Bit of Brexit info required.

[Lienking]

Could be the old chicken and egg thing again though ITTO. People buy the papers that reflect what they want to read. The telegraph is biased like all the papers, but does print articles about why no deal won't work, why Boris is a clown etc , as well as the other arguments.

I usually start the day by attempting the Guardian "Quick" crossword (though I can hardly do any of it recently!), before I read their news articles. I have never seen any articles different to their pro-Labour, pro-remain, pro-second referendum agenda, but can't say it changes my mind.

I don't particularly want a no deal Brexit, but we would be in a better position if the referendum had been legally binding. The EU would then have known we were leaving. I have seen a programme on tv where our ONE liberal MEP (who is in the same EU party as Barnier) spent all her time telling him that if he gave us a bad deal that we could be forced to stay in. The EU is more interested in its own ideology. Exactly what difference does it make to them if we do leave? They are more than happy to shoot Ireland in the foot, along with thousands of EU workers in the docks, German car workers etc. , as long as they believe they can make us suffer more than them.

Interesting that even if you view the MEP election as a democratic vote, the EU is now in dispute with the various country leaders as to who will appoint the next eu leader !!

 

[in_the_top_one]

we would be in a better position if the referendum had been legally binding.

That would probably have required a super majority, would certainly have required a manifesto for leave (see Scotland), would have involved detailed analysis of the costs, may not have got through parliament in the first place, and so on.
But the message behind your point - that the indecision is an omnishambles - is totally correct.

 

[in_the_top_one]

I usually start the day by attempting the Guardian "Quick" crossword (though I can hardly do any of it recently!), before I read their news articles. I have never seen any articles different to their pro-Labour, pro-remain, pro-second referendum agenda, but can't say it changes my mind.

I'm sure you yourself are unmoved by propaganda of any sort but, in general, advertising works. There has been a well-documented drip feed of anti-EU nonsense in the majority of the papers for decades. Can you accept that it might have influenced some people? The weaker-minded than you, of course.

 

[in_the_top_one]

They are more than happy to shoot Ireland in the foot, along with thousands of EU workers in the docks, German car workers etc.

You're describing the ERG, right? Add in NI too.

 

[in_the_top_one]

Interesting that even if you view the MEP election as a democratic vote, the EU is now in dispute with the various country leaders as to who will appoint the next eu leader !!

That is democracy! Argument, debate, consensus.

What on earth do you mean by "even if you view the MEP election as a democratic vote"? I'm sure you were able to vote for the NF if you wanted.

 

[Lienking]

No reason for a super majority if the rules are clear for the vote. A manifesto and costings are also impossible if you are negotiating with another party, and talking about the future. You could draw up a clear plan for no deal, which TM (or DC!) should have done three years ago, but most of the costs are affected by what tint of glasses you have on, and also by whether the EU is happy to see Ireland probably suffer more than some people think we will.

 

[Lienking]

That is democracy! Argument, debate, consensus.

What on earth do you mean by "even if you view the MEP election as a democratic vote"? I'm sure you were able to vote for the NF if you wanted.

So you have a vote, then the new leader is appointed by Merkel, Macron etc who are nothing to do with the EU or the vote , then the top jobs are divied out to the larger countries, then a few to women, Eastern europe etc for balance ! Christine Lagarde is one of the names going round now. She was in court last time I heard of her.

(Edit). Just noticed she was found guilty of negligence too !

 

[radfordinlondon]

What needed to happen was that a deal be negotiated before it was put to the vote so people knew what they voted for.

As the EU blocked that it could also have been achieved by ensuring leavers provide concrete proposals that would then go back for a confirmatory vote if any changes were made.

Leavers have been twisting and turning but are unable to dodge the fact that leaving without a public vote on the specific deal reached (lets not forget we still dont have a viable deal, only mays deal) is undemocratic and unacceptable.

There will be a vote and all sides will have to live with the result however close, even if that means leave.

 

[Lienking]

The EU has started on Switzerland now, trying to force them to join. (Again courtesy of the Telegraph).

Switzerland has survived the first battle of the bourses with the EU.

Shares of Nestle, Novartis, and UBS will for now be traded on the SIX exchange in Zurich rather than in Frankfurt or London. The sky will not fall because of that.

But the clash with Brussels will become increasingly painful as the pressure ratchets up. The EU is determined to shut down the idiosyncratic “Swiss model”. It aims to bring the country within its legal and regulatory control once and for all under a new framework agreement.

This means suspending 120 bilateral accords one by one as they fall due, progressively shutting the Swiss out of the EU’s economic, transport, and political system until they capitulate. It amounts to a sanctions regime.

Energy too is on the menu and this risks escalation into areas of national security. “Energy access for Switzerland is slowly deteriorating,” said Professor Paul van Baal from Lausanne's Polytechnique Fédérale.

The EU has pointedly excluded the country from EU legislation on power grids and network codes. The Swiss have to compete with one arm tied behind their backs in the electricity market. This raises costs and creates friction.

 

[Lienking]

The sticking point is that Switzerland must accept the writ of the European Court of Justice and “dynamic alignment” of EU legislation over migration, social security rules, and key areas of economic policy in perpetuity.

Thomas Aeschi, head of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) in the national parliament, said cross-clauses in the text allow the ECJ to extend its sway over tax codes, farming, healthcare, and cantonal state-aid policies. “We end up becoming a passive member of the EU without voting rights,” he said.

“Dynamic legal alignment is a wholesale assault on the rights of the people, and the prerogatives of parliament and the cantons. It is a massive limitation of popular democracy,” said the party.

The cantons of Ticino, Sankt Gallen, Schwyz, and Zug have all raised objections. The EU’s framework deal cuts across the constitutional framework of Swiss confederalism. The state-aid clauses would hamstring the 24 cantonal banks.

 

[Lienking]

There is no sign yet that Swiss voters are ready to yield. A SonntagsZeitung poll shows that just 20pc back the EU deal, while 67pc want it changed or rejected altogether. Support for EU membership has dropped to an all-time low of 13pc.

This David and Goliath struggle can end only one way. The Swiss will eventually have to sign on the dotted line or face asphyxiation.

But the EU risks paying a high diplomatic and moral cost before that point is reached. It will be accused of bullying a small country and displaying a chronic inability to coexist with any of its near abroad.

Some wit might acidly point to Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty. “The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.”

 

[radfordinlondon]

So u think the swiss should have their choc and eat it?

So the shock news is that the eu want members to have a better deal than non members?

And in other news, water is wet.

Think the brexits are just looking for any argument to justify their extreme course of action

 

[Lienking]

So u think the swiss should have their choc and eat it?

So the shock news is that the eu want members to have a better deal than non members?

And in other news, water is wet.

Think the brexits are just looking for any argument to justify their extreme course of action

The EU have had 120 deals in place with Switzerland, many of them for years. Switzerland has not broken any of these deals, but now the EU is trying to force them to join up in full. Note the bit in bold - close and peaceful relations based on co-operation !

 

[radfordinlondon]

The EU have had 120 deals in place with Switzerland, many of them for years. Switzerland has not broken any of these deals, but now the EU is trying to force them to join up in full. Note the bit in bold - close and peaceful relations based on co-operation !

Maybe brexit made the eu wise up

 

[Lienking]

Looks like even Juncker doesn't think the EU is democratic now !

Jean-Claude Juncker hits out at EU's secretive deal to name his successor

Jean-Claude Juncker has attacked EU leaders for the secretive and undemocratic way they stitched up a deal to nominate his successor as European Commission president.

Heads of state and government named Ursula von der Leyn as their choice to head the EU’s executive after about 27 hours of negotiations behind closed doors over three days.

In the process they killed off the Spitzenkandidat system, which was the EU’s first faltering steps towards democratising the choice of commission president.

“Yes, the process was not very transparent,” Mr Juncker said at a press conference in Finland on Friday.

Under the Spitzenkandidat system, which was used for the first time in 2014 to pick Mr Juncker for the job, lead candidates for pan-EU political groups run as US-style presidential candidates in the European elections.

But leaders in the European Council rejected the claims of the two Spitzenkandidats from the two largest centre-Right and centre-left EU parties. They chose Mrs von der Leyn, a German defence minister who did not campaign in the May elections, instead.

Mr Juncker sad, “The process which lead to my nomination, in 2014, was very transparent because we had lead candidates.

“I said in the European Council the other day that I always had the impression that I would add to history,” he added, “Because I am a very unique guy. I was the first and the last Spitzenkandidat."

 

[Lienking]

And out of the five new proposed leaders chosen by Merkel/Macron, two have convictions, and the new leader has an investigation going on ! (Again courtesy of the telegraph)

Ursula von der Ley, the Commission president-designate, herself the daughter of a Eurocrat, enhas wasted many depressing years as German’s defence minister, presiding over a decrepit and underfunded Bundeswehr. A devastating parliamentary report earlier this year exposed planes that can’t fly and guns that don’t shoot. Fewer than a fifth of its helicopters are combat ready.

It is almost impossible to find anybody in Germany who has a good word to say about von der Leyen, her appointment a clear case of rewards for failure. “Our weakest minister”, one said. It gets worse: a parliamentary committee has launched an inquiry into a spending scandal in her department, relating to massive contracts awarded to consultants. But she supports a United States of Europe and an EU army, so what other qualifications are required?

Josep Borrell’s woes are equally recent, and haven’t prevented his nomination as foreign policy chief. Less than a year ago, as Socialist foreign minister in Spain, he was fined €30,000 (£26,900) for insider trading. The regulator ruled he had engaged in “a very serious violation” of securities law when he sold shares in Abengoa in 2015, “having privileged information on this company”. As champagne socialism goes, this takes some beating and he refused calls to resign. He also supports the disgusting clampdown on Catalonia, has made trouble over Gibraltar and agreed to set up a joint cybersecurity group with Russia last November – a move that won’t end well. Last but not least, he will be worse than useless on Iran: in an interview with Politico, he said: “Iran wants to wipe out Israel. Nothing new with that. You have to live with it.” His appointment will prove catastrophic.

As for Christine Lagarde, the new European Central Bank head, she is neither an economist nor a banker but a competition lawyer. Let’s hope that the era of boom and bust has miraculously come to an end, or else the euro could be in trouble. Having served (and messed up) as head of the IMF, a political position, is no substitute for hands-on understanding of financial markets and economics. She was a full participant in the Project Fear anti-Brexit propaganda.

Worse, she too has been embroiled in scandal. She was caught in a row involving Bernard Tapie, a controversial businessman and politician who served time for fraud. While France’s finance minister, she agreed to an arbitration panel to determine a dispute involving the tycoon which led to him being awarded a huge payout, since reversed. Investigators claimed that she approved the scheme because Tapie backed Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 election campaign: this, they alleged, was a way of thanking him with taxpayers’ money. She denied the allegations, which could have landed her with a one-year jail term. She was found guilty of “negligence” but, astonishingly, the Cour de Justice de la République waived any punishment or criminal record, citing her “international reputation” and role in dealing with “the international financial crisis” as IMF boss.

 

[radfordinlondon]

And out of the five new proposed leaders chosen by Merkel/Macron, two have convictions, and the new leader has an investigation going on ! (Again courtesy of the telegraph)

Ursula von der Ley, the Commission president-designate, herself the daughter of a Eurocrat, enhas wasted many depressing years as German’s defence minister, presiding over a decrepit and underfunded Bundeswehr. A devastating parliamentary report earlier this year exposed planes that can’t fly and guns that don’t shoot. Fewer than a fifth of its helicopters are combat ready.

It is almost impossible to find anybody in Germany who has a good word to say about von der Leyen, her appointment a clear case of rewards for failure. “Our weakest minister”, one said. It gets worse: a parliamentary committee has launched an inquiry into a spending scandal in her department, relating to massive contracts awarded to consultants. But she supports a United States of Europe and an EU army, so what other qualifications are required?

Josep Borrell’s woes are equally recent, and haven’t prevented his nomination as foreign policy chief. Less than a year ago, as Socialist foreign minister in Spain, he was fined €30,000 (£26,900) for insider trading. The regulator ruled he had engaged in “a very serious violation” of securities law when he sold shares in Abengoa in 2015, “having privileged information on this company”. As champagne socialism goes, this takes some beating and he refused calls to resign. He also supports the disgusting clampdown on Catalonia, has made trouble over Gibraltar and agreed to set up a joint cybersecurity group with Russia last November – a move that won’t end well. Last but not least, he will be worse than useless on Iran: in an interview with Politico, he said: “Iran wants to wipe out Israel. Nothing new with that. You have to live with it.” His appointment will prove catastrophic.

As for Christine Lagarde, the new European Central Bank head, she is neither an economist nor a banker but a competition lawyer. Let’s hope that the era of boom and bust has miraculously come to an end, or else the euro could be in trouble. Having served (and messed up) as head of the IMF, a political position, is no substitute for hands-on understanding of financial markets and economics. She was a full participant in the Project Fear anti-Brexit propaganda.

Worse, she too has been embroiled in scandal. She was caught in a row involving Bernard Tapie, a controversial businessman and politician who served time for fraud. While France’s finance minister, she agreed to an arbitration panel to determine a dispute involving the tycoon which led to him being awarded a huge payout, since reversed. Investigators claimed that she approved the scheme because Tapie backed Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 election campaign: this, they alleged, was a way of thanking him with taxpayers’ money. She denied the allegations, which could have landed her with a one-year jail term. She was found guilty of “negligence” but, astonishingly, the Cour de Justice de la République waived any punishment or criminal record, citing her “international reputation” and role in dealing with “the international financial crisis” as IMF boss.

After however many pages we can at least agree the bureaucrats do need a rocket up their jacksies and start dealing with the large number of issues that need European cooperation eg security, environment, unemployment, particularly for young people.

 

[Bremen Tree]

A few on here are decrying the EU for their so called lack of democracy. But what I find totally undemocratic is that only 160K people get to decide the next PM. The favorite for the job is blatantly fighting a mandate that appeals to these few voters by offering tax incentives.

The UK is not a democracy but a fallacy.

 

[Lienking]

A few on here are decrying the EU for their so called lack of democracy. But what I find totally undemocratic is that only 160K people get to decide the next PM. The favorite for the job is blatantly fighting a mandate that appeals to these few voters by offering tax incentives.

The UK is not a democracy but a fallacy.

It's not right, but it rarely happens, and he can't carry on permanently as leader without facing an election, and at least the leader comes from the party that the electorate actually voted for !

Whoever wins will probably have to run for election in a few months anyhow.

 

[Lienking]

This one is probably as realistic as Phillip Hammond's 90 billion cost of leaving, but does show that Remainers don't know what we are letting ourselves in for either.
(Again it's in the telegraph)

Britain could face €200bn EU bail-out bill – unless there is a clean Brexit

Britain could face paying more than €200bn to the European Union in the event of a eurozone bail-out unless the UK leaves under a managed clean Brexit, according to leading City and business figures.

The warning comes from the Brexit Coalition, a new grouping that represents 29 diverse pro-Brexit campaigning organisations, including the Alliance of British Entrepreneurs, Artists for Brexit and Farmers for Britain as well as Labour Leave and Green Leaves.

In a letter sent this week to Conservative Party constituency chairmen and senior Tory officials, the Brexit Coalition urges members to support a new prime minister who is “committed unequivocally” to backing a clean WTO-based Brexit, one which would avoid having to pay such massive contingent liabilities to the EU.

Daniel Hodson, coalition president and former Liffe boss, says that under existing rules the UK Government is obligated to a contribution of around €207bn (£186bn) to any bail-out should the eurozone tip into financial crisis.

“Given the current dire straits in which the eurozone finds itself, a financial crisis is an increasingly likely scenario,” he says.

The UK is liable for at least this amount – a figure which could grow to as much as €441bn or even more – if the Brexit process becomes so drawn out that it overlaps with the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework.

Mr Hodson, who is also chairman of The City for Britain, adds: “These liabilities have not been discussed deeply enough in the Brexit debate. To avoid the scenario in which the UK would have to rescue EU banks despite not being a member of the eurozone, the UK needs to leave the EU and cut its contractual ties as soon as possible.”