[Atlantis]

This kind of staying in a "single market" would stand for the folly of simply staying without a voice, loud enough to be heard, in that very market.

If the UK wants anything resembling its current access to the single market, it will have to accept EU rules without having a say in making these rules. The Brexitters will have succeeded the incredible feat of turning their country from a "rule maker" into a "rule taker."

The loss isn't only economic. Britain's influence in the world has already suffered. Within a short period of time, it has already lost two UN votes because it can no longer count on the support of its EU partners.

Brexit will cause loss of influence on scale of 1970s, says ex-MI6 chief

Brexit is set to cause a loss of UK influence on a par with the 1970s, requiring a national assessment of how the UK’s future standing can be recovered once Brexit is complete, Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, has warned.

Speaking to the foreign affairs select committee, Sawers said: “We can see the trend of the coming years and we do not want to go through a repeat of the 1970s where the UK went progressively downhill compared to our national partners. We will need to turn it around. I am not sure how we are going to do it.”

Calling for an urgent reprioritisation of resources post-Brexit, he said: “We have to recognise a pretty stark reality faces us at the end of this process, and we have to rebuild from that.”

Accused by the Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani of providing only “gloom and doom” about Brexit, Sawers hit back, saying: “We have to acknowledge that Brexit is damaging our economy at the moment. Immediately after Brexit we suffered a 15% devaluation in our currency – we devalued all the assets in the UK by 15%. We are going through a Brexit inflation at the moment which means that people’s pay rises are not enough to keep up with real-terms incomes and, having 18 months ago been at the top of the G7 table of GDP growth performance, we are now at the bottom, so we are undoubtedly going through a bit of a dive. At the end of this process we will need to work out how to rebuild our economy and our influence in the world.”

He added: “For the last 25 years our foreign policy has been closely tied up with working closely with our international partners, especially France and Germany.” At the same time, he said, the US had become a less reliable partner, “making the international system less effective than in the past” .

He said Brexit meant the UK would suffer “a double loss” at the UN since it would not be able to shape the influential common EU policy in New York or be able to rely on EU support at the general assembly.

Sawers called for more funding for security services after Brexit, saying: “It will be vital that we sustain, in many ways enhance, our investments in diplomacy, defence, intelligence – very high investments are made already – if we want to have an influence in the world of the sort we have had over the last 30 or 40 years.”

Sawers was giving evidence about the UK’s failure to win a vote at the UN general assembly to secure a seat for the British candidate on the international court of justice (ICJ), even though the seat was normally seen as reserved for a member of the EU. The seat instead went to an Indian judge, possibly reflecting a loss of general authority for the five permanent members of the security council.

The defeat has been seen as a symbol of a wider loss of UK influence at the UN in the wake of Brexit.

Sawers, a former UK ambassador to the UN, said he was surprised by the British defeat, adding that the distraction of the UK political class by Brexit may have contributed. Referring to the prime minister, he said: “She is not able to play the same international role in the world as the French president has in the past six months. That is just a reality.”

Another former UK ambassador to the UN, Lord Hannay, said some had spotted the UK’s decline in influence like a shark spots blood in the water. He added: “The trepidation index, when people mind if they trample on our toes, has gone down.” He said it was vital campaigns to win elections such at the one for the ICJ were begun as long as a year before the poll started, adding that efforts by the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, to win the poll had come too late.

He warned that in future automatic EU solidarity over issues such as the Falklands might not be forthcoming. The EU surprised Argentina by imposing sanctions following the Falklands invasion. Hannay said: “The EU solidarity issue is now in play and I am afraid we will lose it.”

Having pissed at the EU/EEC for over 40 years, nobody in Europe is going to shed any tears about the decline of GB.

[Atlantis]

Following the decision to move to the second phase of the negotiations, the EU Commission has now published it's draft directives for the transition period. Since the UK has accepted the EU's conditions during the first phase, we can expect that the UK will also accept the EU's proposal for the transition period. The real problems will start when the future trade relations are to be discussed.

Brexit: European Commission recommends draft negotiating directives for next phase of the Article 50 negotiations

- There should be no "cherry picking": The United Kingdom will continue to participate in the Customs Union and the Single Market (with all four freedoms). The Union acquis should continue to apply in full to and in the United Kingdom as if it were a Member State. Any changes made to the acquis during this time should automatically apply to the United Kingdom.

- All existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will apply, including the competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

- The United Kingdom will be a third country as of 30 March 2019. As a result, it will no longer be represented in Union institutions, agencies, bodies and offices.

- The transition period needs to be clearly defined and precisely limited in time. The Commission recommends that it should not last beyond 31 December 2020.

In essence, the UK's position after March 2019 will be exactly as it is today, except that the UK will no longer have any representation in the EU's institutions.

[Rugoz]

I love how EU-dimwits warp every bit economic news into an anti-Brexit argument.

Let me join in:

UK manufacturing order books at strongest level since 1988, CBI says
Order books for Britain’s factories are at their strongest for almost 30 years as the weak pound and global growth bolsters demand for manufactured goods.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 8-cbi-says

Brexit will bring back manufacturing to Britain!

[JohnRawls]

I love how EU-dimwits warp every bit economic news into an anti-Brexit argument.

Let me join in:

UK manufacturing order books at strongest level since 1988, CBI says
Order books for Britain’s factories are at their strongest for almost 30 years as the weak pound and global growth bolsters demand for manufactured goods.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 8-cbi-says

Brexit will bring back manufacturing to Britain!

Why not. UK is the worst performing G7 country and also one of the worst within the OECD. Guess when it started to go downhill? YOU BETCHA, almost straight after Brexit vote.

Since 1988.... While Europe is setting new records for itself in the economy.(without actually having weak euro)

[ingliz]

UK manufacturing order books at strongest level since 1988... Brexit will bring back manufacturing to Britain!

The weakening pound combined with access to one of the world's largest networks of preferential trade relations helped.

The UK is still in the single market and can take advantage of the over 60 FTA's negotiated by the EU.

After leaving this will not be the case.

May confirms break from single market and customs union. Theresa May has set out her vision for a “clean Brexit” and dismissed any prospect of a deal which would allow the UK to hang on to some aspects of EU membership.

[Rugoz]

Why not. UK is the worst performing G7 country and also one of the worst within the OECD. Guess when it started to go downhill? YOU BETCHA, almost straight after Brexit vote.

Since 1988.... While Europe is setting new records for itself in the economy.(without actually having weak euro)

Downhill? You realize the UK economy is projected to grow 1.5% in 2017 compared to 1.8% in 2016. That's 0.3% less.

While the depreciation of the pound might have had an overall negative impact on growth (depressed household consumption due to higher import prices),
I would actually consider it a positive development towards more balanced trade.

As for Eurozone growth, I would be worried if it wouldn't be higher than UK growth given the UK has recovered from the crisis and is already operating above potential again (according to the Bank of England). These plots should make it obvious:

The UK is still in the single market and can take advantage of the over 60 FTA's negotiated by the EU.

After leaving this will not be the case.

Pure speculation.

[ingliz]

Pure speculation.

On Brexit day, by law Britain will overnight be excluded from those EU arrangements with “third countries”, entering the equivalent of a legal void in key parts of its external commercial relations.

After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties

[JohnRawls]

Downhill? You realize the UK economy is projected to grow 1.5% in 2017 compared to 1.8% in 2016. That's 0.3% less.

While the depreciation of the pound might have had an overall negative impact on growth (depressed household consumption due to higher import prices),
I would actually consider it a positive development towards more balanced trade.

As for Eurozone growth, I would be worried if it wouldn't be higher than UK growth given the UK has recovered from the crisis and is already operating above potential again (according to the Bank of England). These plots should make it obvious:







Pure speculation.

Sure we have our troubles, i do not deny that. No entity is problemless but while your growth reports keep going down ours are pretty okay.

But the UK has actually went from this before Brexit:



To this after Brexit vote and beyond



The problem isn't that the economy is not growing right now, the problem is that it is growing significantly slower than the European economies. If i remember correctly, only Greece is growing slower than you.

On top of that Brexit is not even here.(It is only in planning stage) Brexit itself will have a certain and momental impact on the economy and depending on the trade deal we will know how severe it will be. Losses will get bigger and bigger from now on.

As for unemployment, if I am not mistaken we are at an all time high. UK also uses a weird method to calculate unemployment as i understand so i can't really comment about European and Uks unemployment.

[Beren]

Lib Dems call for second EU referendum in December 2018

Party says proposal is compatible with tight timetable for Brexit, though deal would need to be agreed within nine months

Jessica Elgot

Wed 20 Dec ‘17 06.00 GMT Last modified on Wed 20 Dec ‘17 07.34 GMT

Britain could have a second EU referendum as an early Christmas present in 2018, the Liberal Democrats have said, proposing a lengthy 12-week campaign starting in September to give the UK the option to accept a deal or stay in the EU.

The party said holding a referendum on the final deal – which the government has repeatedly ruled out – in December was compatible with the tight timetable of EU withdrawal, falling within the article 50 timeframe of two years, which will end in March 2019.

The Lib Dem leader, Vince Cable, said a referendum should be timed to coincide with EU states’ own votes on the final agreement.

The party’s proposed timing for a referendum would mean a final deal needing to be agreed in time for campaigning to kick off in September, just nine months away.

Critics have argued that a second referendum would be an incentive for European leaders to give the UK a poor exit deal. Theresa May said in the Commons on Monday that promising a referendum would “actually be betraying the British people”.

Cable said there was growing public support for a referendum on the final deal, citing a recent poll by Survation that found 50% of respondents wanted a vote.

“This potential timeline to a public vote shows Brexit is not a done deal. It can be stopped, but not without the approval of the British public,” he said. “It’s time the Conservatives – and the Labour leadership – listened.”

The party proposes a timetable for a referendum beginning when the EU withdrawal bill is given royal assent in April 2018. It has proposed an amendment to the legislation, to be debated on Wednesday, which would give a final vote on the deal to the British public. The amendment is highly unlikely to pass.

The party’s proposed timetable is:

• April 2018: government introduces a referendum on the deal bill.

• May 2018: referendum on the deal bill receives royal assent.

• September 2018: a 12-week referendum campaign begins, with a vote scheduled for early December.

• September-December 2018: the European parliament votes on the final Brexit settlement, and the European Council approves the deal.

• December 2018: the referendum, and a parliamentary vote to adopt the result. If remain were to win, the government would formally withdraw from the article 50 process.

Cable said his party would campaign to remain in the EU regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, as any deal agreed could not have better terms than full membership.

December 2018 is the very earliest date possible I think, however, that timetable seems too tight to be realistic.

[Rugoz]

But the UK has actually went from this before Brexit:

You seriously believe anyone can predict the average yearly growth rate from now to 2050? What utter nonsense. Even if it were possible, it's an average over decades.

To this after Brexit vote and beyond

I already said the forecast is 1.5% for this year.

The problem isn't that the economy is not growing right now, the problem is that it is growing significantly slower than the European economies. If i remember correctly, only Greece is growing slower than you.

Do you understand what a business cycle is, and that different economies are at different stages in that cycle? Why do I even try.

P.S. I'm not British and I don't grow.

[Atlantis]

The future trade relation the UK can expect will be similar to that which the EU has with Canada, South Korea and Japan. A closer relationship like that with Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine are effectively off the table because of the UK's own red lines.

Brexit trade deal will be like the ones signed with South Korea, Japan, and Canada, EU says

The United Kingdom’s post-Brexit trade deal with the EU will be “along the same lines” as the ones signed between the union and countries like South Korea, Japan, and Canada, the European Commission’s chief negotiator has said.

Michel Barnier said Theresa May’s red lines to take Britain out of the customs union and single market, and to reject the jurisdiction of European courts, meant a close relationship similar to the ones the EU has with other non-EU European countries was off the table.

The statement is an explicit knock-back for Downing Street, which said only the day before that it wanted a “bespoke deal” with the EU that was “significantly more ambitious deal than the EU’s agreement with Canada”.

“There are of course differences between these different models, because each of these trade models is of course tailor-made and specific to these countries when we sign these agreements.

“But it’s the same approach and logic underpinning these agreements. That’ll be the situation with the United Kingdom in light of what they said their position is themselves.”

Crucially, Mr Barnier said no other EU free-trade agreement had yet covered financial services, suggesting the City of London could be left out in the cold. Financial services were potentially to be a part of the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) agreement with the United States, but talks on this agreement have now collapsed.

A slide drawn up by the chief negotiator and widely circulated in Brussels shows that the UK could not have a Norwegian or Icelandic-style deal because of the PM refusing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), free movement, regulatory alignment and making a financial contribution to the EU budget.

A Swiss-style deal is also off the table because of the UK’s rejection of free movement, regulatory alignment and financial payments.

Britain would also be unable to have a relationship with the EU similar to the one enjoyed by Ukraine – which would require some regulatory alignment and recognition of the ECJ. The model followed by Turkey is also ruled out because of the UK’s desire to sign trade agreements with other countries – leaving a looser deal such as the one with non-European countries like South Korea as the only option.

Also speaking at the same press conference, Mr Barnier confirmed that the commission wanted any Brexit transition deal to end on 31 December 2020 – just under two years.

This recommendation, which is broadly in line with the request made by Theresa May in her Florence speech, coincides with the end of the EU’s multi-annual financial framework – effectively its budget period.

“The transition period is useful and it will enable the public administration in Britain to prepare themselves for the kind of challenges that they will have to face at their borders, which are also our borders, and to prepare for the new relationship,” he told reporters in Brussels.

“It should be of a short and specific duration: at Florence, Theresa May in her speech referred to a maximum of two years. Our position, the European Commission’s position, is that this would run logically to 31 December 2020 because that’s also the duration of the current multi-annual financial framework.”

But he warned that if negotiations collapsed there would still be no transition period, arguing that an orderly withdrawal and transition “go hand-in-hand”.

The UK and EU are expected to move onto talks about the Brexit transition period swiftly in the new year, but talks about of the framework for the future trade relationship have been put back until March to give both sides more time to prepare.

@Rugoz, who do you think you fool? The increase in production means little as the trade deficit increases despite the fall in Sterling. What's even more worrying is the increase in private debt and the decline of purchasing power as inflation outstrips wage rises.

UK trade deficit at record high after pound slump fails to help export performance

The UK racked up a record trade in goods deficit in August, confirming the failure for the slump in sterling to help improve the UK's trade balance.

The Office for National Statistics reported that the UK exported £28.1bn of goods in the month and imported £42.4bn, leaving a deficit of £14.2, the highest on record.

Over the three months to August exports fell 2.7 per cent while imports rose 3.9 per cent.

There had been hopes that the major fall in the pound in the wake of the Brexit vote in 2016 would boost manufacturing exports, helping to bring down the UK's chronic trade in goods deficit.

But, so far, such hopes have been disappointed, as import values have risen in line with exports and UK firms seem not to have seized the opportunity of the more competitive exchange rate to increase their market share abroad.

“The latest trade data is further evidence that the decline in sterling’s value over the past year is doing little to boost the UK’s overall trade position," said Suren Thiru of the British Chambers of Commerce.

"Businesses continue to report that the post-EU referendum weakness in sterling is hurting as much as its helping, with firms continuing to face higher input costs due to the weakening currency, particularly those locked into global supply chains. For those companies that rely on overseas suppliers for their production equipment, a weak pound also makes investment in growth less viable."

The ONS separately reported that manufacturing rose 0.4 per cent in August, while overall industrial production rose 0.2 per cent.

Construction output was up by 0.6 per cent, but this followed a 1 per cent fall in July. Over the three months to August output was down 0.8 per cent.

The overall UK economy grew by 0.3 per cent in the second quarter of 2017, the weakest in the G7, and analysts are expecting a similarly slow performance in the third quarter of the year.

Despite the weakness, the Bank of England is widely expect by financial market traders to increase interest rates to 0.5 per cent at its November meeting, in order to curb inflation, which hit 2.9 per cent in August.

[Rugoz]

who do you think you fool? The increase in production means little as the trade deficit increases despite the fall in Sterling.

Eh...current account:

[Baff]

Employment is up, manufacturing is up, exports are up, imports are down, investment is up, wages are up.
And the Pound has been devalued against foreign currencies.

And broadly speaking the exact opposite of what the naysayers predicted has occoured economically.
It seems reasonable that with such an abject failure of prediction, that continued predictions of economic doom will continue to be the opposite of correct.

Let us rule you and you will be richer!
Uh huh.

Umm. No.
Parasites don't make you stronger, no matter what they say.

If the UK wants anything resembling its current access to the single market, it will have to accept EU rules without having a say in making these rules. The Brexitters will have succeeded the incredible feat of turning their country from a "rule maker" into a "rule taker."

The loss isn't only economic. Britain's influence in the world has already suffered. Within a short period of time, it has already lost two UN votes because it can no longer count on the support of its EU partners.

In case it has escaped your notice the one thing Britain absolutely doesn't want is anything closely resembling it's current deal with the EU.
Most of all it doesn't want to accept EU rules and the prospect of becoming the next North Korea is widely seen to be preferable to this.
We don't fear you.

And plenty of UN resolutions have been lost to us due to the voting habits of EU members. This is hardly a new development.

We aren't actually expecting a successful negotiation. This is simply another two years of the EU trying to make us reconsider.
Something we consider to be highly insulting. Not to mention pointless and expensive.

Our politicians still want us in the EU and they will do all that they can to prevent our leaving, but ultimately they don't want to die in the street like Ghadaffi any more than the EU wants a load of cruise missiles flattening it.

Parliament in Britain has been claiming itself to be unable to act due to EU rulings, unsovereign, and this has caused it to fall into disrepute and it is no longer mandated to take such decisions.
Idiots in the EU have been playing silly buggers with idiots in Westminster and they don't rule anything at all anymore.

In order for Westminster to regain sovereignty over the country is must abide by the democratic will of the people and failure to do so will ultimately result in civil war and more pressingly more Ghadaffi/Caucescuesque murders of politicians. This is a very painful lesson for both EU and Westminster parliaments to learn. They don't rule us, we rule them.

Britain's have no desire for influence in the world. We don't really like people who do. Power mad would be world rulers, jog on.
But be warned we make a national habit of destroying such as you. Your dreams will never become realities unless you kill us first.


So, the EU is a diplomatic institution between 27 nations. Nothing more, nothing less.
A load of fascists want it to be the new global superpower but have failed to make the connection between attempts to make it so and world war.
I don't think they will work it out myself. I think they will have to be culled again. History repeating.
Nonetheless I don't expect it to come to this. Once this New World Order has been shown to be as toothless as the UN was, another diplomatic institution with delusions of being a world government, it will fade in relevance just as fast.
And those who dreamed of world leadership/domination will move on and create a new medium to pursue their goals.

I don't care whose economy grows faster. EU 27 or GB.
It's not a pissing competition.

As the EU 27's single largest export market, UK growth is great for the EU members, and as an important UK export market, EU27 growth is highly agreeable to the UK.

The EU itself, just another palace full of tossers. They produce nothing we want to buy. We aren't members, and so no need for us to have any further diplomatic interaction with them. An irrelevance to the UK. Please contact us via the UN or our embassies in your countries if you feel you need to. Better yet, send an email or use the phone.

I'm sure they will continue to machinate against us just as they always have all during and even before the EU was opened.
Some things don't change.

Trump has the right idea. Leave them to it. No need to pander to them, it's nothing to do with us.

[ingliz]

they don't want to die in the street

Battered to death with the zimmer frames of the 66% of old age pensioners who voted leave, I presume?





Crashing out with no deal?

An irrelevance to the UK.

For UK manufacturers, the EU is hardly an irrelevance.

61% of exports of goods from both Wales and the North East, go to the EU.

Yorkshire and The Humber 56%

East Midlands 51%

South East 50%

In the North West, it's 48%

South West 44%

West Midlands and London 43%

Scotland 47%

Northern Ireland 53%.

it's nothing to do with us.

4 million British workers unemployed is nothing?

[Baff]

Battered to death with the zimmer frames of the 66% of old age pensioners who voted leave, I presume?

The last one was shot dead in the street at point blank range.


There has been no crashing out of the EU, we have followed EU withdrawl procedure in an orderly fashion. Article 50.
A two year transition period.


No deal with the EU has ever been mandated by the people of Great Britain.
In fact "no deal" with the EU has been expressly mandated by Great Britain. Who famously voted for "No deal" in preference to the current deal.

In the future, a new deal may be negotiated for. But don't hold your breath. Such deals take decades to negotiate. We haven't even formally cancelled the last deal yet, not even close to being ready to re-join. So, you'll be a pensioner yourself by then I expect.
In the meantime we have alternative trade deals with all of the EU 27 already. We are all members of a bigger international trade organisation with way more members. It's called the World Trade Organisation.



It is a mistake to make deals with the EU. Because the EU has nothing to trade. It's a diplomatic institution.
A bunch of middle men.

It doesn't buy anything from us.
And I don't believe for one second that 4 million British unemployed are being offered jobs at the EU. That's probably more than the entire population of Brussels.

[ingliz]

an orderly fashion

Negotiations have been a complete clusterfuck.

There has been no crashing out of the EU

If the UK government, as is likely given the divisions within the Cabinet, cannot come forward with a legally enforceable paper detailing the UK/EU withdrawal agreement by March, there will be no trade talks and no two year transition.

we have alternative trade deals with all of the EU 27 already.

Afraid not.

EU rules prevent the UK from negotiating bilateral trade agreements with individual EU states. The EU has exclusive competence to negotiate and conclude trade agreements with third countries.

It's called the World Trade Organisation.

It's not that easy.

On Brexit, the UK will need to have its own schedules and for those schedules to be certified, there must be no objections by any other WTO members. Last October, Britain and the EU formally informed members of the World Trade Organisation how they planned to split up the EU's tariff quotas and farm subsidies post Brexit and the White House objected. As did Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, and Brazil.

I don't believe for one second that 4 million British unemployed are being offered jobs at the EU.

They aren't being offered jobs in the EU.

The 4 million will be stuck in the UK cradling their shiny blue passports, claiming Universal Credit and being sanctioned for forgetting to cross a 't' or dot an 'i'.

[Atlantis]

First the Brits want to leave allegedly because of EU regulations and now after they have lost the prestigious EMA to Amsterdam, they are on their knees begging to get back under EU regulations even if they don't have any say in deciding that regulation, because without the EU, British industry would be crippled by regulation.

That degree of self-harm is the result of decades of unashamed dishonesty about the very real benefit of the EU.

If they want back in, they'll have to pay the full price, this time without rebate.

Britain is pushing to remain under EU regulation for medicines after Brexit, the latest sign ministers want to stay close to Europe in some sectors despite the bloc warning the UK cannot “cherry-pick” parts of the single market.

The move follows calls for the UK’s chemicals and aviation industries to continue to be regulated by EU agencies, keeping them within Europe’s standards and safety regime and under the auspices of the European Court of Justice.

Three senior government figures have told the Financial Times that the UK hopes to be regulated by the European Medicines Agency, even as the body moves from London’s Canary Wharf to a new post-Brexit home in Amsterdam.

Greg Clark, business secretary, is also backing demands from Britain’s chemicals sector to stay within the EU’s Chemicals Agency, while Chris Grayling, transport secretary, last month told the aviation industry Britain would continue to be regulated by the EU after Brexit.

The proposals would put parts of the British economy under the indirect jurisdiction of the ECJ, threatening to breach “red lines” set out by Theresa May in her October 2016 Tory conference speech.

But one government official said the ECJ “red line” had been blurred since the departure of Nick Timothy, Mrs May’s pro-Brexit former co-chief of staff, from Downing Street last June. “It’s not quite so rigid now,” the official said.

Pharma industry leaders have warned of the consequences for patients in both the UK and Europe if some form of regulatory harmonisation cannot be achieved. Around 45m packs of medicines are supplied from the UK to other European countries each month, while more than 37m packs come from Europe to the UK.

Jeremy Hunt, health secretary, and Mr Clark signalled their support for Britain having an ongoing relationship with the EMA in a joint letter to the FT last July.

Their position has hardened in recent months as the pharmaceutical sector has stepped up its lobbying on the issue. The Department of Health declined to comment but referred back to the July letter.

Steve Bates, head of the BioIndustry Association, told the health select committee last month that the complex issues surrounding the regulation of medicines and their supply chain “need to be front and centre in the second phase of talks”.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned Britain it cannot “cherry pick” parts of the single market but Sarah Wollaston, Tory chair of the Commons health committee, said she hoped that “common sense” would prevail.

Speaking in a personal capacity, she said: “There is a very strong case for allowing flexibility for sector deals, especially when it’s in the best interests of patients both here and in Europe.”

Mrs May’s cabinet will this year have to decide where different parts of the British economy should be assigned as negotiations begin on a future trade deal with the EU.

Cabinet “divergers” such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove want as much of the economy put into a category that would see Britain free to set its own rules, even if it pursued similar regulatory outcomes to the EU.

But other sectors heavily regulated and closely integrated with the EU are likely to be placed closer to the union. Mrs May hinted at this in her Florence speech last year when she said “we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways”.

Ministers accept that breaking with the EU in areas such as aviation, medicines and chemicals would cause serious disruption. The price could be accepting a role for the ECJ in settling disputes and payments to Brussels for the right to participate.

David Prior, life sciences minister until October, said that it would be “fantastic” if the UK stayed in the EMA, warning of a negative impact on inward investment if it did not.

“It would be a very good idea, because having one regulatory system for drug approvals is very important for UK patients — otherwise we will be behind everyone else and not have as good access to new drugs as other people in Europe.

“Pharmaceutical companies tend to go to the US, then the EU, it’s very important we are not left behind. If you’re a drug company, you tend to look for approval from the FDA, then the EMA, then everyone else.”
ft

[Baff]

If the UK government, as is likely given the divisions within the Cabinet, cannot come forward with a legally enforceable paper detailing the UK/EU withdrawal agreement by March, there will be no trade talks and no two year transition.:

We are already half way through the two year transition period.

No trade talks are required.
No talks of any kind are required. This is a courtesy only.
Nothing is legally enforceable. We don't have soveriegnty over the EU27 countries nor they over us.

For the next 20-30 years you can expect the EU to be asking for political boons in exchange for the promise of future trade talks.
Cf Turkey.

Just as they always have and just as they always will. Yawnfest.

The further 2 year transition period they have proposed, followed by an 4 and 8 year transition period in other areas... is just bollocks. An attempt to throw leaving the EU into the long grass for 30 years just as they threw joining into the long grass for 30 years.
Problem for Westminster is, the entire world, EU included, knows it's not their decision to make. That they represent no one. Negotiate on behalf of themselves only and not this country.
Nothing they sign, as you put it, is legally enforceable.

4 million Brits will be stuck in Britain? Are you suggesting they have been working abroad then?
We have about 6 million working EU 27 citizens here. They can go to your country and sit on your unemployment roll if you want.
If you are determined to be arsehole's, we'll kick you.

Threaten us and we will flatten you.

[Baff]

If they want back in, they'll have to pay the full price, this time without rebate.

There is no "if".

We don't.

No one is on their knees begging you. You aren't anything like as important as you thought you were.
Don't cry. You'll be fine without our money.

[ingliz]

Threaten us and we will flatten you.

With what?