[ingliz]

How do you convince Spain regarding Gibraltar

They haven't even tried. The British government have failed to offer any proposals on the future of the Rock.

Gibraltar is heading for an abrupt exit from the single market without the benefit of any transition deal, according to senior Spanish government sources, who revealed that the British government had failed to offer any proposals on the future of the Rock.

[JohnRawls]

They haven't even tried. The British government have failed to offer any proposals on the future of the Rock.

Then it is really bad. Northern ireland is one thing but Gibraltar is 90% pro-EU if I remember correctly.
Both the Spanish and the people of Gibraltar will not like this.

[Ter]

Well here is a solution : if the people of Gibraltar like the EU more than the Motherland, they can be absorbed into Spain.
Ariba !

[JohnRawls]

Well here is a solution : if the people of Gibraltar like the EU more than the Motherland, they can be absorbed into Spain.
Ariba !

Britain will never allow it.

The same way Britain will never allow Ireland to unify with Northern Ireland. It has nothing to do with Britain per se, it is just something that countries almost never allow to happen.

[Atlantis]

The bare minimum are there because everybody understand that there is 0% chance of a deal if there is no solution to those 3 questions. But even if they are resolved then chances are still near 0% because next thing that you will need to tackle will be:

1) How do you convince Spain regarding Gibraltar (They have been quite because they probably think you won't even pass the bare minimum)?
2) How do you please all of your neibhours regarding trade?
3) How do you please our foreign partners if you want to use some of the EU-Other country trade agreements at least for the time being?

I agree, the items discussed in the divorce settlement are the easy part. As a trading nation, Britain cannot afford to not honor its financial obligations towards the EU. That would reduce whatever credibility the UK still has to zero.

The real problems will start with the discussions about the future trade deal. Michel Barnier has made it clear that British ideas about getting single market access like Norway with a trade deal like CETA are delusional.

The primary obstacle to a trade deal will be that the EU won't allow Britain to undermine the integrity of the single market.

Barnier says UK demands relating to access to single market are 'impossible'

Barnier has now switched to speaking in English, from French.

He says protecting the integrity of the single market is central to his mandate.

The single market “must not and will not be undermined [by] Brexit”, he says.

Barnier says the single market “must not and will not be undermined [by] Brexit”.
He says he UK wants to take back control.

But it also wants to have UK standards automatically recognised by the EU.

This is simply impossible.

Barnier says UK demands relating to access to the single market are “impossible”.

EU's Barnier presses UK on Irish border Brexit problem

Barnier said the EU could not compromise on the integrity of its single market and allow customs-free EU trade with Northern Ireland unless the British province subscribed to EU rules.

“Some in the UK say that specific rules for Northern Ireland would ‘endanger the integrity of the UK single market’,” Barnier said in a speech at the Centre for European Reform in Brussels, referring to comments by the British minister for Northern Ireland two weeks ago.

“But Northern Ireland already has specific rules in many areas that are different to the rest of the UK.”

He cited the power market and plant and animal health rules.

“I expect the UK, as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, to come forward with proposals. Those who wanted Brexit must offer solutions,” he said.

The EU also expects London to come up with a more concrete offer on what past financial commitments it will honour on leaving and what will be the rights of EU citizens in Britain.

And even if we agree on a trade deal in some distant future, it'll still have to be approved by 27 governments and some 30 national and regional parliaments, which each will want the UK to make concessions on some issue, like the Irish border, Gibraltar, Polish immigrants, ...

The UK government with all its resources will be kept busy for many years to fight for a trade deal that will be substantially worse than what it has at present.

Regarding the Irish issue, the FT today makes the same point I made in this thread earlier on:

Brexit: Battle over Irish border threatens EU-UK trade talks

Dublin’s demands are couched innocuously, but it wants Britain to agree that there should be no divergence in regulations that would force the reimposition of a border across the growing “all-island” economy. The political implications are highly sensitive. Any regulatory borders would be within the UK, giving Northern Ireland a special status that, over time, would track more closely the EU single market and customs union than Brexit Britain.

The British have handed the Irish the means that'll allow to get back at their former colonial rulers.

The FT continues:

Worryingly for Mrs May, the Democratic Unionists, the Northern Irish political party that she relies on for her governing majority, are implacably opposed to such an arrangement. This limits her room for manoeuvre on Ireland just as Brexiters in her cabinet and party are ready to pounce on any compromise that lessens the amount of power London takes back from Europe.

That's what is called being between a rock and a hard place.

[Atlantis]

Brexit suddenly got a lot more expensive. I have said it before the referendum that the British rebate would go in the case of Brexit. At the time, British Pofoers just laughed it off, saying they wouldn't pay a thing.

Now, my predictions have come true. Michel Barnier is intent on calculating future British budget contributions at the full 14% without rebate. Off course, Boris et al could just throw the economy over the cliff instead. Drown or swim in the rough seas, that's the way with the Tories.

Brussels takes aim at Britain’s budget rebate in Brexit talks

Brussels takes aim at Britain’s budget rebate in Brexit talks

If Michel Barnier gets his way it could mean Britain having to fork out at least €10 billion more to secure a Brexit transition deal.

Michel Barnier has set his sights on the most cherished aspect of the U.K.’s financial relationship with the EU — its annual budget rebate negotiated by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

In his public statements, Barnier repeatedly and pointedly pegs the U.K.’s financial obligations at 14 percent of the bloc’s budget. That reflects Britain’s share before its rebate is applied, and is well above the 12.5 to 13 percent share that the U.K. actually pays into the EU’s coffers.

If the EU’s chief negotiator gets his way, then it could mean Britain having to fork out at least €10 billion more to secure a Brexit transition deal. But any hint that the U.K. will have to pay more to Brussels than under the historic rebate scheme is certain to further antagonize Brexiteers who attach a near-religious significance to the financial arrangement.

They are likely to see it not only as an EU demand for yet more money — a key motivator for Brexit voters in the referendum — but also a revenge assault on Thatcher’s “I want my money back” victory.

Barnier has been repeatedly citing the 14 percent figure in speeches, in interviews, and in his responses during question-and-answer sessions.

After months of slow-moving negotiations, Brexit negotiators are finally now wrestling directly with the nitty-gritty details of how to settle the money issue in the divorce talks. And with the EU demanding a formula, not a total price-tag, the key to a deal is agreeing on the U.K.’s share of EU budget costs — past and future.

No magic formula

While Brussels has signalled its willingness to apply the lower, historical percentage to the U.K.’s prior obligations, the possibility that the EU would demand to end the rebate, as part of the price of a transition, is likely to enrage Brexiteers, some of whom have urged the U.K. to pay nothing and walk away without a divorce settlement.

The issue is so charged — with real potential to blow up the talks — that officials on both sides generally refuse to discuss it away from the bargaining table. “No magic formula or existing common position on these questions,” one senior EU official involved in the Brexit process said. “A matter for the negotiations.”

But Barnier, who is extremely careful about his public comments, has effectively been negotiating in plain sight for months, repeatedly citing the 14 percent figure in speeches, in interviews, and in his responses during question-and-answer sessions. Officials close to Barnier said the point was intentional.

“What was decided at 28 [EU countries] should be settled at 28 for this period,” Barnier said in an interview this month with Le Journal du Dimanche. “Otherwise programs will be cut by about 14 percent, the equivalent of the British contribution.”

Barnier’s use of the 14 percent figure predates Theresa May’s letter to the EU triggering Article 50. “We are committed for seven years,” he said, referring last spring to the EU’s multi-annual budget. “And the U.K. has an average participation of 14 percent.”

The rebate, which returns to the U.K. about 66 percent of its net contribution to the EU budget for the previous year, is considered sacrosanct in May’s Conservative Party. Negotiated by Thatcher in 1984, the discount has sent more than €6 billion annually back to London in recent years and served as a key inducement for keeping Britain inside the European club.

But the U.K.’s departure on March 29, 2019 effectively ends both any incentive for Brussels to continue paying the rebate and, according to experts, also terminates any legal claim to it by the U.K.

“You have to distinguish between applying the rebate to calculate the Brexit bill, which is on settling past debts, and therefore based on current legislation, and applying it to any hypothetical contribution to the EU budget linked to a future transition agreement,” said Eulalia Rubio, a senior research fellow at the Jacques Delours Institute and co-author of a recent research study on the potential impact of Brexit on the EU budget.

Early in the talks, EU negotiators had sought to tie future payment of the rebate to London’s willingness to continue paying its share of the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy through 2020. Positions, however, have hardened in over the last six months as British negotiators repeatedly refused to engage on the question of the financial settlement.

Barnier himself seeks to portray the financial settlement, not as a “bill” or a punishment, but a simple settling of accounts. That is not how it is viewed in the U.K. though, where the issue of how much it will cost taxpayers to leave the EU has been one the most controversial issues not just in the Brexit negotiations, but in the recent tumult of British domestic politics.

Pressure from May’s political rivals, as well as a realization that the British press will quickly translate any percentage agreement into a figure in the tens of billions of pounds, is widely viewed as the chief reason for the prime minister’s reluctance to come forward with a proposal — despite the amounts being relatively small in context of the overall U.K. budget.

Back of the envelope

In her Florence speech in September, May promised to keep whole the EU’s current long-term budget plan, which runs through to 2020 — an offer that was quickly translated by back-of-the-envelope math in the press as equating to roughly €20 billion. May also made a vague promise that “the U.K. will honor commitments we have made during the period of our membership Brussels.”

That offer was quickly rejected as insufficient in Brussels, where officials have demanded that May state in writing the U.K.’s commitment to cover two broad areas of costs: continuing budget obligations not paid out in the multi-annual budget, known as reste à liquider (RAL) and Britain’s share of pension obligations.

May is now pushing her cabinet to agree to a new proposal aimed at persuading EU leaders to declare “sufficient progress” in the talks at the European Council summit in December. That will allow the negotiations to proceed to Phase 2, which will focus on the transition and on the framework of a future relationship.

What matters most for May politically is how the exit bill can be portrayed. In an effort to make her €20 billion offer in Florence more politically palatable, May presented it as effectively a payment in exchange for the “implementation period.” EU officials, however, have never accepted it that way. That’s partly because they viewed the offer as too stingy, but also because precise details of the U.K. payments have major implications for the EU’s future budget and finances.

If the U.K.’s payments after Brexit are considered standard EU contributions to the budget, programs like the agriculture policy will remain whole. However, if those payments are instead regarded as part of the U.K.s obligations for long-term commitments and pensions, some existing programs may face an immediate shortfall. Either way, the bloc’s remaining members will have to pay more.

Even if the EU ultimately agrees in the Brexit talks to maintain the U.K. rebate through the current long-term budget, which ends on Dec. 31, 2020, the possibility of a transition stretching beyond that date raises the likelihood that the EU will demand London pay more than its historical budget contribution for the privilege of staying in the single market and avoiding disruption to its economy.

In the event of such a longer transition, in which the U.K. is officially no longer a member of the EU but stays in the single market after the start of a new budget cycle, Rubio said, “I suppose they will have to think [of ] a new legal basis for U.K. contribution to the EU budget.” And as the 27 adopt new budget rules, she said, “They will obviously exclude the U.K. rebate.”

I think this is higher justice at work. Boris et al have claimed the UK pays 350 millions a week to Brussels. We should now take them at face value and actually demand that payment, about 42 billion euros for two years, instead of the 20 billion May is prepared to pay.

[Seeker8]

:up: I couldn't agree more. If anything, this has hardened my conviction that leaving the EU was the right decision.

Nobody in their right mind can be under the illusion any longer that the EU is a project for Europeans, at least if we include people in countries which are geographically in Europe but outside the EU as European.

What exactly have the EU done that is "odious"?

I don't get that at all.

[Rugoz]

Why do you think the UK, a jurisdiction outside the European Economic Area (EEA) after Brexit, is somehow a special case and should be treated differently to any other 'third country'?

Why do you think the EU, a jurisdiction outside the UK, is somehow a special case and should be treated differently to any other 'third country'?

EU-fanboys always take EU access to the UK internal market for granted, but expect the UK to bow before the EU to get the same in return. I understand this reflects relative economic power, but let's not pretend it's about anything else.

@Rugoz, in case of a total collapse of UK/EU trade, the UK would lose 44% plus of its export earnings while most other EU member would lose between 7 and 9% of their export earnings. You can't fool anybody with your creative accounting. And the Brexitters only fool themselves.

You could argue the 7-9% figure is more relevant due to the way the EU is organized politically, however if we treat the UK and the EU as separate countries trade-wise, as will be the case after Brexit, the larger figure is correct. This has nothing to do with "creative accounting".

[ingliz]

EU-fanboys...

I would suggest the UK government read the IMF's A Primer on WTO Rules for Tax Policymakers before refusing "to bow before the EU". Especially as it's most likely that Britain keeps its schedules precisely as they were under the EU, anyway.

If Britain broke free from the EU, but kept the common external tariff in place, then a company moving parts between the EU and Britain could potentially face non-tariff barriers and a tariff charge every time a border was crossed.

[Atlantis]

Why do you think the EU, a jurisdiction outside the UK, is somehow a special case and should be treated differently to any other 'third country'?

We would be perfectly happy to trade goods with the UK under WTO rules and treat the UK as a separate jurisdiction. 3 years until the end of the transition period is enough time for most companies to relocate their chain of supply to the single market.

You could argue the 7-9% figure is more relevant due to the way the EU is organized politically, however if we treat the UK and the EU as separate countries trade-wise, as will be the case after Brexit, the larger figure is correct. This has nothing to do with "creative accounting".

We are talking about the impact a collapse of EU/UK trade would have on our respective economies. The UK would lose about 44% (and put into doubt a total of 60%) of its trade while EU27 economies would lose between 7% to 9% of their external trade. There is not a single country in the EU27 that would lose 17%, not even Ireland. That is a totally invented figure because you compare apples with mangoes.

Even in the worst case scenario, trade won't collapse entirely. Let's say there is a drop of around 30% in our mutual trade. That would reduce exports by about 2.4% for the EU27 and 13.2 for the UK. The slight drop in EU27 exports would be less than what some countries experienced due to the Russian sanctions, while the UK economy would take a heavy blow.

Moreover, with the current upward trend in growth for the EU27 together with a substantial export surplus, that wouldn't dent the economy. On the contrary, it would lessen diplomatic pressure for reducing our surplus. The UK would be doing us a favor by reducing an excessive trade surplus. EU27 economies will be further boosted by trade and manufacturing moving from the UK to the single market. This has already started and explains the decline in UK growth while the EU27 posts stronger growth.

In the UK, the loss of trade would be massive. The economic impact would be aggravated by declining growth, a smaller economy (less migrants) and the loss of services and manufacturing to the single market, etc.

On the bright side, the Brits could still emigrate to Australia or NZ when the THTF. They like white migrants over there. That's perhaps why the only Anglos still bullish about Brexit seem to be from down-under.

And before I forget it Rugoz, let me thank you personally for the addition 1.2 billion you have agreed to pay into the EU. That is a start in the right direction and sets a good precedent to follow for post-Brexit UK.

[Rugoz]

We are talking about the impact a collapse of EU/UK trade would have on our respective economies. The UK would lose about 44% (and put into doubt a total of 60%) of its trade while EU27 economies would lose between 7% to 9% of their external trade. There is not a single country in the EU27 that would lose 17%, not even Ireland. That is a totally invented figure because you compare apples with mangoes.

The EU as a whole would lose 17% of its exports, simple as that.

Moreover, with the current upward trend in growth for the EU27...

The structural problems of the EU have not been resolved. The economic rebound, which was about to happen at some point, thanks to the ECB, just allows Merkel to sleepwalk into the next disaster. Not even handsome young Macaroni can wake her from her slumber.

And before I forget it Rugoz, let me thank you personally for the addition 1.2 billion you have agreed to pay into the EU. That is a start in the right direction and sets a good precedent to follow for post-Brexit UK.

1.2bn for 10 years. A small price to pay.

[JohnRawls]

The EU as a whole would lose 17% of its exports, simple as that.

I did some math on my own to figure it out a bit. As much as i calculated:

First of all, we need to Establish how much of Intra and Extra Eu trade is being conducted:

Uk stands at around 44% to 56% on Intra-Eu and Extra-Eu trade right now.

Link: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics ... ,_2015.png


Total trade of the UK is 404B of Export and 625B of Import, so it adds up to 1.029 Billion.

Link: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

1.029 Billion * 0.44 = 452,2 Billion.

The percentage of Trade to GDP for UK is 58% Percent. (This is not a perfect indicator because it becomes screwed up the smaller the country is) But let us say that the Percent to GDP ratio of the UK is around 50%.

So basically one way or the other, your future growth and current situation is under threat significantly by Brexit.

First of all, the 452,2 Billion will suffer some kind of a loss after Brexit.
On top of that, the contribution if trade to gdp will go down, so you will have slower growth.

So how much is 452.2 Billion from the Total Gdp of 2.6Trillion? It is around 17% of your current GDP. On top of that, you will need to add other businesses that are reliant on the imports themselves plus additional businesses that are not part of the standard export/import cycle(Banks, specific services etc)

So the threat to UK economy is disastrous in case of a hard Brexit.

For Eu although, it is much simpler.

EU gdp is around 15.5 Trillion without the UK (Nominal). For us, that 452,4 Billion is around 3% (Actually a bit less).

Take the calculation with a grain of salt but it does create a picture of the situation.

[Rugoz]

@JohnRawls

The percentage figures at the end are more or less correct, so I won't nitpick about the rest. Yes, the relation to GDP is a different story.

What with all the "wes" and "yous"? I'm not British.

[ingliz]

Mr David Davis likely to be held in contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over the 58 impact reports into the economic effect of brexit as promised, without "redaction or qualification", to the select committee.

[JohnRawls]

Mr Davies likely to be held in contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over the 58 impact reports into the economic effect of brexit as promised, without "redaction or qualification", to the select committee.

Why do you need to redact them? Isn't the whole point of the reports to be transparent and provide a guideline for the policy makers? How can policy makers decide what to do if most of them will see only a redacted version

[Atlantis]

The EU as a whole would lose 17% of its exports, simple as that.

You are comparing 100% of UK trade (intra-, plus extra-EU trade) with less than 50% of trade for EU members (extra-EU trade only). Which means the real figure is less than 50% of your 17%. That gets us to the 8%, right in the middle of the 7 to 9% range, which I have shown above to be the real impact on EU members.

You try to fool people by using false data and cheap tricks together scathing language.

The structural problems of the EU have not been resolved.

During the debt crisis, I distinctly remember you boldly proclaimed that the need for structural reform “is the biggest lie of all.” And now, all of a sudden, the presumed lack of structural reform will damage EU growth.

For you, it is impossible to be consistent in that construct of lies you have built over the years with false data and exceptional rudeness. With your conjurer’s tricks and your ignorance of the real economy, you don’t fool anybody but yourself.

What’s more, the pre-referendum propaganda you are regurgitating has become meaningless post-referendum. Instead of repeating it, British Brexitters have become suspiciously quite on the topic because they realise that the lies don’t stand up to economic reality. To non-British residents, that doesn’t matter because others will have to bear the consequences. Just like others had to bear the consequences of the pseudo leftist rants you so boldly proclaimed during the debt crisis. The Swiss will always profit in times of crisis.

In conclusion, under WTO the UK will
- lose much of its goods trade mainly due to non-tariff barriers (rules of origin, additional costs and time for customs, etc, will damage integrated supply chains using just-in-time no-stock, deviating standards, etc.)
- lose most of its trade in services (digital economy, finances, etc.; nearly 80% of UK economy is services)
- suffer job losses due to manufacturing, finances, farming, etc. leaving the UK
- suffer higher inflation and stagnating buying power due to fall in pound
- suffer further job losses due to opening of markets to non-EU economies
- suffer due to low productivity
- suffer lower growth due to less inward investment

Compared to this, the EU will only suffer a slight drop in trade compensated by increased growth and UK based-companies and services moving to the single market. Flows of investment going to the single market instead of the UK will also boost economic growth. Any potential reduction of the trade surplus will be an added benefit.

The only way of avoiding this is by staying in the regulatory framework of the EU, without having a say in it. Complex mixed trade agreements including services require the same amount of regulation. Moreover, at a time of populist pressure from protectionist, such as the Trumpists and Bexitters, popular opinion will make it virtually impossible to get such intrusive trade deals through 30 national and regional parliaments in Europe.

Mr Davies likely to be held in contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over the 58 impact reports into the economic effect of brexit as promised, without "redaction or qualification", to the select committee.

The whole idea of Brexit was to "take back control" (from parliament).

Anyways, who needs expert opinions since Michel Gove has made it clear that experts are traitors.

The real patriots are Tory MP's like John Redwood who, having engineered Brexit, now advise investors to move their money out of Britain.

Brexit: Tory MP John Redwood tells foreign investors to withdraw money from UK

Why do you need to redact them? Isn't the whole point of the reports to be transparent and provide a guideline for the policy makers? How can policy makers decide what to do if most of them will see only a redacted version

The government knows best what's good for the nation. The people must not be exposed to the awkward facts.

[Seeker8]

Brexit : if there’s a hard border the UK must build it

A question gets frequently asked in relation to Brexit – it always comes from the exit side and is “who is going to build a border with Northern Ireland?”. The argument is this ” Well, what if the United Kingdom declines to impose a hard border with the European Union, well then there’s nothing else to be said. Presumably the European Union could decide to build its own hard border, but that’s their problem?

Would that it was so simple… See below the fold


Any impetus for changing the existing completely invisible and seamless border, insofar as it pertains to the movement of goods services and people, will arise as a result of the decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Nobody doubts that.

In the event that United Kingdom managers to negotiate some sort of the free-trade agreement, perhaps along the lines of that pertaining between Norway and in the European Union, then some sort of relatively light touch border might be possible. However, the Norwegian Minister for relations with the European Union has poured a very large bucket of cold water on the idea that this would be other than a considerably harder border then exists at present. Let’s assume that she knows what she’s talking about.

Customs checks and rules of origin checks also exist on the Swiss European Union border.

In the case of both the Swiss and the Norwegian situations both countries find themselves rule takers. Access to the single market comes at the cost of paying for all of the benefits and getting little in terms of influence.

In the events that there is no arrangement then United Kingdom will find itself moving towards trading with the European Union on the basis of the arrangements as per the World Trade Organisation. Again, nobody doubts that. Some may even relish it.

One of the principles of the World Trade Organisation is that of the “most-favoured-nation”. In essence, what this states is that if you give one country special terms are a special deal, then you must give those terms to all countries with whom you trade

So let’s imagine a belligerent United Kingdom decides, post a breakdown of negotiations, that it will not impose a customs or hard border. If it’s not going to have a customs checks, tariff checks, rules of origin checks, and the whole paraphernalia of dealing with the country with whom you are not sharing a customs union then it must give those exact same terms to every country in the world.

Only those pushing for the absolute hardest form, the purest kind, of Brexit suggest that United Kingdom should expose itself unilaterally to complete global free trade. Of course, they could decide to not to do so, but that would then expose them to mass, ongoing, and internationally neatly binding arbitration and dispute resolution. If the UK thinks that this is having a torrid time in its relationship with its closest neighbours for 40 years, just wait until they start dealing with countries with whom they have had much less cosy relationships.

So it’s quite simple, for the UK. Having decided to leave the customs union and single market they need, unless they are happy to find themselves an international legal piñata, to impose the paraphernalia of a hard border, from their side.

So also does the European Union, by the way.

It really is a simple as this; if the United Kingdom insists on leaving the customs union and single markets, and refuses to allow for a binding European Court of Justice oversight (which has ruled out consistently) this is very likely to end up with them trading on something close to WTO rules. Of course, the UK could simply declined not to join the WTO. Some countries are not members. Countries such as Azerbaijan, Belarus and Bosnia and Herzegovina are not members. Mind you, in near every case where countries are not members of WTO they are taking active steps towards joining.



There is one further complication. Right now the United Kingdom is a member of the WTO by virtue its membership of the European Union. With Brexit it will be allowed to re-activate its original membership. But membership of the WTO brings with it a large and binding set of oversights in relation to the kind of trade agreements that can and cannot be made. There is no room for buccaneering.

https://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2017/11/22/brexit-whos-going-to-build-the-border/

[JohnRawls]

The government knows best what's good for the nation. The people must not be exposed to the awkward facts.

I don't read UK press much so I am a bit clueless who will get the papers but as I understood, even the parliament will not see it as a whole. Only a select few members of the parliament who are members of some kind of board.

I would be fine (To a degree) if it wasn't open to the public but all members of your parliament and the house should be able to read it in full otherwise there is no point. How are they going to vote for anything if they do not know the consequences.

On top of that, I doubt those reports hold any "secrets". The European Union is just as capable of providing the same kind of assessments from their side. It is not like EU does not have information about the economy of the UK.

Also, this information is crucial because Brexit is a HUGE decision. Probably the biggest one in the last 50 years? It is perhaps even more important for UK than any war in IRAQ or Falklands because its impact on the UK public is pretty much will be felt across all sectors and classes.

[Nonsense]

We are not.

It does not work that way.

The border is 310 miles long with at least 275 crossing points (probably more). Short of building a wall, you are fucked.

So! I will have a quiet word with DT(TRUMP), I'm sure that he can install a wire fence that long & maybe even as far as the boundary of his Scottish golf course.

I will just make sure that I am on the 'right' side of the fence though,

[Atlantis]

So! I will have a quiet word with DT(TRUMP), I'm sure that he can install a wire fence that long & maybe even as far as the boundary of his Scottish golf course.

I will just make sure that I am on the 'right' side of the fence though,

We'll just renovate Hadrian's wall and make the British pay for it. Legally it should be possible to keep Scotland and NI in the customs union as autonomous regions of the UK.

While the UK seems to be near to agreeing to the EU's exit bill, the major problem now is the Irish border. The Irish are determined to prevent a hard border. That can only be achieved by the UK and/or NI staying in the customs union. May probably doesn't mind NI staying in the customs union, but the DUP will never allow it. If Ireland uses its veto to stop trade talks, we could be heading for a hard Brexit.

On top of that, I doubt those reports hold any "secrets". The European Union is just as capable of providing the same kind of assessments from their side. It is not like EU does not have information about the economy of the UK.

Exactly, different from the UK, which has tried to hide its negotiating intentions behind a shroud of "creative ambiguity" as Davis put it, the EU has gone for all-out transparency from the beginning.

The EU has made all its Brexit impact studies freely available on the net:

Brexit Impact Studies

The European Parliament has commissioned dozens of impact assessments or studies on Brexit from experts, across a broad range of policy areas, which are publicly available online. This webpage will be regularly updated to include further relevant publications.

I agree that Britain will not be able to make an informed decision by withholding relevant information from parliamentary committees. This just shows how desperate the government is to hide its lack of a strategy.

@Rugoz, here is a quote the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, made today:

Some politicians in Britain have argued that German companies depend on them for business, so Berlin under Chancellor Angela Merkel may help London get a deal.

But only about 6 percent of Germany’s trade in goods is with the United Kingdom, compared with 56 percent with the other EU countries, Barnier said - making it clear Britain had the most to lose.

I don't see the 17%, you mentioned. But Barnier is of course only an ignoramus in comparison to you.