The prime minister will lay out her plans for Brexit on Tuesday, and is expected to say that the UK is prepared to leave the single market, the customs union, and the European Court of Justice, according to reports.
The Sunday Times says that Theresa May will advocate for a so-called “hard Brexit” when negotiating with the EU in order to regain control of immigration.
A Downing Street source told the paper that the prime minister had “gone for the full works” but that her staff were concerned her comments may cause a “market correction” which could lead to another fall in the pound.
The problem is that if, and when, we lose tariff-free access to the European Single Market; passporting rights for UK financial services firms and non-tarrif trade barriers return for the first time in 40 years after we relinquish EU regulations and dispense with the rulings of the ECJ, once we have done this the economy will have to be radically restructured if we don’t want to see a mass exodus of investment to the continent.
To keep investors interested and keep the economy competitive, the Chancellor stated earlier this morning in a German interview that he is willing - if we lose market access which he still hoped to retain - to transform Britain into some kind of “Singapore-on-steroids” - a corporate tax haven.
That is not going to go down well at all with the working class and lower middle class Brexit “electorate”. It will mean severe cuts to social spending and the complete tossing aside of the European social welfare model - the polar opposite of what economically disadvantaged Brexiteers expected, and still expect, they will get and which May promised them.
In other words, “Mayism” - the Prime Minister’s stated pledge to have more governmental intervention and economic redistribution - will be dead before it was even born.
And the final complexity here is that Singapore and Ireland - countries with very low corporate tax rates - are comparatively small, in Singapore’s case its actually a city-state. The logistics of attempting such an experiment in an advanced G8 economy like the UK with a population of 65 million people don’t add up.
If they do this, countless numbers of people will go unemployed and have to seek new qualifications as their industries will no longer be needed.
Work inflation, the useless value of the £ sterling abroad now and stagnating wages into the mix, and its like a mini-dystopia in the offing - a dystopia in which we no longer have the protections for consumers and the workforce that EU law affords but rather will be servient to the will of foreign oligarchs to an extent far greater than even we are at the moment.
Yes, they do appear to be surplus to requirements now. It looks like a bunch of ideologues on the far-right, Eurosceptic flank of May’s party have found the perfect excuse to launch a coup, of sorts, by exploiting the “will of the people” to justify a rather scary, turbo-libertarian fantasy.
And yet May keeps telling the poor souls the opposite - feeding them an empty dream.
The EU is not going to back down on the “indivisibility” of the four freedoms underpinning the common market - freedom of goods, capital, services and people. It’s how the market works. As we’ve seen with Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland, you can be afforded some of the benefits of market access outside of the supranational framework of the EU - but you need to accept freedom of movement.
On the UK side, May has interpreted her referendum mandate to mean that free movement is a red line in our negotiations - it simply must be ended, no buts or maybes.
Our only hope is that the EU will be beneficent with us over financial services given the importance of London to the market in this sector, and the apparent desire for the EU-27 to avoid short-term shocks as firms look to relocate to Frankfurt or Paris, but it seems like a really, perishingly thin hope to me.
It won’t end well. The irony is that the concessions secured by Mrs Thatcher in the 80s meant that the UK was subject to more opt-outs than the EEA states. These will all be lost forever when the dust settles.
I know, its unbelievable when you consider what we are giving up in view of the alternatives. None of them will place us in a position better than the one we still currently have for the next two years.
Why is it important to the EU that Britain accept immigrants that it doesn’t want to accept? Wasn’t that a significant part of the reason for Brexit? Would it have been better, perhaps, for Britain to stay in the EU but simply refuse to obey that requirement like some of the Eastern European countries seem to be doing?
The Eastern European Member States of the EU are not refusing to accept legal immigration of European citizens from other Member States.
They are refusing to accept Middle Eastern refugees who have poured into Italy and Greece because of the Syrian Civil War, crossing the Mediterrenean after the land borders were beefed up.
Refugees are not immigrants. These are entirely different topics. On the topic of refugees, I think our Eastern members showed a somewhat weak display of solidarity by refusing to help Italy and Greece share the onerous burden that unfortunate geography has placed upon them.
Under EU law, all citizens have the right of free movement within the Union.
In addition, all workers have the right of free movement within the Common Market of the EU - whether within or without the “supranational framework” of the Union itself. It’s a condition of membership or full access to the EEA.
Britain cannot achieve economic wellbeing and stability without meaningful access to the single market. (in some form)
The single market cannot achieve economic wellbeing and stability without Britain. (in some form)
The tide is turning in Britain’s favor in terms of a negotiating position with the EU (see: Trump). What possible motive could Britain have to weaken the single market? What possible motive could the EU have to weaken trade relations with the second largest partner in the single market?
It’s called a trade deal, guys. Not ‘let’s take down Britain…and ourselves.’
In another thread, it speaks of Italy’s complaints against Eastern European countries who refuse to “take their share” of Middle Eastern immigrants. Maybe that’s based on a misunderstanding of what Italy or the EU itself can require of its members, but if it’s a misunderstanding, Italy appears to share it.
But this might be a distinction without a difference anyway. If, say, Germany “legalizes” a million Middle EAstern immigrants for purposes of residence and employment, are you saying those immigrants must stay within Germany?
I think if I were a Brit, which I’m not, I would be wondering whether there are no ships left in Greece or Italy that could be used to ship illegal entrants back to their home countries, and, if there still are Greek and Italian boats, I would be wondering why those countries’ refusal to return them imposes an obligation on my country to take them in.
People granted refugee status in an EU member state can acquire the right to move to other EU countries so long as they have been living in their host country "legally and continuously" for five years.
However the UK is not a party to this agreement: we decided not to be covered by this law because we opted-out from Schengen. They would need to become full-fledged citizens to have a right of movement to the UK.
The UK also does not accept asylum applications from abroad.
It is nigh impossible for me to say how many migrants are asylum seekers, and of this number how many will ultimately be granted refugee status. In other words, its intensely complicated and reporters skirt over this when they conflate “migrants”, “immigrants”, “asylum seekers” and “refugees” as if they were one homogenous great blob.
**Hard Brexit fears crunch sterling ahead of PM May speech
LONDON – Britain’s pound fell sharply on Monday as concern mounted that the country was heading for a “hard” Brexit from the European Union and its single market, a day before a speech by Prime Minister Theresa May on the government’s plans.
Some British newspapers have billed May’s speech on Tuesday as laying out potential major changes to its preferential single market access and hardening its stance toward an economic bloc that accounts for roughly half its exports and imports.
A spokeswomen for May, who will also attend a gathering of the world’s economic elite in Davos, Switzerland, this week, called the reports about the planned tone of her upcoming speech “speculation”.
That helped steady sterling in London trading but couldn’t repair all the damage. The pound at one point dropped to a three-decade low against the dollar, barring its ‘flash crash’ in October, and as much as 2.5 percent against the Japanese yen. [/FRX]
“Its clear that sterling is still very vulnerable to ‘hard’ Brexit fears,” said Rabobank currency strategist Jane Foley. “The uncertainty is itself also a negative factor, and I think perhaps thats one of the reasons for Theresa Mays speech on Tuesday, to provide a little bit of clarification.”
With May expected to trigger Article 50 in March, which will start formal EU separation proceedings, the stakes are already rising.
British finance minister Phillip Hammond also gave a thinly veiled warning in a German newspaper interview at the weekend that Britain could use corporate tax as a form of leverage in Brexit negotiations.
“If we have no access to the European market, if we are closed off, if Britain were to leave the European Union without an agreement on market access, then we could suffer from economic damage at least in the short term,” he said. “In this case, we could be forced to change our economic model.”**
No, because Britain is essentially subsidizing those nations. The only reason a lot of these smaller countries are in the EU is money.
I guarantee when Romania, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia signed onto this, the LAST thing they were expecting was a massive surge of unsustainable migration ESPECIALLY from Merkel. In 2006 after everyone thought W had changed the world political landscape for good with the Iraq War, she and her Christian Democrat party won in a surprise victory and she was the first major First World leader to publicly say multi-culturalism is a failure.
And let’s be honest here: Germany runs the EU mainly due to its economic power that at times has been significantly better than the UK. After World War II the UK kept many of the big government policies they had during the war while Germany scrapped them. The result was Germany was rebuilt in short order while the UK economy really had this bland existence.
I will point out though that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, which is why Brussels and the British elite are having such a hard time coping with the unexpected result of Brexit.
What’s not unexpected, however, are the hot and cold flashes of emotional anger from the globalists who can’t decide if they should actively punish the UK, then realize they cannot because Germany sells 1/3 of cars in the UK, or if they should let the UK go thinking (incorrectly I might add) it will fail so they can point to it as an example and bully the other countries into staying.
And once again we have the usual excuse-making and doomsday predictions from fiscal liberals that the UK will fall into the abyss when in reality major investors are looking to London (even though they voted overwhelmingly to stay).
Even if the UK had stayed, the EU would still be falling apart. In fact every single resolution the UK has proposed has been defeated. And ever since it joined the EU it hasn’t even been able to get a trade deal with India because of Italian textile unions.
The EU has evolved into nothing more than a perpetual bail-out for failing, inefficient industries that cannot compete globally. This means all of these extra costs are passed on to the EU customers. And the government in Brussels has piled on absurd number of rules and regulations than disincentivize business.