[Beren]

Provocative Offer

The EU, however, wants May to take an even softer line than she already proposes. Barnier offered her a potentially inflammatory alternative: Stay inside the EU’s existing customs union.

May has repeatedly promised to leave the customs union, and if she reneges on that she would run the risk of being ousted. Staying inside such an arrangement is the official policy of the U.K.’s main opposition Labour Party, and is favored by the pro-EU members of May’s party who have rebelled against her. That makes his suggestion particularly provocative.

“I have always said the EU is open to a customs union,” Barnier said.

The pound weakened on Barnier’s comments and was down 0.5 percent at $1.3129 as of 6:25 p.m. in London time.

EU's Barnier Rejects Key Part of British Brexit Trade Plan

[Nonsense]

Brexiteers have said all along they don't want to be anything like as closely tied to the EU as Switzerland.

PC, it's always presented as 'Brexiteers' vs 'Remainers', I have to say that 'Remainers' have no say in it, because they lost the referendum & that includes the E.U in the 'Remain' camp.

Here's Martin SCHULZ's opinion on it, : “On free movement, I see a clear majority in the European Parliament for insisting that the fundamental freedoms are inseparable;
i.e. no freedom of movement for goods, capital and services, without free movement of persons.”

It's why the E.U cannot compromise, because without 'free movement' no country can remain or join the E.U, the single market & customs union are included in that.

It's my own opinion that without the E.U amending or revoking the Maastricht & Lisbon Treaty changes, the E.U will eventually collapse.
This is because when the Treaty on The E.U came about, it extended free movement to include settlementto 'Third Country', citizens, effectively, it abolished the E.U border for people, creating the migration crisis that will eventually bring it's collapse & political instability throught Europe.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I have to say that 'Remainers' have no say in it, because they lost the referendum

That's not how a democracy works. If one group wins one vote, they don't get to take over the country and exclude everyone else from future decisions.

[layman]

Not only do they think they can dictate the terms of brexit. They also think they can dictate migration policy and trade policy. How many of those northern brexiteers wanted to be a Singapore of the north?

People are too lazy to understand the nuances of a representative democracy. It isn’t winner takes all.

[noemon]

Deutsche Bank has moved a “large part” of its euro clearing activity to Frankfurt from London in a boost to the efforts of the eurozone’s top financial centre to lure business away from the City before Brexit.

Germany’s biggest bank said its decision would not affect jobs because it would simply involve pushing a different button to route clearing to Eurex, the clearing division of the German exchange Deutsche Börse.

However, the change, confirmed by a spokesman and first reported by the Financial Times, will be seen as a victory in Deutsche Börse’s campaign to grab a larger slice of the euro clearing market.

Clearing, seen as a vital pillar of financial stability, is dominated by the City of London, where about €1tn (£890bn) of transactions are cleared every day.

The London Stock Exchange, which owns the London-based LCH clearing house, has warned that the loss of euro clearing could cost the City 100,000 jobs. Its shares had fallen by more than 1% in early trading in the wake of Deutsche Bank’s announcement.

A spokeswoman for Eurex said it had a market share of 8% of euro clearing, up from virtually zero a year ago.

Hubertus Väth, the chief executive of the marketing group Frankfurt Main Finance, told the FT that moving euro clearing from London to Frankfurt was “on top of our priority list from the very first day after the Brexit referendum”.

Clearing houses act as an intermediary and guarantor between firms that buy and sell financial instruments such as interest rate swaps.

London hosted about 70% of euro transaction clearing as of 2013, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

For eurozone members, London’s dominance in euro clearing is a long-running bugbear.

In 2015, the UK government won a legal case against the European Central Bank, which had demanded that clearing houses should be based in the eurozone if they handled euro-dominated trades.

In preparation for Brexit, Brussels has proposed ideas that could give the EU more responsibility for regulating foreign clearing houses.

The former Bank of England deputy governor Charlie Bean told a House of Lords committee in 2016 he had “absolutely no doubt at all” that London would lose euro clearing after Brexit.

Of course there should be no doubt that the UK will lose about 1 trillion worth of euro clearing transactions per day!!!, the Europeans have tried several times to take that away from the UK by arguing that only countries operating with euros should clear transactions in euros. The UK took those Europeans to court in the European Court of Justice and won the fight but the Brexiteers have pledged to remove themselves from the chains of the European Court of Justice making the British victory redundant and besides the only reason the Court gave Britain the right to clear euro-denominated transactions was because Britain is an EU country(ye know that thing about the 4 fundamental freedoms) so as BoE former governor said...there is no doubt indeed.

[Beren]

But who cares, @noemon? On the nationalist side sovereignty has a price, while who cares about the City and the whole bourgeois-capitalist bullshit on the socialist side? Only stupid liberals and centrists care, but they're losing ground. Brexit could be a perfect national-socialist experience.

[Nonsense]

That's not how a democracy works. If one group wins one vote, they don't get to take over the country and exclude everyone else from future decisions.

But that's just what happens at general elections,it should\is not any different with referendums.

But what you are actually saying in effect is, that 'democracy' is what I have always deemed it to be, a SHAM.

A first-past-the-post system winning Party should change the system, that's why they are elected at 'general' elections, to effect 'general' change, NOT mimic the losing Party's ideological policies,that's why people are cynical about politics.

In a true democracy, one single vote is enough to upset the apple cart, people vote for change,not continuity,otherwise opposition's would never get elected.

The fact that the E.U will not change in response to the political realities on the ground(populism for instance), because it is bound to it's own agenda of 'one-worldism', means that it is tone deaf to reality & reason.

It's why the people voted for BREXIT, because, the original Treaty of Rome has changed beyond recognition,there is simply no comparison to the 1957 Treaty of Rome to 1972(we were never asked the single question-do we,or do we not, want to join the EEC, Euratom,or the CAP).

Here is the quote from the 1970 Conservative Manifesto on the question of joining the EEC:-
A Stronger Britain in The World

"If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.

Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.

A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making

this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent."

People never had the choice to say yes\no to joining the EEC, there was simply the above reference to it in that manifesto, being a 'general' election, ALL policy issues are bundled into one simple question,which political Party do you want to run the country for the next 4 years?

Then,as now, the question split the country in two, on the very same issues that were relevent to the vote to 'leave'.

Perhaps the most important opponent to us joing the EEC, was General Charles De Gaulle, whom our politicians should have actually listened to his reasons for his objections, for which he vetoed our application to join twice.

Lord Kilmuir voiced the critical reasons to be considered on both sides of the argument,but, like all Attorney General's, was partial to the Party in office & his letters were never disclosed that he sent to Edward HEATH relating to 'sovereignty'.

The Queen(IMHO) committed TREASON by signing the Act that ceded sovereignty to the EEC on joining, it is NOT in the power of many Monarch to do such a thing, is a treasonable act as sovereign power can ONLY be ceded in the event of 'total capitulation' in war.
She acceded to the Conservative government's bill before parliament in signing it into accession, that was the point in which the treason happened, with the connivance of the Tory Party for reasons of political expediancy dressed up as national interest.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

That's not how a democracy works. If one group wins one vote, they don't get to take over the country and exclude everyone else from future decisions.

But that's just what happens at general elections,it should\is not any different with referendums.

No, it's not. The entire parliament continues to vote; it's not restricted to the MPs of the winning party or coalition. If a majority party or coalition can't agree among themselves, they have to get support from the opposition for some course of action. If nothing can be resolved, you may need a new election.

[MadMonk]

All of that is fine @Nonsense, from the European perspective it is quite understandable. The need for complete uniformity has created absurd situations where a countries referendum has been completely ignored and asked to vote again until they 'get it right' (Ireland's rejection of the Nice Treaty and of the European Constitution in 2005, in both cases were given some concessions in order to make it viable to the electorate. The French and the Dutch rejection of the same European Constitution which led to the virtually the same Lisbon treaty, this time not up for vote for the electorate.)

Even Sweden are in a bind when it comes to the Euro, where we are obligated by the Maastricht Treaty to adopt the Euro (we never negotiated an opt-out to the Euro) but popular referendums in favor of keeping the Krona has led us to intentionally not living up to the requirements of joining the Euro.

The U.K should have every right to leave the EU, it should be done peacefully and amicably in order to demonstrate to every EU member as well as the rest of the world that it can be done in that way.

This is a massively difficult process given how divisive the issue remains in the U.K. Speaking for the rest of the EU, we just wish you could make up your minds so we can return to a new 'status quo' relationship.

[Beren]

The U.K should have every right to leave the EU, it should be done peacefully and amicably in order to demonstrate to every EU member as well as the rest of the world that it can be done in that way.

It could be done that way perhaps if Sweden left the EU because they would be prepared for Swexit if they called a referendum on it and they could hammer out a viable strategy in cooperation with the EU within half a year at least. As well as they would get united on the issue and wouldn't insist on making some special deal that would obviously jeopardise the integrity of the EU, and they wouldn't play divide and rule like there's any chance it works out for them. They'd be reasonable and would most likely say they'd like to have what Norway does rather than threatening the EU with throwing themselves under the bus.

[Nonsense]

No, it's not. The entire parliament continues to vote; it's not restricted to the MPs of the winning party or coalition. If a majority party or coalition can't agree among themselves, they have to get support from the opposition for some course of action. If nothing can be resolved, you may need a new election.

PS, I accept that in a hung parliament position arising at a general election,but before parliament is convened, there is an amount of(for want of a better description)give & take between the various parties in order to create a majority that the 'first-past-the-post' system has avoided.

What is not correct,is that, that situation applies in a referendum, a referendum,that in this case, had the express intent to honour the outcome in the 2015 Conservative Election Manifesto.

Here is the paragraph in ful under the heading, "We will let you decide whether to stay in or leave the EU".

We will legislate in the first session of the next parliament for an in- out referendum to be held on Britain's membership of the EU before the end of 2017.
We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis or leave.
We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.

Reading between the lines, along with the rest of the manifesto policy regarding the EU, It is clear that CAMERON never anticipated that the British people would vote leave, illustrating just how out-of-touch the self-appointed political 'elite' of this country as a whole are narcissistic & sociopathic.

In retrospect, 'BREXIT' is the 'settlement' that CAMERON never achieved, rather, it looks increasingly likely, that it's the Conservative Party's epitaph.

In the foreward to the 2015 manifesto, CAMERON states, "Our United Kingdom manifesto sets out these policies,such as taxation, defence, foreign policy and Europe, that will apply to the country as a whole.

For the SNP, who think that Scotland is 'different' to the rest of the rest of the country, that only the Scottish vote applies to them, they should note that last sentence & accept their fate along with the rest of the country.

Politicians fail to recognise that the political game has had a rule change, we the people are the sovereign masters of our own destiny, NOT the puppet slaves of mythical political 'masters'.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@Nonsense,
But this discussion isn't about whether the UK leaves the EU. It's about what arrangements it will have with it, while being outside. I said "Brexiteers have said all along they don't want to be anything like as closely tied to the EU as Switzerland", and in reply, you said "I have to say that 'Remainers' have no say in it, because they lost the referendum".

That just isn't right. Switzerland is outside the EU; an arrangement similar to theirs would fully satisfy the referendum question. So would Norway, or Turkey. The 48% who voted 'remain' still get to argue that a Swiss or Norwegian solution would be best, without going against the referendum in any way.

"Politicians fail to recognise that the political game has had a rule change" - no, it hasn't. You want to shut up a significant part of the country so that you gain more power yourself. There has been no such "rule change".

[Ter]

The 48% who voted 'remain' still get to argue that a Swiss or Norwegian solution would be best, without going against the referendum in any way.

Indeed. Now imagine for a moment that the referendum would have gone the other way:
52% remainers and 48% leavers.
What say would those 48% leavers would have had ? Nothing, zero, nada.
As someone else said earlier, you guys in the UK have that "first past the post" system, with all the ones not first past the post having no representative. So one would think you get used to the idea that losers are weepers.

[layman]

Ter, you don’t seem to understand what first past the post is. In addition, it is a term totally irrelevant to this referendum.

The losers would have a say if they had lost because they would have continued to use democratic means like general elections to vote for Euro skeptics like UKIP. There could have also been another referendum.

This is all nothing but a perverse attempted power grab. Noone can honestly say the default brexit is to be a country further away from the eu than turkey!

[Ter]

There could have also been another referendum.

Interesting, certain people keep on talking about another referendum.
Like the Irish referendum, do it again until you get the "good" result ?

[layman]

Yes, Nigel Farage said after the voting started (before results came in) there would probably be a new vote in a few years if they lost.

This is really besides the point though. The core of the lie is that there is only one definition of brexit and that is what was voted for.

A huge number of Eurospkeptic people always said it was the political union they disliked and it should always have remained and economic one.

The idea all the brexit voters wanted to leave the country economic one and liberalise the economy is frankly a scam.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The 48% who voted 'remain' still get to argue that a Swiss or Norwegian solution would be best, without going against the referendum in any way.

Indeed. Now imagine for a moment that the referendum would have gone the other way:
52% remainers and 48% leavers.
What say would those 48% leavers would have had ? Nothing, zero, nada.

No, they would still be able to argue, and MPs who supported Brexit would still be able to vote, on subjects such as whether the changes to UK membership that Cameron negotiated before the referendum should be implemented. They'd be able to argue, and the MPs would be able to vote, about any other aspect of UK membership, such as membership of the Euro, the Schengen area, or anything else that came up. They wouldn't be told "your opinion on the EU doesn't matter any more".

[Beren]

If the results had been the opposite Cameron still should keep pressurising the EU and leaving the EU wouldn't be off the table. As a matter of fact Leavers would be getting louder and louder if nothing changed, so I wonder if the UK could or should remain in the EU anyway.

[JohnRawls]

If the results had been the opposite Cameron still should keep pressurising the EU and leaving the EU wouldn't come off the table. As a matter of fact Leavers would be getting louder and louder if nothing changed, so I wonder if the UK could or should remain in the EU anyway.

No, it should not. But it is up to the people of the UK to decide and not us to ponder about it. UKIP/Eurosceptics tried this again and agains and again until they finally succeeded. Honestly, i am just here for the show nowadays.

Nor should we allow Britain to cancel Brexit although again, we don't have much say in this.

[Beren]

we don't have much say in this.

As EU-citizens we should have a say and I'm fully behind Barnier.