Forums Forums General Forums A - Z Lifestyle The Repeal Bill for Brexit

I'm don't doubt for one second that there will be a car crash, even the Tory party are going to struggle to find words to fool the people that they have got a good deal for the country when in fact, as usual, it will be good for the rich and not for the rest.

The EU has not provided a list of promised payments that totals anywhere near £90bn, they have told the UK to justify the figure. It was random figure.

If it hurts the EU at all, why would they do it when they don't have to? A tariff free agreement would keep the status quo, but that's not what they want, they want to destroy the UK.

We should never have got into this mess, joining the common market had some merit (against my better judgement), joining political forces and becoming subservient to it wasn't. The EU needs to be dismantled, how many hundreds of years of punishment have the people of Greece got left, how many more countries will they acquire in their portfolio of destruction?

We are the 5th largest economy and have food banks, lack of access to medical treatment, closing down of public services etc. The EU has done nothing for the people of the UK apart from take money off us, but the rich are still getting richer.

One fundamental function of any Government is the distribution of wealth - this has gone into reverse.

So true DD. The big companies that are crying for the need to stay in the EU are not for one minuet doing so for the interest of this country.

They cannot stop the UK leaving the EU, but have made no effort to prevent us. It hurts them - a bit - but it hurts us a lot more.

As to wanting a tariff-free agreement, we might be able to have one but only if we accept the free movement of people.

You seem to share the tory's delusion that one can enjoy all the benefits of being a member of the club whilst ignoring the rules you don't like simply by being a non-member. This is a barmy belief. It will - quite understandably - not be permitted by the 27. In is in and out is out.

I think, also, that the fact that the EU insists on the trade discussions being second to (and dependent on) a divorce agreement being reached is a very clear indication that trade is a lot less important to them than it is to us. Our politicians' constant attempts to blur this issue and conduct them as part of the same process is clear that trade with the EU is VERY important to the UK.

Would that be why Guy Verhofstadt was over here last week, preaching to the LSE on how bad Brexit will be and how the EU don't care ? Not much point in him coming really. OR, was he coming with the intentions of whipping up support for another referendum ?
I suggest that many powerful and influential people are doing the same in various places throughout the country atm.

A tariff free agreement would keep the status quo, but that's not what they want, they want to destroy the UK.

It appears the Tories are already destroying the UK, things must be dire when its down to poaching policies off the Labour party, Boris holding a fringe meeting with his right wing cronies who are advocating destroying workers rights, health and safety legislation, well to cut a long list short anything that benefits the ordinary working person, and then calls for the minimum wage to be raised!!! unbelievable.

The EU are saying that is mandatory for all free trade agreements but its not, they have numerous free trade agreements with other non-EU non-EEA countries and they have many more which are in the process of being put in place.

There is a lot of difference between a no-tariff agreement and a free-trade agreement. A free trade agreement would be nice but a no-tariff rule benefits both sides mainly in reduced administration costs.

With no EU trade agreements in place, WTO rules with the EU would not significantly hurt the UK (because we are a net importer from the EU), in fact it could even benefit us. Additionally we get taxed more than one way by the EU, as well as our membership fee, we are forced to pay higher prices for non-EU goods.

I've never understood the long term subsidising under the Common Agricultural Policy, this goes against the principals of the EU and is against WTO rules. I can understand it being put in place in 1962 but it should have been a short term solution, the continuance defies all logic. In the EU, France greatly benefits from it, in the UK the rich benefit most from it. Its a complete distortion of the market place, something that needs to go.

The EU has made it very clear that free trade will not be extended to us if we do not accept free movement of people.

This is a fundamental principle of the union and something they are unlikely to shift on, and we have no way to bring pressure to bear on them either.

As to agriculture, I think that could prove a very contentious issue, Farmers and landowners do very well out of the EU and this largesse will come to a grinding halt when we leave. Will the government step in and maintain the handouts? I suspect - given the influence the NFU seem to have over the tories - they will, and you and I will pay for it.

It adds up to something in excess of £3 billion a year, that's £50 a year from everyone in the UK, but farmers - on average - receive about £30,000 a year in subsidies and about £3,000 a year on agriculture. Either they will find the stuff they grow has to shoot up in price (meaning the Tescos and Sainsburys will buy abroad), you and I continue to cough up, or they go out of business in droves.

When you are faced with having to pay £5 for a turnip, you may wonder whether brexit was worth it after all.

How can this be a fundamental principal when not only do they have agreements in place contrary to this BUT ALSO they are still negotiating more with numerous other countries.

They want to stall the process to stop Brexit happening, they have no intentions of complying or co-operating with democracy. This is exactly what has happened in the past, when democracy goes against the hierarchy of the EU, they bypass democracy by any means possible.

The distribution of wealth needs to be looked at by every major economy, the EU and the UK have achieved nothing to address this issue. Germany has achieved very little and the USA has had a huge division for years. Needless to say China and Russia just keep it as the norm. Japan started to address it then bottled out.

As you pointed out, we are paying for our turnips in tax at the moment, without the CAP France would probably leave the EU, its purely a bribe. I hate turnips (sorry @Turnip, not you). However with more of the newer countries having significant amounts of agriculture they have got a lot of decisions to make as France's share of the CAP will reduce substantially.

I like sprouts, will they be affected by all this ?

So how on earth do you propose persuading them that we can have free trade whilst excluding them from coming here?

A trade agreement in one area is very different from free trade, and I have no doubt there are numerous such agreements with other countries. We may even - in time - have many ourselves, but that is still not free trade.

At work I did a lot of travelling to various countries. If I needed to take equipment with me to non-EU countries, it was a real pain. I had to have a carnet to get it in and out, and importing or exporting kit or materials required a whole department to manage the paperwork! Nightmare. Going to an EU country was a piece of cake. It was no more difficult than driving to Peterborough. THAT is what free trade means.

I don't believe there is any intention of punishing the UK. We are doing that to ourselves! But rules are rules and the EU - with us or without us - will stick to them. They are there for the benefit and protection of the EU and there is no reason to suppose the UK is a special case once it has left.

We have an inept government that fails to understand that we cannot leave the club and enjoy the benefits of membership, and I suspect that Farage being a right pain in the arse to the EU will not have won us any favours either.

It looks to me that we a heading towards the worse possible 'deal' which will be disastrous for us all unless someone manages to stop the whole process.

It is not going to happen, while the UK is attempting to negotiate, this is not being reciprocated.

The EU have made no proposals but insist on the UK coming up with proposals. This is not negotiating.

Even the £90bn is not a proposal, it is a statement, it doesn't say anything about what we are getting in return for £90bn, ie what we are paying for and what else we might be charged for afterwards.

The EU have no intention whatsoever in making an agreement, they think we will bottle out a hard brexit.

The fact that they are worried that a fair agreement would encourage other countries to leave says it all. They are admitting that the EU is a failed exercise and other countries want to leave because of what the EU has become.

The EU is acting undemocratically which I thought was a prime principal. We are still EU citizens during the negotiation period even though we intend to leave, they have a duty of care to treat us fairly.

They have even invented a rule that we are not allowed to negotiate trade with other countries, while I agree that there is some credence to us not being allowed to sign absolute trade agreements outside the EU at the moment, there is no reason whatsoever we can not be allowed to negotiate them. I also see no reason why we could not sign conditional trade agreements, the condition being when we are released to trade.

Davis has to settle the divorce arrangements first.

Trade agreements are nothing whatever to do with Brexit. It is only the UK that claims they are; understandably. It really IS important to the UK, but not so important to the EU.

As to the EU failing, the hopes of people like Farage of a domino effect with countries leaving, not only is it not happening, but the EU is going ahead, more confident than ever with new countries soon to join and economic growth rising. Brexiteers are desperately trying to comfort themselves with this invented fiction whilst the UK's growth shrinks, stirling falls, inflation rises, and our productivity languishes at the bottom of the European league thanks to shrinking investment.

I think brexiteers should stop blaming the EU for the mess we have put ourselves into by entering the leave procedure with no plan whatsoever as to how to go about it.

If you are splitting up with your partner, you sort out the divorce details first. Who gets the dog, who gets the kitchen chairs, who moves out, do you sell the house etc.

Having separated you may well come to a trade agreement where one partner does the dog walking in exchange for using the washing machine or something, but that is after the event.

I don't see that the EU is being unreasonable in setting this agenda, but right or wrong, they are in charge, and the constant attempts to bring post brexit rade agreements into the divorce proceedings by Davis and his fellow clowns are clearly getting us nowhere.

I don't know why I bother to point this out. I would be quite happy if the whole mess got so bad that the only thing to do was to stay in. Hopefully, I can rely on our piss-poor government to do just that.

The EU is primarily to do with trade hence leaving it is also primarily to do with trade.

If an employee or even a director of a company leaves the company, he doesn't get billed for all the future payments he signed as part of that company.

Basically there is nothing in EU rules where they can demand a divorce payment, we are not willing to agree to pay any significant divorce bill unless we get something in return.

You will notice that the EU hasn't once indicated that they think WTO rules is the acceptable solution, they know it is not, in fact it is probably the last thing the EU wants but pushing us towards that cliff edge can only have one consequence.

If the EU expect future payments, then we in return can expect future EU benefits, you can't argue one without the other.

The EU are offering nothing so why should we offer anything?

This is a mutual brexit under the EU's own rules (the UK didn't have a brexit rule). Why is one side in charge? The UK is leaving the EU, the EU is leaving the UK. Members of the EU did something under EU rules, brexit is 100% an EU function, the UK is part of the EU until it leaves.

Finance is trade, trade is finance, apart from charity and fines I can't think of an example of where they are not implicitly linked, so is the divorce bill a fine, charity or trade?



If only that was the way divorce normally worked, it rarely does. Also it is up to the courts whether the agreements are lawful and fair or not, the divorce is easy, the financial settlement is not. Unfortunately a lot of people do not do the financial settlements through the court (due to cost or lack of co-operation) which can come back and sting you badly when you come to claim your pension.

They are offering nothing because brexit is 100% the UK's decision. Why on earth should they offer anything?

When you resign from a club, you are expected to pay your bar bill. The money the EU is demanding is for stuff we agreed to as members and made committments to. Your position seems to be that of a resigning member who is refusing to pay his bar bill because the bar makes a profit from the drinks it sells.

But the EU is perfectly within its rights to refuse to have any discussion about trade if it doesn't want to, for whatever reason. If the UK really wants duty free trade with the EU it might be wise to play by its rules. Instead , the UK seems to want to browbeat the EU into doing whatever it wants, and is whining when it doesn't.

It looks like a hard brexit. No trade agreements and disaster. Or perhaps we'll realise what a catastrophe this is for us and stay in.

Spot on Ex,as you say its like leaving a club and then telling the committee how to run it, we are indeed heading for a hard brexit, and that has been the goal throughout by the hard right

That lovable bungling clown Boris, hail fellow well met is in fact a very dangerous man, through all his jolly japes lies an insidious assassin intent on grasping the Conservative leadership at any cost.