Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Dave***t posted:

So, to distill the above.  There are two main relevant bodies, one of which we've been an influential member of for some time.  We could have probably either remained a member of that, or become a member of the other body.  Each of these possibilities would allow us to influence the body we would be a member of in the future.

But we've currently chosen to be a member of neither.  And if things turn out that way, we will probably still have to comply with the rules set by such bodies, but will have no influence over them.

Is that about right?  Because it sounds like the worst of all the available options.

 

That's about right. And at present it's about the worst of all options. Hopefully, DD and his team will consider the consequences carefully before finalising his proposal.

I understand that a further 499 (approx) organisations are being looked at. Hopefully they won' t all be problematic.

Btw. The previous post contains my views. Others who were consulted consider the UK could/will develop a better set of rules than the EU and that this would make the UK system, and its licences  a somewhat more desirable commodity.

Horizon 2020 is just one of a number of EU research funds.

We want to leave the EU but remain part of these research funding organisations.

Good idea IMHO.

But they will cost us more outside the EU than if we had stayed. And we shall have less influence over how these funds are allocated.

Does anybody have any more GOOD news about Brexit ?

Will the "Exit from Brexit" campaign have ANY influence on the pathetic way in which HMG is conducting our departure ?

I presume that even the Brexit lovers on this forum accept that DD and his team are bringing the UK into disrepute ?

I don't see it that way.  Maybe DD seems a bit less focused than Michael Barnier would like judging by the way he reports progress at the press briefing.   Its appears EU is claiming UK is not producing position papers,  the UK on the other hand report they are producing papers that include far more detail than those the EU have produced.  But no one has any idea what is going on behind closed doors in the actual negotiations.   An interesting press report last Thursday about Juncker letting loose on the “stability and accountability” of David Davis during a private meeting in Brussels,  also said DD’s “apparent lack of involvement” in the talks “risked jeopardising the negotiations”.     But that got slapped down by Michel Barnier who said DD's stance was “logical” and mirrored his own.

I'm becoming more convinced some in the EU hierarchy really are seeking to punish UK.cito following the same path.

Interesting times.

I would be much more worried if the U K team were appearing to appease the bully tactics from the EU. 

Mike-B posted:

I don't see it that way.  Maybe DD seems a bit less focused than Michael Barnier would like judging by the way he reports progress at the press briefing.   Its appears EU is claiming UK is not producing position papers,  the UK on the other hand report they are producing papers that include far more detail than those the EU have produced.  But no one has any idea what is going on behind closed doors in the actual negotiations.   An interesting press report last Thursday about Juncker letting loose on the “stability and accountability” of David Davis during a private meeting in Brussels,  also said DD’s “apparent lack of involvement” in the talks “risked jeopardising the negotiations”.     But that got slapped down by Michel Barnier who said DD's stance was “logical” and mirrored his own.

I'm becoming more convinced some in the EU hierarchy really are seeking to punish UK.cito following the same path.

Interesting times.

I think we can safely assume that Junkers is a loose canon. Not necessarily to be ignored, but put to one side. He probably succeeded more than Boris did to increase the " leave" vote.

Unfortunately I doubt if the press manages to accurately portray how negotiations are really progressing.

Don Atkinson posted:

Will the "Exit from Brexit" campaign have ANY influence on the pathetic way in which HMG is conducting our departure ?

I presume that even the Brexit lovers on this forum accept that DD and his team are bringing the UK into disrepute ?

No. Nor should it. We've had a vote on the matter ....

Disrepute? How?

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Will the "Exit from Brexit" campaign have ANY influence on the pathetic way in which HMG is conducting our departure ?

I presume that even the Brexit lovers on this forum accept that DD and his team are bringing the UK into disrepute ?

No. Nor should it. We've had a vote on the matter ....

Disrepute? How?

You misunderstand, I hope, but somehow doubt.

I was referring to "the pathetic way" DD and his team are conducting negotiations. As I say, I rather hope even the most ardent Brixiteer would expect something better than the current shambles.

Perhaps YOU voted for a shambolic and pathetic Exit, but I'm not convinced (yet) that even half the 52% voted for DD and his blundering mess of an exit.

Don Atkinson posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Will the "Exit from Brexit" campaign have ANY influence on the pathetic way in which HMG is conducting our departure ?

I presume that even the Brexit lovers on this forum accept that DD and his team are bringing the UK into disrepute ?

No. Nor should it. We've had a vote on the matter ....

Disrepute? How?

You misunderstand, I hope, but somehow doubt.

I was referring to "the pathetic way" DD and his team are conducting negotiations. As I say, I rather hope even the most ardent Brixiteer would expect something better than the current shambles.

Perhaps YOU voted for a shambolic and pathetic Exit, but I'm not convinced (yet) that even half the 52% voted for DD and his blundering mess of an exit.

With respect, it is your opinion that the exit process is "shambolic and pathetic", but that does not make it so ...

The difficulty (as I see it) with these "negotiations" is that the EU bureaucrats are intent on punishing the UK for having had the temerity to leave and so they are making the entire process as difficult as they can. They are the turkeys being asked to vote for xmas and they don't like it ... in fact they have no interest in this being a reasonable and amicable divorce - quite the opposite, it needs to be, and seen to be, difficult, expensive, acrimonious and byzantine as they possibly can.

e.g. There is nothing preventing both sides from continuing to trade, excepting the political imperatives that the EU bureaucrats insist on e.g. free movement. We traded for many years without free movement! However, we need to be punished, don't we?

My view on the exit is very simple. Just leave. Pick up the pieces (that we want) afterwards. Dragging it out is simply a waste of everybody's time, energy and emotion. JFDI.

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Will the "Exit from Brexit" campaign have ANY influence on the pathetic way in which HMG is conducting our departure ?

I presume that even the Brexit lovers on this forum accept that DD and his team are bringing the UK into disrepute ?

No. Nor should it. We've had a vote on the matter ....

Disrepute? How?

You misunderstand, I hope, but somehow doubt.

I was referring to "the pathetic way" DD and his team are conducting negotiations. As I say, I rather hope even the most ardent Brixiteer would expect something better than the current shambles.

Perhaps YOU voted for a shambolic and pathetic Exit, but I'm not convinced (yet) that even half the 52% voted for DD and his blundering mess of an exit.

With respect, it is your opinion that the exit process is "shambolic and pathetic", but that does not make it so ...

The difficulty (as I see it) with these "negotiations" is that the EU bureaucrats are intent on punishing the UK for having had the temerity to leave and so they are making the entire process as difficult as they can. They are the turkeys being asked to vote for xmas and they don't like it ... in fact they have no interest in this being a reasonable and amicable divorce - quite the opposite, it needs to be, and seen to be, difficult, expensive, acrimonious and byzantine as they possibly can.

e.g. There is nothing preventing both sides from continuing to trade, excepting the political imperatives that the EU bureaucrats insist on e.g. free movement. We traded for many years without free movement! However, we need to be punished, don't we?

My view on the exit is very simple. Just leave. Pick up the pieces (that we want) afterwards. Dragging it out is simply a waste of everybody's time, energy and emotion. JFDI.

With even more respect, it isn't just my opinion.

It's a carefull assessment made by respected organisations and reported by respected journalists in respectable newspapers.

Respectfully yours,

Don

Richard Tice "leave means leave" responds to Tony Blair's proposal for tighter immigration rules for EU citizens with the typical Brexit response - it's an attempt to deny the democratic will of the people, or words to that effect.

Nothing about the benefits of leaving, nor the benefits of having a less restrictive set of entry rules or any other encouraging prediction.

Don Atkinson posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Will the "Exit from Brexit" campaign have ANY influence on the pathetic way in which HMG is conducting our departure ?

I presume that even the Brexit lovers on this forum accept that DD and his team are bringing the UK into disrepute ?

No. Nor should it. We've had a vote on the matter ....

Disrepute? How?

You misunderstand, I hope, but somehow doubt.

I was referring to "the pathetic way" DD and his team are conducting negotiations. As I say, I rather hope even the most ardent Brixiteer would expect something better than the current shambles.

Perhaps YOU voted for a shambolic and pathetic Exit, but I'm not convinced (yet) that even half the 52% voted for DD and his blundering mess of an exit.

With respect, it is your opinion that the exit process is "shambolic and pathetic", but that does not make it so ...

The difficulty (as I see it) with these "negotiations" is that the EU bureaucrats are intent on punishing the UK for having had the temerity to leave and so they are making the entire process as difficult as they can. They are the turkeys being asked to vote for xmas and they don't like it ... in fact they have no interest in this being a reasonable and amicable divorce - quite the opposite, it needs to be, and seen to be, difficult, expensive, acrimonious and byzantine as they possibly can.

e.g. There is nothing preventing both sides from continuing to trade, excepting the political imperatives that the EU bureaucrats insist on e.g. free movement. We traded for many years without free movement! However, we need to be punished, don't we?

My view on the exit is very simple. Just leave. Pick up the pieces (that we want) afterwards. Dragging it out is simply a waste of everybody's time, energy and emotion. JFDI.

With even more respect, it isn't just my opinion.

It's a carefull assessment made by respected organisations and reported by respected journalists in respectable newspapers.

Respectfully yours,

Don

I feel overwhelmed by all this respect lol

Journalists, Newspapers, Organizations - I don't think I've been mentioned in the same breath as such exalted company.

It is my careful assessment that they were all wrong before the referendum and that nothing has changed.

Even More Respectfully Than Before ...

ynwa250505 posted:

With respect, it is your opinion that the exit process is "shambolic and pathetic", but that does not make it so ...

The difficulty (as I see it) with these "negotiations" is that the EU bureaucrats are intent on punishing the UK for having had the temerity to leave and so they are making the entire process as difficult as they can. They are the turkeys being asked to vote for xmas and they don't like it ... in fact they have no interest in this being a reasonable and amicable divorce - quite the opposite, it needs to be, and seen to be, difficult, expensive, acrimonious and byzantine as they possibly can.

e.g. There is nothing preventing both sides from continuing to trade, excepting the political imperatives that the EU bureaucrats insist on e.g. free movement. We traded for many years without free movement! However, we need to be punished, don't we?

My view on the exit is very simple. Just leave. Pick up the pieces (that we want) afterwards. Dragging it out is simply a waste of everybody's time, energy and emotion. JFDI.

That's the way I see it. The EU lot are a clever bunch aren't they. They know exactly what they're doing. DD doesn't really stand a chance.

Of course we could let Stammer or whatever his name is have a go at it, he'd do a great job of keeping us in which it seems nearly all members of this forum wants.

It's a mess and will get messier. The implications and scale of exiting were seriously underestimated, in part because HMG at the time expected a vote to remain, and partly because no one has done it before.  The political parties are internally divided on the issue with no sign yet of any alignment.  Much preparation time has been wasted while domestic political in-fighting has been pursued.  To blame the rest of the EU for this is facile. The other member states and EU Commission wanted the UK to stay. We voted to leave. The UK has therefore caused a huge amount of work and uncertainty for the other 27 countries, for which they will see no benefit. 

Of course, when the inadequacies of the UK's negotiating position begin to be revealed it is easy for the politicians and much of the UK media (that has always been anti-EU) to blame 'Brussels'. Can we really be surprised that the EU reacts negatively when some of the our politicians imply that we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of access to the Single Market but without the obligations?  We ought to have the decency to recognise the problems and consequences of Brexit are wholly of our making.  

Anybody who voted for brexit and didn’t realise the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was either naïve or stupid.

Anybody who voted for brexit and realised the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was stupid.

Therefore, anybody who voted for brexit must be naïve or stupid. Possibly both.

fatcat posted:

Anybody who voted for brexit and didn’t realise the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was either naïve or stupid.

Anybody who voted for brexit and realised the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was stupid.

Therefore, anybody who voted for brexit must be naïve or stupid. Possibly both.

 

Pretty sure it's both :-)

MDS posted:

It's a mess and will get messier. The implications and scale of exiting were seriously underestimated, in part because HMG at the time expected a vote to remain, and partly because no one has done it before.  The political parties are internally divided on the issue with no sign yet of any alignment.  Much preparation time has been wasted while domestic political in-fighting has been pursued.  To blame the rest of the EU for this is facile. The other member states and EU Commission wanted the UK to stay. We voted to leave. The UK has therefore caused a huge amount of work and uncertainty for the other 27 countries, for which they will see no benefit. 

Of course, when the inadequacies of the UK's negotiating position begin to be revealed it is easy for the politicians and much of the UK media (that has always been anti-EU) to blame 'Brussels'. Can we really be surprised that the EU reacts negatively when some of the our politicians imply that we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of access to the Single Market but without the obligations?  We ought to have the decency to recognise the problems and consequences of Brexit are wholly of our making.  

Nicely summarised Mike.

I'm not a Union member and never have been, but I agree with the TUC assessment that we are heading towards a kamikase Brexit !

MDS posted:

It's a mess and will get messier. The implications and scale of exiting were seriously underestimated, in part because HMG at the time expected a vote to remain, and partly because no one has done it before.  The political parties are internally divided on the issue with no sign yet of any alignment.  Much preparation time has been wasted while domestic political in-fighting has been pursued.  To blame the rest of the EU for this is facile. The other member states and EU Commission wanted the UK to stay. We voted to leave. The UK has therefore caused a huge amount of work and uncertainty for the other 27 countries, for which they will see no benefit. 

Of course, when the inadequacies of the UK's negotiating position begin to be revealed it is easy for the politicians and much of the UK media (that has always been anti-EU) to blame 'Brussels'. Can we really be surprised that the EU reacts negatively when some of the our politicians imply that we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of access to the Single Market but without the obligations?  We ought to have the decency to recognise the problems and consequences of Brexit are wholly of our making.  

Well if they all wanted the UK to stay, then they should have responded more appropriately to Cameron's overtures - but they didn't ...

The single market is a trading mechanism. The "obligations" are simply political imperatives - that are being put in the way of reaching agreement on trading. There is no reason that we cannot continue to trade without any hiatus whatsoever except that the club rules don't allow it. Well, trade benefits everybody, irrespective of the club rules ...

The problems and consequences of Brexit are certainly NOT of our making. The EU is a corrupt, self-centred organisation that is run solely for the benefit of its politicians and bureaucrats and the UK was for far too long a lone voice seeking less red tape, less waste and a bigger focus on trade whereas the EU's focus is extending the reach of its bureaucracy, increasing its ever-increasing budget, increasing its already bloated headcount and sending unelected unaccountable has-beens or wannabes traipsing around the world pretending to be world player, when all we need is a trading bloc - nothing else!

We spent decades trying to reform it from within and what happened? Zilch, FA, nada. There comes a point in everybody's life when it just ain't worth the candle any more and fortunately (imo) the British people reached that point

Juncker's coming state of the Union speech will be interesting. State of the Union - I ask you !!! When will they learn???

fatcat posted:

Anybody who voted for brexit and didn’t realise the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was either naïve or stupid.

Anybody who voted for brexit and realised the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was stupid.

Therefore, anybody who voted for brexit must be naïve or stupid. Possibly both.

 

People take action to separate themselves from unwanted partners all the time knowing that the process will be traumatic, emotional and costly. However, it is not unreasonable to (in due course) expect a reasonable sensible negotiation over the divorce terms. That does not imply a lack of wisdom, experience or judgement and neither does it imply stupidity.

The problem the EU (and therefore, the UK) has it that the EU cannot be seen to be reasonable or sensible, never mind conciliatory - because the UK must be punished for their decision else who would be next? That's the problem. We just want away on sensible terms and a mutually beneficial trading arrangement - but the EU wants to make an example of us.

ynwa250505 posted:

MDS posted:

It's a mess and will get messier. The implications and scale of exiting were seriously underestimated, in part because HMG at the time expected a vote to remain, and partly because no one has done it before.  The political parties are internally divided on the issue with no sign yet of any alignment.  Much preparation time has been wasted while domestic political in-fighting has been pursued.  To blame the rest of the EU for this is facile. The other member states and EU Commission wanted the UK to stay. We voted to leave. The UK has therefore caused a huge amount of work and uncertainty for the other 27 countries, for which they will see no benefit. 

Of course, when the inadequacies of the UK's negotiating position begin to be revealed it is easy for the politicians and much of the UK media (that has always been anti-EU) to blame 'Brussels'. Can we really be surprised that the EU reacts negatively when some of the our politicians imply that we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of access to the Single Market but without the obligations?  We ought to have the decency to recognise the problems and consequences of Brexit are wholly of our making.  

Well if they all wanted the UK to stay, then they should have responded more appropriately to Cameron's overtures - but they didn't ...

The single market is a trading mechanism. The "obligations" are simply political imperatives - that are being put in the way of reaching agreement on trading. There is no reason that we cannot continue to trade without any hiatus whatsoever except that the club rules don't allow it. Well, trade benefits everybody, irrespective of the club rules ...

The problems and consequences of Brexit are certainly NOT of our making. The EU is a corrupt, self-centred organisation that is run solely for the benefit of its politicians and bureaucrats and the UK was for far too long a lone voice seeking less red tape, less waste and a bigger focus on trade whereas the EU's focus is extending the reach of its bureaucracy, increasing its ever-increasing budget, increasing its already bloated headcount and sending unelected unaccountable has-beens or wannabes traipsing around the world pretending to be world player, when all we need is a trading bloc - nothing else!

We spent decades trying to reform it from within and what happened? Zilch, FA, nada. There comes a point in everybody's life when it just ain't worth the candle any more and fortunately (imo) the British people reached that point

Juncker's coming state of the Union speech will be interesting. State of the Union - I ask you !!! When will they learn???

ynwa250505, my summary above was about the process of Brexit, your reply is about justifying the decision to leave. They are different things.  Regardless of the arguments about the latter, I think we're making a mess of the former.  Even the most strident Brexiteers must be able to see that HMG's preparations to leave were inadequate (Cameron had no plan for implementing a vote to leave), that since the result of the referendum HMG has wasted time getting its exit plan pulled together, that it has still to set out exactly what it wants to achieve in the various sectors that need to be addressed (the EU was able to produce detailed 'position papers' ages ago, which would have needed agreeing between 27 countries so a far more difficult task than the UK faced in determining its policy objectives), and to this day the various factions within parliament seem to be finding it very difficult to agree on what we want.  And now with no majority in the House of Commons the prospects of enacting the necessary legislation must be even more difficult than they were when T May first took over from Cameron.  To repeat myself, this is a mess. 

ynwa250505 posted:

fatcat posted:

Anybody who voted for brexit and didn’t realise the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was either naïve or stupid.

Anybody who voted for brexit and realised the EU would make leaving very difficult, with penalties to pay was stupid.

Therefore, anybody who voted for brexit must be naïve or stupid. Possibly both.

 

People take action to separate themselves from unwanted partners all the time knowing that the process will be traumatic, emotional and costly. However, it is not unreasonable to (in due course) expect a reasonable sensible negotiation over the divorce terms. That does not imply a lack of wisdom, experience or judgement and neither does it imply stupidity.

The problem the EU (and therefore, the UK) has it that the EU cannot be seen to be reasonable or sensible, never mind conciliatory - because the UK must be punished for their decision else who would be next? That's the problem. We just want away on sensible terms and a mutually beneficial trading arrangement - but the EU wants to make an example of us.

 

Well, I’d like to know which of the brexit campaigners advised voters “leaving will be traumatic, emotional and costly”.

I listened to some of Barniers speech last week, I didn’t hear anything unreasonable. He spoke about a 7 year funding plan that was agreed in 2013, he expects all the 28 to pay all monies promised, otherwise some project wouldn’t be completed. Reading between the lines the EU are only asking for contributions from the UK up to 2020. Given we’re leaving in 2019, that’s a couple of years contributions at most. Maybe 15 billion per year tops, that’s 30 billion total.

He stated the UK are going back on promises given at the start of negations, presumably DD has withdrawn his promise that the UK would pay any money they had committed to pay.

He also spoke about existing EU trade agreements with other countries. Norway and Lichtenstein have full access, but pay a fee. Canada doesn’t have full access but pay no fees. The UK wants the access Norway have at the cost Canada have.

A realistic and fair settlement would be, we have the same trading rights, we pay the same amount to the EU, but we take control of our borders. And lets face it, taking control of our borders is why so many people voted for brexit.

The major obstacle to agreeing a sensible brexit isn’t the EU, but the people orchestrating the UK’s brexit plans, the right wing tories who have strangle hold over the government, pushing for hard brexit at all costs. DD is dancing to their tune. Even the CBI and TUC agree the UK’s position will be disastrous, although to be honest, I’m loosing track who’s for or against what.

I agree with that analysis, Fatcat. In my view the various EU public statements on Brexit have been measured and reasonable.  The UK's 'divorce bill', as it has often been described by the UK media, must be a fair reflection of the financial commitments we made - many of which the UK explicitly supported and will benefit from - before we decided to leave the UK.  

I don't really like the often used analogy of comparing Brexit to the breakdown of a marriage, where one partner wants out and the other one doesn't.  However, this posturing around how much the UK needs to contribute to the EU post-leaving, might be likened to one of the parties in a marriage wanting to leave and go their own way and arguing that they should no longer contribute to the school fees of the children they are going to leave behind even though, at the time, they agreed that the children should go to a fee-paying school.  

The UK has for many years been one of the biggest and richest EU member states, making a annual contribution to the EU budget because of that wealth.  Every year the UK has been party to the decision-making process around how the EU budget is spent and on what projects. Many of those projects will have been infrastructure and research which we will have supported at the time.  It is only right that we fulfil the financial obligations that we freely entered into. In my view the UK's reputation for being a nation of high integrity and respect for law depends upon it.

Mike, fat cat,

i agree with much of what you say, if not all.

if the UK is going to honour its existing financial committments as outlined above (and like you, I consider we should), then equally, I consider we should continue to be a decision maker and a beneficiary of those enterprises we are funding, even after Brexit.