Mr Juncker stops the talks

Mr Juncker is trying to lay down the law to the UK. He says unless we agree firmly to send the EU a vast sum there will be no talks on trade.

He might as well have said  there will  be no talks on trade.

The UK must not give in and offer a large payment. We have no need to pay for talks they are meant to hold. We do not owe them any money after we have left.

Mr Juncker says if you order 28 drinks and then one drinker leaves, he must pay. Yes, but only for his drink, not for all the others. That is exactly what the UK will do. We will go on paying for our own drinks and for a proportion of the other’s drinks up to departure. Once out we will buy our own drinks, and they will only need 27.

If the EU wants to trade with us on WTO terms this is the way to secure it. If they want to keep tariff free access to our market then they need to start talking about how we might do that.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Know-Dice
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Is there something we are missing about Juncker – Is there method in his madness of making these outrageous statement?

    And my outrageous statement for the day “Are the EU illegally excluding us from internal EU trade discussions”, we are still a fully paid up member of the EU as far as I remember, why are we not party to these discussions?

    • Hope
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

      The EU cannot give a good deal. If it could the others would leave. There is no mandate for an extension to membership nor is there any legal authority no matter how much the specious word transition is used. If the UK is subject to the ECJ and EU rules/directives the U.K. Is still in the EU. To suggest any citizen in this country is subject to a foreign court is propsteruos, once more making it clear the UK has not left the EU as a free independent nation.

      May claimed we cannot be half in and half out but that is exactly what her Florence speech was declaring and is in contrast to her Lancaster speech. Slight wording makes a huge difference. If it were the other way around the bias EU press would be all over it. The same as the Johnson Hammond reporting.

      Junker knows the cabinet want to remain and will help keeping the country closely aligned Labour ngnenough to reverse the decision and in the interim will pay vast sums for our affront to leave.

      Time for pressure to make the govt leave by 19/03/2019 and not in any way under the control of direction of the EU. Any sum of money that we want to pay can be made before thit s date, i.e. Budget cycle up to 2020 to show good faith to a friend. If not acceptable leave and pay nothing more.

      As for security and intelligence we will consider based on merit not automatic right unless there is something in it for us.

  2. Peter
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm | Permalink


    No more Danegeld.

    We do need someone to force the issue on our side and move promptly to ‘No Deal’.

    At the moment that appears unlikely. Hence the stalemate which suits the EU.

  3. Jack snell
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Mr Junker doesn’t have the last word, it’s clear that he is taking all of this brexit business too personally. We’ll see after the EU Council meeting how the wind is blowing. As far as money owing is concerned, we are obliged to make payment for commitments already made for now and commitments made by us into the future including for pensions and other projects of which we were a part, but there is no question that we are obliged to make some kind of exit payment as a penalty.

    The problem with Junker and Verhofstadt is that they have been personally insulted and villified so much over the years by some of our own MEP’s and the tabloid press on an almost continual basis and they won’t be happy until the see the back of us- they are out to rub our noses in it- so we have to be careful. There are those too in Europe who would see us ‘out’ with No Deal and be quite happy with that despite the damage to trade that it might do to themselves..we should be careful we don’t over react and fall into any traps.

    • a-tracy
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      Mr Junker is the President of the European Commission, one of the main institutions of the European Union. He is from Luxembourg an EU member with around half a million residents. Respect is deserved when respect is shown, Jack.

      What is the EU Council meeting you refer to?
      I get confused as there are so many.
      The Council of Ministers (also called the Council of European Union)
      European Council set up in 1949 with 40 member states.
      European Commission with 28 seats one for each member.
      European Parliament 751 seats we have 73.
      Who is meeting and what for?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 13, 2017 at 8:20 pm | Permalink
        • a-tracy
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:51 am | Permalink

          Thank you Denis, So 30 members only 4 of them women do they all have an equal vote or are their votes weighted, I.e. Does Malta have the same say and sway as Germany or France? Is Mr Junker the Head of this grouping and does his vote have a greater weight? Was Mr Junker selected by these other 28/29 as leader or was he put in place by another committee?

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

            That depends on whether the decision requires unanimity (or common consent) or it can be made by QMV.

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      We have no obligations regarding EU pension contributions. If the EU hasn’t funded these properly, that’s their problem.
      We have no obligations either regarding commitments to projects, unless these were separately agreed. Our only obligation is our contributions until the day we leave.
      I suppose we could lend the EU some money to tide them over, if we think they are a sufficiently low risk. I would be looking for collateral though.

    • Mark
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 12:39 am | Permalink

      Mr Juncker has no vote in the Article 50 process. Those with the votes are the governments of the EU 27.

    • Stephen Berry
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:18 am | Permalink

      Jack, you are right. The UK government should continue the talks with the EU in a polite and constructive manner. If anyone should end the talks, that should be EU, preferably after a tantrum by Mr Juncker. Why? It needs to be made clear to the many countries in the world outside the EU that Britain did its best to form a constructive relationship with the EU. The UK is a reliable country with whom they can do business. It is important for domestic consumption also. Remainers and people not closely wedded to either side should be assured the UK government did its best.

      But I still stick with my original view that a deal between the UK and the EU is likely in the end. It is overwhelmingly in the economic interests of both sides to do one. It would indeed be an economic curiosity if the EU sought to punish UK voters for Brexit by making goods more expensive for EU citizens! The UK should be wary of following suit in this sad eventuality. After all, one of the advantages of leaving the EU was that we could get rid of EU tariffs, not add new ones.

    • NickC
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 11:37 am | Permalink

      Jack, I would welcome what you call “No deal”. It is actually the WTO deal. The WTO encourages RTAs (Regional Trade Agreements) which, out of the EU, we will be entitled to make with any friendly nation. That does not include the EU, judging from EU politicians’ own statements. Hence the WTO deal is the best outcome.

  4. eeyore
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Mr Juncker does Britain a great favour with his grotesque ramblings about 28 drinkers in a pub. Clearly the subject is close to his heart, but he seems not to know we’ve already paid for our round, many times over. He will dismay his Remainer friends and, with his note of panic and hysteria, give much courage to Leavers.

    Meanwhile Steve Baker has now been appointed Minister for No Deal. Mr Baker is a good’un, a true Brexiteer, a former RAF officer and an engineer by training. He is articulate, personable and bombproof. A man to watch.

    The twists and turns of this extraordinary business of extracting ourselves from the EU make it the most gripping, baffling, perplexing piece of political theatre in my lifetime. Nothing else comes close. Is it tragedy, comedy, high drama or low farce? Damned if I know.

    • piglet
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

      A gem of a comment – and sums up exactly how I feel too!

  5. ian
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    CATCH 22

  6. Rob Jump
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Why are we even bothering? No deal is the best deal we can get saving us billions and freeing us to trade with the rest of the world whilst reducing the trade deficit with the EU.

  7. formula57
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Mean, greedy, selfish, myopic and in a world of its own – it is what evil empires be like.

  8. Nig l
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    From the look of him, his drink might be very costly! I wonder whether Peter understands our phrase ‘going Dutch’ if not he might find it useful.

  9. Richard Elsy
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    This is perfectly logical and entirely consistent with the mandate which the Government and Parliament have from the electorate. I strenuously doubt that the European Commission/Council could care less about the future of the border with Ireland or the rights of EU citizens in the UK. They obviously do care about the value of any cash being lost after March 2019. A simple proposal offering tariff free trade which establishes that the UK, and its companies wishing to export to the EU, remain compliant with the many standards comprising the multifarious NTBs, should be adequate. This is, after all, sufficient for South Korea, albeit excluding agricultural products which, admittedly, will need a little more positive thought. Were this to be accepted, we could, as a gesture of goodwill and in the spirit of maintaining our participation in specific programmes which are either based in the EU itself or pertain to this, offer a reasonable settlement not exceeding two years of subs. The payments of this should be staggered in order to ensure EU compliance.

  10. Original Richard
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Juncker says we must pay the bill “now”.

    Is this requirement written in Article 50 ?

    If so, has an itemised bill been published by the EU and what is the total figure and what are the payment terms ?

    • ian wragg
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      According to the DT today, the EU has assets of E160 billion and liabilities of E233 billion.
      That means there is a E73 billion hole, as we pay 14% of the budget we therefore owe E10.2 billion.
      We have no on going liability for pensions after we leave unless they default.
      Mrs Mays offer of £20 billion was therefore a very generous offer.
      Using Junckers own analogy we owe 1/28th of the liabilities which is E5.1 billion.
      The EU wants us to clear 100% of outstanding liabilities and have cash to spare.
      Any politician agreeing to these outrageous demands should be horse whipped.

  11. Anonymous
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Trying to negotiate with the EU must be like going in to deal with a car salesman and your partner saying “I want it ! I want the car !!! Pay him the money ! PAY HIM THE MONEY !”

    And you try and play it cool and say, “Here’s my offer. Please phone me when you’ve thought about it.”

    The Newmaniacs have given the game away and revealed to the EU what pressure where under behind closed doors.

    If this country fails then it’s their fault.

    They promised they would honour the referendum and have done nothing but collaborate with the other side since.

    Alas, we may never know what could have been achieved.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:05 pm | Permalink


    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

      The Newmaniacs are traitors, not so much because they wanted to stay in the EU but because they will not accept the result of the referendum and are actively working for the enemy* against their own country.

      * © Philip Hammond, I’ve no idea why he has now backtracked …

      • Anonymous
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

        They literally loathe their own working class. It is evinced in every word and every act.

        Newmania has made this abundantly clear and never praises his working class countrymen.

        It’s they – who live among it and not scarper with their families – who have, by their tolerance, prevented the collapse of the multiculturalists’ project.

  12. james Murphy
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Great, it’s about time somebody stopped the talks.. Let’s get our own story straight first before we go any further. We need a consultative group of perhaps two hundred ordinary people chosen at random to meet to discuss and come up with some proposals to see where we are going and where we want to go- politicians cannot be trusted any more.

  13. Atlas
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Sorry John, but my feeling on reading this was:

    “You couldn’t make a character like Junker up if you tried”…

  14. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    It’s an odd analogy anyway when only 3 or 4 people amongst the 28 have ever paid for a round in the last 40 years – maybe the 27 should learn to drink less.

    • Tweeter_L
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      Roy: brilliant- that is so apt!

  15. rose
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    The drinks analogy is even more inept than the others because not all of the 28 have been paying for their drinks, and this “drinker” has been paying the second largest amount for those others to drink free.

    All it does is remind us just how much we have been paying in all these years and just how ungrateful they all are.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

      That kind of analogy held better when the SNP resorted to the despicable threat that if an independent Scotland was not allowed to stay in the present currency union with the continuing UK then they would walk away from any share of the UK national debt, especially given that a disproportionate fraction of that debt had been incurred for the benefit of Scotland. If anybody owes money to anybody then it is the rest of the EU which owes us, not the other way round.

  16. Nig l
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    I see today the pound picked up on Brexit talks. Peter strangely, you haven’t mentioned it!

  17. Bob
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    I think Mr Juncker has had quite enough to drink, we shouldn’t encourage him.

    While on the subject of bar bills, Anna Soubry was interviewed on BBC R4 earlier and she said we should pay the EU “bill” – her statement was then broadcast broadcast on subsequent news bulletins.

    Charlie Elphicke however who was previously interview on the same program had a contrary opinion to Ms Soubry and needless to say his opinion was not repeated on the news bulletins. How’s that for selective reporting?

  18. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Apparently we haven’t paid enough over the past 44 years. We’ve had all these massive benefits from EU membership but we haven’t paid for them, they’ve been at the expense of other countries. And that includes our budget rebate, as I recall according to some Polish politician that is at the expense of his country even though his country has been getting huge subsidies partly at our expense … so obviously it’s only right that we now hand over as much money as they say we owe, and let that be a lesson to us all that you can’t expect a free lunch, with or without lashings of cognac …

    “Leave the EU immediately”

    “The Government should walk away from the Article 50 negotiations and leave the EU immediately with no deal. The EU looks set to offer us a punishment deal out of spite. Why wait another 18 months when we could leave right away and fully take back control of our country, lawmaking powers and borders?”

  19. James Matthews
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    You are entirely right. I hope you government agrees. We have already conceded far too much.

  20. Newmania
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    What “we ” are you referring to? I am not part of your “we”. I didn’t vote for this and nor did anyone else. The country doesn’t want a trade war , did not vote for you to start one and does not back your Brexit at any cost .

    Can we have the grown ups back please ?

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm | Permalink


      Negotiating with the likes of you on our side is like going into a car dealership and your partner squealing ” I want the car ! I want the car ! PAY HIM THE MONEY !”

      I have been in that situation.

      That we could be entering a ‘trade war’ is at least partly because of the confidence you have imbued in the other side by collaborating with them.

      You did not vote Leave so do stop telling those of us that did what we wanted. Are you a mind reader now ?

      I understand that Dr Redwood publishes you because an echo chamber is unhealthy but you have frequently stepped over the bounds into childishness and rudeness.

      The only merit I can see to publishing you is to show everyone that hatred for older English people is not a figment of our imagination – it existed long before Brexit, indeed it caused Brexit.

      Did you not imagine there would be consequences for your class slapping my class continuously about the face ?

    • ian wragg
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      Head back in sand please, your Brussels mates are starting to panic. We are not starting a trade war, Brussels is.
      Please vacate the country as we have enough quislings in Parliament .

    • Richard1
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

      For a trade war one side has to be the first to impose tariffs. It surely won’t be the UK. Perhaps the EU won’t either, even if there is no formal deal – in which case there needn’t be a trade war.

      • John O'Leary
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 1:42 pm | Permalink


        It isn’t the imposition of tariffs that we need to worry about. It is the non-tariff barriers than are already up and running that are of concern. We are exiting the EU at our own volition thereby placing ourselves on the wrong side of those barriers. The EU does not need to take any action for them barriers to apply to us.

        • John O'Leary
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

          them barriers == the barriers

    • 37/6
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

      By taking part in the referendum you also made a promise. To honour the result whatever the outcome.

      The time to have made your objection was while the Referendum Act was being debated.

      As Ian Wragg says. Please vacate the country.

      • Newmania
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:01 am | Permalink

        I also did not vote for the referendum for which there was no great demand and the so called referendum Act included the fact it was advisory . Why not honour that ?
        Personally , advisory or otherwise I would have vastly preferred it had not taken place but
        as almost every Leave campaigners argued the views of the minority have to be respected in a democracy
        When does that start , why this political subjugation? Do you know , why ?I`ll tell you , it is the politics of about 100,000 Conservative Party members
        Speaking as someone who was one, I would not trust most of them to sit the right way round on a lavatory seat , find their way home or remember the names of their grandchildren on a good day.
        This is , a plebiscitary dictatorship, a parody of democracy .Good principles are being usurped by self seeking mendacious scoundrels but for the most part it is sheer brute ignorance .
        You are typical

        REPLY The Referendum Act was silent on its status, but Ministers made clear in Parliament that we the people would take the decision by the vote, and sent a leaflet to every house saying that.

        • NickC
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

          Newmania, I voted to stay in the, supposedly reformed, EEC in 1975. Since then the EU has deviated from being a common market to become the precursor to an EU empire or a U.S.E. That simply isn’t the direction that most people in the UK want. Not just Leave voters, but many Remain voters don’t like that outcome either.

          In the 2014 Euro elections UKIP received 4,376,635 votes and won the election. UKIP’s fundamental policy is to leave the EU. In the Referendum 17.4 million votes were cast for Leave, vastly more than for UKIP. Both figures demonstrate that your putative guess of 100,000 Tories is way off.

          You don’t even realise where your pretentious, wrong and insulting theory that Leave voters are thick originates. It is an erroneous projection from the fact that older people have fewer university degrees. That’s all. And that is because oldies simply had much less chance of going to university (c8x less).

          There have been 11 referendums in the UK since 1973, so the process is well established. The government of the day has accepted the outcome of every one. Representative democracy was built for the C19th, but in the C21st we can use Direct Democracy.

    • James Matthews
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      “We” are those negotiating on behalf of the UK majority who voted to leave. You are one individual unable to accept democracy when it doesn’t go your way.

    • NickC
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

      Newmania, The “we” is the demos in a democratic decision.

  21. B J Healy
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Is this the same Juncker who has not been elected by the people, who is not accountable to the people and who the people, at a ballot box, cannot remove from office

  22. Beecee
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure who Mr Juncker drinks with but in the UK it is normal to stand your round when it is time, not after you have left.

    Alternatively in a large group, such as Mr Juncker’s EU, there will be an agreed kitty which all pay into. When one leaves it is good night from all, whether there is money left in the kitty or not, and despite how much or how little one has drunk.

    Knowing we are leaving, the Commission should be either cutting back on planned expenditure for what remains of the Budget Cycle after March 2019 or alternatively reworking the contributions which will then be required from the other 27.

    It really has nothing to do with us and I hope Mrs May not only understands this but will also bring the Thatcher Steel to standing her ground!

    • Know-Dice
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      Yep, that’s pretty much the way I would play it…

    • Mark
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 12:43 am | Permalink

      You just know that Thatcher would have negotiated this just so much better.

  23. Lifelogic
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I think he also said “If you are sitting at a bar and ordering 28 beers and then suddenly some of your colleagues are leaving, it’s ok but they have to pay, they have to pay,” said Mr Juncker, referring to the 28-member states of the EU.

    I do not think we mind paying for the things we have already consumed even if they were rather unpleasant and harmful in general!

    No one sensible agrees to pay a massive advance fee – just to “begin to discuss” a potential agreement, especially a deal they EU bureaucrats cannot even deliver without ratification by all the members. We might pay and then they could open the discussions by demanding a further absurd fee!

    Just leave, fire Hammond and go for the Singapore/Hong Kong model. Excellent book out recently- Architect of Prosperity: Sir John Cowperthwaite and the Making of Hong Kong – all the Cabinet should read and do the same.

    • Richard1
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

      There is no majority in the HoC for such policies.

  24. Pragmatist
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    No-one told us when we joined the Common Market it was a “bring a bottle party” or we were “buying rounds” . When was it Greece’s turn to buy a round?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

      They we too busy smashing the plates!

    • John
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

      Ha, and when ever it’s Luxembourg’s round, which is rare, I notice it seems to be tap water!

  25. Ed Mahony
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    My money’s on Soft to Medium/Soft Brexit (but with an economic price to pay – with Boris’ £350M tilting-at-windmills stuff).

    The EU won’t offer Medium Brexit. And with Hard Brexit, the UK would flounder, economically, politically and socially, aand with it, Brexit itself ..

    Or else, we remain in the EU and try and reform it or else we hold back on Brexit until we’ve paid off our debt, built up our economy, and have a proper strategy and leader in place to implement it.


    • Know-Dice
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

      “remain in the EU and try and reform it”

      CMD tried that and it didn’t end well…

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

        No. You’re making a category error (confusing ‘concessions’ with ‘reform’)!

        Trying to get concessions for the UK is different to trying to reform the EU as a whole.

        The Germans and French aren’t thick. Many of them must see great flaws in the EU that need reforming. But it takes effort to get through to people and no-one’s really done that.

        And please don’t make the error in thinking that Junker runs the EU (technically he might, but not really). The ones who really run the EU are Merkel and Macron (and should be Mrs May as well). They’re the ones who can implement radical reform of the EU.

        • NickC
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

          Ed, Untrue. We tried for 45 years to reform the EU. Unfortunately that was sabotaged by europhiles/remains always clamouring: “swallow the lot, and swallow it now”. Just as they are doing on exit.

        • Know-Dice
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 10:39 am | Permalink

          Ed, You are correct about the semantics 🙁

          But as said below and many times in the past reform is not going to happen, Juncker’s recent speech shows the direction of the EU (not just his personal ramblings). Merkel and the “new boy on the block” Macron have their own problems at home to deal with, so don’t expect any useful input from them.

          There always comes a point in life where it’s better to cut your losses and move on, for me with regard to the UK and the EU that time is well passed…

        • zorro
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:32 pm | Permalink



    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      That discussion is over. We had a referendum and we’re leaving in May 2019. The fact this doesn’t suit you personally is irrelevant.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        ‘The fact this doesn’t suit you personally is irrelevant’

        Hello. I said my money’s on us leaving the EU with Soft to Medium/Soft Brexit.

        Regarding Hard Brexit, i think the economy will dictate the long-term feasibility of that. Since most people’s concern for the economy trounces their concern about the EU, so they’ll demand a change to Brexit if their jobs and wage packets are affected too much. That’s just human nature.

        It’s about the economy, stupid,’ as someone said to Bill Clinton.

        • NickC
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

          Ed, So what about the rest of the economy? You know – the c90% of UK GDP not involved with exporting to the EU.

          • Ed Mahony
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

            Hi Nick,

            90% represents an enormous number. But 10% is still very big. Get it wrong by a bit, and it could have significant consequences.

            Most importantly, the 90% will in many, indirect and indirect ways be connected with the 10%, and so the 10% could unravel the 90% in ways you might not be able to foresee unless you are some kind of IBM super computer able to work things out. In other words, unintended, unforeseen consequences.

          • Ed Mahony
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

            Brexit would have far, far more chance of succeeding / far, far less chance of failure if we first:

            1. Paid off our national debt
            2. Built up our economy
            3. Put a proper strategy in place
            4. And have a strong leader to implement something as controversial and as complicated as a ‘moon landing’

            People in science have proper strategies for big projects like Apollo 11. Lou Gerstner had a proper business strategy for turning around the big, complicated IBM of the 1980s to a flourishing global company in the 90’s and later. General Patton had a proper military strategy against the Germans in WW2.

            Lastly Patton (and Gerstner) were particularly gifted individuals with real leadership skills. Something 99% of people say is missing here with Brexit.
            Instead of Patton we get Boris winning the referendum with his charm and £350M but more like Lord Cardigan in the Charge of the Light Brigade.


          • Ed Mahony
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 10:03 am | Permalink

            And talking about war, we’re only in the Phoney War stage of Brexit. The markets, investors and businesses in general are still waiting to see what ‘leaving the EU’ means. When something concrete happens, e.g. we formally/legally leave the EU, then the markets, investors and businesses and the economy in general will react according to whether Brexit is Soft, Medium Soft, Medium, Medium Hard or Hard. And then the real war starts if it’s Hard Brexit (leave the single market and everything else) or doesn’t break out at all if its Soft Brexit (remain in the single market).

          • NickC
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

            Ed, Whilst the people and businesses may interact with the rest 0f the UK, the c10% is GDP, representing all activity converted to money. It covers all inputs (unless businesses sell at a loss), including the workers wages. It cannot be artificially inflated beyond the c10%.

            As for your list of Brexit pre-conditions (“Paid off our national debt” etc) that is not going to happen. But then you know that anyway so your list is just to keep us from ever leaving the EU.

            Leaving the EU means we have the same relationship as the other 164 countries in the world not in the EU or signed on to the EEA. Question for you: why are you so tied to the EU?

    • Turboterrier.
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

      @ Ed Mahony

      we remain in the EU and try and reform it

      Please please give it a rest Ed. They have been shafting us since day one and it ain’t going to change their do not want their money tree to fall down. End of.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

        Apologies. I have been banging on a bit about ‘reform ..’ I’ll stop. Regards.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:15 am | Permalink

      ED We’ve been trying to reform it for the last 40 odd years and look how far we’ve got! Stop suggesting things they don’t want to know about. Dont’ you get it yet? THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA AND THEY DON’T GIVE A JOT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK.

      • rose
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        And remember Blair gave up half our rebate in exchange for CAP reform – which never came. But they have kept the money. That is what they will do with negotiations this time.

  26. fedupsoutherner
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    What a pompous little upstart Juncker is. He fancies himself as a comedian. Well he shouldn’t give up the day job!

    If Mrs May and Hammond give into this blackmail then they are toast. Excellent post John.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      Hammond and May are toast already, if the county wants daft, misguided, tax borrow and piss down the drain socialists we can have have the full monty with Corbyn!

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

      Everyone focuses on Junker.

      Why aren’t we focusing on Merkel and Macron to reform the EU! They’re the ones with the real power—not Junker.

      • Oggy
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

        Where have you been Ed ? they ARE going to reform it – didn’t you hear Macron and Junckers recent speeches, all conveniently approved by Mrs Merkel. They are all out heading for a Federal European superstate.
        In God’s name is that what you want to be a part of ?

      • rose
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

        Macron has already said he wants to reform the EU – in the opposite direction to which we would wish. He wants a single finance minister, a single tax system, a single army, no borders etc. Frau Merkel doesn’t want to pay for it. Though she does want our army.

  27. NickC
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    The Remains are the first to maintain that we lose the “benefits” of the EU after leaving. Similarly therefore we also lose the obligations. We paid a steep entry fee; we have continued to pay in c50% in excess of what we get back. No more propping up the EU. No Danegeld – it doesn’t work and never has.

  28. Tom Rogers
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Just leave.

  29. stred
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Herr Junker’s likening of a someone going to a pub and leaving before he had paid for all the drinks for others does seem a little odd, particularly after his thanks for the war. Perhaps he has become so used to other people buying his brandy that he has become a bit confused.

    While on the subject of Luxembourgers dining out on others, last week I was allowed to post a comparison of EU contributions per head of population taken from the Europarl publication by the commission for contributions and spending by the EU. Sweden came top with 205E/ head, then Holland- 200, UK- 163, Germany- 162 and net recipients with Belgium- 296 and Poland -253. the winner was Luxembourg with 2165.

    This seemed a bit unfair, as Luxembourg has a much higher average income and so I have used the net income figures from Reinis Fischer and adjusted the gains and losses relative to income. The net income/head then changes to Sweden- 169, Holland- 195, UK- 163, Germany- 153, Spain- 129, Denmark- 79, France- 67, Italy- 31 amd recipients, Ireland 95, Poland- 85, Belgium-290 and Luxembourg- 4651 !. Junker wins again. Biggest gainer and biggest income. And he expects us to pay for his drinks after we leave the pub.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      I suppose that there are so few people living in Luxembourg that it doesn’t really add up to much…

    • ian wragg
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

      excellent research. this should be made widely available.
      Plus it should be in absolute terms as a percentage. We pay 14% of the EU budget.

    • Mark
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 12:45 am | Permalink

      Doesn’t he just put his drinks on his expenses?

  30. Richard1
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    But do you have a majority in the HoC for this approach? I don’t blame Mr Juncker for trying it on. Mr Hammond has said there will be no preparations for no deal until the last minute, by which time it will be too late & Juncker knows the UK will have to cave. Anna Soubray is on the BBC several times a day and seems to be urging surrender to these demands. The Labour opposition, mainly represented by Keir Starmer (Corbyn & McDonnell are invisible on Brexit), adopt the approach of saying carry on talking at all costs and under no circs break without a deal. With this background if I were advising the EU I would recommend pressing on with the hardball approach in the hope and expectation of a very large bung from the UK some time early in the New Year!

    • Prigger
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

      Stop running down Anna Soubry. Once was enough. Just look at the state of it!

  31. libertarian
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    If you order 28 drinks and one person who paid for 8 of them leaves then you own him for 7 drinks Junker, get your money out and pay us back

    • Prigger
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

      Make sure Juncker does not pocket the salted nuts.

  32. Leslie Singleton
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Dear John–Agree of course–Hard to see how anyone not an outright enemy could not. It’s worse than that though in sense that even if (in proper sequence as they see it–though why we agreed to this is a question in itself) we agree to pay and so are graciously and condescendingly allowed to move on to the dreaded “next stage”, my understanding is that all that that means is that Trade negotiations may start, repeat start. Big deal. Obviously we should only even begin to consider paying, and not much at that, once agreement is finalised.

  33. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    1. Slightly misleading – the directly elected Mr. Juncker cannot stop the talks, that is up to the European Council (as EU27) or the UK
    2. As explained again yesterday by negotiator Barnier, behind the UK commitments (as EU28) some Brexiteers threaten to cancel are thousands of companies and people (e.g. researchers) to which the UK would be breaking its promises. A 2 year transition could prevent most of that.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      I don’t remember ever getting a vote on Juncker so he is not “directly elected” at all is he. It’s like saying Mrs May’s cleaner is directly elected because Mrs May is directly elected and she chose her cleaner and appointed her.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

        @Roy Grainger: When did you get a vote on Tony Blair, unless you lived in his constituency?

      • Tasman
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 5:32 am | Permalink

        You are wrong. Go and read Article 17 TEU. Juncker is elected.

    • Prigger
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

      “-the directly elected Mr Juncker” I was not given a ballot paper for his election.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

        @Prigger: Neither have you been given a ballot paper for any Spanish MEPs who were directly elected – try studying a bit better

    • Prigger
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

      Peter Van Leeuwen We are leaving! Get over it! As you say we get so much out of the EU, you should go and help Juncker with counting all the Euro in the EU Treasury that will be saved by our exit.Enjoy each other!

    • Kenneth
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      Peter, can you substantiate this “promise”?

      Is it as good a the promise we were given to reform the CAP or provide a decent common market in services (amongst other things)

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:54 am | Permalink

        @Kenneth: As far as I know these will be contracts and subsidies signed with a host of companies, not the same a nationally ratified treaty, but commitments nonetheless.
        The CAP has actually undergone a lot of reform already. We in the Netherlands are as impatient as you (were) to increase a single market in services.

    • NickC
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 11:24 am | Permalink

      PvL, As ever you miss the point. Our vote to Leave the EU was announced on 24th June 2016. Actual Leave date 30th March 2019 (subject to our government honouring its word). That’s 2 years 9 months transition, much longer than you’re demanding.

      By leaving we are foregoing all the “benefits” (as you keep telling us) of the EU, therefore you will have to forego the benefit of us stumping up the cash for yourbenefit.

      Sooner or later you will have to really, really accept our Referendum result.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

        @NickC: I don’t mind you leaving, never even said I did. Just pay your commitments and solve your other divorce issues like citizen rights and the Irish border.

        • NickC
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

          PvL, We are leaving both the commitment of the EU to provide us with “benefits” and the commitment of the UK to pay for them. That’s what happens when you leave. We are not going to pay for “benefits” we won’t be getting, and don’t want.

          “Citizens” rights are simple: EU “citizens” get the same rights as people from other countries when they come here. No less, no more.

          The Eire/N.I. border is a matter between the UK government and the Eire government because it pre-existed the EU. Keep your nose out of it.

    • libertarian
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm | Permalink


      Er Junker was NOT directly elected , he was chosen there is a big difference

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

        @libertarian: he was just as elected as say Cameron or Tony Blair.

      • Tasman
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 5:32 am | Permalink

        You are wrong. Go and read Article 17 TEU. Juncker is elected.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

      You appear to believe that a 2 year exit process somehow promises full financing of a 7 year budget. During the 7 year period, the European Commission will sign contracts “on our behalf” even after we have left.

      That’s not the way it works in commercial life. If my employer signs a contract to deliver software over a 3 year period, and I resign from the company giving 2 months notice, I have no residual obligation to deliver that software after leaving.

      If you consider the fact that some of the budgeted projects will relate to the creation of a German dominated European SuperState, you can understand that we are not keen.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        @Lindsay McDougall: Nice trial. The UK is no employee but a co-signatory

  34. alan jutson
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Mr Juncker also said talks are more complicated than he at first thought, thus suggesting they may run out of, and over time.

    Yet another delaying tactic to try and get us to pay more for longer.

    We need to make it absolutely clear to this bunch of unelected clowns, that it is them who are holding up any possible progress with their limited itinerary.

    It should also be made absolutely clear that the end date for talks will be 31 st December 2018 some 3 months before we leave on the 28th March 2019, by which time if we do not have an agreed deal in place, it will be WTO terms.

    Yet another EU ploy to delay, confuse, and add to our financial cost.

    Time for us to set out our agenda with them instead of being lead down a certain path and following meekly.

  35. Peter
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm | Permalink


    No more Danegeld.

    We do need someone to force the issue on our side and move promptly to ‘No Deal’.

    At the moment that appears unlikely. Hence the stalemate which suits the EU.

    How come some comments seem to appear straight away and others are delayed ‘awaiting moderation’?

  36. Mick
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Mr Juncker says if you order 28 drinks
    Are they just for him I wonder, the guy must be on something if he thinks he can dictate to us, bring out the men in white coats and drag this muppet away before he does anymore damage

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

      Junker might be a pain in the ass.
      But you’re going to get pains in the ass as well in USA, China and Japan when making trade deals with them. And with Trump putting the US first (look at Bombardier), Junker is going to look cute/cuddly, quaint in comparison.

      • Oggy
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        I’d rather have Trump than the ‘Fat Controller’ !

  37. John
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    I’m thinking we need to know whether its a deal or no deal in the next couple of months.

    The EU 27 also need that certainty, do they spend time, resource and money on setting up the needs for a no deal scenario.

    Neither of us and businesses want the EU Parliament, ECJ or whoever to vote down a deal 132 months from now.

    I think we need to know very soon and not the usual EU incompetence of waiting till the last minute.

  38. Bert Young
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Juncker……………. it’s no surprise he’s asking for more . The split that exists in the remaining 27 countries is evidence of the problem they have ; it will not be possible for the EU to create a common negotiating approach as Juncker well knows . We owe the EU nothing and we must enforce this approach .

  39. Duyfken
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Presently we are treated by the EU as supplicants.

    The only effective way to counter this and indeed reverse the power play, is to withdraw from all negotiations and assert our will to be out of the EU at March 2019. That gives a period of now 17 months within which the EU might care to suggest some mutually beneficial measures to ease the break.

    The UK might indeed invite the EU to put forward suggestions, failing which we of course revert to our own resources including for instance WTO conditions.

    Meanwhile, the UK might initiate some moves on behalf of its citizens – such as devising a programme of compensation for ex-pats in the EU caught in the storm.

    The message is: play hard ball!

  40. Duncan
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Surely this idiot knows the British do not take too kindly too being threatened? What a wonderful recruiting sergeant for the Brexit revolution Juncker is becoming

    The only thing we need now is a pro-UK PM and Chancellor. Someone, anyone who believes in the divine sovereignty and independence of our country and its people

  41. Yossarion
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Mr Junker should check the facts, We having been paying for over priced drinks at the Brussels Bar for decades, whilst others have hid in the toilet whet it was their round.

  42. Miss Brandreth-Jones
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Completely weird. It’s Fri 13th . I was told to day that I could’t manage a certain clinic which something I have been doing for 13 years and another has been paid very well.Was not even mentioned in the building up of a practice, having been there longer than anyone as a clinician .Free movers; taking again.We have to stop this weird thinking that the only rights go through Europe and the British don’t exist.

  43. DaveM
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    When’s the PM going to start being a bloody awkward woman? I hope most of the govt is starting to get as angry as you seem to be John.

  44. Prigger
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    I was just thinking whether Mr Carney BoE would stick to his Christmas rise in interest rates as was much Commented upon here. Reuters say he was asked at the IMF Conference in Washington today and he says “The language we used — and I’m going to stick to it … was ‘in coming months’ ( according to Reuters 13th October 2017.Black Friday )…and I won’t make a decision here on air,”
    I can’t recall him being so shy before…except the last time he got it wrong..and the time before that…and the time before that…and the time before that 🙂

  45. The Prangwizard
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    No deal must not be a negotiating stance. The dripping wet remainers and subversives in government and elsewhere must not be allowed to pretend that is their view only to spring a compromise at the last minute. They will want it to puff themselves as how clever they are too.

    No deal must be the outcome.

    No compromise no surrender.

  46. Caterpillar
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    So May and Hammond need to get to no deal and get on with it, this obviously needs to be definitive and supported by all parties.

  47. VotedOut
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Mr Junker’s a jolly chap,

    Down the pub he cheers and claps.

    He likes to have a little tipple.

    As for the bill, he can go whistle!

  48. Simon
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    So weird John. I thought it was all going to be so simple ? lol.

  49. TomTomTom
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Just been out to the local pub with a few friends for a couple of drinks.

    When I left I did the decent thing and left my credit card behind so they could continue consuming at my expense.

    That’s how they do it in Europe. So sophisticated.

  50. Kenneth
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Luckily the unelected Mr Juncker is only one voice.

    I am glad that Mr Hammond quickly corrected his “enemy” comment.

    Tough bargaining yes, but insults to our close friends on the continent NO.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:43 am | Permalink

      They – meaning specifically the governments of the other EU countries, rather than their peoples – may not be our enemies but they are behaving as though they are our enemies, and I have no problem with Philip Hammond using that word. Just as I had no problem with his earlier comment that they are not behaving like friends. Why should we put up with all their insults and not retaliate?

    • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      @Kenneth: Apparently you are misguided (again?): Me Juncker was one of the so-called Spitzkandidaten and was directly elected, maybe not in your constituency but that doesn’t change anything, like I couldn’t vote for British MEPs. Mr Juncker probably got many more votes than the say 10000 of e.g. David Cameron at the time.
      You’re forgiven though as there has always been so much misinformation about the EU in the UK.

      • NickC
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

        PvL, It’s you who is misguided. EU laws have primacy over my country’s laws. I can vote in elections for the party I want in my own country to make our own, currently sidelined, laws. I have no vote for or against Juncker, or any party he represents. And never had.

        Juncker is one of our numerous leaders, unfortunately. Juncker is unelected, BY US. Your claim that the statement: “the unelected Mr Juncker” is “misinformation about the EU in the UK” might work with a few gullible Remains, but we’ve had 45 years experience of your rotten EU and know better.

        • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

          @NickC: You could have voted to make the ECR the largest party in the European Parliament, and Syed Kamall would have been the EC president. Somehow that didn’t succeed.

  51. Chris S
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    We might have offered to pay an extra £20bn over a two year transition period but the €50-€60-€80bn they are demanding is on top of that and the legal advice sought by both sides agree on one thing : NOTHING is legally due.

    But there is then the matter of the U.K. Rebate ( approx. €4.4bn pa ).

    The rebate is repaid to us in arrears in the form of a deduction from the following year’s payments into the EU budget.

    In other words, they will owe us around €4.5bn the year after we leave !

  52. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Has Barnier produced a statement of account to justify any payments owed by the UK to the EU? We hear a lot of noise but no details. We should pay only what can be shown, confirmed and audited as a legal commitment, not a penny more. As I understand our “EU rebate” is paid in arrears, won’t the EU owe the UK that money when we leave?

  53. hans christian ivers
    Posted October 13, 2017 at 9:47 pm | Permalink


    listening to your preaching even if Juncker is being pathetic, does not make any WTO arrangements any better and this is nearly tariff free anyway but it does not cover services as you know,

    So why, don’t you stop while we can still laugh at your rather funny suggetions?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:37 am | Permalink

      Nor does the EU single market cover most services.

      • zorro
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

        Exactly, and we are very heavily a service based economy.


  54. Ian Dennis
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 12:13 am | Permalink

    Of course we are in a bar where only 4 of the 28 ever buy a a drink.
    No wonder leaving has consequences.

  55. Mark
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    The talks can continue until March 28th 2019. EU Parliament can vote on the deal on the morning of the 29th, and the Council can ratify it in the afternoon, and there will be a deal before we leave. If they fail to agree a deal by then, then the EU will get no money, but they will want UK continued participation in several of their programmes (e.g. Erasmus, where there are many EU students who come to the UK, but few who go the other way, and Euratom, where much of the expertise and research facilities are British), and doubtless soon enough they’ll want a proper trade deal. They could still arrange it all under an Article 50 agreement.

    • Jason wells
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      Mark..thing is we voted to leave and that means to leave everything to do with EU europe. We are not leaving so that we can do some other deal with them- that would be stupid.

  56. Epikouros
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    After that comment there appears no point in carrying on negotiating unless we are stupid enough to cave into extortion.

  57. BCL
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    I think one good thing may come of this. The more Mr Juncker and his cronies talk like this the more they harden British attitudes. The British character has time and again shown its resilience and independence and I’m afraid Mr Junckers simply does not understand the reaction he generates with his attempts to intimidate. I think the time has come to walk away promising to pay up to the day we leave and nothing more. If they don’t want a deal for the future, so be it. It will cost and everyone will lose but we’ll be OK in the long run and they’ll lose more.

  58. J.White
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    It is blindingly obvious the only thing the EU wants more than anything is lots of our money. If we were foolish enough to offer a large sum of money we would be told that’s only to start talks on trade then request another huge sum to reach agreement . Aparently Mrs Merkel is holding up talks on trade, um I wonder why 🤔 could it be because Germany would have pay more to prop the ailing EU. If a large sum of money was offered citizens rights and Irish border would suddenly be no problem. Let’s just leave now, and Junker should be told we have overpaid on the bar bill we requir a refund. Cheers!

  59. stred
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink
    • stred
      Posted October 15, 2017 at 10:10 am | Permalink

      Go to cartoon 2. 14.10.17

  60. frankW
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    There is no obvious solution to tje Irish border situation and so for that reason alone the talks will go nowhere.

  61. Fed Up
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Is it to optimistic to think that Mr Juncker’s intransigence might finally unite opinion in the UK for getting on with Brexit? If we didn’t have the BBC, along with Ms Soubry and Co continually attempting to undermine the interests of the nation then I’d say yes.

  62. Pat
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    The thing to remember is that the EU (by which I mean the Presidents, the Commission, and with some honourable exceptions the MEPs) is not concerned with the welfare of the peoples of Europe. If it were we would have no reason to leave.
    The EU is concerned with its own Power, Wealth and Prestige.
    For them a good deal is one that leaves the maximum power, wealth and prestige in their hands, and they only care for the welfare of German carmakers, Spanish hoteliers, etc. in as much as these groups can make the EUs life uncomfortable. They plainly care not a whit for consumers, as these are the voters they routinely disregard.
    Hence they have zero interest in trade, only in their control over it, and will only grant trade deals if they are favourable to the EU itself and damn the people of Europe.
    The best we can do is leave with no deal and hope that the peoples of Europe wake up and either force reform or leave.

    • John terra
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

      But pat, before the referendum Mr Redwood and his friends Davis, Gove and Cash all promised we would get a great deal, and quickly, because we buy so much from the EU. What has happened to that promise, please?

      Reply Not true. I always said any deal would depend on EU wishes, and that No Deal would be fine if they did not strike a deal. I also said and continue to say it is clearly in their interests to strike a deal, and the EU usually does so at the last minute

  63. Peter D Gardner
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    Why doesn’t anyone comment on the irresponsibility of an organisation that commits to expenditure over a period longer than its finding sources are committed to? We chastise and penalise banks for doing this but not the EU. The Lisbon Treaty is quite clear that any source of funding may leave without further commitment by giving a maximum of two years notice. It does not have to explain why, nor gain approval. It can just leave and stop paying in.
    Is it not illegal to contract for something knowing you can’t pay for it?

  64. Tabulazero
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    It is amusing to notice how much the tune on the Leave side has changed from “signing a trade deal with Europe will be the easiest in human recorded history” to “we can always trade under WTO rules if we must”.

    • rose
      Posted October 15, 2017 at 10:40 am | Permalink

      I have a different memory of this. It was in the subjunctive, not the future simple:

      Negotiating a trade deal “would” be very easy because we are already converged, unlike other seekers after trade treaties. That is not the same as “will”. It was always understood that the EU might not co-operate, even though that was not in its interest, in which case we could go to WTO. In other words we always had a fallback position.

    • zorro
      Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      Utter nonsense and you know it! We have said that is in the interest of both the UK and the EU to engage in tariff free trade pist Brexit. Simple logic dictates that point….. However, we are dealing with the EU and you gave to factor in their record in illogical behaviour in cutting their noses off to spute their face. Our back up position is and has always been to trade on WTO terms and that is fine for us as we will get more out of tariff fees as we have a trade deficit with the EU. We will also save on contributions each and every year too as we have said umpteen times on this blog and elsewhere…..


  65. Simon Coleman
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    They’re also saying that they want movement on EU (and UK ex-pats’) citizens’ rights and on the Irish border – matters that are obviously not of the slightest interest to you. Don’t you think that EU citizens who have been here for years, contributed to the nation’s productivity, paid their taxes, obeyed our laws, ought to have their situation dealt with as a priority? With people like you, it’s all about money – you forget that there are real people caught up in this mess. And anyway, if such a golden future lies ahead of us, why are you so worried about an additional 20-odd billion pounds on top of our transition deal payments? It’s peanuts surely – in the context of the whopping trade deals we’ll be striking over the next decade?

  66. Jack GORROD
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    We been here before. I recall a Euro Navy threatening the merchant navy to cut our food supply. We dug for victory – Mothers made the most of minimum rations. We were never healthier as a nation and obesity was unheard of. We went through great difficulty for a long
    period of time and were triumphant. We can survive a no deal – I purchased £20m of footwear annually from Italy/Spain and suppliers were keen to have the business. After all the talking we will still buy VW , electrical goods etc and they will still buy from us. Just leave and pay no more. They need us as much as we need them!

  67. Philip Stephens
    Posted October 16, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Deal or No Deal
    There are two extreme views of the Brexit process. The first is typically supported by enthusiastic Remainers: any deal is better than no deal. The other, supported by some Leavers: no deal is better than any deal. I subscribe to neither point of view.
    If we enter negotiations with the mind-set that any deal is better than no deal then we will have to accept whatever is on offer. Our European “friends and partners” may want to give us a decent trade deal because that’s in their interests too. They would be less generous when it comes to money. The price they would extract would be very high indeed, particularly if the UK Parliament vetoes a no deal scenario.
    What many supporters of the first view fail to recognize is that any deal needs the support not only of the UK Parliament, but also of the European Parliament, the ECJ, 27 other national parliaments and goodness knows how many other regional parliaments. Both sides in the negotiations might claim a win-win Deal of the Century, but the Romanian parliament could vote it down. It is not in the UK’s gift to guarantee that a deal will happen. Thus we have to prepare for a no deal scenario.
    Some keen Brexiteers claim that No Deal is the way to go. There are certain advantages. We would have certainty. We should not be obliged to pay the EU any money at all. From March 2019 we would be in control of our borders, our money and our laws. Reverting to WTO rules would, however, put up tariff barriers to trade. German cars would cost UK buyers 10% more overnight and continental food and wine would see an even greater increase. Likewise British goods would cost more in the EU27.
    Manufacturers in 28 countries could take some mitigating steps, but the overall effect is likely to mean a reduction in trade and higher inflation, leading to job losses and a slow-down in the economy – not only here in the UK but in the EU27 as well.
    For this reason No Deal is not preferable to any deal. It is, however, preferable to a bad deal. The details of any deal that is struck must be compared with the details of No Deal. A judgement will have to be made. That is what Parliament is for.

  68. Linda Jones
    Posted October 16, 2017 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    SURELY it is illegal to pay money to any foreign power to gain trading advantage? Can someone explain, please, how this can be right?

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page