Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[Cubbage74]

England's dancing days are done

 

[Magicpole]

Ah well. Good while it lasted.

Just one point. A weakened £ is good for exports but we have a deficit due to imports which are more expensive and exacerbate all our debt. But, that will go away too in the it will all be ok land we now inhabit.

So, moving on. What's your favourite type of supper from the chippy?

Tell me do Celtic not have an off topic section on their fans forum? May be you could start one.[/QUOTE]

They do but, I have to be honest I enjoy being outnumbered in debating. It's a condition I have sought help for but I just ended up arguing with the ****.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Tell me do Celtic not have an off topic section on their fans forum? May be you could start one.

They do but, I have to be honest I enjoy being outnumbered in debating. It's a condition I have sought help for but I just ended up arguing with the ****.[/QUOTE]

I can imagine!!

 

[Magicpole]

They do but, I have to be honest I enjoy being outnumbered in debating. It's a condition I have sought help for but I just ended up arguing with the ****.

I can imagine!![/QUOTE]

I know. It's awful.

It's interesting for me in the sense of getting a handle on the brexit and trump situation from a predominantly working class, origin at least, English perspective. It's important to try to understand where people are coming from I think.

Identifying all the things that fuck you off allows me to see how preventing that spreading here has to be dealt with. Or at least attempted or we will have a rise in the UKIP type right wing let's blame immigrants because things are shite road.

There's a lot of articulate and knowledgeable brexiteers on here. I don't agree with them obviously but, you need to know what they are all about in order to counter and hopefully defeat their view of the world coming to pass up here too.

I also enjoy that this place seems to be made up of moaning faced sarcastic cunts.

I like that a lot.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

I think the Gibraltar issue is a way of EU Member States communicating that they would only accept a Brexit deal that's shit for the UK, without having to say so.

I worked with the EU on stuff years ago and Spain said they would only support us in return for "Regional aid". That's EU code for hundreds of millions of Euros. The Spanish had to come on board when the EU started legal proceedings against them for not complying with the laws we were trying to change.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

You have to laugh really, at least the EU remembered Gibraltar unlike the shambles blagging it in London.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

You have to laugh really, at least the EU remembered Gibraltar unlike the shambles blagging it in London.

How so, Ken?

 

[mcfc1632]

60 years of peace and 2 days into negotiations we're talking about war with Spain. Well at least some on here are.

I think someone made the point that the referendum result was despite the possibility that Leave would stir up the Gibraltar issue (and why Gib voted Remain). So why are Leavers getting upset about what they voted for?

Our resident negotiating expert presumably thinks it's an excellent initial negotiating stance by the EU.

Well - so far things are panning out pretty much exactly as I suggested they would - and so far we have achieved as much as we could.

I mentioned that the rights of EU/UK nationals issue, whilst of course very important, would become an early area of resolution following A50 issue - whilst a number of people on here were declaring that we should just go 'belly-up'. Surprise surprise the EU, along with the UK, have stated that it should indeed be one of the first things to focus on.

The issue of Gibraltar, IMO, is not really anywhere near a 'first order' issue in the Brexit negotiations, but the reaction on here is typical of the debate to date. Those that lap up all the EU says and does are gleefully sucking this up - it is another opportunity to take the side of the EU It is no different from all else that has been printed since June - they just accept whatever the EU states as being gospel and run down/decry whatever is a possible positive for the UK.

IMO, the mention of Gibraltar by Tusk is a ploy similar to that of May linking cooperation on security with progress on a trade deal - with the difference being that Tusk's gambit is pretty toothless. What is really likely to happen to Gibraltar in the era of the 21st century? Armed invasion from Spain? Give over. For 300 years it has been a bone of contention, but it has not and isn't something that is going to make or break Spain and the UK relations. Whatever happens with the land border and airspace will be negotiated - it is a much more simple issue that the N.I. border issue.

Also what I have said - ad-nauseum - is that the UK's strength is money and the EU's weakness is an over-committed set of investment programmes that it is dependent on UK money for. Strangely enough - this is being borne out to be entirely accurate with all the key EU players, from Merkel to Tusk stating that securing commitment to the exit bill must precede everything else. The exit bill just happens to include coverage of the investment programmes that the EU have committed to. Their argument is pretty simplistic - because the EU has committed at a time that the UK was a member - the UK is liable. Simplistic - but also fatuous.

Their acolytes in the UK parliament have tried and thankfully so far failed, to undermine the negotiating position of the UK in this area and it is to be hoped - if you are pro-UK, that May and her team remain resolute and convince the EU team that we would indeed walk-away if pushed too far.

I have likened the 'threat' of withdrawing the EU's access to our contributions in 2019, or before, as us holding the 'Ace of Trumps'- mainly because it is. Or rather, for those that play Don, it is actually a bit more like the 5 (Don) of trumps - boss card, but only if you are able to play it at the right time and otherwise a vulnerability. We must not give in to the insidious campaign of the EU acolytes - that fight will go on.

For me, this set of negotiations all boils down to how we trade our commitment to fund the EU during the term of their committed investment programmes - 2023/4. The options, as I see them, would be:

1. We agree early to the exit bill etc. as demanded by the EU - the acolytes would love this as then the EU will have had their biggest risk mitigated and are then free to play hardball games for the rest of the negotiations. It might even lead to their Holy Grail of the UK eventually not leaving the EU. IMO, this is the worst option - we should certainly not do this.

2. Declare that we will stop all funding at the point at which the negotiations end and we therefore leave the EU - i.e. March 2019 or before. A lot of the Brexiteers would like this indeed as we would get control of our money soonest - and the damage to the EU would be most severe - which, unfortunately, a good number of them would gain satisfaction from. IMO, this should be our fallback position and we should be prepared to do so, but only act in this way if forced into it by EU intransigence.

3. Prepare a schedule of contributions from the UK to the EU that essentially meets the EU demands - I would likely go beyond what is sought and show a schedule that includes 'support' through to 2023/4 and promise to underwrite this schedule once agreement has been reached on the areas that we have set out as a priority, including a framework though which an FTA would be secured. Recognising that implementing the detail of the FTA, no matter how good the framework was, will take longer than 2 years, I would introduce stages/checkpoints to monitor progress and against which continuation of our funding was dependent on positive progress. This for me is our ideal outcome and the essence of the negotiating strategy I would deploy.

I would go for this option because, after all, the most important thing for the UK is to get out from under the EU yoke and thereby have control of borders, regulations etc. and, by preference, have a strong EU as a trading partner next to us.

So we will have provided £billions extra to the EU - so what? this would be eventually seen as well worth it - so long as we are genuinely independent.

We can recover from the loss of these £billions, especially if we have a robust FTA with Europe and are able to make our own way on other TAs. The EU would struggle to recover from the sudden withdrawal of our money.

Of course Juncker and Tusk will not like it and seek to deny any consideration - but I would find a way of 'leaking' out the offer that the UK had made and then watch the scramble as the EU faces the option of either having access to our money for not only the next few years but for 7 years. All that is needed for this is for them to 'treat us fairly', with the consequence of EU intransigence/unfair treatment being increased contributions from the 27 or a reneging on investment programmes already committed.

That is what I would do - the biggest risk to that negotiating strategy lies in the machinations of self-interest groups and individuals in the UK. To address this I would manage a communications strategy within the UK that exposes the 'hardening' attitude of the EU and 'unfair and contemptuous' manner in which they are treating the UK despite our most generous offer(s) - seeking to stiffen/increase the public opinion in favour of Brexit ahead of calling GE in 2020 or before.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

How so, Ken?

Nice strawman Gaylord.

Here is the letter, no mention of Gibraltar, the same problem was highlighted with Ireland but not with Gibraltar.

On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states. On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe – and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.

Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.

This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.

I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.

The process in the United Kingdom

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.

It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.

Proposed principles for our discussions

Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.

We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation. Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

We should always put our citizens first. There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement. We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible. Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. (NO MENTION OF THE SAME PROBLEM WITH SPAIN AND GIB.) We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.

We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges. Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.

We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values. Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.

The task before us

As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake. The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent White Paper published on 2 February.

We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discussions – close regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty.

The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I think the Gibraltar issue is a way of EU Member States communicating that they would only accept a Brexit deal that's shit for the UK, without having to say so.

I worked with the EU on stuff years ago and Spain said they would only support us in return for "Regional aid". That's EU code for hundreds of millions of Euros. The Spanish had to come on board when the EU started legal proceedings against them for not complying with the laws we were trying to change.

The UK should just remind the Spanish of their stance with Ceuta and Mililla.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Well - so far things are panning out pretty much exactly as I suggested they would - and so far we have achieved as much as we could.

I mentioned that the rights of EU/UK nationals issue, whilst of course very important, would become an early area of resolution following A50 issue - whilst a number of people on here were declaring that we should just go 'belly-up'. Surprise surprise the EU, along with the UK, have stated that it should indeed be one of the first things to focus on.

The issue of Gibraltar, IMO, is not really anywhere near a 'first order' issue in the Brexit negotiations, but the reaction on here is typical of the debate to date. Those that lap up all the EU says and does are gleefully sucking this up - it is another opportunity to take the side of the EU It is no different from all else that has been printed since June - they just accept whatever the EU states as being gospel and run down/decry whatever is a possible positive for the UK.

IMO, the mention of Gibraltar by Tusk is a ploy similar to that of May linking cooperation on security with progress on a trade deal - with the difference being that Tusk's gambit is pretty toothless. What is really likely to happen to Gibraltar in the era of the 21st century? Armed invasion from Spain? Give over. For 300 years it has been a bone of contention, but it has not and isn't something that is going to make or break Spain and the UK relations. Whatever happens with the land border and airspace will be negotiated - it is a much more simple issue that the N.I. border issue.

Also what I have said - ad-nauseum - is that the UK's strength is money and the EU's weakness is an over-committed set of investment programmes that it is dependent on UK money for. Strangely enough - this is being borne out to be entirely accurate with all the key EU players, from Merkel to Tusk stating that securing commitment to the exit bill must precede everything else. The exit bill just happens to include coverage of the investment programmes that the EU have committed to. Their argument is pretty simplistic - because the EU has committed at a time that the UK was a member - the UK is liable. Simplistic - but also fatuous.

Their acolytes in the UK parliament have tried and thankfully so far failed, to undermine the negotiating position of the UK in this area and it is to be hoped - if you are pro-UK, that May and her team remain resolute and convince the EU team that we would indeed walk-away if pushed too far.

I have likened the 'threat' of withdrawing the EU's access to our contributions in 2019, or before, as us holding the 'Ace of Trumps'- mainly because it is. Or rather, for those that play Don, it is actually a bit more like the 5 (Don) of trumps - boss card, but only if you are able to play it at the right time and otherwise a vulnerability. We must not give in to the insidious campaign of the EU acolytes - that fight will go on.

For me, this set of negotiations all boils down to how we trade our commitment to fund the EU during the term of their committed investment programmes - 2023/4. The options, as I see them, would be:

1. We agree early to the exit bill etc. as demanded by the EU - the acolytes would love this as then the EU will have had their biggest risk mitigated and are then free to play hardball games for the rest of the negotiations. It might even lead to their Holy Grail of the UK eventually not leaving the EU. IMO, this is the worst option - we should certainly not do this.

2. Declare that we will stop all funding at the point at which the negotiations end and we therefore leave the EU - i.e. March 2019 or before. A lot of the Brexiteers would like this indeed as we would get control of our money soonest - and the damage to the EU would be most severe - which, unfortunately, a good number of them would gain satisfaction from. IMO, this should be our fallback position and we should be prepared to do so, but only act in this way if forced into it by EU intransigence.

3. Prepare a schedule of contributions from the UK to the EU that essentially meets the EU demands - I would likely go beyond what is sought and show a schedule that includes 'support' through to 2023/4 and promise to underwrite this schedule once agreement has been reached on the areas that we have set out as a priority, including a framework though which an FTA would be secured. Recognising that implementing the detail of the FTA, no matter how good the framework was, will take longer than 2 years, I would introduce stages/checkpoints to monitor progress and against which continuation of our funding was dependent on positive progress. This for me is our ideal outcome and the essence of the negotiating strategy I would deploy.

I would go for this option because, after all, the most important thing for the UK is to get out from under the EU yoke and thereby have control of borders, regulations etc. and, by preference, have a strong EU as a trading partner next to us.

So we will have provided £billions extra to the EU - so what? this would be eventually seen as well worth it - so long as we are genuinely independent.

We can recover from the loss of these £billions, especially if we have a robust FTA with Europe and are able to make our own way on other TAs. The EU would struggle to recover from the sudden withdrawal of our money.

Of course Juncker and Tusk will not like it and seek to deny any consideration - but I would find a way of 'leaking' out the offer that the UK had made and then watch the scramble as the EU faces the option of either having access to our money for not only the next few years but for 7 years. All that is needed for this is for them to 'treat us fairly', with the consequence of EU intransigence/unfair treatment being increased contributions from the 27 or a reneging on investment programmes already committed.

That is what I would do - the biggest risk to that negotiating strategy lies in the machinations of self-interest groups and individuals in the UK. To address this I would manage a communications strategy within the UK that exposes the 'hardening' attitude of the EU and 'unfair and contemptuous' manner in which they are treating the UK despite our most generous offer(s) - seeking to stiffen/increase the public opinion in favour of Brexit ahead of calling GE in 2020 or before.

Its not just the money the EU want they also seem to want conditions on our tax rates after leaving. That simiply isnt going to happen. They know that a totally independent uk that has control over corporation tax rates away from the EU directives could be a massive draw for big buisness if needed by the uk government.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Its not just the money the EU want they also seem to want conditions on our tax rates after leaving. That simiply isnt going to happen..

Yes it is

They know that a totally independent uk that has control over corporation tax rates away from the EU directives could be a massive draw for big buisness if needed by the uk government.

That's why it's going to happen.

 

[Magicpole]

Its not just the money the EU want they also seem to want conditions on our tax rates after leaving. That simiply isnt going to happen. They know that a totally independent uk that has control over corporation tax rates away from the EU directives could be a massive draw for big buisness if needed by the uk government.

I haven't heard that. But, from their point of view, we are the ones asking to be able to trade under favourable conditions. They would be justified in saying well, fine, but if you lower your corporation tax it makes us less competitive so why the fuck should we
be nice when your intentions could damage us?

I think it's a fair request and if we want be be a tax haven they won't give us access that companies could exploit at less tax.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

The UK should just remind the Spanish of their stance with Ceuta and Mililla.

Good idea. I'm sure the Berbers would like
more sovereignty.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I haven't heard that. But, from their point of view, we are the ones asking to be able to trade under favourable conditions. They would be justified in saying well, fine, but if you lower your corporation tax it makes us less competitive so why the fuck should we
be nice when your intentions could damage us?

I think it's a fair request and if we want be be a tax haven they won't give us access that companies could exploit at less tax.

If we're lucky we'll become like Norway in all but name, if we're not and the zealots get their way it's hard Brexit.

My money is on the latter.

 

[blueparrot]

Its not just the money the EU want they also seem to want conditions on our tax rates after leaving. That simiply isnt going to happen. They know that a totally independent uk that has control over corporation tax rates away from the EU directives could be a massive draw for big buisness if needed by the uk government.

The EU are going to negotiate in their best interests of their members, what did you expect. I do wonder at the leavers getting angry and aggresive because the EU wont roll over and let the UK have its own way. If they dont get some control there will be no free market access , then iif we reduce tax companies will have to deciede between tax and tarriffs.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The EU are going to negotiate in their best interests of their members, what did you expect. I do wonder at the leavers getting angry and aggresive because the EU wont roll over and let the UK have its own way. If they dont get some control there will be no free market access , then iif we reduce tax companies will have to deciede between tax and tarriffs.

Because most take the David Davies POV - i.e. we will leave and get free unfettered access to the EU market at zero cost because "they need us more than we need them" - bollox of course but there you go.

 

[Vic]

The UK should just remind the Spanish of their stance with Ceuta and Mililla.

We could, but it will make no difference - unless we plan to invade Ceuta and Mililla. Nowt to do with these negotiations.

 

[bluethrunthru]

We could, but it will make no difference - unless we plan to invade Ceuta and Mililla. Nowt to do with these negotiations.

That could be May's next empty threat if things don't go her way ha ha ha

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I haven't heard that. But, from their point of view, we are the ones asking to be able to trade under favourable conditions. They would be justified in saying well, fine, but if you lower your corporation tax it makes us less competitive so why the fuck should we
be nice when your intentions could damage us?

I think it's a fair request and if we want be be a tax haven they won't give us access that companies could exploit at less tax.

We are asking for favourable trading conditions. ? Think you will find both parties want that.