UK finance minister Hammond seeks 'pragmatic' Brexit

[rooster59]

UK finance minister Hammond seeks 'pragmatic' Brexit

 

Philip Hammond, Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, arrives in Downing Street, in central London, Britain June 14, 2017. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

 

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - British finance minister Philip Hammond said Britain should adopt a pragmatic approach to Brexit negotiations which begin on Monday, striking a different tone to Prime Minister Theresa May who has threatened to leave the EU without a deal if necessary.

 

The debate within Britain's government about how to quit the European Union has been blown wide open by an election that left May without a majority in parliament and damaged her authority in the ruling Conservative Party.

 

Hammond, speaking to reporters before a meeting of the 28 EU finance ministers on Friday, said Britain should work closely with the bloc to prioritise jobs and prosperity when Brexit talks start next week.

 

"As we enter negotiations next week we will do so in a spirit of sincere cooperation taking a pragmatic approach to trying to find a solution that works both for the UK and for the European Union 27," he said.

 

The comments added to signs that Hammond is trying to revive his calls for a business-friendly Brexit.

 

In contrast to May's uncompromising tone with its focus on controlling immigration, Hammond has long stressed the importance of ensuring that British employers can continue to find the skilled workers they need from the EU.

 

Britain's giant banking industry and other business groups see Hammond as their most powerful ally in government and they were worried when it appeared he might lose his job in the run-up to the election.

 

JOBS AND GROWTH

 

But May, weakened by her election flop, opted to keep Hammond in his job along with other key ministers.

 

The chancellor of the exchequer was asked whether he favoured a softer version of Brexit - such as British membership of the EU single market or of a customs union.

 

Hammond said Britain's position had been set out in a speech by May in January and a letter she sent to EU leaders in March when she triggered the Brexit process. May has said Britain will leave both the single market and the customs union.

 

"My clear view, and I believe the view of the majority of people in Britain, is that we should prioritise protecting jobs, protecting economic growth, protecting prosperity as we enter those negotiations and take them forward," he said.

 

The Daily Telegraph, quoting senior government sources, said Hammond wanted to pursue a deal under which Britain would become an associate member of the EU's customs union but would also have the freedom to negotiate separate trade agreements with other countries for its huge services industries.

 

British negotiators believe the EU might accept such a deal because it would mean Europe's trade in goods with the UK – in which the EU runs a surplus – would not be disrupted by Brexit, the newspaper said.

 

A spokeswoman for Hammond did not immediately respond to a request for a comment on the report.

 

Hammond had been due to spell out his views on Brexit in a speech on Thursday, but it was cancelled following a deadly tower block fire in London on Wednesday. He is expected to deliver it in the coming days.

 

The Sun newspaper reported this week that Hammond had won the backing of interior minister Amber Rudd on the need to focus on the economy in Brexit. Two former Conservative prime ministers have also urged May to soften her approach.

 

In a sign that Britain was sticking to its guns on some of the key points in negotiations with the EU, the Brexit minister said on Friday no deal could be struck on exiting the EU unless the future relationship with the bloc was taken into account alongside the withdrawal terms.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-17

[Grouse]

Sounds eminently sensible to me.

[baboon]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Sounds eminently sensible to me.

Better still would be to stop this madness and withdraw article 50 until such a time as they have an actual PLAN. What can a deeply unpopular government with a tiny minority, whose strategy appears to be simply to make it up as they go along possibly hope to achieve? 

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, baboon said:

Better still would be to stop this madness and withdraw article 50 until such a time as they have an actual PLAN. What can a deeply unpopular government with a tiny minority, whose strategy appears to be simply to make it up as they go along possibly hope to achieve? 

Read the Article 50 letter. The basic proposal is there. It's hard to plan further until the EU side declare and justify their initial total claim for the divorce bill. The EU want their money agreed first and they say that not much else is possible in the meantime. But these negotiations cannot be concluded properly and fairly unless all of the main factors are considered together. I hope, at least, the question of EU citizens rights to remain and stay where they are now (if they want to) are dealt with soon and without money being an issue. The final amount of money agreed will probably depend on any extraordinary access arrangement to the single market that might be allowed for the UK by the EU - I hope they can do this - better for both parties. The EU says "no cherry picking" but we'll see.  

[sawadee1947]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Read the Article 50 letter. The basic proposal is there. It's hard to plan further until the EU side declare and justify their initial total claim for the divorce bill. The EU want their money agreed first and they say that not much else is possible in the meantime. But these negotiations cannot be concluded properly and fairly unless all of the main factors are considered together. I hope, at least, the question of EU citizens rights to remain and stay where they are now (if they want to) are dealt with soon and without money being an issue. The final amount of money agreed will probably depend on any extraordinary access arrangement to the single market that might be allowed for the UK by the EU - I hope they can do this - better for both parties. The EU says "no cherry picking" but we'll see.  

UK was always trying cherry picking. Just to teach a lesson it's necessary to stop this. But most important is beside that what you mentioned what will happen in Northern Ireland/Ireland? It will be the border of EU. Will it be an out break of war again?

[Bannoi]

Have another referendum and ask the people if they still want to leave the EU and if they do what sort of deal do they want.

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

UK was always trying cherry picking. Just to teach a lesson it's necessary to stop this. But most important is beside that what you mentioned what will happen in Northern Ireland/Ireland? It will be the border of EU. Will it be an out break of war again?

Well I hope they can sort that out too, of course.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, SirBuwanaDogbossKing said:

Yeh then 6 months later we'll have another referendum just in case people have changed their minds again................we voted, the vote was to leave, end of story.

You've got a law to cite for that? Or are you the UK's legislative traffic cop? If the people of the UK don't like the terms of a proposed deal, why shouldn't they have the opportunity to scuttle it and keep the status quo? Maybe this time make it a binding referendum instead of the beauty contest the last one was.

[pitrevie]

Theresa May is unlikely to make it to the Tory party conference as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo has said. My guess is that Brutus (Boris) is sharpening his knives. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, SirBuwanaDogbossKing said:

it's called democracy, but people like you REMOANERS only want to accept a democratic decision when it suits your ideals..........if you're so passionate about being part of the EU why dont you go live in the one of the other 27 member states?

Nigel Farage disagrees with you:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

Are you suggesting the he go live in one of the other 27 member states?

I don't recall Brexiters objecting to his statements in that article at the time they were made.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Read the Article 50 letter. The basic proposal is there. It's hard to plan further until the EU side declare and justify their initial total claim for the divorce bill. The EU want their money agreed first and they say that not much else is possible in the meantime. But these negotiations cannot be concluded properly and fairly unless all of the main factors are considered together. I hope, at least, the question of EU citizens rights to remain and stay where they are now (if they want to) are dealt with soon and without money being an issue. The final amount of money agreed will probably depend on any extraordinary access arrangement to the single market that might be allowed for the UK by the EU - I hope they can do this - better for both parties. The EU says "no cherry picking" but we'll see.  

Why are you BREXITEERS so obsessed with money. The bill will be what ever it is. 100B? 5% of GDP? I'll put it on my Amex.

 

Most EU NHS workers are already packing their bags. Great idea.

 

The UK always comes over as cheap, "down at heal"; it's just so embarrassing.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, sawadee1947 said:

UK was always trying cherry picking. Just to teach a lesson it's necessary to stop this. But most important is beside that what you mentioned what will happen in Northern Ireland/Ireland? It will be the border of EU. Will it be an out break of war again?

Brexiteers don't care, it's the money that's important. Not the immigrants (perish the thought), not inequality (I'm told) not misunderstanding (I'm reliably informed), not sovereignty; It's the bar bill!

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Well I hope they can sort that out too, of course.

How?

[Bannoi]

38 minutes ago, SirBuwanaDogbossKing said:

Yeh then 6 months later we'll have another referendum just in case people have changed their minds again................we voted, the vote was to leave, end of story.

If UKIP had lost the referendum it wouldn't have stopped them from wanting or even demanding another referendum.

 

I have changed my mind and so have a lot of other people I know who didn't fully realize the full implications and feel they were lied to by the leave campaign.

 

Yes the leave vote won narrowly it was hardly an overwhelming majority, compare that to the referendum when we were asked to join what was then the Common Market when over two thirds voted in favour to join 67% in favour.

 

The referendum over membership of the EU has caused more divisions in the very fabric of UK society that anything else in my lifetime and seriously risks the breakup of the UK.

 

To say "we voted, the vote was to leave, end of story" is disingenuous completely disregards the effect the result has had and nobody especially politicians appear to have a clue as to what leaving is going to mean in practical and financial terms just a lot of hot air based around scoring points for their respective political parties.

 

Whether we leave of stay should be based on what is best for the UK as a whole.

 

This isn't like a normal election where you get to change your mind next time round.

 

The EU got a lot of blame for things that were in fact the UK governments fault and nothing to do with the EU.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Bannoi

[Grouse]

38 minutes ago, SirBuwanaDogbossKing said:

Yeh then 6 months later we'll have another referendum just in case people have changed their minds again................we voted, the vote was to leave, end of story.

Why not have more than one? Easily affordable and it is very important!

 

I'll tell you why, the shysters (interesting German derivation for the academics among you!) can't believe their luck! They know people are now more aware and it is extremely unlikely that a majority would vote leave now.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Grouse

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

If UKIP had lost the referendum it wouldn't have stopped them from wanting or even demanding another referendum.

 

I have changed my mind and so have a lot of other people I know who didn't fully realize the full implications and feel they were lied to by the leave campaign.

 

Yes the leave vote won narrowly it was hardly an overwhelming majority, compare that to the referendum when we were asked to join what was then the Common Market when over two thirds voted in favour to join 67% in favour.

 

The referendum over membership of the EU has caused more divisions in the very fabric of UK society that anything else in my lifetime and seriously risks the breakup of the UK.

 

To say "we voted, the vote was to leave, end of story" is disingenuous completely disregards the effect the result has had and nobody especially politicians appear to have a clue as to what leaving is going to mean in practical and financial terms just a lot of hot air based around scoring points for their respective political parties.

 

Whether we leave of stay should be based on what is best for the UK as a whole.

 

This isn't like a normal election where you get to change your mind next time round.

 

The EU got a lot of blame for things that were in fact the UK governments fault and nothing to do with the EU.

Wise words indeed, Bannoi! Well said!

[Grouse]

Is it just me that sees the core of a sensible deal here?

 

"The Daily Telegraph, quoting senior government sources, said Hammond wanted to pursue a deal under which Britain would become an associate member of the EU's customs union but would also have the freedom to negotiate separate trade agreements with other countries for its huge services industries."

 

Think about it

 

You put your left leg in, your right leg out, you do the Hokey Cokey...

 

Oh, hang on, we all fall down. We need to discuss this! I like Hammond! I would have him and Vince Cable work out the best way forward for ALL of us 

 

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, Grouse said:

How?

I don't know, Grouse. Maybe Eire should leave too!

Edited June 17, 2017 by nauseus

[Bannoi]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

I don't know, Grouse. Maybe Eire should leave too!

Or Northern Ireland could leave the UK.

 

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

If UKIP had lost the referendum it wouldn't have stopped them from wanting or even demanding another referendum.

 

I have changed my mind and so have a lot of other people I know who didn't fully realize the full implications and feel they were lied to by the leave campaign.

 

Yes the leave vote won narrowly it was hardly an overwhelming majority, compare that to the referendum when we were asked to join what was then the Common Market when over two thirds voted in favour to join 67% in favour.

 

The referendum over membership of the EU has caused more divisions in the very fabric of UK society that anything else in my lifetime and seriously risks the breakup of the UK.

 

To say "we voted, the vote was to leave, end of story" is disingenuous completely disregards the effect the result has had and nobody especially politicians appear to have a clue as to what leaving is going to mean in practical and financial terms just a lot of hot air based around scoring points for their respective political parties.

 

Whether we leave of stay should be based on what is best for the UK as a whole.

 

This isn't like a normal election where you get to change your mind next time round.

 

The EU got a lot of blame for things that were in fact the UK governments fault and nothing to do with the EU.

These lies you refer to were not one-sided. The deception in the 70's was almost total, otherwise people would have not voted in (EEC).

You just assume that leavers ignore consequences but that's not true. 

Blame for what things?

 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, Bannoi said:

Or Northern Ireland could leave the UK.

 

Yes, it might.

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Why are you BREXITEERS so obsessed with money. The bill will be what ever it is. 100B? 5% of GDP? I'll put it on my Amex.

 

Most EU NHS workers are already packing their bags. Great idea.

 

The UK always comes over as cheap, "down at heal"; it's just so embarrassing.

It's the EU that have said they want to sort the money out first and foremost - too worried about their pensions etc - they should be the embarrassed party.

[nauseus]

31 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Is it just me that sees the core of a sensible deal here?

 

"The Daily Telegraph, quoting senior government sources, said Hammond wanted to pursue a deal under which Britain would become an associate member of the EU's customs union but would also have the freedom to negotiate separate trade agreements with other countries for its huge services industries."

 

Think about it

 

You put your left leg in, your right leg out, you do the Hokey Cokey...

 

Oh, hang on, we all fall down. We need to discuss this! I like Hammond! I would have him and Vince Cable work out the best way forward for ALL of us 

 

It must be just you, Grouse...however...

 

You put the UK in, get the UK out
In, out, in, out, you cherry-pick about
You do the Hokey Cokey and U turn around
That's what it's all about...

All together now...............

[AGareth2]

the referendum was not legally binding

parliamentary sovereignty rules

[dunroaming]

4 hours ago, baboon said:

Better still would be to stop this madness and withdraw article 50 until such a time as they have an actual PLAN. What can a deeply unpopular government with a tiny minority, whose strategy appears to be simply to make it up as they go along possibly hope to achieve? 

To get the deal with the EU that works for business (and that is crucial) we will have to accept the freedom of movement. Hammond knows that and that is probably where we will end up.  Given that, if you go back to the people and ask again if they want to leave the EU, what do you think the response would be?  There will the die hard little Englander brigade who want to stick with it but I believe many would like the opportunity to vote again and remain in. 

[Orac]

the referendum was not legally binding
parliamentary sovereignty rules

A hugely important point that needs to be remembered when you have a minority government - parliament is sovereign and not the government who act with the consent of parliament at all times who can withdraw that consent at any time.

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, Bannoi said:

Whether we leave of stay should be based on what is best for the UK as a whole.

That is absolutely right.  Excellent post Bannoi, but then I would say that because that is my view as well.  I have been saying that although I voted remain I think we should go ahead with Brexit because we have lost the confidence of other EU members and that they would be reluctant to just bury the hatchet.  I too have changed my mind.  As awkward as it may be to go back I really feel it is far better to do that than continue.  The Brexiteers are not going to get their way over immigration and that was the driving force for most of them.  Therefore they will have lost and so will the remainers which justifies the argument for stopping Brexit. 

[Thongkorn]

The UK should just walk away and tell the EU what they want, That's what the BRITISH PEOPLE VOTED FOR,

[AGareth2]

3 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

The UK should just walk away and tell the EU what they want, That's what the BRITISH PEOPLE VOTED FOR,

only 35% did

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

It's the EU that have said they want to sort the money out first and foremost - too worried about their pensions etc - they should be the embarrassed party.

No, the EU says we want a divorce and then remarry or have a civil partnership or uncivil partnership. You have to get divorced first with the children's arrangements agreed and the clean break or alimony sorted out. Seems right to me. I married the same woman twice so I should know ( But not 3 times, I'm not stupid!)

Edited June 17, 2017 by Grouse