May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[Loeilad]

I think it is now established that nothing good will come of Brexit, but Brexiteers assure us that everything will be  OK and nothing will actually change.......so why vote Brexit in the first place?

[bkkcanuck8]

25 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

"The negotiations are about *everything*.  It would be foolish to go into that with self-imposed restrictions.  The Swiss managed to pull off some non-standard EEA/EFTA concessions I believe, so why not UK?  " - because we are not Switzerland! Why do Brexiteers keep rolling out Switzerland as some kind of excuse - if you just look at the nations history as a NEUTRAL nation at all costs, you will see that they wren't even ALLOWED to join the EU - they just did the best they could without joining.

Austria too had similar problems but managed to achieve constitutional changes to join - neither of these countries wanted to EXIT...they wanted to JOIN

 

Switzerland negotiated to be part of EFTA but a referendum failed to confirm it so it has just sort of sat there.

 

The politicians then turned around and negotiated a sector by sector agreement (basically implementing everything in the EFTA by sector - or mostly) - which included full free movement of EU citizens and labour.  Since 2014 when the citizens basically have abrogated the agreement by voting for limits on free movement and voting for preferential treatment of Swiss citizens when it came to labour - the relationship has been strained and frozen.   Also since all those agreements are static - they are in the process of becoming unwieldily to manage (120 such sub agreements) - which will also lead to a further schism .... this will lead to Swiss actually regressing and will eventually fail (IMHO).    The EU project has been about basically creating a United States of Europe and associated territories (similar to Puerto Rico and Guam) and thus they ideals behind the project cannot allow for immigration controls between states .... just like they don't in the US.  If a state is not well managed or is poorer labour migrates to better off states in search of job opportunities.  What is missing is a stronger enforcement of a common border and controlling uncontrolled migrations from outside the EU, and better management of skills and family based EU immigration.

[Loeilad]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Switzerland negotiated to be part of EFTA but a referendum failed to confirm it so it has just sort of sat there.

 

The politicians then turned around and negotiated a sector by sector agreement (basically implementing everything in the EFTA by sector - or mostly) - which included full free movement of EU citizens and labour.  Since 2014 when the citizens basically have abrogated the agreement by voting for limits on free movement and voting for preferential treatment of Swiss citizens when it came to labour - the relationship has been strained and frozen.   Also since all those agreements are static - they are in the process of becoming unwieldily to manage (120 such sub agreements) - which will also lead to a further schism .... this will lead to Swiss actually regressing and will eventually fail (IMHO).    The EU project has been about basically creating a United States of Europe and associated territories (similar to Puerto Rico and Guam) and thus they ideals behind the project cannot allow for immigration controls between states .... just like they don't in the US.  If a state is not well managed or is poorer labour migrates to better off states in search of job opportunities.  What is missing is a stronger enforcement of a common border and controlling uncontrolled migrations from outside the EU, and better management of skills and family based EU immigration.

THat's not the point - Switzerland has maintained a strict neutrality for centuries - their economy is based on this - e.g. holding everyones gold and financial assets during times of war.......being part of the EU would violate this status. however they WANT to be as much a part of Europe as they can to the point of overriding eons of historical precedent. B ritain is alone in wanting to move AWAY from EU......even Iceland and norway with their tiny populations are "joiners"

[bkkcanuck8]

19 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

THat's not the point - Switzerland has maintained a strict neutrality for centuries - their economy is based on this - e.g. holding everyones gold and financial assets during times of war.......being part of the EU would violate this status. however they WANT to be as much a part of Europe as they can to the point of overriding eons of historical precedent. B ritain is alone in wanting to move AWAY from EU......even Iceland and norway with their tiny populations are "joiners"

That famous or infamous banking secrecy that was at the heart of Switzerland.... is already compromised and will further be eroded if not unmasked completely in many cases by 2018.

 

They already have agreement with the US which requires sharing of information (FATCA 2013/14) on US citizens having accounts in Swiss financial institutions.  Basically any country that wants to do business with US citizens have to comply with the same regulations or be barred and potentially fined heavily in the US.  If you are a US citizen, the bank will ask for your Social Security Number and they have to provide account information as well as do withholding of tax on accounts -- it is phased in so each successive year there are more requirements that must be implemented .... basically until they are pretty well providing all the information that any US domestic bank does.  If they did not do that, they would have lost access to do any business in New York or the US as a whole.   This FATCA reporting is likely going to be extended between more than just bilaterally with the US.... as more countries end up with the same requirements (most western countries are progressing that way).  

 

The EU have also started applying pressure and as of 2015 Switzerland agreed to align Swiss bank practices with those of EU countries.  By 2018 both Switzerland and EU countries will be required to exchange information on financial accounts on each others residents.  Failure to compromise would have lead to a similar situation with the EU that Switzerland was facing with the US.

Edited December 16, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[Loeilad]

34 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

That famous or infamous banking secrecy that was at the heart of Switzerland.... is already compromised and will further be eroded if not unmasked completely in many cases by 2018.

 

They already have agreement with the US which requires sharing of information (FATCA 2013/14) on US citizens having accounts in Swiss financial institutions.  Basically any country that wants to do business with US citizens have to comply with the same regulations or be barred and potentially fined heavily in the US.  If you are a US citizen, the bank will ask for your Social Security Number and they have to provide account information as well as do withholding of tax on accounts -- it is phased in so each successive year there are more requirements that must be implemented .... basically until they are pretty well providing all the information that any US domestic bank does.  If they did not do that, they would have lost access to do any business in New York or the US as a whole.   This FATCA reporting is likely going to be extended between more than just bilaterally with the US.... as more countries end up with the same requirements (most western countries are progressing that way).  

 

The EU have also started applying pressure and as of 2015 Switzerland agreed to align Swiss bank practices with those of EU countries.  By 2018 both Switzerland and EU countries will be required to exchange information on financial accounts on each others residents.  Failure to compromise would have lead to a similar situation with the EU that Switzerland was facing with the US.

you still miss the point! I make a point about pork pies and you tell me everything you know about umbrellas....

Edited December 16, 2016 by Loeilad

[Loeilad]

This is how Brexiteers are seen to be dealing with Brexit.....

 

 

[jpinx]

5 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

This is how Brexiteers are seen to be dealing with Brexit.....

 

 

If no-one is engaging with you -- perhaps there's a reason

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, Loeilad said:

More gospel according to Han...

 

Brexit: London’s 328-year old Lloyd’s insurance market to establish EU base in 2017

 

Sorry, could you point out where in the linked article it states that Lloyds is moving to Europe?

[Loeilad]

It seems that along with most Brexiteers - new convert Theresa May hadn't got a clue when she seized the chance of becoming PM what the job entailed........

 

 

Brexit deal could take 10 years and still fail, UK ambassador warns 

 

Where There's a May, there's a mess!

[Khun Han]

36 minutes ago, jpinx said:

If no-one is engaging with you -- perhaps there's a reason

 

You're right. It's Cumgranosalum all over again.

[SheungWan]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

What I actually said was

 

 

Indeed, and, with respect, it is not something I have just realised.  I have been saying just that right from the beginning of this and similar topics.

 

Revealing one's negotiating position, one's aims, what concessions one is prepared to make etc. before the negotiations have even been scheduled, let alone actually begun, would be foolhardy in the extreme.

 

'er,....Theresa May just spoke with other European leaders seeking an early deal to protect expats rights after Brexit. The right to stay in whatever country they are living.

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

'er,....Theresa May just spoke with other European leaders seeking an early deal to protect expats rights after Brexit. The right to stay in whatever country they are living.

Maybe it's a good time for people in here to remember how to play chess.  TM has put down a marker, a first move maybe --  certainly not a exposee of the entire strategy.

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

Maybe it's a good time for people in here to remember how to play chess.  TM has put down a marker, a first move maybe --  certainly not a exposee of the entire strategy.

 

Give me a break. Anyway she was received in silence. The game starts on Article 50. And there is the little matter of the Supreme Court decision regarding that one.

[Khun Han]

31 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Give me a break. Anyway she was received in silence. The game starts on Article 50. And there is the little matter of the Supreme Court decision regarding that one.

 

Yes, the determined lack of civility such as you highlighted and the hilarious 'po faces' by the assortment of EU goons in the handshake photo ops show the true nature of the EU: it is a bully. A bully which, having thrown it's arm around the shoulder of new members with economic friendliness, uses threats and intimidation to keep member states in line and to push them down roads they don't want to go down. This alone is good enough reason to get out now, while we still can.

 

One of the weirdest things about these discussions is that remainers tend to champion this EU bullying, instead of being horrified by it. What a strange mentality some people have!

[jpinx]

41 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Give me a break. Anyway she was received in silence. The game starts on Article 50. And there is the little matter of the Supreme Court decision regarding that one.

No-one is denying that the decision has yet to be made on how Article 50 is enacted, and then what the timetable will be.  Meantime the rest of the EU is squabbling about who should sit down to negotiate with UK.  It's all moot, subject to the various elections across Europe anyway.  Hollande has backed out and Merkel is not guaranteed a majority and the Dutch have to decide what they want.  As I keep saying, it's all to play for yet.  2017 is going to be interesting

[Srikcir]

The Lloyd’s of London insurance market is planning to move some of its business out of the UK and into the EU as a result of the decision to quit the European Union. Will this negatively impact the UK economy, ie., in the financial sector? Their move could trigger more global companies based in the UK to follow suit without waiting for Article 50 to be invoked. 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/lloyds-of-london-to-set-up-eu-subsidiary-cwtl97n9c

[Loeilad]

More evidence that Brexiteers simply  didn't  think things through ..

 

UK faces Brexit settlement bill of up to £50 billion,

[Loeilad]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

No-one is denying that the decision has yet to be made on how Article 50 is enacted, and then what the timetable will be.  Meantime the rest of the EU is squabbling about who should sit down to negotiate with UK.  It's all moot, subject to the various elections across Europe anyway.  Hollande has backed out and Merkel is not guaranteed a majority and the Dutch have to decide what they want.  As I keep saying, it's all to play for yet.  2017 is going to be interesting

Feeble excuses...clutching at straws...Brexiteers simply had no idea and now are groping around for lame excuses to mitigate their blunders .  You can't blame the news on others    . .you started it

Edited December 16, 2016 by Loeilad

[jpinx]

33 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

Feeble excuses...clutching at straws...Brexiteers simply had no idea and now are groping around for lame excuses to mitigate their blunders .  You can't blame the news on others    . .you started it

The only person who didn't "THINK THIS THROUGH" was Camoron.  You might like to follow his example and jump ship?

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Loeilad said:

More evidence that Brexiteers simply  didn't  think things through ..

 

UK faces Brexit settlement bill of up to £50 billion,

 

I think It's pretty obvious that this is an opening gambit in the negotiations, and I doubt PM May and her government are terribly phased by it. Either that, or the EU is an eternal optimist with regard to money .

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The Lloyd’s of London insurance market is planning to move some of its business out of the UK and into the EU as a result of the decision to quit the European Union. Will this negatively impact the UK economy, ie., in the financial sector? Their move could trigger more global companies based in the UK to follow suit without waiting for Article 50 to be invoked. 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/lloyds-of-london-to-set-up-eu-subsidiary-cwtl97n9c

 

Actually, Lloyds is opening a dedicated European office to deal with it's European business (which accounts for 11% of it's gross). Makes perfect business sense at this point.

[7by7]

10 hours ago, jpinx said:

<snip>

Also - some terminology might benefit from being "cleaned up".  Free movement needs to apply to *labour*, not people.  There is plenty of room for negotiating the details around how Labour is defined and how far does Labour's family extend, etc, etc. 

 

The freedom of movement treaty right applies only if one is moving to another EEA state or Switzerland as a

• student,
• jobseeker,
• worker, employed or self employed, or
• person of independent means, e.g. a pension.

Someone entering as a jobseeker cannot the claim the same public funds as an unemployed national of that member state, such as JSA in the UK, and must leave if they have not found work within three months unless they can prove they have a reasonable chance of finding work in the very near future.

 

Restricting it to merely 'labour' would have an adverse effect on many British citizens who are retired and living in other EEA states as persons of independent means.

 

Qualifying family members can accompany them, whether they are EEA nationals or not.

 

The qualifying family members are

• Spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner provided the host state's definition of unmarried partner is met (which for the UK is living together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least the previous two years),
• children and grandchildren under the age of 21,
• children and grandchildren over 21 who are totally dependent upon the EEA national,
• parent or grandparent who is totally dependent on the EEA national.

"Totally dependent" not only means being financially dependent but also being dependent for their day to day care and there being no one else in their home state who can provide that care.

 

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The freedom of movement treaty right applies only if one is moving to another EEA state or Switzerland as a

• student,
• jobseeker,
• worker, employed or self employed, or
• person of independent means, e.g. a pension.

Someone entering as a jobseeker cannot the claim the same public funds as an unemployed national of that member state, such as JSA in the UK, and must leave if they have not found work within three months unless they can prove they have a reasonable chance of finding work in the very near future.

 

Restricting it to merely 'labour' would have an adverse effect on many British citizens who are retired and living in other EEA states as persons of independent means.

 

Qualifying family members can accompany them, whether they are EEA nationals or not.

 

The qualifying family members are

• Spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner provided the host state's definition of unmarried partner is met (which for the UK is living together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least the previous two years),
• children and grandchildren under the age of 21,
• children and grandchildren over 21 who are totally dependent upon the EEA national,
• parent or grandparent who is totally dependent on the EEA national.

"Totally dependent" not only means being financially dependent but also being dependent for their day to day care and there being no one else in their home state who can provide that care.

 

Lots of points for negotiation there -- especially the "jobseekers" definition. 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

'er,....Theresa May just spoke with other European leaders seeking an early deal to protect expats rights after Brexit. The right to stay in whatever country they are living.

Not quite right.

 

It was actually the other EU leaders who broached the subject first; seeking an assurance that the rights of EEA citizens already in the UK would be guaranteed post Brexit.

 

May responded that she would give them the same rights which British citizens already living in other EEA countries were given.

 

Which was a restatement of the answer she gave when asked the same question by a journalist back in July.

 

Theresa May: EU citizens' rights depend on fate of Britons abroad

Quote

Asked by a journalist whether the rights of Italians living in the UK could be protected, May said: “I want to be able to guarantee their rights in the UK. I expect to be able to do that and I intend to be able to do that, to guarantee their rights. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be if the rights of British citizens living in other EU member states were not guaranteed.”

 

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Not quite right.

 

It was actually the other EU leaders who broached the subject first; seeking an assurance that the rights of EEA citizens already in the UK would be guaranteed post Brexit.

 

May responded that she would give them the same rights which British citizens already living in other EEA countries were given.

 

Which was a restatement of the answer she gave when asked the same question by a journalist back in July.

 

Theresa May: EU citizens' rights depend on fate of Britons abroad

 

 

You somewhat miss the point (but that's not quite a crime). My reference is not to the issue as such (which you trawled for a reference back in July...about 4+ months ago) it is rather to the meeting yesterday where May's speech was an emphasis on an early deal re the matter at hand (see FT today Friday). My contribution was in response to the nonsensical guff from some hard Brexiteers re hiding of pokers hand, not to mention piffle about playing chess. The only thing hidden behind the government's hands is an empty space. When they have got something to say (such as the above) they are quite prepared to float it. Please do keep up.

[bkkcanuck8]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

Lots of points for negotiation there -- especially the "jobseekers" definition. 

Not really, when searching for a job in a foreign country (generally speaking) there is no real visa that applies to that situation (business type visas usually require a letter from a company - which a jobseeker would not have) -- they usually enter on a visa waiver (i.e. visa-free) or tourist visa.  Once a company is willing to hire them then they have to go through the usual process (internally to the EU it is "one market" -- so not much of one).  Basically a foreign job seeker is a non-resident person - someone entering temporarily and thus has no access to any social benefits accorded to residents.

Edited December 16, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[AlexRich]

Precisely ... 

 

"The big questions are whether buyers’ remorse will set in when, in about two years, people realise they have voted to leave the EU to become poorer, and whether the Government might then be toppled by a vote of no confidence before we have actually left".

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-brexit-raises-spectre-of-imf-bailout-for-uk-a3421071.html

[jpinx]

5 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Precisely ... 

 

"The big questions are whether buyers’ remorse will set in when, in about two years, people realise they have voted to leave the EU to become poorer, and whether the Government might then be toppled by a vote of no confidence before we have actually left".

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-brexit-raises-spectre-of-imf-bailout-for-uk-a3421071.html

There are winners and losers in every situation.  Finding enough losers to topple a government is always a bit tricky - as history has shown.

 

Meantime -- there are so many elephants in the room the EU dinner was more like a circus act.  Greece brings up it's "need" for yet more "help, Deutsche Bank has to face up to the disaster that is engulfing it, Switzerland offer a compromise on free movement, and simply no-one is talking to France.  There's no need for opinions and predictions when the play is unfolding before your eyes......

[jpinx]

12 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

You somewhat miss the point (but that's not quite a crime). My reference is not to the issue as such (which you trawled for a reference back in July...about 4+ months ago) it is rather to the meeting yesterday where May's speech was an emphasis on an early deal re the matter at hand (see FT today Friday). My contribution was in response to the nonsensical guff from some hard Brexiteers re hiding of pokers hand, not to mention piffle about playing chess. The only thing hidden behind the government's hands is an empty space. When they have got something to say (such as the above) they are quite prepared to float it. Please do keep up.

Well hoisted by your own petard.  Your high-handed dismissal of "nonsense" merely demonstrates your inability to grasp the salient points because you are so concerned to be "right" every time you post.

There was no "early deal" set out by TM, merely a marker put down on a specific item on the agenda.

As for your perception of "empty space" behind governments hand, is that not a reflection of the same between your ears?  Now run along to your chess class and learn something about strategy.  When you have got the basics of that committed to memory, you can move on to the class on negotiating techniques. :)

[jpinx]

12 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Not really, when searching for a job in a foreign country (generally speaking) there is no real visa that applies to that situation (business type visas usually require a letter from a company - which a jobseeker would not have) -- they usually enter on a visa waiver (i.e. visa-free) or tourist visa.  Once a company is willing to hire them then they have to go through the usual process (internally to the EU it is "one market" -- so not much of one).  Basically a foreign job seeker is a non-resident person - someone entering temporarily and thus has no access to any social benefits accorded to residents.

All of those points reflect the position as it is today.  UK is going to be negotiating for a new position, which may or may not include some of what you have mentioned.  Going into the negotiations with a mind-set of "this is what they'll want" is defeatist at best.