Source for France overtaking please?
Agreed what happens in the longer term is what matters. I think the Adam Smith Institute are right about what will happen.
Printable View
Source for France overtaking please?
Agreed what happens in the longer term is what matters. I think the Adam Smith Institute are right about what will happen.
Oh wait that's per capita, my bad
Not good enough for me to gamble my livelihood on. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Where are you looking to move Tim?
Fair enough we each have one vote. I view it as a gamble either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
I'm sure that's very reassuring, coming as it does from the forum's resident political fantasist.
https://next.ft.com/content/a3a92744...#axzz4CZptqVcF More silly experts.
Amsterdam's alderman for economic affairs says her office already is in talks with several parties about re-locating to Amsterdam. She doesn t name any but describes them as 'mostly Asian parties active in the financial sector'.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0d2571149bb1f And it turns out that Rand was on the same side as Corbyn.
Well, another old geezer who didn't give a shit about the future of young people who could have benefited from studying, working and living in 27 European countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Low-key argumentation circa 2016, ladies and gentlemenQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Needs a subscription to FT to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What are the chances Britain remain in the EEA now? Or the single market?
I've been reading differing opinions on how easy/difficult that will be.
The likes of Wolfgang Schäuble saying absolutely not, you vote out of the EU you vote out of everything. Fuck off in other words.
The Bank of France Governor Francois Villeroy de Galhau saying British banks won't be able to use the banking passport system unless Britain signs up to all the rules of the single market; EEA membership comes with certain provisions to get access to the single market; free movement of people being one of them. Switzerland has single market access without being an EEA member. Yet Switzerland is denied passporting.
Just trying to get a picture of what post-Brexit Britain will look like.
EEA membership is expected to require successful accession to EFTA and full compliance ie. no special treatment. In theory there's a lot of potential for obstruction but I think they wouldn't go overboard because that would just be harmful to everyone.
On the other hand, the EU seems to subscribe to the old British idea that beatings will resume until morale improves. See Greece, etc. Whether the krauts are racially blind enough to be consistent in their treatment of the untermenschen both up north and down south remains to be seen, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
According to The Telegraph many British tourist are left penniless abroad because exchange transactions for the British pound are rejected.
In the real world it is consistently Germany that does stick up most for the Brits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
The only way I severe punishment happening if the British government takes too long invoking article 50. Yet It remains to be seen a Brexit government will be able to accept the situation as they promised their voters the EU would be very willing to give the UK a sweet deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Angela Merkel has agreed that it is right and sensible for Article 50 to be invoked once we have a new Prime Minister, so I suspect calls for an immediate invokation to die away PDQ now. Consistent with your post above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I only have reports of her giving the UK 'reasonable time'. I don't know that that means untill there is a new PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Read between the lines. I think in the circumstances of the delay until there is a new PM who will lead renegotiations already being announced, with a timetable for the election of the new PM, it's pretty clear that is what she means. She's not silly enough to suggest there should be 'reasonable time' only to then be pissed off that it's not done weeks before the pre-announced timeline.
Only that in this case it's the foreign ministers calling the shots. Not consistent what you're blabbering on here about.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Paste the article title into Google.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
No it simply is not. The UK will invoke Article 50 when it suits the UK to do so, there is no constitutional way for anyone else to invoke it on our behalf. Merkel understands that which is why she's put down her foreign minister, who reports to her not the other way around. Her foreign minister can do jack shit about Article 50. There are enough serious issues to argue over without arguing over this one, it makes perfect sense to have negotiations with the new PM - and possibly after the new PM calls an early General Election and probably after next year's French and German elections too. Why have the negotiations during these election periods rather than after them when people can act seriously in cooler spirits than what prevails today and without electioneering nationalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
2019 is being widely quoted here as the target date for Brexit.
There's a very good reason for not playing along with that BS namely that it isn't in the EU's best interest to prolong the harmful uncertainty.
So what would the foreign ministers actually do? Being deeply concerned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
They could play hardball. The only recourse would be the ECJ in Luxemburg. Where the UK would ask a court which jurisdiction it rejects to establish that it has no intention of leaving the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Being deeply concerned is about as hardball as it gets for the EU. They pretty much can't do anything, and Peter Altmaier just confirmed the German position that the UK shouldn't rush in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
This shows again what a joke Martin Schulz is. He is making demands all the time, but he doesn't have any power to actually back up his demands.
Except that he has the Brits by the balls. The resignation of comm. Hill did only happen because he didn't want to live through the indignity of having his portfolio stripped of him this Tuesday. Putting the control over the financial sector in the hands of the Eurozone. You think they won't rule totally disregarding any British interest? For all intents and purposes the UK is no longer a member. And regardless of how kind mummy Merkel intends to be, she will not let legalistic trickery bring down the Union.
So when do you guys believe these spineless chickenshits will trigger article 50?
What are the reasons for doing it soon?
What are the reasons for waiting?
Will there be any negotiations before article 50 is triggered?
Schulz will do nothing other than talk.
The reasons are that they don't have a clue of a clue and need to create some actual plans on what to do next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I think they will trigger when the situation deteriorates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Reasons to do it soon; dispel any hope of renegotiation. Squash hopes in other countries. Get on with business.
Reasons to wait, maybe Brexit will be trashed.
No.
I don't think it's particularly important, but I thought you might want to get a heads-up. Number 6 status is well within grasp now. Only a half cent to go at this time €1,2158.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No need since it's already been confirmed that the UK needs to actively take a step to inform the Council that it is invoking article 50. Either in writing to the European Council or in a minuted speech during a European Council meeting. That is the formality confirmed so how is Schulz going to take a step to the ECJ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
At the earliest once all the people who will be involved in negotiations are in place. Potentially after seeking a new mandate at a General Election on what kind of negotiations will take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The only argument to do it soon is to remove uncertainty, though there's 2 years of uncertainty anyway. There's no good argument for hasty and badly implemented negotiations.Quote:
What are the reasons for doing it soon?
1: The Prime Minister has resigned, we need a new one.Quote:
What are the reasons for waiting?
2: There are elections coming up in France, Germany and potentially the UK within the next year.
3: We can implement Article 50 anytime, but once invoked it takes unanimity to extend the time period if negotiations are not yet complete.
Yes, informally.Quote:
Will there be any negotiations before article 50 is triggered?
No RandBlade there will be no informal talks. Not even at lower levels.
And because you are unable to understand signals let me point out two things : the EU already made clear the opinions of the UK have become irrelevant by shoving aside it's say in regulation of the financial markets. They also said it doesn't take a formal letter to establish notification as meant in article 50. I don't know if Cameron should say anything at all over the next few weeks. His successor should not speak anywhere near where people can hear him.
Soon you will learn what fun we can have if we get back to the kind of international politics you were so fond of last week.
I'm a little puzzled here. They're going to postpone formal negotiations because of elections and a new PM. But for some reason that isn't seen as a problem for informal negotiations. What exactly is to be gained from informal negotiations in that case? What do you expect they'll negotiate? Sounds like a bunch of time-wasting cockbaggery. You don't need to drag it out for 2 years either. You can agree to let the UK withdraw sooner. Of course, if the UK tries to Boris Johnson the negotiations with demands on restricted movement of people and the like, negotiations are likely to drag on for longer than 2 years.
Hazir, they have said letter or European Council minuted statement. So yes not just a letter but that's what I said. A non binding referendum is not formal notice. There will be talks your denials carry as much credibility as Osborne's denials of a Plan B.
Aimless the point of the two years is its meant to be a maximum not a minimum from when the clock starts. Once an agreement is reached it can come into effect as agreed but if there is no agreement then exit happens automatically. There is no point wasting a chunk of the negotiating period at a time when the UK, French and German leadership are all uncertain.
The council has no published minutes, so that would be nonsense. The council has published conclusions. Whatever is in there goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade