It's almost like they simplified it for comedic effect
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Does it work?
No not really but its seem to annoy a certain type of person which to me anyway is well worth the tax payers money.
They simplified it so much it was completely unrealistic.
Europe holds all of the aces and we're playing with mud instead.
Mate it was just a joke.
They kind of proved their remoaner credentials as satirised in the clip. Such drama.
British comedy was one of the few areas of genuine exceptionalism we had left. If that's what passes for satire in post Brexit Britain then we truly are fecked.
They kind of proved their remoaner credentials as satirised in the clip. Such drama.
The whole of Brexit has been a bad joke and those expecting us to yuck along with the giggling idiots who still don't understand what they voted for but who love Boris' bumbling are the intellectual equivalent of the canned laughter on you've been framed. We'll cheer up and go along with Brexit the moment one of you can tell us any genuine positive of Brexit or just one of those pesky EU regulations that was making your life so hard before but all we ever hear is "you need to get on board with the people's will and make it a success".
It was nothing special but it's fairly accurate. Consider it as gallows humour if it makes you feel better.
DUP now threatening to block the budget if May gives in on the issue of NI. Next few weeks are going to be bumpy
Opinions and all that...
Ah, woke Stig Abell. Not related to the cnut, with the same name and appearance, who worked at The Sun and printed/defended Katie Hopkins' article calling migrants cockroaches.
It clearly touched a nerve it seems.
They kind of proved their remoaner credentials as satirised in the clip. Such drama.
I've got no idea who he is, I just saw it pop up on twitter and I thought it might be a bit of a laugh to post on here.
Honestly, I think that it just doesn't work. If you go with the couple angle, it's a lot better to work around the nature of the relationship, she could have proposed an open relationship and then the remoaner meltdowns. By going with the clean break, they gutted the entire topic and potential for good satire.
This is all fair but have you seen BBC 3 comedy writers
The main problem is that, when the reality is self-evidently absurd, it’s hard to use the usual technique of exaggeration for comic effect. How can you parody JRM?
D.u.p will Allegedly vote down the budget if they don't like The Brexit proposals
Basically looks like Mays in trouble if they follow through on that because I can't see any support from the opposition benches in the budget (though as ken Clarke pointed out today rebel labour MP's will be her best route on a brexit deal)
And if there is no budget then I guess It's possibly a general election... Which probably guarantees a hard brexit?
Basically looks like Mays in trouble if they follow through on that because I can't see any support from the opposition benches in the budget (though as ken Clarke pointed out today rebel labour MP's will be her best route on a brexit deal)
And if there is no budget then I guess It's possibly a general election... Which probably guarantees a hard brexit?
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-6089_en.htm?locale=EN
Barnier's speech today at the European Parliament of Enterprises, partly in French and partly in English
The English part in the spoiler below
Note: "Details of the future relationship will only be negotiated after the UK's withdrawal."
In case anyone was in any doubt, Chequers is still dead.
Barnier's speech today at the European Parliament of Enterprises, partly in French and partly in English
The English part in the spoiler below
Ladies and gentlemen,
On 29 March 2019, in less than 6 months, the UK will leave the European Union.
We have always respected the UK's sovereign decision to leave the European Union, even if we profoundly regret this vote We respect its decision to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union.
And we are doing our best to reach a deal on the UK's orderly withdrawal.
Since the beginning of this negotiation, we have made good progress.
In fact, as you can see in this copy of the draft Treaty, a lot of the Withdrawal Agreement – 80%-85% – has now been agreed with the UK.
However, some difficult issues have been left until the end.
We must agree on the governance of the Withdrawal Agreement and on geographical indications that are currently protected in the 28 EU Member States.
Above all, we need to agree on how to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland for political, human, and economic reasons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The UK wants to and will leave the Single Market and the Customs Union.
This means that there must be checks on goods travelling between the EU and the UK – checks that do not exist today:
A crucial question is, therefore, where they will take place.
The EU is committed to respecting the territorial integrity and constitutional order of the UK, just like the UK has committed to respecting the integrity of our Single Market, including Ireland, obviously.
Therefore, the EU proposes to carry out these checks in the least intrusive way possible.
For customs and VAT checks, we propose using the existing customs transit procedures to avoid doing checks at a physical border point. To be more specific:
o Companies in the rest of the UK would fill in their customs declarations online and in advance when shipping goods to Northern Ireland.
o The only visible systematic checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would involve scanning the bar codes of the lorries or containers, which could be done on ferries or in transit ports.
o These arrangements already exist within EU Member States, in particular those with islands, for example between mainland Spain and the Canary Islands.
For regulatory checks, on industrial goods for instance, these could be carried out by market surveillance authorities.
Again, this would not need to happen at a border but directly in the market or at the premises of companies in Northern Ireland.
This leaves the health and phytosanitary checks for live animals and products of animal origin. EU rules are clear: such checks must happen at the border because of food safety and animal health reasons. And obviously, in the future the island of Ireland will and must remain a single epidemiologic area.
o Such checks already exist in the ports of Larne and Belfast.
o However they would have to cover 100 % rather than 10 % of live animals and animal-derived products, which would involve a significant change in terms of scale.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Both the EU and the UK exclude having a physical border on the island of Ireland. Therefore what will arrive into Northern Ireland will also be arriving into the Single Market.
There will be administrative procedures that do not exist today for goods travelling to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. Our challenge is to make sure those procedures are as easy as possible and not too burdensome, in particular for smaller businesses.
I understand why such procedures are politically sensitive, but let me make three remarks.
First, Brexit was not our choice. It is the choice of the UK. Our proposal tries to help the UK in managing the negative fall-out of Brexit in Northern Ireland, in a way that respects the territorial integrity of the UK.
Second, our proposal limits itself to what is absolutely necessary to avoid a hard border: customs procedures and the respect of EU standards for products.
It does not include measures on free movement of people, services, healthcare or social and environmental policy. But the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland will continue as today.
And yet, our proposal gives Northern Ireland benefits that no part of a third country enjoys. In particular continued access to the Single Market for goods and continued benefits from the EU free trade agreements.
Our proposal also includes the continuation of the island's Single Electricity Market, as requested by the UK.
Over the past week, we have met the leaders of all Northern Irish political parties – many of whom I have met before, and many of whom I will meet again. My door is always open. And my team met on Monday a group of Northern Irish business leaders and a group representing local government.
Naturally, there were questions, doubts and worries about our proposal – and Brexit in general.
But most conversations focused on the added value for Northern Ireland so long as we can mitigate the burden of doing checks.
Third, our proposal is just a safety net, a "backstop".
It is needed because the details of the future relationship will only be negotiated after the UK's withdrawal.
But the future relation in itself might mitigate the necessary checks, or even make some unnecessary:
o For instance, a veterinary agreement would mean less frequent inspections of live animals.
o And we are still open to the idea of having a customs union with the UK. Such a customs union would eliminate an important part of custom checks.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Apart from the issue of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Withdrawal Agreement will include other important issues, on which we already agreed with the UK.
These issues are important for your businesses, your employees and your regions.
In particular, we already agreed that:
European citizens who arrived in the UK before the end of 2020 and British citizens who moved to other EU countries before that date can continue to live their lives as before. We remain in close contact with the organisations representing the citizens concerned, most notably to discuss the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
All financial commitments undertaken by the 28 EU Member States will be honoured by the 28, for instance on the European Social Fund and the regional policy. All current programmes will continue, with the UKs participation.
The UK will retain all the rights and obligations of a Member State for a transition period, until the end of 2020, at its request.
This will leave time for businesses to prepare.
And this will leave time to finalise the future relationship.
To be clear, all these points will enter into force on the condition that we agree on the whole Withdrawal Agreement, which must then be ratified, I hope in the beginning of next year by the UK and by the European Parliament.
On 29 March 2019, in less than 6 months, the UK will leave the European Union.
We have always respected the UK's sovereign decision to leave the European Union, even if we profoundly regret this vote We respect its decision to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union.
And we are doing our best to reach a deal on the UK's orderly withdrawal.
Since the beginning of this negotiation, we have made good progress.
In fact, as you can see in this copy of the draft Treaty, a lot of the Withdrawal Agreement – 80%-85% – has now been agreed with the UK.
However, some difficult issues have been left until the end.
We must agree on the governance of the Withdrawal Agreement and on geographical indications that are currently protected in the 28 EU Member States.
Above all, we need to agree on how to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland for political, human, and economic reasons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The UK wants to and will leave the Single Market and the Customs Union.
This means that there must be checks on goods travelling between the EU and the UK – checks that do not exist today:
- customs and VAT checks;
- and compliance checks with our standards to protect our consumers, our economic traders and your businesses.
A crucial question is, therefore, where they will take place.
The EU is committed to respecting the territorial integrity and constitutional order of the UK, just like the UK has committed to respecting the integrity of our Single Market, including Ireland, obviously.
Therefore, the EU proposes to carry out these checks in the least intrusive way possible.
For customs and VAT checks, we propose using the existing customs transit procedures to avoid doing checks at a physical border point. To be more specific:
o Companies in the rest of the UK would fill in their customs declarations online and in advance when shipping goods to Northern Ireland.
o The only visible systematic checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would involve scanning the bar codes of the lorries or containers, which could be done on ferries or in transit ports.
o These arrangements already exist within EU Member States, in particular those with islands, for example between mainland Spain and the Canary Islands.
For regulatory checks, on industrial goods for instance, these could be carried out by market surveillance authorities.
Again, this would not need to happen at a border but directly in the market or at the premises of companies in Northern Ireland.
This leaves the health and phytosanitary checks for live animals and products of animal origin. EU rules are clear: such checks must happen at the border because of food safety and animal health reasons. And obviously, in the future the island of Ireland will and must remain a single epidemiologic area.
o Such checks already exist in the ports of Larne and Belfast.
o However they would have to cover 100 % rather than 10 % of live animals and animal-derived products, which would involve a significant change in terms of scale.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Both the EU and the UK exclude having a physical border on the island of Ireland. Therefore what will arrive into Northern Ireland will also be arriving into the Single Market.
There will be administrative procedures that do not exist today for goods travelling to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. Our challenge is to make sure those procedures are as easy as possible and not too burdensome, in particular for smaller businesses.
I understand why such procedures are politically sensitive, but let me make three remarks.
First, Brexit was not our choice. It is the choice of the UK. Our proposal tries to help the UK in managing the negative fall-out of Brexit in Northern Ireland, in a way that respects the territorial integrity of the UK.
Second, our proposal limits itself to what is absolutely necessary to avoid a hard border: customs procedures and the respect of EU standards for products.
It does not include measures on free movement of people, services, healthcare or social and environmental policy. But the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland will continue as today.
And yet, our proposal gives Northern Ireland benefits that no part of a third country enjoys. In particular continued access to the Single Market for goods and continued benefits from the EU free trade agreements.
Our proposal also includes the continuation of the island's Single Electricity Market, as requested by the UK.
Over the past week, we have met the leaders of all Northern Irish political parties – many of whom I have met before, and many of whom I will meet again. My door is always open. And my team met on Monday a group of Northern Irish business leaders and a group representing local government.
Naturally, there were questions, doubts and worries about our proposal – and Brexit in general.
But most conversations focused on the added value for Northern Ireland so long as we can mitigate the burden of doing checks.
Third, our proposal is just a safety net, a "backstop".
It is needed because the details of the future relationship will only be negotiated after the UK's withdrawal.
But the future relation in itself might mitigate the necessary checks, or even make some unnecessary:
o For instance, a veterinary agreement would mean less frequent inspections of live animals.
o And we are still open to the idea of having a customs union with the UK. Such a customs union would eliminate an important part of custom checks.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Apart from the issue of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Withdrawal Agreement will include other important issues, on which we already agreed with the UK.
These issues are important for your businesses, your employees and your regions.
In particular, we already agreed that:
European citizens who arrived in the UK before the end of 2020 and British citizens who moved to other EU countries before that date can continue to live their lives as before. We remain in close contact with the organisations representing the citizens concerned, most notably to discuss the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
All financial commitments undertaken by the 28 EU Member States will be honoured by the 28, for instance on the European Social Fund and the regional policy. All current programmes will continue, with the UKs participation.
The UK will retain all the rights and obligations of a Member State for a transition period, until the end of 2020, at its request.
This will leave time for businesses to prepare.
And this will leave time to finalise the future relationship.
To be clear, all these points will enter into force on the condition that we agree on the whole Withdrawal Agreement, which must then be ratified, I hope in the beginning of next year by the UK and by the European Parliament.
Note: "Details of the future relationship will only be negotiated after the UK's withdrawal."
In case anyone was in any doubt, Chequers is still dead.
Sounds sensible... The brexiteers and the dup will therefore probably hate it
Any talk of deal was always after withdrawal, nothing new there. If i was may i wouldnt bother turning up for any sort of talk until after march. Waste of time and effort.
Actually it should be the opposite. The EU should not bother with the UK attitude
Seems the only solution but yes, the brexiters led by Johnson and Mogg and the DUP will hate it
If she doesn't turn up there's no deal and no transition, not long left.
Edit: There are two deals here as opposed to what Mogg and company expect.
The first deal is to agree the withdrawal agreement, citizens, border, settlement.
This has to be agreed beforehand.
The second deal is the future relationship or Canada+++ or whatever , talks start after the UK leave. Don't think Johnson and Mogg have quite grasped this.
Last edited:
This is all fair but have you seen BBC 3 comedy writers
I was going to say the target audience for BBC3 is 16-34. They have Stacey Dooley, Professor Green and Reggie Yates presenting serious documentaries on the channel, with the best will in the world the content is on the shallow side.
The UK hasn't been the place to be for a long time - I think some people just hope that leaving the EU will make their own lives better, in a kind of nebulous, intangible way. It's a pipe dream, of course.
Always have time for Sir Ivan Rogers.
Interesting from the Guardian
She's trying to scare her MPs into backing her .
As I've said for months I'm expecting a general election soon.
She's not going to go through with it.
JRM and the other ERG crew prefer Chequers to Corbyn.
JRM and the other ERG crew prefer Chequers to Corbyn.
And so they should.
If that is what it has to be then, worse case, we can refine Chequers over time.
Corbyn in No. 10 would totally eclipse any disaster that Brexit brings.
probably also some Everton fans who think they will win the league this season.
Disagree on Corbyn. Apart from my tax bill exploding, won't really mind a Corbyn premiership. Even though I'm not a fan of the cult personality around him.
On the back of whatever clusterfeck Brexit turns out to be, a Labour victory in a GE will be the perfect storm.
There'll be a run on the pound and businesses will be jumping ship left right and centre. Unemployment will sky-rocket.
Which part of Chequers never ever being acceptable to the EU don't British people understand ?
Can't believe this is still being considered as an option in the UK press.
Can't believe this is still being considered as an option in the UK press.
If you follow the May dialogue closely, she appears to have dropped the word 'Chequers' and she doesn't seem to be reiterating exit from the Single Market or the Customs Union.
I think there's a lot going on behind the scenes.
Norway??
Yes way.
In Barnier's speech yesterday he said "The UK wants to and will leave the Single Market and the Customs Union."
Norway does not solve the border problem or customs checks, not only in Ireland but elsewhere as well.
If the UK aren't leaving the CU nor the SM they may as well stay in the EU, that's the best deal they'll get.
I have the opposite view, I think the EU have given up trying to get a coherent position from the UK and just concentrating on making the UK take responsibility for resolving the problem of the border in Ireland.
I also think the EU doesn't want a UK change of government at the last minute so not making life too unpleasant for May.
What’s the take on Tony Blair’s comment this morning that, if we hold referendum 2, we’ll get a better deal as a continuing member of the EU (in other words, the ability to impose additional controls on immigration). Wishful thinking from yesterday’s man or a message delivered from someone with relevant contacts within the EU?
From Barnier's speech yesterday, part 1 and part 3 were originally in French but have now been translated into English , part two was already in English above.
Mr President, my dear Christoph LEITL,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Firstly, I would like to welcome you, in the diversity of your responsibilities, your enterprises and your countries.
It is a great opportunity to be able to gather you here, at the heart of European democracy that is the European Parliament. I would like to thank Eurochambres and all of you for having taken the time to come and share your ideas on the functioning of Europe and the direction it should take.
This is the right time for it!
Our European Union needs to listen to and take into account the views of entrepreneurs and business leaders, in all their diversity.
And the subjects discussed today show clearly what the added value of ambitious action at European level can be, for your enterprises and for European citizens.
To increase our competitiveness and address the challenge of skills through training, mobility, the integration of migrants, the fight against youth unemployment.
To find new markets through trade and investment agreements – Cecilia Malmström has spoken to you about this – which must benefit our SMEs and create jobs, while encouraging sustainable development.
To invest together in the technologies of the future and deepen our single market to adapt it to the new digital realities.
These are examples of positive projects, which correspond to the commitments and initiatives – I am thinking of the Juncker Plan – undertaken by the European Commission.
It is on these subjects that the EU-27 must focus in order to build a stronger Union, on the basis of what, in my view, is our main asset, our main capital – our single market, that ecosystem of standards, certifications, rights, regulations, supervision and jurisdiction that we have constructed together and on which we worked hard together when I was the Commissioner responsible for the single market. I am thinking, for example, of the simplification of public procurement, and the European patent.
It is also for this positive agenda, an agenda of progress for Europe and Europeans, that the unity we have built between the 27 Member States and the European Parliament in this negotiation with the UK must be useful.
By setting our course for the medium and long term, we will address together the challenges facing Europe on the economic, industrial, technological, geopolitical, ecological and demographic fronts.
The challenges facing us today obviously include Brexit, which is raising concerns for many entrepreneurs and enterprises, as well as numerous citizens and communities.
In view of this concern, I would like to tell you clearly where we are now, and what remains to be done to reach an agreement on an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Firstly, I would like to welcome you, in the diversity of your responsibilities, your enterprises and your countries.
It is a great opportunity to be able to gather you here, at the heart of European democracy that is the European Parliament. I would like to thank Eurochambres and all of you for having taken the time to come and share your ideas on the functioning of Europe and the direction it should take.
This is the right time for it!
Our European Union needs to listen to and take into account the views of entrepreneurs and business leaders, in all their diversity.
And the subjects discussed today show clearly what the added value of ambitious action at European level can be, for your enterprises and for European citizens.
To increase our competitiveness and address the challenge of skills through training, mobility, the integration of migrants, the fight against youth unemployment.
To find new markets through trade and investment agreements – Cecilia Malmström has spoken to you about this – which must benefit our SMEs and create jobs, while encouraging sustainable development.
To invest together in the technologies of the future and deepen our single market to adapt it to the new digital realities.
These are examples of positive projects, which correspond to the commitments and initiatives – I am thinking of the Juncker Plan – undertaken by the European Commission.
It is on these subjects that the EU-27 must focus in order to build a stronger Union, on the basis of what, in my view, is our main asset, our main capital – our single market, that ecosystem of standards, certifications, rights, regulations, supervision and jurisdiction that we have constructed together and on which we worked hard together when I was the Commissioner responsible for the single market. I am thinking, for example, of the simplification of public procurement, and the European patent.
It is also for this positive agenda, an agenda of progress for Europe and Europeans, that the unity we have built between the 27 Member States and the European Parliament in this negotiation with the UK must be useful.
By setting our course for the medium and long term, we will address together the challenges facing Europe on the economic, industrial, technological, geopolitical, ecological and demographic fronts.
The challenges facing us today obviously include Brexit, which is raising concerns for many entrepreneurs and enterprises, as well as numerous citizens and communities.
In view of this concern, I would like to tell you clearly where we are now, and what remains to be done to reach an agreement on an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Looking beyond a difficult separation, which we hope will be an orderly one, the most important matter, in the common interest of our countries and of economic stability and growth, will be our future relationship with the United Kingdom.
We must now define the outline, the framework and the parameters of that future relationship.
To be clear, once the UK has left the Union the future relationship will be the subject of a new negotiation, in fact several negotiations – undoubtedly about ten parallel negotiating tables – during the transition period, until the end of 2020.
In parallel with the withdrawal agreement, we are therefore working with the UK on a joint political declaration that will describe this future relationship.
Last March, the EU-27 Heads of State or Government, with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, clearly expressed the wish for a very ambitious partnership with the UK for the future. This ambition is shared by the European Parliament and its President, Antonio TAJANI.
Obviously, in our discussions with the United Kingdom, we are taking on board the positions set out in the UK's July White Paper. Since July, we have discussed all the chapters of that White Paper with the UK negotiators at both the technical and political level.
This White Paper is useful, as it allows us to benchmark our proposals against the UK proposals and identify points of convergence. We have found many such points. For example:
With regard to our future economic partnership, however, certain UK positions set out in the White Paper do not correspond to the European Council's guidelines or to my mandate.
We agree that our future relationship is to be based on a free trade area without tariffs or quotas. This is a very important point.
But we have two points of divergence with the UK proposals, since these two points clearly contradict the foundations of our single market.
First, with regard to customs:
Let's take two examples:
o The remainder, 69 %, covers compliance with other Union regulations, such as environmental rules. It's on these regulations that the UK would like to be able to diverge from us. For steel, the figures are even more eloquent.
And, as you know well, in certain economic sectors where the margins are low, minor divergences in regulations can create a significant competitive advantage for the UK if it remains in the single market for goods while diverging for all the rest.
This is why many business leaders, including here in Eurochambres, have asked us clearly, in all the countries of the Union, not to do anything in this negotiation to weaken the internal market – which, after Brexit, will still represent 60 %, in some cases more, of our trade. And the survey you have just done shows clearly your commitment to that internal market.
We have therefore proposed to the UK, taking into account our principles and the UK's red lines, an economic partnership founded on an ambitious free trade agreement, doubtless accompanied by a customs cooperation, a regulatory cooperation, and also a level playing field commensurate with such a free trade agreement.
It is this partnership that we wish to outline in our joint political declaration with the UK and that will be the basis of our future economic relationship.
Nothing will prevent us from enriching this economic relationship in the course of the negotiations, provided that our principles are respected.
*
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The negotiations with the United Kingdom are being conducted intensively this week, day and night, with the objective set by the leaders of the 27 Member States that the agreement be within reach at the time of the European Council on 17-18 October, next Wednesday!
In this way we will try to maximise the chances of an orderly withdrawal and minimise the costs of Brexit for our enterprises.
In the event of no deal, these costs would be very high, firstly for the UK but also for some sectors of our economy. That is why ‘no deal' is not, and has never been, our scenario – even if our responsibility is to be prepared for all options.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to be sincere with you: even in the event of an agreement, there will be adjustments for many of your companies as a result of the UK's decision. It can't be business as usual.
To help your enterprises to address these adjustments, the European Commission has published over 70 Brexit preparedness notices. These notices concern numerous economic sectors, from e-commerce to maritime transport, the energy market and financial services. I would like to thank Eurochambres and its members for your support for this preparation. The Task Force that I head is at your disposal.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to conclude on a more personal note in my capacity as the person in charge of this negotiation, under the control of the European leaders and the European Parliament.
I would like to tell you what I think, as someone who voted for the first time, in his country, in 1972, in favour of the UK joining the European Union.
I campaigned for the Yes vote and I have never regretted that vote, because I believe in strength through unity. I believed then – and it is still more true today – that it was better to be together to secure respect and defend our interests and values.
I believe that Brexit has no added value. It is a negotiation with no positive outcome, a lose-lose game.
Its result is important for the future of Europe, beyond our relationship with the UK.
On our side, we will try to reach an agreement that is the fairest and the most precise on the separation and the most ambitious for the future, while defending the rights of European citizens and enterprises and preserving the foundations of the European project.
To achieve this, I will continue to conduct this negotiation to the end on behalf of the Union and respecting the principles set out by European leaders and the European Parliament from the very first day after the referendum.
I will continue to do this calmly, without any aggressiveness, with a lot of respect for a great country that will remain, in any case, our ally and our partner.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Looking beyond a difficult separation, which we hope will be an orderly one, the most important matter, in the common interest of our countries and of economic stability and growth, will be our future relationship with the United Kingdom.
We must now define the outline, the framework and the parameters of that future relationship.
To be clear, once the UK has left the Union the future relationship will be the subject of a new negotiation, in fact several negotiations – undoubtedly about ten parallel negotiating tables – during the transition period, until the end of 2020.
In parallel with the withdrawal agreement, we are therefore working with the UK on a joint political declaration that will describe this future relationship.
Last March, the EU-27 Heads of State or Government, with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, clearly expressed the wish for a very ambitious partnership with the UK for the future. This ambition is shared by the European Parliament and its President, Antonio TAJANI.
Obviously, in our discussions with the United Kingdom, we are taking on board the positions set out in the UK's July White Paper. Since July, we have discussed all the chapters of that White Paper with the UK negotiators at both the technical and political level.
This White Paper is useful, as it allows us to benchmark our proposals against the UK proposals and identify points of convergence. We have found many such points. For example:
- In the area of internal security, foreign policy and military cooperation.
- In numerous areas of sectoral cooperation, for instance in aviation and transport.
- In the United Kingdom's participation in Union programmes, for example research programmes, where we will be willing to use all the tools at our disposal for our relations with non‑EU countries in the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework.
- In areas where we are willing to look at recourse to unilateral equivalence or adequacy decisions. I am thinking for example of financial services and data protection.
With regard to our future economic partnership, however, certain UK positions set out in the White Paper do not correspond to the European Council's guidelines or to my mandate.
We agree that our future relationship is to be based on a free trade area without tariffs or quotas. This is a very important point.
But we have two points of divergence with the UK proposals, since these two points clearly contradict the foundations of our single market.
First, with regard to customs:
- The United Kingdom would like to preserve an autonomous trade policy, and be able to negotiate its own agreements, while remaining in our customs area.
- The United Kingdom would like to apply its own external tariffs while collecting European customs duties for us.
- We know that the United Kingdom wishes to take back control of its borders, its policies and its money and we respect this choice. But the British Government must in turn accept that we need to retain control over our customs borders.
- The United Kingdom has asked to be aligned with many – but not all - of our standards for goods, so that it can preserve its current participation in our internal market for those goods alone.
- At the same time, the UK wants to remain free to diverge from the set of regulations governing the factors of production of these goods, whether it be services, labour, capital or social and environmental rules.
Let's take two examples:
- On the regulatory cost of chemical products:
o The remainder, 69 %, covers compliance with other Union regulations, such as environmental rules. It's on these regulations that the UK would like to be able to diverge from us. For steel, the figures are even more eloquent.
And, as you know well, in certain economic sectors where the margins are low, minor divergences in regulations can create a significant competitive advantage for the UK if it remains in the single market for goods while diverging for all the rest.
This is why many business leaders, including here in Eurochambres, have asked us clearly, in all the countries of the Union, not to do anything in this negotiation to weaken the internal market – which, after Brexit, will still represent 60 %, in some cases more, of our trade. And the survey you have just done shows clearly your commitment to that internal market.
We have therefore proposed to the UK, taking into account our principles and the UK's red lines, an economic partnership founded on an ambitious free trade agreement, doubtless accompanied by a customs cooperation, a regulatory cooperation, and also a level playing field commensurate with such a free trade agreement.
It is this partnership that we wish to outline in our joint political declaration with the UK and that will be the basis of our future economic relationship.
Nothing will prevent us from enriching this economic relationship in the course of the negotiations, provided that our principles are respected.
*
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The negotiations with the United Kingdom are being conducted intensively this week, day and night, with the objective set by the leaders of the 27 Member States that the agreement be within reach at the time of the European Council on 17-18 October, next Wednesday!
In this way we will try to maximise the chances of an orderly withdrawal and minimise the costs of Brexit for our enterprises.
In the event of no deal, these costs would be very high, firstly for the UK but also for some sectors of our economy. That is why ‘no deal' is not, and has never been, our scenario – even if our responsibility is to be prepared for all options.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to be sincere with you: even in the event of an agreement, there will be adjustments for many of your companies as a result of the UK's decision. It can't be business as usual.
To help your enterprises to address these adjustments, the European Commission has published over 70 Brexit preparedness notices. These notices concern numerous economic sectors, from e-commerce to maritime transport, the energy market and financial services. I would like to thank Eurochambres and its members for your support for this preparation. The Task Force that I head is at your disposal.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to conclude on a more personal note in my capacity as the person in charge of this negotiation, under the control of the European leaders and the European Parliament.
I would like to tell you what I think, as someone who voted for the first time, in his country, in 1972, in favour of the UK joining the European Union.
I campaigned for the Yes vote and I have never regretted that vote, because I believe in strength through unity. I believed then – and it is still more true today – that it was better to be together to secure respect and defend our interests and values.
I believe that Brexit has no added value. It is a negotiation with no positive outcome, a lose-lose game.
Its result is important for the future of Europe, beyond our relationship with the UK.
On our side, we will try to reach an agreement that is the fairest and the most precise on the separation and the most ambitious for the future, while defending the rights of European citizens and enterprises and preserving the foundations of the European project.
To achieve this, I will continue to conduct this negotiation to the end on behalf of the Union and respecting the principles set out by European leaders and the European Parliament from the very first day after the referendum.
I will continue to do this calmly, without any aggressiveness, with a lot of respect for a great country that will remain, in any case, our ally and our partner.
Thank you very much for your attention.
The EU can deliver a message without using Blair imho. Its not particulalry helpful and a bit too late tbh.