Brexit talks have begun

Ignoring the many crimes committed by Vichyists whilst claiming that "ordinary French people" stood against Nazi Germany is a lie that has been perpetrated ever since the end of the War. The "the ordinary French people as well as the brave members of the organised Resistance" were almost entirely confined to the north and west of the country whilst the east, south, Sardinia and French-speaking North Africa were predominantly Petain loyalists and were active or tacit supporters of the Third Reich. And yes, our French allies were very brave indeed and their good deeds should never be forgotten. But equally the atrocities that their countrymen living in Vichy France performed should never be overlooked and, like it or not, they were active supporters of a Germany-controlled pan-European superstate.

I quite understand why you (Europhiles) should choose to overlook Vichy: it undermines your narrative that the EU is entirely "benign". It is most certainly no such thing.

Again you are sidestepping the issue I took you to task over.

We are not discussing the motives of Petain for agreeing an armistance with the Nazis - or indeed the illiberal, authoritarian, regime that came about as a result.

You claimed that France and Germany collaborated in a project akin to the establishment of a superstate - and shamefully invoked those who had died fighting the Nazis.

France and Germany DID NOT collaborate in the way you suggest - you are simply historically wrong.

To suggest otherwise is - as I mentioned before - a terrible slur and slander on the 600,000 French people who lost their lives during WW2.

Stop digging Mark.

You are deliberately misinterpreting and wilfully extending what I wrote in a blatant attempt to discredit me. I asked you before to stop putting words in my mouth but you persist. Now for the last time of asking: DESIST.

A production of the Franco-German Superstate...

This is from the Suddeutsche Zeitung:

If it weren't so serious, the situation in Great Britain would almost be comical. The country is being governed by a talking robot, nicknamed the Maybot, that somehow managed to visit the burned-out tower block in the west of London without speaking to a single survivor or voluntary helper. Negotiations for the country’s exit from the EU are due to begin on Monday, but no one has even a hint of a plan. The government is dependent on a tiny party that provides a cozy home for climate change deniers and creationists. Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. What in the world has happened to this country? Two years ago David Cameron emerged from the parliamentary election as the shining victor. He had secured an absolute majority, and as a result it looked as if the career of this cheerful lightweight was headed for surprisingly dizzy heights.

The economy was growing faster than in any other industrialised country in the world. Scottish independence and, with it, the break-up of the United Kingdom had been averted. For the first time since 1992, there was a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Great Britain saw itself as a universally respected actor on the international stage. This was the starting point. In order to get from this comfortable position to the chaos of the present in the shortest possible time, two things were necessary: first, the Conservative right wingers’ obsessive hatred of the EU, and second, Cameron’s irresponsibility in putting the whole future of the country on the line with his referendum, just to satisfy a few fanatics in his party.

It is becoming ever clearer just how extraordinarily bad a decision that was. The fact that Great Britain has become the laughing stock of Europe is directly linked to its vote for Brexit. The ones who will suffer most will be the British people, who were lied to by the Leave campaign during the referendum and betrayed and treated like idiots by elements of their press. The shamelessness still knows no bounds: the Daily Express has asked in all seriousness whether the inferno in the tower block was due to the cladding having been designed to meet EU standards. It is a simple matter to discover that the answer to this question is No, but by failing to check it, the newspaper has planted the suspicion that the EU might be to blame for this too. As an aside: a country in which parts of the press are so demonstrably uninterested in truth and exploit a disaster like the fire in Grenfell Tower for their own tasteless ends has a very serious problem. Already prices are rising in the shops, already inflation is on the up. Investors are holding back. Economic growth has slowed. And that’s before the Brexit negotiations have even begun.

With her unnecessary general election, Prime Minister Theresa May has already squandered an eighth of the time available for them. How on earth an undertaking as complex as Brexit is supposed to be agreed in the time remaining is a mystery. In the end, Great Britain will withdraw from its most important trading partner and will be left weaker in every respect. It would make economic sense to stay in the single market and the customs union, but that would mean being subject to regulations over which Britain no longer had any say. It would be better to have stayed in the EU in the first place. So the government now needs to develop a plan that is both politically acceptable and inflicts as little economic harm as possible. It’s a question of damage limitation, nothing more; yet even now there are still politicians strutting around Westminster smugly trumpeting that it will be the EU that comes off worst if it doesn’t toe the line.

The EU is going to be dealing with a government that has no idea what kind of Brexit it wants, led by an unrealistic politician whose days are numbered; and a party in which old trenches are being opened up again: moderate Tories are currently hoping to be able to bring about a softer exit after all, but the hardliners in the party – among them more than a few pigheadedly obstinate ideologues – are already threatening rebellion.

An epic battle lies ahead, and it will paralyse the government. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said that he now expects the Brits to finally set out their position clearly, since he cannot negotiate with himself. The irony of this statement is that it would actually be in Britain’s best interests if he did just that. At least that way they’d have one representative on their side who grasps the scale of the task and is actually capable of securing a deal that will be fair to both sides. The Brits do not have a single negotiator of this stature in their ranks. And quite apart from the Brexit terms, both the debate and the referendum have proven to be toxic in ways that are now making themselves felt. British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century, a fact that was demonstrated anew in the general election, in which a good 80% of the votes were cast for the two largest parties.

Neither of these parties was offering a centrist programme: the election was a choice between the hard right and the hard left. The political centre has been abandoned, and that is never a good sign. In a country like Great Britain, that for so long enjoyed a reputation for pragmatism and rationality, it is grounds for real concern. The situation is getting decidedly out of hand. After the loss of its empire, the United Kingdom sought a new place in the world. It finally found it, as a strong, awkward and influential part of a larger union: the EU. Now it has given up this place quite needlessly. The consequence, as is now becoming clear, is a veritable identity crisis from which it will take the country a very long time to recover.

Another Brexiteer who proves unable to control his appetite for violence is going before the beaks:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ine-believed-posts-were-private-a3570071.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodri_Philipps,_4th_Viscount_St_Davids

And from the French side of the Franco-German superstate:

Watching Brexit unfold is such a pleasure. One year on from the referendum of 23 June 2016, it is now clear that what we predicted is coming true: leaving the European Union is exceptionally difficul t(assuming it is even possible), carries an undeniable cost, and plays havoc with the politics of the country attempting it – as the fiasco of Britain’s snap election, on 8th June, amply demonstrates.

That’s why I was in favour of a victory for leave: it would mean all the Europhobes and Eurosceptics of the union would see their dreams shatter on the brick wall of reality. So I would like to express my profound gratitude to the British people, who have once more demonstrated a spirit of sacrifice that is greatly to their credit. Thanks to them, the people of Europe will be vaccinated against populist adventurism for some time to come.

In fact, the victory for Brexit (and for its little brother, Donald Trump) has already had an extremely positive impact on the old continent, which is now finally insulated by a particularly thick fog from a UK high as a kite on nationalism: populist parties have been dealt heavy blows in Austria, the Netherlands, France and Italy, where the Five Star Movement has just been routed in local elections.

As for my own country, until recently the target of much mocking laughter across the Channel, it’s plain the presidential election of 7 May that sent Emmanuel Macron, the most pro-European of all the candidates, into the Elysée on 66% of the vote was a clear rejection of the “Frexit” proposed by the Front National (the victory of which, incidentally, the most ardent Brexiteers had called for).

The French may not fully support everything the EU does, and that’s perfectly normal, but they steered clear of what the Germans might call the Sonderweg – going it alone. And some FN officials have already got the message: since French voters do not want to abandon the euro or leave the EU, they now want to drop that part of the far-right party’s programme, at the risk of its possible disintegration.

Undeniably, Brexit has acted as a deterrent, accomplishing the not insignificant feat of uniting the Europeans as never before. Because for the past year, the British political class – both those who campaigned for leave and those, like Theresa May, who initially backed remain but then gave up the fight against a decision that plainly threatens British interests – have revealed their complete recklessness.

It is now obvious that there was not a plan A, or a plan B, or a plan C

It is now obvious that there was not a plan A, or a plan B, or a plan C, as the government’s incapacity to begin negotiations with a clear strategy demonstrates. The 27 member states, in a hurry to get the whole thing over with, still have not the slightest clue what London wants or how exactly it intends to sever the UK’s extremely complex, 44 year-old legal ties with the EU.

After the rebuff of May’s government and of Ukip during in the election, some Conservatives are now even touting a “soft” Brexit as a way of respecting the wishes of voters who, by not giving their party a clear majority, seem to have rejected the “hard” Brexit that May was proposing – at a time when Britain’s American ally has become completely unpredictable and the world has not looked so unstable since the 1930s.

So what exactly is the difference between “hard” and “soft”? If I’ve got it right (and I speak carefully, given the intellectual morass Britain seems to have got itself into), it boils down to staying in the customs union or even the single market so as not to harm foreign trade and British business. At worst, that’s the Turkey option (the customs union), and at best the Norway (European Economic Area) or Switzerland (bilateral agreements) option.

But the Turkey option means allowing the EU to conclude free-trade agreements in Britain’s name, and the EEA option means accepting all the rules of the single market, including free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the European court of justice, and even a contribution to the EU budget equivalent to what the UK pays today. And all of that, of course, without having the least say in the texts negotiated and agreed in Brussels …

Here we near the sublime: Brexit could amount simply to Britain losing its influence in Brussels, giving up its voice – basically, surrendering its sovereignty without benefiting from any shared sovereignty to limit the coming economic disaster. That’s what’s called political and diplomatic suicide, especially when you remember the unique position the UK had managed to carve itself out in the EU and its influence in Brussels.

Now we can really see why the citizens of the old continent are not too keen on following Britain’s example. And we can understand, too, why all of Europe is quietly sniggering at the sorry spectacle of the worn-out old British lion: this week, Emmanuel Macron even allowed himself the luxury of reminding Theresa May, during her visit to Paris, that “the door will stay open, as long as the negotiations are not over”.

But if it does decide to stay, Britain will never recover the position it once had. Ridicule, after all, always has a price. Might it not be better to consider paying it, rather than commit such an extraordinary act of national self-harm?

Jeam Quatremer, Brussels correspondent of "Liberation".

I suspect the DUP are tougher negotiators than the EU - right?

What a mess, the Queen's Speech covers 2 years, this Government won't last 1.

And again in Der Spiegel:

Once upon a time, under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, the Tories filled all of Europe with trepidation. French President François Mitterrand complained to his psychologist that he was plagued by nightmares caused by the British leader and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, as unclassified British documents revealed in late 2016, once preferred to chow down on a cream pie in Salzburg than meet with the British prime minister.

Many in the UK thought a bit of fear was a good thing. Fear sounded like respect and influence -- and, more than anything, like good deals. But now, after two catastrophic elections in less than a year, that is over. Completely.

"The country looks ridiculous," the Financial Times -- not exactly a leftist mouthpiece -- wrote recently. Indeed, the party of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher has turned into a gaggle of high rollers and unwitting clowns.

First came Boris Johnson, who vociferously supported Brexit last year to show his boss, Prime Minister David Cameron, what an outstanding orator he was even though he, Johnson, didn't really want Brexit. They both went all in, and the country lost.
And now we have Theresa May, who didn't really want Brexit either, but decided after last summer's referendum to throw her support behind leaving the European Union if it meant that she could become prime minister.

"The lady's not for turning," is one of the more famous quotes uttered by Margaret Thatcher. But her heirs currently leading the Tories are now turning so quickly that many observers aren't just getting dizzy. They are becoming nauseous.

Incompetently Cool and Calculating

Great Britain may be an island, but economically it is the most interconnected country in Europe: The financial center in London, the country's carmakers, what's left of British industry and even the country's infrastructure. France delivers electricity, water sanitation facilities in southern England belong to Germans and large airports such as Heathrow are owned by Spaniards. One quarter of the doctors who keep afloat the NHS -- Britain's comparatively deficient health care system -- come from the Continent.


The promise of Brexit was steeped in ideology from the very beginning, a fairy tale based on dark chauvinism. The Spanish Armada, Napoleon, Hitler and now the Polish plumbers who allegedly push down wages -- when in reality they ensured that, after decades of lukewarmly dripping showers, the country's bathrooms gradually returned to functionality. Brexit was never a particularly good idea. Now, following the most recent election, Brexit is defunct. That, at least, is what a member of Theresa May's cabinet intimated last weekend. "In practical terms, Brexit is dead," an unnamed minister told the Financial Times.

The DUP just want two billion pounds worth of goodies.

That's £200,000,000.00 per vote.

Ah well, that can be paid out of the £350M a week that we were going to spend on the NHS

Today's particular delight was the fruit farmer, interviewed on the BBC, who voted Leave and who has just realised that he is going to go out of business because he has deprived himself of his labour force.

Very well said.

Markham voted Brexit for his kids - and that is fine. I voted Remain for my kid. He won't have freedom to work on the EU, unlike Markham's kids who have Maltese passports.

I guess I am getting the wrong impression, but it seems to be an "I'm alright Jack" viewpoint. That Brexiters happily tell me my business should face up to new challenges is something that I should be saying "How very dare you" to.

As I have already indicated here, I have had to offload one employee recently due to the effects of Brexit. The Government are receiving fewer taxes from me, and I'd be amazed if I was the only one.

I cannot see this Government surviving long enough to conclude negotiations - so there will have to be cross party consensus. I think the matter is the most important since WW2, and I think Keir Starmer should be brought on board to help out a flailing Government and to show the EU we are negotiating from a position of strength, stability and strong leadership. All the things we were supposed to get 2 weeks ago.

You manage that very sucessfully all by yourself Mark ,

I now think we will try to reverse the decision to leave once the full terms and consequences are known.

By then the EU will be so fed up with UK they will insist on full membership and membership of the Euro. Otherwise any future government could start Brexit again if they thought it gained political popularity.

However, I can see the bright side of it:

1. The xenophobes who back Leave will finally be out of power for good - they will not live down their wrecking of the British economy for a generation and more, and by that time the majority of them will have died off, without much care in their dotage as most care workers are immigrants..

2. Full membership with no opt outs will lock us in properly.

3. A couple of years of life with the Mickey Mouse currency that is the £ after Brexit will make the Euro look like a very good idea - at whatever exchange rate we scramble on board with.

In fact I see the coming Brexit crash, which will be devastating, and the eventual rebuilding of Britain as a full member of the European Union, as our equivalent of the effects of defeat in WW2 and the ensuing wirtschaftswunder on Germany. It's probably what we need, to finally dump the mindset of English exceptionalism and entitlement that has dragged us down for so long.

Le Figaro (pretty much the French "Daily Telegraph") asked its readers to vote on whether if Britain changes its mind it should be allowed back in.

57% voted Non.

This comment from a reader sums up why:

Non pour plusieurs raisons.

1- pendant 40 ans ils n'ont fait que se plaindre, que critiquer la CEE puis l'UE et menacé l'UE a chaque vote pour avoir un traitement spécial. Ils ne jouent pas en équipe. Ils ne voient l'UE que comme une vache à lait.
2- le Brexit est leur choix. Ils s'en débrouillent. C'est pas faute de les avoir prévenu.
3- Leur sortie et les difficultés économiques qui s'en suivront mettront peut être un peu de bon sens dans la tete de nos propres anti UE du FN ou de FI. Ce.sera peut etre plus parlant pour eux que des études économiques qu'ils comprennent pas de toute évidence.

No, for several reasons.

1. For forty years they have whinged, criticised the EEC and then the EU and threatened the EU on each vote to get themselves special treatment. They are not team players. The only see the EU as a milch cow.
2. Brexit is their choice. They votes to leave. They can't say they weren't warned
3. Their departure and the economic difficulties that they will find themselves in once they have left may put some common sense into the heads of our own anti EU types from the National Front and Independent France. It will speak louder to them than economic studies which, to judge yu the evidence, they cannot understand.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/06/free-movement-isnt-free-truth-about-eu-immigration

Still Remoaning I see.