinence of leaving the EU.
They have also gifted Spain with a veto over the status of Gibraltar if the EU cannot agree a trade deal with the UK.
Spain has been threatening Gibraltar for some time, there have been regular closures of the border crossing and over 200 incursions of Gibraltarian waters by Spanish Government vessels in the past 20 months.
Another example of how EU rules only seem to apply to GB. As a British protectorate Gibraltar has the same rights as us and Spain have no right to close the border when it suits them. I've no doubt the people who travel from Spain to work on the Rock are better off than they would be working in Spain.
Mr D Akenhead 7 minutes ago
If that little clique of despots in Brussels think they can continue to ignore us when it suits them they are about to learn a painful lesson. My advice to Mrs May, is play it cool, and a waiting game. I believe the dominoes are about to fall and we do not need to put a case for any kind of bargaining now, when they know full well that Uncle Sam has had enough of Little Frankreich and Little Deutschland too! It is we who are owed big time, not them! Enough of the butter mountains and the decimated cod industry here in Newfoundland thanks to the greedy French and Spanish domination of EU fishing rights! Farage was supposed to help, but it seems didn't. Maybe he saw what he was up against first hand and realised the fultility of one man against a corrupt, rotten cartel!
I make you right David. It is us who are owed big time. One of the reasons they
want money from us on leaving is to pay for the pensions of our Euro mps and
the host of administration staff currently employed, who will be out of a job. They have been robbing us blind for years and years and in more ways than one. Our support of these countries during two world wars has cost us dear. The US virtually
skinted us in return for their late contribution during WWII but we eventually paid off our debt to them whilst also contributing to the EU. How many of the EU countries
contribute their fair share to defence and what may I ask have many of them done with all the monies they have received over the years. Poland has been benefiting
forever and continues to do so. I doubt we will ever see the monies given to Greece and the like again that has just been wasted.
Farage didn't even attempt to help with the fishing rights - he didn't even attend the debates. We will be out of the EU soon enough and no-one has a clue about what will happen, what sort of deal we will have or with whom. A deal has yet to be struck and that deal will not be totally in May or anyone's control - it is called negociation. Forget Uncle Sam - they will do what is good for them and Trump - we will not figure at all if we can't offer anything. As for the rest of Europe - i doubt that Germany will want to lose our trade - German goods are very popular here. The French sell their rather cars, as do the Italians and other white goods - will they want to lose that market - I think not. Obviously the EU hierarchy are fearful of the whole dreadful edifice falling down and will try some sabre rattling but it is all part of the game - just like May with her own remarks about no deal is better than their deal. I suspect a deal will be struck May or no May, hopefully the latter. There will be no state run education, health or public services with her so her arrogance may well fall flat - I really hope so!
The EU Leaders are attempting to influence the outcome of the General Election, through fear tactics because they know full well negotiating with the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron or indeed that creep Tony Blair (who is only interested in Jean- Claude Juncker's job) would be a whole lot easier than dealing with Theresa May. We would probably end up paying even more money and have less control than we had before leaving. At least she has stepped up to the mark which is more than could be said for her predecessor smarmy Cameron. She just needs to hold her nerve, not listen to power mad Nichola Sturgeon and I have no doubt there will be capitulations!
Interesting article recently in the TelegraphFor those without a Telegraph subscription, here is the full article:
What are the economics of Britain walking away without a trade deal?
The Prime Minister has said that no deal with the EU is better than a bad deal. The importance of this judgement has recently increased as the possibility of securing any deal, let alone a good one, seems to have receded.
We have been left with the impression that we are going to have to pay an enormous divorce settlement, agree to the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and accept free movement, at least for a time, before the EU will even discuss a future trading arrangement with the UK, never mind the “bold and ambitious” free trade agreement (FTA) that Theresa May is seeking.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the structure of the negotiations seems to be stacked against us. The two-year time deadline is a major disadvantage. As and when talks stall, the pressure will begin to build as time ticks away. Moreover, as the former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis warned recently, the EU is a past master at intimidating others by deft use of agendas and timetables.
What we need is a well worked-out Plan B. If Plan A fails then there is something to fall back upon, but also, paradoxically, a viable Plan B would mean that we are more likely to succeed with Plan A.
Theresa May welcomes Jean-Claude Juncker to Downing Street
No deal better than a bad deal: Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker
Unless EU leaders see that we have an alternative and are prepared to walk away, not in fear and trepidation, but with a reasonable degree of confidence about our future, then they may well believe that it is in their interest not to give any ground to us. Above all, the Government must avoid the trap that David Cameron fell into. He asked for very little but got even less. His mistake was to make it clear that however little he got he would still support staying in the EU.
But is there a plausible Plan B? Not according to erstwhile Remainers and their sympathisers, who often use lurid language to describe our plight if we leave without a deal.
You might well think that economics is a dry subject, not open to hyperbole. In fact, when it comes to areas of uncertainty, and especially when there are sharp differences of opinion, language is important.
In the debates running up to the referendum, politicians and businesspeople talked about the overriding importance of having “access to the single market”. This conjured up the image of some precious restricted space, with entry possible only through a locked door, perhaps closely guarded by a bibulous Jean-Claude Juncker, carefully checking membership cards.
I think this particular penny has now dropped. As I and others pointed out all along, every country in the world has “access” to the single market. It is just a matter of having to pay the EU’s tariffs and abiding by its various rules and regulations governing product quality, for example, just as we have to when we sell into any market in the world. That’s why countries all around the world that are not members of the single market have managed to export into it so successfully. “Access to the single market”, so powerful as an image, is in fact a chimera.
So it is with regard to the subject of the UK’s exit. Some politicians and businesspeople talk of the UK “crashing out” of the EU. Another metaphor is of British business facing “a cliff-edge”. They say that without a deal, the UK would “fall into the clutches of the WTO”.
It is as if the World Trade Organisation (WTO) were some sort of monster that devours its members – especially juicy new ones like us. In fact, the UK helped to set up the WTO in the first place and has remained a member all along, albeit with our seat vacant because our trade policy has been run by the EU. On leaving the EU, we would simply take up our seat once again.
Mind you, Remainers often portray trading “under WTO rules” as a disaster. At the very least, it supposedly represents a step into the unknown. Yet this simply means trading with countries without having an FTA and using WTO rules to govern trading practices. As part of the EU, the UK already trades under WTO rules with over 100 countries around the world, including the United States (our largest single export market), as well as China, India, Brazil and Singapore.
We need a well worked-out Plan B. If Plan A fails, it’s something to fall back on, but it may also make us more likely to succeed
This arrangement is often described as the “WTO-only option”. But because this sounds so Spartan and threatening I have suggested that we should instead refer to it as “the American option”.
After all, without an FTA between the EU and the US, “WTO-only” is the basis on which trade between them takes place. Suddenly, it does not sound so threatening.
In saying this, I am not suggesting that there are no sorts of agreement that can and should be signed. In particular, there are various technical arrangements called Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) without which goods trade is next to impossible.
The EU has such agreements with virtually all countries around the world, including those that are neither members of the single market nor have an FTA in place.
Getting such agreements should be a simple matter and should not cause our negotiators any problems, not least because such MRAs are already in place.
All the UK has to do is simply to carry them over into the new world. If the EU refused to agree MRAs with us this would count as discrimination under WTO rules and would lead to huge fines.
If our leaders, senior officials and negotiators, as well as the majority of British businesspeople and the commentariat, can convince themselves that not having an FTA with the EU is a perfectly acceptable outcome, then the Government will be in a strong position to say no to a bad deal. Especially for a country like the UK, the open sea should hold no terrors.
Roger Bootle is chairman of Capital Economics; firstname.lastname@example.org
Swipe between articles
Oh, but he did! He turned up to the first meeting, and knew it was futile for him to stand up against the rock solid Spanish and French cartel, self-appointed by Brussels - to quote the prophet Orwell, clearly! "all animals are equal, but some more equal than others!"
So Farage did attend one meeting about the EU fishing policy - I stand corrected. Obviously attending one meeting, in spite of all his protestations, didn't make a difference. You also mention the Spanish and French cartel which couldn't be broken up, and yes, it was extremely powerful - however, he gave up very easily. He was very capable of insulting various members of the EU but gave up when it came to the Fishing policy. Surely he could have fought a bit harder and laboured his points more powerfully, after all they were well made - it was an appalling policy and apart from being very unfair and it wasn't good for fish stocks.
I would be interested in your overall view of Farage, by the way. I certainly give him credit for forcing the referendum and inspite of a lot of Tories supporting the Leave campaign - UKIP did make a huge difference. Cameron was hoping that the referendum would finally end the discord in the Tory party and he really believed he would win and the UK would stay in the UK - I wouldn't be at all surprised if this gave Cameron a great excuse to resign, after all he was a very poor PM - inept and simply not up to the job - he always gave the impression that it was his right to be 'on the board'. He can now cruise around the world giving speeches and making shedloads of money - much good it will do him!
I would be glad to hear your thoughts.
Means to an end, really! I don't think he really ever wanted to go into politics, and I admire him for achieving his end, or we wouldn't, at least, have the liberty now to express the underlying desire for an Independent UK, and on that score he has my undying gratitude. He was a city boy, a trader like me. Can't say I have ever met him, so I'd rather not judge him - don't like some of the Little Britain company he kept though. The Brussels mafia tried bullying and humiliating him at that first meeting, so I can understand his reluctance to come back for more, which he thought would have been pointless anyway! You are right about Cameron - a weasel till the end. Joining the Blair and Brown brigade! all only interested in one thing really, oiling their own greasy spoons!
Your post pretty much encapsulates my thoughts too, about Farage. I, too, have issues with some of the company he keeps. Blair and Cameron are the weasels you describe, not quite so sure about Brown - he keeps a low profile these days so I have no idea what he is up - you could well be correct about him - his nose may well be in the trough too, so many politicians and ex-politicians really do capitalise on their past to an obscene degree. I often wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to hear anything they have to say - especially when they have cocked up so badly! Blair is a disgusting man, Cameron is just colourless and inept and Brown is also without a personality. I just wonder what they achieved that was so great! As you say a pack of weasels, out for themselves as ever!
Thanks for your post - good to hear from you.
Oh yes, Gordon had his little enterprise with his wife as his tax relief - I think they called it a charity - mmm! Charity with bells for that duo, I'd say! I think Peter may have something to add on that, being his constituent! I'm glad I never had that dubious fortune!
Yes in common with all the other ex PM's and MP's Gordon Brown and Sarah have made millions since his stint as PM. They are all at it. Nigel Farage appears to be the only Brit who stood up to the EU cronies and enlightened us on the extent of corruption within the organisation and the exorbitant waste of monies. Unlike the Kinnocks etc who have all benefited greatly from the EU and continue to deny its failings.