E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

'Thereas May has let herself go a bit...

...or has Boris lost weight?'

 

"Is it just me, or does this guy look the spitting image of Sam the Eagle from The Muppet Show?"

 

I don't think even Farage understands why people voted to leave, he seems to think it was because of an open door immigration policy but even the government admitted there's no such thing and never has been.

I think its already been said but it was the fear of immigration that drove much of the reasons for people voting to leave and Farage with his anti-immigrant rhetoric was responsible for much of that.

It's probably why Barnier didn't have much to say in terms of a response as it's sort of tricky to answer something you know isn't factually correct.

 

The important thing to understand about Farage is that it is all about Farage. It's not really about the EU or Brexit. He doesn't really have any considered ideology; he just jumped on a convenient controversy bandwagon to get attention from daddy (basically his father, now projected on any authority figure) by being rebellious and difficult. He seeks approval from the crowd only as a way to make him more noticed, but he doesn't really care about his followers. Look at how quickly he dumped UKIP when Brexit got real.

This is why the entire thrust of this meeting has been about getting Barnier to "understand" him. He wants Barnier et al. to go: "Oh no, what have we done? We're so sorry for not listening to you Nigel, and not giving you the time of day! Please forgive us!"

Not happening. The reason why Barnier looked at him with incredulity was because Farage is still going on about something that to the EU is already a done deal. What does it still matter why the UK voted Brexit? It is leaving. The EU has declared its negotiating position, done its impact assessments and is already moving on.

Katy Hopkins works the same way, BTW.

 

After the UK government making a big deal of how it is contingency planning for a 'no deal' scenario, David Davis is now complaining bitterly about how the EU is contingency planning for a 'no deal' scenario... claiming Brussels’ planning in accordance with the UK's explicitly stated position is harming British business (sorry, who decided to leave again?) and breaching the UK’s rights as a member state (sorry weren't you leaving?).

If the UK wants to create the impression that it feels perfectly OK with a 'no deal' outcome and is prepared to walk away, it is doing s sterling job.

 

That's sort of borne out by the latest bandwagon he's attempting to hitch his horse to, he wants a second referendum but this time on the abolition of the house of lords.

 

From the FT (as it is behind a paywall:

David Davis attacks EU’s ‘damaging’ no-deal Brexit planning

Minister’s letter to PM says Brussels guidance to companies is threat to UK interests

David Davis has consulted lawyers over the EU’s preparations for a no-deal Brexit, claiming Brussels’ planning is harming British business and breaching the UK’s rights as a member state.

In a letter sent to Theresa May, UK prime minister, last month and seen by the Financial Times, the Brexit secretary pointed to EU “measures” that could jeopardise existing contracts or force British companies to decamp to the continent if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Mr Davis said in the letter that he would ask the European Commission to revise its guidance to business so it highlights the potential for a future transition and trade deal.

But the demand drew accusations of hypocrisy from some British MPs, given that UK ministers have emphasised the extent of their own no-deal planning. “The government is implicitly threatening a no-deal scenario,” said Pat McFadden, a Labour member of the Brexit select committee. “It should come as no surprise that the EU is also preparing for this possibility.”

Mr Davis said in his letter to Mrs May that the guidance from EU agencies sees the UK becoming a “third country” when it leaves the bloc in March 2019, without referring to the British government’s hopes of sealing a two-year transition period or trade deal. Mr Davis said this treated the UK differently from other member states, even before it left the bloc, “in a way which is frequently damaging to UK interests”.

“The EU has adopted a number of measures that put agreements or contracts at risk of being terminated in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario and/or would require UK companies to relocate to another member state,” Mr Davis said. “The commission had issued similar unilateral statements on company law, civil justice and private international law, transport and the breeding, transportation and protection of live animals.”

The EU is unlikely to be open to revising its guidance to companies. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has repeatedly stressed that companies must prepare for the UK leaving the single market and customs union in 2019. “On 29 March 2019 at midnight, the United Kingdom will cease to be a member state,” Mr Barnier said in November. “I don’t know if the whole truth has been explained to British businesses on the concrete consequences of Brexit.”

The UK government has insisted it would be prepared for a “no deal” Brexit if necessary. Philip Hammond, chancellor, set aside £3bn in last November’s Budget for preparations in the case of Britain leaving the EU without a deal.

“It seems extraordinary that the government is exercised about the EU preparing for a no deal scenario when it has set aside £3bn in its most recent Budget to do exactly the same thing,” said Mr McFadden. Stephen Kinnock, another Labour MP, said the government was “naive” not to imagine that the EU would want to prepare for scenarios including a no-deal Brexit. “The passive-aggressive tone of the letter demonstrates that the government doesn’t have a clue,” he said. “The relationship between the EU and UK does seem to be falling to pieces.”

An aide from the Department for Exiting the EU confirmed that the letter from Mr Davis to Mrs May was genuine. “It’s clear there have been a number of instances where the commission, by treating the UK differently despite still being a member of the EU, have not acted in good faith,” the aide said. “It should be no surprise that if the commission attempt to stoke fears about worst-case scenarios. We will correct them and reassure our firms.

”Mr Davis wrote in his letter that the measures amounted to “potential breaches of the UK’s rights as a member” of the EU. He told the prime minister the government “cannot let these actions go unchallenged”.

However, Mr Davis added that he had sought legal advice from officials, only to be warned that any legal challenge would probably fail. “Any legal action would also be high-risk politically and financially and may not conclude until after we exit,” he said.

While the EU is preparing its position to negotiate a “standstill” transition with the UK until 2021, negotiators in Brussels have stressed that businesses will have no “certainty” until a full withdrawal deal is agreed and ratified later this year or early next.

More in an article in the Independent.

 

Commission spokesman all deadpan just now: "We in the European Commission we are surprised that the United Kingdom is surprised that we are preparing for a scenario announced by the UK government itself."

 

It's probably because the UK government is surprised that it itself has actually suggested one possible (concrete) outcome of Brexit instead of the usual committing to not committing to anything and at the same time commiting to having everything and nothing.

Actually, we're committed to having blue passports for now

 

It is committed to leaving the Single Market --by staying a bit longer in the Single Market. Like, pretty please?

Yup, David Davis, Brexit bulldog and star negotiator, is down to begging in German newspapers now...

 

I can't find it in me to mock Brexiteers any more. It's a low hanging fruit with little comedic value. They just make it too easy, as if they were acting out a parody of themselves. They sucked the fun out of Brexit.

 

The slaughter of the unicorns begins.

From the Financial Times:

Brussels warns UK companies of shut-out in event of no-deal Brexit

Drugmakers and airlines among those told to expect no automatic access to single market

The EU is systematically warning UK companies of a regulatory chill after Brexit as it seeks to accelerate the private sector’s preparations for a no-deal UK exit, according to recent legal notices reviewed by the Financial Times.

Even as negotiators neared a breakthrough in Brexit divorce talks, EU regulators issued a flurry of “be prepared” memos to about 15 industries in November and December, ranging from drugmakers, seafarers and mineral water producers to hauliers and airlines that rely on UK operating licences. The documents call on companies to be ready for the UK to become “a third country” on March 29 2019, with no automatic right to operate in the single market. They also warn that operating licences will automatically lapse after Brexit and that many groups may have to create EU entities for continuity of business.

The warnings triggered an angry response from David Davis, the Brexit secretary, who accuses the EU of measures that could jeopardise existing contracts or force British companies to decamp to the continent if the two sides fail to reach a deal.

Mr Davis’s complaints were outlined in a letter sent last month to prime minister Theresa May and leaked to the FT this week.

“We are surprised . . . the UK government is surprised the commission is preparing for a no-deal scenario,” retorted Margaritis Schinas, the commission’s chief spokesperson, on Tuesday.

The flare-up highlights the contrasting approaches to no-deal preparation taken in Westminster and Brussels. While the UK has emphasised government contingency planning, laying aside £3bn to build up regulatory and customs capabilities, the EU is highlighting risks so the private sector makes arrangements for “all circumstances”.

EU negotiators see it as a positive if companies take no chances and trigger comprehensive contingency plans for Brexit, especially if that involves moving business activity from Britain to the continent. A strict approach has also been applied in the awarding of some EU contracts and funding applications. “We’ve heard pretty concerning reports about negative treatment of UK businesses and universities since the referendum, either on contracts, collaboration or funding,” said Adam Marshall, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce. Mrs May’s government sealed a divorce deal with the EU in December and hopes to agree transition arrangements by the end of March.

But although some EU notices made passing references to a possible transition deal after 2019, most of the papers issued by the European Commission did not.The commission repeats in several notices that “preparing for the withdrawal is not just a matter for union and national authorities, but also for private parties”. In a speech on Tuesday, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, said the EU and the UK were discussing a transition period of 21 months until December 2020 but added: “The real transition period has already begun.”

The commission notes that UK-issued operating licences for airlines “will no longer be valid” in the EU unless carriers are owned and controlled by EU nationals and “have one’s principal place of business” within the EU. Similarly road transport operators “must have an effective and stable establishment in an EU member state”.

Brussels urges some chemicals groups to apply for approvals for biocidal products, such as disinfectants, from within the remaining 27 EU states so that the process is not affected by Brexit. “Holders of product authorisations must be established within the union,” it notes. Drugmakers are urged to revise product information because any UK representatives mentioned will be “obsolete” after March 2019. One notice is dedicated to the implications for mineral water sourced in the UK, which can no longer be automatically marketed in the EU because they are “extracted from the ground of a third country”. Highlighting the breadth of legal issues covered, the commission uses a memo to outline the detailed implications for certificates for slaughtering of animals for fur — a practice outlawed in the UK since 2000. Only one EU notice to trademark holders explicitly mentions that the EU is “trying to agree solutions for some of the issues that might arise”. But in that case the main problem is for the EU side: the memo notes that legal protections for products such as champagne and parmesan will lapse in the UK after Brexit.

Allie Renison of the Institute of Directors said “the EU could do more to convey its aim to secure a ‘business-as-usual’ period to firms on both sides of the Channel”. But she added it was “essential” for the UK to also “provide further clarity about its objectives for our future trade relationship with the EU — and indeed its own guidance if it finds statements from Brussels misleading”. Meanwhile Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, reacted with incredulity to Mr Davis’s letter. “A government intent on leaving the EU and continually talking about the prospect of ‘no deal’ moaning about EU preparing to treat the UK as a non-member and for the possibility of ‘no deal’,” she said. “Unbelievable.”

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, issued a joint statement calling on Germany and the UK to work together on a “bespoke solution”. “It makes no sense to either Germany or Britain to put in place unnecessary barriers to trade in goods and services that would only damage businesses and economic growth on both sides of the Channel,” they write in the Frankfurter Allgemeine.

 

What, you mean like Brexit?

 

I used to think Monty Python was surreal comedy. I love the way that Hammond and Davis are sort of touring the Germany circuit like a double act, all like: "Yo, we sort of like referendumbed and people all went like "Leave" and we accidentally Brexiting. Soz..."

 

Nigel Farage, Architect of Brexit, Sees Case for Second Referendum

 

Imagine the UK government trying to come up with some sort of rule that a referendum result would have to remain valid for a generation...

*hint*
Even the Swiss who have a lot of experience with referendums have never managed to come up with anything like that.

 

Wasn't the one in the 70s meant to 'settle it once and for all'...

...but then again WW1 was 'the war to end all wars'.

 

Looks like Farage doesn't like the idea of democracy much what with his comment about remainers whinging, whining, and complaining.

Has no one told him that in a democratic society just because you win a vote it doesn't mean people should shut up and never mention the issue again, if that was the case then he should have remained silent on the whole EU thing as it was settled 40 odd years ago.

Like it or not Mr Farage people are allowed to change their minds in a democratic society and they're allowed to question, oppose, and debate the merits or lack thereof of previous decisions.

 

Farage is only open toa second Ref because the first one gave him [or looks like it's going to give him] a result he didn't like...

...that or the media appearances are starting to dry up.

 

Only fair; after all he argued before the referendum that if the result was a narrow 52-48 in favour of Remain, it would be "far from finished business".

And remember how the petition for a second EU referendum was started by a Leave voter, when he still thought Remain was going to win.

Looks like the Brexiteers are all for referenda, until they get the result they want. Ironically what they accuse the EU and Remainers of.