Michel Barnier concedes that payment of £39 billion Brexit bill could guarantee UK-EU trade deal
You know, before we pay the money?
Michel Barnier concedes that payment of £39 billion Brexit bill could guarantee UK-EU trade deal
You know, before we pay the money?
The Torygraph describes this as Michel Barnier (right) appeared to give ground to Dominic Raab (left), which is optimistic, isn’t it?
Pile o’ money. Time gets short, and the dangling promise of X billion pounds looks like it may be withdrawn. What has this puppet got to offer us that will be worth £39bn? Trade? Nations don’t trade, people do.
Rhoda, true people trade rather than nations, but nations tend to get in the way, or at least have the capacity to.
The free trade argument is, for anyone with a brain, over. The only difference of opinion is, do you get there over time using the current structures, or do you have a unilateral “big bang” and withdraw all import tarrifs on Brexit day.
Those current structures have, if slow, been rather successful. Gone are the days when the German and British governments allowed the swap of 50 VW Beetles for 50 Minis. Gone are the days when you needed permission to take more than £50 out of the country. A yearned-for free-trading past never existed.
Further, the unilateral free-traders are deluded if they think that is what Britain’s (non-)working class voted for. They want, overwhelmingly, more protectionism, not less.
BiG, true, but nobody voted to pay out £39bn either. WTO is acceptable rather than mythical free trade, but I can easily treat EU countries the same as non-EU, and so can HMRC. I don’t expect HMG has the bottle to go to zero tariffs, but at least the option will be there.
The presumption is that only the UK values the trade.
Isn’t the £39 billion what is owed by us via current agreements, come what may? Brexit or no, we pay that anyway?
PJF, not as I understand it, there being no arrangement for this, nor any shareout of EU assets to leaving nations. It should be taken as a wash.
Unless there is, somewhere, an accounting of what the 39bn consists of.
Unless there is, somewhere, an accounting of what the 39bn consists of.
We’d have to insist that any such figures must be audited. Which might delay things for a decade or two.
Turn it on the EU. Charge them £39 billion a year to be allowed to trade with you. Their demand for money should be met with force. Deploy the Royal Navy in the Channel and tell them to try to collect it.
The EU is a consignment shop. Their demand for money to be able to trade with them is an insult. Yield to it now and you will forever more be insulted.
Desperta ferra.
My take- the EU has exacted far more concessions from May than it ever thought possible. It perceives that the draft deal is in danger of being rejected, as is May. Hence it wants to sew the deal up quick before the concessions get withdrawn. I would guess that the money is what they want most.
Your ‘negotiators’ want to punish YOU for voting for it.
BiG-
“Further, the unilateral free-traders are deluded if they think that is what Britain’s (non-)working class voted for. They want, overwhelmingly, more protectionism, not less.”
Insofar as some brexit voters’ priority was to get protection it was from unlimited cheap labour. I don’t think there’s a large bloc of voters vociferously care about the protection that EU tariffs give them or future UK ones. Yes the mercantalist mindset is still in predominance so some will get excited about tit-for-tat trade measures. I’d say by pass that give them the protection they most care about and which can only come from leaving the EU and Single market.
They want protection against forrin imports, not just forriners.
You have to vote to get the right to set tariffs before you start worrying about their level. Both free trade and protectionism, and everything in between, are only possible when we get out.
When we do, we’ll vote for governments who offer the options. We get to decide which. And we may indeed get it wrong, but it will be our responsibility alone.
Gamecock,
Have you seen the state of the Andrew recently? Not enough ships to protect our fishermen last week, no chance to project British power anymore.
Do you seriously think that voters will consider free trade vs. protectionism at the ballot box?
Voters are mostly interested in voting for a party that promises to take money off other people to put in their pockets, or to take less out of their pockets to put in other peoples’ pockets.
There, not on the unquantifiable and byzantine nuances of trade policy, are elections won and lost.
Rhoda – well if people haven’t voted on the £39 billion yet they soon will.
Its not you voting unless you are an MP. You got to vote on the question in the referendum, that’s it. Your involvement ends there.
Your MP gets to vote on other matters and some stuff the government gets to decide because its the government.
Now if the MPs reject whatever agreement is made then there is no agreement. You may feel no agreement is better, there will be people who know that no agreement is worse for them.
“Will be more likely to…” can still end up as no deal. Our wallet should remain firmly in our pocket.
“no chance to project British power anymore”
China, with its billion people, expands into the South China Sea and Australia, with it’s nominal military, disarms its citizenry.
Australia is naked.
You are a cheeky bastard Biggie. The British working class still has workers among its ranks and old folk who worked a lifetime and beat the crappy cucks you choose to live amongst twice.
If the MPs kiss May’s arse with the Chequers treason let it be Corbin. I’ll write to McNasty and ask him to withdraw all –expensive–protection from former Tory grandees. So there might still be a bit of bitter pleasure left.
BluLabour and the remainiac gang are shitting themselves–hence the micro attention to every Johnson whisper.