. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union — Benkei

They want to be able to leave the Customs Union even if Ireland and the EU don't agree to their solutions.

Which of course makes a nonsense of the whole plan. As in: We promise not to leave the Customs Union if it means instituting a hard border unless you don't agree with us on our proposed solution, in which case we'll go ahead and do what we like.

EU: Ok, bye then!

I actually think the EU has been very considerate of UK interests so far in particular where it concerns the financial services industry. EU entities can continue to meet their clearing obligations by clearing at LCH. If it had been me, I would've said that's fine with regard to your historic portfolio but for any new financial instruments it needs to be cleared at a clearing house in the EU.

EU: Ok, bye then! — Benkei

Exactly. But again it's managed capitulation from May. She must cave but the crazy wing of her party won't let her until the walls are falling in around them.

I meant pass an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50 if a deal is not approved. — Michael

Sure, it would require an Act to revoke A50 notice. (You can't revoke A50 BTW, it's a treaty). I think this is impossible for a couple of reasons. Firstly it would never pass, and secondly there simply is not enough time.

Under UK Law, there is already a deal approved. UK pays nothing to EU and simply leaves on 29th March. Under EU treaty, A24 would then apply, which means UK/EU trade, travel etc. would continue under current arrangements for 2 years.

The ECJ ruled that:

... where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State ... to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner ... — Michael

You are confusing A50, which is a treaty, and thus cannot be revoked, with the Notice to leave, which can be revoked, if there is an Act of Parliament allowing the government to do so, which there isn't.

Also, note that the Notice cannot be revoked in order to hold another referendum.

Hopefully the Government and Parliament change their minds. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw the UK into recession. — Michael

This simply isn't true. IMF projects UK will be equally fastest European G7 growing economy.

I doubt anyone here wants to have to explain to you what the words "no-deal Brexit mean". So, I suggest you Google it. In the meantime, this is what the IMF actually has to say.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2018/11/13/na111418-uk-economic-outlook-in-six-charts

"The UK is set to exit the EU in March 2019. It is now in the process of negotiating its future relationship with the EU. Growth has moderated since the 2016 referendum, moving the UK from the top to near the bottom of the Group of Seven growth tables. "

"...reverting to WTO trade rules, even in an orderly manner, would lead to long-run output losses for the UK of around 5 to 8 percent of GDP compared to a no-Brexit scenario."

"A worst-case scenario would be a disorderly exit without a transition period. Such an outcome would lead to a sharp fall in confidence and reversal of capital flows, which would affect asset prices and the value of sterling."

I doubt anyone here wants to have to explain to you what the words "no-deal Brexit mean". — Baden

Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, the whole Euro zone teetering on the brink with Q4 GDP growth of only 0.2%.

Sure, if growth slows down in the EU, everyone should just leave it. Actually, everyone should just leave their country when growth slows down and come back during the next boom. The IMF projects that that will definitely work.

Sure, if growth slows down in the EU, everyone should just leave it — Baden

That's why 3.7 million EU Citizens live in UK, that and the £4billion in benefits they take.

That's why net migration from EU is still 100,000 p.a. despite Brexit.

The same misinformation again. Let's get back to what I pointed out before and you haven't dealt with at all, just repeating the same nonsense again.

This simply isn't true. IMF projects UK will be equally fastest European G7 growing economy. — Inis

How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3. That IMF paper also shows the UK will underperform compared to the EU average. In other news, the EC forecasts UK GDP growth at 1.2% tying it with Italy for last place. Both forecasts assume a soft Brexit by the way.

And that's despite a depreciated currency...

Meanwhile, spreads and volatility in UK equities have increased as well, reflecting the risks market participants perceive. Rating agencies have downgraded UK debt as well.

From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved.

That's why 3.7 million EU Citizens live in UK, that and the £4billion in benefits they take.

That's why net migration from EU is still 100,000 p.a. despite Brexit. — Inis

Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? When people voted on Brexit no information was available on the costs of benefits paid by the UK government to EU citizens. The estimates I found in the House of Commons Library were from March 2017 on data in 2013/2014 at results in 1.7 billion GBP over 2 years for non-UK EU citizens. An important point as well: non-UK nationals were far less likely to receive benefits than UK nationals. Since the system is such that the working populace carries the costs of those receiving benefits, the non-UK citizens not only paid for all non-UK people receiving benefits but also a part of UK citizens receiving benefits. E.g., they make social security cheaper for everyone in the UK.

UK citizens working in the EU have the same rights to benefits as well that the UK wouldn't have to pay if they were unemployed in the UK (1.3 million UK citizens live in the EU) but I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor.

How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3 — Benkei

Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, and France is in flames.

Eurozone growth is estimated at 0.2% Q4.

Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? — Benkei

The data was eventually extracted from HMRC and the Treasury by Iain Duncan Smith, ex Work and Pensions Secretary, and is for 2013/14.

That's why net migration from EU is still 100,000 p.a. despite Brexit. — Inis

Really???

Here's your latest official statistic (Nov 2018) on this issue:

• There were 2.25 million EU nationals working in the UK, 132,000 fewer than for a year earlier (the largest annual fall since comparable records began in 1997).

See Office for National Statistics, latest release

Yeah, the largest fall since the records began. Good job getting the data right, Inis!

The data was eventually extracted from HMRC and the Treasury by Iain Duncan Smith, ex Work and Pensions Secretary, and is for 2013/14. — Inis

The same data I used with totally different figures. Do you have a reading disability that I need to take into account when communicating with you?

I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor. — Benkei

Of course. EU migrant workers are a different breed from Third World migrants, that's the ugly truth.

Interestingly, the British statistical office did give earlier employment figures (for 16-64 year olds) about EU nationals, UK nationals on other nationals living in the UK.

The stats were (last May):
81.9% EU nationals employed
75,6% UK nationals employed
63% non-EU nationals employed.

Now the British statisticians divide the group just to UK and non-UK residence, which then shows that non-UK residence have a slightly lower employment level. More politically correct, than the statistic that other EU nationals are better employed in the UK than the aboriginals.

He's a pathological misinformer and cherry picker. Like his numbers for the trade deficit, which was for goods only because, of course, the UK has no services industry!

Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, and France is in flames. — Inis

More lies. Germany is expected to do best of the three you mentioned with 1.7%. France is expected to outperform Italy (1.6%), the UK will now no longer outperform Italy (1.2%) (still assuming soft Brexit), Italy is still growing (1.3%). So technically you don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: Those were the 2020 figures. Here's 2019:

Germany: 1.8%
France: 1.6%
Italy: 1.2%
UK: 1.2%

The interesting thing is that when you get over 100 000 leaving the country in one year, even if that isn't a huge number to the whole population, that does automatically have an effect on the GDP growth, especially when one earlier had an influx of EU migrant workers.

Of course, immigrant workers are a sign of a strong economy. Them leaving is similarly a sign of bad times.

Really???

Here's your latest official statistic (Nov 2018) on this issue: — ssu

I stand corrected. From the "latest figures"

The overall number of EU citizens coming to the UK continues to add to the population as 74,000 more EU citizens came to the UK than left.

Net immigration from EU was only 74,000 last year, despite Brexit.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018

If there are fewer EU nationals working, yet more arriving, draw your own conclusions.

The same data I used with totally different figures. Do you have a reading disability that I need to take into account when communicating with you? — Benkei

Did you use the data from here?

https://www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/sites/www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/files/attachments/Freedom_of_Movement_08082018.pdf

More lies. Germany is expected to do best of the three you mentioned with 1.7%. France is expected to outperform Italy (1.6%), the UK will now no longer outperform Italy (1.2%) (still assuming soft Brexit), Italy is still growing (1.3%). So technically you don't know what you're talking about. — Benkei

Germany is in or close to technical recession:

https://deutschewealth.com/content/deutschewealth/en/our_perspective/cio-memo-germany-technical-recession-not-inconceivable.html

Italy is in recession:

https://news.sky.com/story/italy-falls-into-recession-as-quarterly-gdp-drops-11623135

Eurozone Q4 growth is 0.2% according to Eurostat.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9539637/2-31012019-AP-EN.pdf/fead6e91-cd7f-4654-b5d7-81fef584772d

France is ablaze:



Spain jails politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/02/spanish-court-question-catalonia-separatists-except-puigdemont

I could go on.

The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this?

The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this? — Baden

Well, the EU turning into a fascist police-state, with an army, expansionist aims, and antagonism of Russia, is relevant. The fact that it has encouraged mas migration, yet maintains mass youth unemployment in the South does matter. The fact that not one person in the whole of Europe ever voted for these policies matters.

Italy's GDP per Capita is now lower than when it joined the Euro in 1999.

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd24218-248f-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

Well, the EU turning into a fascist police-state... — Inis

Do you know what those words mean?

.. with an army, expansionist aims, and antagonism of Russia, is relevant — Inis

Apparently not. The reference to Russia is telling though.

Do you know what those words mean? — Baden

Who represents you on the EU Commission?

Phil Hogan. Why? I mean, judging by his girth he has expansionist aims, but is he antagonistic towards Russia too?

Phil Hogan. Why? I mean, judging by his girth he has expansionist aims, but is he antagonistic towards Russia too? — Baden

Because you have just revealed to anyone who understands how the EU is governed, that you are typically clueless.

No, Phil Hogan does not represent you.

Fascinating.

"Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960) is an Irish politician who currently serves as European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development since November 2014. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hogan

Fascinating.

"Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960) is an Irish politician who currently serves as European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development since November 2014. " — Baden

Yes, you are that clueless.

Which is typical.