holystove

Then someone should tell May that since she laid out her "plan" there is no longer a majority for brexit! Right, where's the opposition?

So what you're saying is, given that the only thing the British want out of European cooperation is the single market, there wouldn't have been a majority for Leave if people had known that Brexit means that the UK will no longer be in the single market? Must be pretty annoying then that leaving the single market is the one thing May has guaranteed will happen . Here's the thing though. When the UK was finally allowed to join the EU back in the 70's the EU (then EEC) it was already more than just a economic union. So the UK knew what they were getting into (I even remember reading a copy of an old article by your then prime minister who wrote about how it won't be just about economic cooperation and how excited he is about the prospect of working together with the EU on other issues - I have the link on my computer at work and will post it tomorrow). So, you have 27 member states that want a EU that is not just focused on common economic policy, but also on other common interests such as human rights, consumer rights, labour rights, etc. May has indicated she respects that, but doesn't want any part of it. This is fine, but it also means that to the EU, the UK is to be treated as any other third country. Being a third country, the single market is out the window. Best case, trade with a third country is defined by a free trade agreement (as opposed to WTO rules). In this agreement each side will try to get what is the best possible deal. The future UK - New Zealand deal for example will force the UK to deal with the threat of Welsh lamb being priced off the shelves by cheaper Kiwi lamb so maybe they want to protect that sector with a tariff of sorts, New Zealand will then want concessions on another issue - it's give and take. What will be the response of "Mr America First" if May calls him up and says she wants full access to the American market in exchange for full access to the UK market? He'll say it doesn't make sense for him to give complete unhindered access to the richest country in the world, home of some 300million consumers, in exchange for access to a country of just 65m. He'll want something more. It's the same with the EU. Either you are a full member and get the benefits of trading in the Union without barriers; or you are out and you have to come to agreement about the level of access to each others market. The reality being that the EU is 8 times bigger than the UK. I would agree with you that Brexit would go a lot smoother for the UK if the EU just agreed to a free trade agreement that is 100% similar to full access to the single market but that wouldn't really make sense for the 27 member states. Being the bigger player of the two, the EU27 should be able to negotiate a deal that would create strong incentives to get some of those banking jobs to the continent, or maybe a couple of Airbus plants, or a couple of car plants, .. who knows.

apart from the juncker quote, the two articles I posted were opinion pieces which just as easily could have been in The Telegraph?

if before the vote it would have been clear that brexit would mean leaving the single market, would the majority still have voted yes? Hannan, Boris, even banks and farage, they all said the UK would remain in the single market. or is the single market aspect of the vote too technical and would a majority have chosen to leave the EU anyway? (I personally doubt it) May is becoming so entrenched she has lost sight of what is best for her country.

Boris, Gove, etc should also remember this : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/europe-loser-brexit-britain I disagree with the title of the article because it doesn't set the proper tone imo.. but the author does raise some very important issues which show the relative weakness of the UK's hand.

Apparently Juncker agrees with me on the public debate issue .. (Juncker agreeing with me not normally something I would be happy about ) The president of the EU commission has said talks on Britain’s departure will be “very, very, very difficult” as Europe’s press turned hostile https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/18/jean-claude-juncker-says-brexit-talks-will-be-very-very-very-difficult

Sorry Matt! Now for the good news. In today's Guardian there is an article by Europe's most fanatical federalist, Guy Verhofstadt, in which he actually makes a lot of sense. It is noteworthy that he talks about a deal that is least harmful for all concerned. This is a statement I fully agree with. It's important to get the best possible deal for the UK and the EU, but that deal will still be worse (edit: from an economic point of view!!) than what we both have now. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/not-punish-britain-shed-illusions-eu-fair-deal "The EU will work in a frank and open manner to help deliver a Brexit that is least harmful for all concerned" "Contrary to the deeply unhelpful comments by the British foreign secretary Boris Johnson yesterday, who suggested that François Hollande was trying to “administer punishment beatings” in the manner of “some world war two movie”, no one in Europe wants to “punish” either Britain or the British. I have never heard any MEP or European leader call for this, in private or public." "I am the first to recognise the importance of May’s statement on the need for close cooperation on security matters, both internal and external. We will have to find a way to cooperate on anti-terrorism and defence in a structured and systemic way." "One of the most pressing priorities will be to find a solution to the intolerable situation of many European Union citizens working and living in the UK and, likewise, the millions of British citizens currently resident in other EU countries. " "But many of my colleagues are simply bemused by the UK government’s threat to deregulate its economy, or walk away from negotiations, if the UK’s goals are not delivered." "It is increasingly clear that Trump and Russia now seek the disintegration of the European Union. But I don’t see why chaos on the continent would be in the interests of Britain. Post-Brexit, I hope that the UK and the EU can work together to defend what remains of the liberal democratic order." "Let us hope for a future relationship based on trust and genuine partnership." Remember, this by Europe's biggest fanatic. Now please make the tabloids and the extremist Tories stop poisoning the public debate.

Follow up on yesterday. That escalated quickly

The Belfodil saga would suggest it's not that simple. It's reported that Koeman from early on didn't really like that signing but Walsh pushed ahead anyway. In the end the deal broke down for other reasons. I assume Walsh has earned the right to have final say.

3) the EU will pay for the cake

Follow up - some FT journalist must be reading our forum because they just posted an article on this UK v Europe: newspaper reactions to Theresa May’s Brexit speechhttps://www.ft.com/content/87465ad4-dd60-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce

I assume they can both veto and Everton only goes after the players they both feel confident about.

Regardless of how the politicians will hash it out, the level of hostility in the press makes me fear this won't end with a good EU-UK deal. I assume behind closed doors May and her European counterparts are much more amicable with each other, but won't public pressure force them to eventually also be tough with each other in their private meetings? I personally believe May is only using 'tough' language to placate the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Daily Express,.. crowd but apparently European newspapers think it necessary to strike back. El Pais (Spain): "May is eye-wateringly hostile" - Le Monde (France): "Brussels needs to prepare weaponry after May speech". These two front pages: to quote Trump : "Sad!"

Belgian press reporting deal is dead! Translation: Ishak Belfodil to Everton, closing the deal looked like just a formality. But yesterday the negotiations were permanently frozen. The two clubs agreed last week in principle about the transfer price, but Everton started to have doubts. Unlike Steve Walsh, Koeman wasn't convinced about Belfodil. The Dutchman had heard negative things about his personality.

Our good friends at the "CIES Footbal Observatory", (an independent study centre located in Switzerland that specializes in the statistical analysis of football) have released their new list with the most expensive players. One Evertonian included at number 25: Romelu Lukaku - 70,9m EUR. Full list : http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/172/en/

Sounds like this is the website for you : http://www.infowars.com/

From what I can read online, the public debate in England has educated a lot of people (apparently there's room for an informed debate now that the votes are in and noone needs to be scared to vote this or that way). Don't polls now suggest a swing towards remain in a lot of areas? Also aren't the lib-dems not picking up some seats in all these by-elections? (genuinely asking). I have in 2016 lost my faith in polls so it might not mean much. About the predictions of economic doom post June 23rd: those predictions were based on an immediate triggering of article 50. that hasn't happened as of yet, so right now the UK has all the trade-benefits of being an EU member with a currency that has devalued over 20%. UK exports should be soaring. Economists have apparently been baffled by the resilience of UK consumer spending, but there is a general agreement that even though economic doom hasn't happened as fast as expected, it is merely a question of timing when it will happen. Anyway, as you have said before, it's time to trigger A50 and see what happens. Apparently there's already talks of a post-Brexit trade deal with New Zealand so kudos on that .

Belgian press reporting this deal as done. 12m EUR. every pundit seems to agree Everton were robbed. Apparently he was really wanted by Walsh; so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but not really getting my hopes up.

I work as a lawyer; Not on EU matters (my speciality is insolvency) but at university I did major in European law and I have written a couple of papers on EU constitutional law. My knowledge of the constitutional principles of the EU is probably why I still believe so strongly in the concept of the EU despite the occasional idiot they put in charge of it. The framework is excellent, now for the rest.

hadn't heard of him before he was mentioned as an Everton target

no worries! Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2 u2 uur geleden Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING! Vertalen uit het Engels 13.646 antwoorden10.047 retweets29.000 vind-ik-leuks Beantwoorden 13.646 Retweeten 10.047 Leuk 29.000 Meer Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2 u2 uur geleden Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is "A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE." Very unfair! If Russia said so, it must be true.

Kristof Terreur ‏@HLNinEngeland 1 u1 uur geleden And @stijnjorisfh provides the proof. Everton target Belfodil is still training with Standard. No deal (as yet). #efc Vertalen uit het Engels

I agree that those points you mention are probably what drove brexit just as much as the immigration issue. The over powering sentiment in the UK towards the EU is one of suspicion. There's this bit by a Belgian comedian that to me adequately describes this British sentiment. He said: "Thank God the British took back control; now finally they'll be able to use their own currency, drive on the left side of the road and use miles instead of meters". I look at the EU as the instrument European nations can use for the things they have a common goal in, e.g. global warming, terrorism, economy, etc. The EU needs to stay out of everything else, such as culture, language, etc.. which it does. The most important constitutional principle in the EU is the principle of subsidiarity which means that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level - presumably issues concerning cultural identity will therefor never be taken on the EU-level. As nations increasingly work together, there will be more common ground between them and therefor at a certain time, those nations will want to give more compentences to the EU. A common army is an example of this. No way is the EU right now ready for an EU wide army. But Belgium and the Netherlands for example patrol each others air space, and usually place orders for military equiment together. Maybe in a couple of years more countries will pool together this way until finally they decide that maybe the EU should take up this role. That is the meaning of an ever closer union. It's a natural process. It isn't something forced upon you. Surely the fact that there is a shared currency, but the UK isn't using it, should be enough to indicate that the EU doesn't force itself on its members. Maybe the EU went to quickly the last decades. It definitely did with the big enlargement in 2005, letting all those eastern European countries join. I'm sure if the EU leaders had known that there would be a huge financial crisis only a few years after that, they would have waited to include those poorer nations.

In light of trade-deals the differences in the German, Andorran, French, UK, .. economy are negligible. Tarrifs are usually lowered in a very general way (iirc the WTO prohibits being too specific). So the objectives of the UK, German, .. economies (being fairly similar) are pretty much all the same when negotiating a trade deal. I don't think there's anything to gain by going at it alone from that perspective. I can't say for certain that the UK wouldn't have gotten lower tariffs or better conditions as the UK hasn't had to negotiate its own trade deals for 40 years. I did include in my previous post examples of Canada and Australia who have only 15 trade deals (vs EU 50) and I used the example of the South Korea - Australia deal to indicate that Australia got a much worse deal than EU countries as a bloc. Sure the UK is an important country. But I do think the situation of Australia/Canada and the UK are very comparable. UK economy is 1/9 the size of US economy, 1/8 the size of the EU minus UK economy, 1/4 the size of Chinese economy. Australia and Canada are 1/10 - 1/11 - 1/5 US - EU - China). So you can look at those two countries as good examples of the type of trade deals that the UK will get, not only with the US/EU/China but also with other nations. The Canada deal took 7 years which is actually pretty good for a comprehensive trade deal. If you read interviews about that deal, negotiators on the Canadian and EU side congratulate each other on the positive way the negotiations were done. One of the reasons it did take 7 yaers is because of internal Canadian structures (where provinces had to give approval etc) rather than the EU holding things back. Only at the end did the Walloons make some trouble but that didn't last long. In most trade deals the national parliaments of member states don't have to give final approval.. this time it was an idea by Juncker to increase the understanding of the importance of the EU in every day lives of Europeans, which almost backfired because of some walloon populists who saw political gain in being difficult. From this side of the channel Europeans see a PM who makes speeches where she places border-control ahead of the economy, and very negative reporting on other member states in the tabloids. Here the reporting is that the UK uses the threat of withholding security information, and just today it was reported the UK will not help out EU-NATO members when threatened by Russia or whatever even though the UK and France have the only two real armies in Europe. It's just media, and media-whoring politicians, creating headlines. Much of the cooperation between European countries concerning security, like the European Arrest Warant for example, is regulated under international law (not supranational law of the EU). How is the Tory leadership less of a boys club than the EU? My view is that the hardline brexiteers are willing to hurt their own economy just to weaken the EU, regardless of the damage it will do to their own "ordinary, decent people". But as I said, that's OK if you value curbing immigration above all. I just object to claims that Brexit will "benefit" the UK in matters of trade.

Trump's day so far: Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2 u2 uur geleden The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later! Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 52 min.52 minuten geleden Wow, the ratings are in and Arnold Schwarzenegger got "swamped" (or destroyed) by comparison to the ratings machine, DJT. So much for.... Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 43 min.43 minuten geleden being a movie star-and that was season 1 compared to season 14. Now compare him to my season 1. But who cares, he supported Kasich & Hillary 2 more weeks until this guy is commander-in-chief.