Tough line on Brexit, says German financial minister

[Melech 9,900]

"Germany’s finance minister has set out a tough line on EU divorce talks with Britain on issues from tax breaks to exit costs, dashing Downing Street hopes Berlin would soften Europe’s stance on a UK departure from the bloc.

Theresa May’s government has been looking to Germany, a net exporter to the UK, to temper French demands that Britain “pay a price” for its decision to leave. 

But Wolfgang Schäuble told the Financial Times that, even after Brexit, the UK would be bound by tax rules that would restrict it from granting incentives to keep investors in the country — and would also face EU budget bills for more than a decade.

“Until the UK’s exit is complete, Britain will certainly have to fulfil its commitments,” he said. “Possibly there will be some commitments that last beyond the exit … even, in part, to 2030 … Also we cannot grant any generous rebates.”

Berlin had been one of the most UK-friendly EU governments in the immediate aftermath of the vote to leave the EU, with Chancellor Angela Merkel signalling Europe risked damaging ties to Britain if it drove a hard Brexit bargain.

But following intense lobbying by French President François Hollande, who is concerned an easy exit could encourage anti-EU political forces within his own country, Germany has begun to harden its line.

In addition to demands for long-term financial payments, Mr Schäuble insisted Britain must stick to international rules on investment incentives, a clear signal Berlin would closely watch commitment like those Mrs May made to carmaker Nissan, which recently won government assurances before it agreed to build new models in the UK

“He added that the UK should be prepared for financial services to move to European centres such as Frankfurt, Germany’s financial hub, and backed continental calls for the City of London to lose its lucrative euro-clearing business.

Euro clearing must be done within the eurozone because “the euro is the EU’s common currency even when not all member states of the EU have this currency”, he said.

Mr Schäuble’s warning that Britain faces EU budget bills for years after leaving the bloc also echoes EU proposals disclosed in the FT this week for the UK to be presented with an exit bill of up to €40bn-$60bn.

The UK would not get special treatment on migration if it wanted to remain in the EU’s common market, he said, describing freedom of movement as a core element of the internal market. “There is no à la carte menu. There is only the whole menu or none,” he said, arguing that British restrictions on EU immigration would end financial services companies’ free access to EU markets under so-called passporting rules.

The possible costs to the UK financial sector were highlighted this week by a private EY report circulated among British officials, which estimated London could lose 83,000 jobs over the next seven years if euro-clearing moved to the continent.

Mr Schäuble said “very many requests” were coming from London-based companies interested in relocating parts of their business to Frankfurt."

https://www.ft.com/content/765a1f2a-acba-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122

Yas making Frankfurts skyline even more prettier

@Luc Let's hope it will silence eurosceptics

 

[Benji 20,113]

He can talk as much as he wants but the decision is not his. It's got to be an agreement between the entire EU and they all want different things from Brexit compared to this one man.

It looks like the UK is going to go for a soft Brexit anyway, all of these "punishments" (which is hilarious but hey, Germans have a reputation for a reason) only come into effect if the UK it's self wanted a hard Brexit, which it wont.

[Dominic 11,922]

More speculation and guess-work 

We've not even left the EU yet and potentially may never so all this is just scare-tactics. 

[Luc 4,776]

I'll just keep repeating this:

 

All mainland European countries profit politically from a tough line on the UK.

 

The UK has been the root cause of Euroskepticism as they were always the main pushers of EU enlargement (as it would slow down integration), which gave Euroskeptics their two most important arguments of immigration and net payer/receiver. Now they're the ones causing the fall of Euroskepticism, by showing how terrible leaving the EU is  

[Luc 4,776]

36 minutes ago, Benji said:

He can talk as much as he wants but the decision is not his. It's got to be an agreement between the entire EU and they all want different things from Brexit compared to this one man.

It looks like the UK is going to go for a soft Brexit anyway, all of these "punishments" (which is hilarious but hey, Germans have a reputation for a reason) only come into effect if the UK it's self wanted a hard Brexit, which it wont.

The UK doesn't have the upper hand in negotiations here. 

It's either a very soft deal with freedom of movement, EU payments and most regulations still in place, or a very harsh deal with no single market access, maybe not even a trade deal.

It doesn't look like the UK is aiming for a soft Brexit because all UK politicians keep repeating they want no freedom of movement while every single EU politician keeps repeating that they can't have single market access without freedom of movement.

Besides, the different countries all wanting different things does not at all play in the UK's interest. Poland, Bulgaria and Romania will want to make sure the interests of their citizens living in the UK are protected, while France will push for tough terms so that the finances industry moves to mainland Europe and to kill the Euroskeptic movement.

 

The only way that the UK, in the current situation, doesn't lose that much is if Le Pen becomes president of France.

[Benji 20,113]

13 minutes ago, Luc said:

I'll just keep repeating this:

All mainland European countries profit politically from a tough line on the UK.

The UK has been the root cause of Euroskepticism as they were always the main pushers of EU enlargement (as it would slow down integration), which gave Euroskeptics their two most important arguments of immigration and net payer/receiver. Now they're the ones causing the fall of Euroskepticism, by showing how terrible leaving the EU is  

Yet every argument you've all put forward is literally wrecked by one simple thing, the UK has to agree to the terms too. The UK will almost definitely go for a soft Brexit since our own Prime Minister and now everyone deciding what Brexit should be never wanted to leave in the first place.

If for some bizarre reason, the EU decided to fight against a soft Brexit it would put a horrendous strain on the EU due to outside forces.

[Benji 20,113]

Just now, Luc said:

The UK doesn't have the upper hand in negotiations here. 

It's either a very soft deal with freedom of movement, EU payments and most regulations still in place, or a very harsh deal with no single market access, maybe not even a trade deal.

The UK is almost definitely going for a soft deal, hence why I've started to back Brexit. The people in charge of Brexit in the UK don't even want to leave so they won't settle for anything other than a soft Brexit or cancelling the whole thing.

[Luc 4,776]

14 minutes ago, Benji said:

Yet every argument you've all put forward is literally wrecked by one simple thing, the UK has to agree to the terms too. The UK will almost definitely go for a soft Brexit since our own Prime Minister and now everyone deciding what Brexit should be never wanted to leave in the first place.

If for some bizarre reason, the EU decided to fight against a soft Brexit it would put a horrendous strain on the EU due to outside forces like the US and Russia.

 

12 minutes ago, Benji said:

The UK is almost definitely going for a soft deal, hence why I've started to back Brexit. The people in charge of Brexit in the UK don't even want to leave so they won't settle for anything other than a soft Brexit or cancelling the whole thing.

You're forgetting that UK parliament has a big Tory majority, and they overwhelmingly vote for their party and personal interests rather than for the interests of the UK. They vote for their career, not for their ideals.

You're also forgetting that the people in charge of Brexit are half Euroskeptic and half moderately pro-EU. They all want to win the next elections, though, and they know that the economy doesn't matter that much if they can bring down migration. 

The EU will not let the UK profit from leaving the EU. The EU has over thirty parliaments that all have just as much of a say in this as the British parliament. The European Parliament has a say, too. Let's not forget that Guy Verhofstadt is the chief negotiator.

 

There's two options:

1. No single market, no freedom of movement

2. Single market, freedom of movement.

 

The UK doesn't get to cherry-pick what they want. The EU leaders will do everything within their might to prevent the Euroskeptic movements within their countries from growing. The UK doesn't really matter. This needs to be a lose for the UK, or it will cause all their own populist movements to grow exponentially. 

 

I don't understand your idea of Russia and the US having much of a say in this either. Both probably favour a hard Brexit. The US because it means the UK will move towards the US more, and become their main ally. Russia because they want to see Europe lose geopolitical and economic power.

[Benji 20,113]

1 minute ago, Luc said:

You're forgetting that UK parliament has a big Tory majority, and they overwhelmingly vote for their party and personal interests rather than for the interests of the UK.

You're also forgetting that the people in charge of Brexit are half Euroskeptic and half moderately pro-EU. They all want to win the next elections, though, and they know that the economy doesn't matter that much if they can bring down migration. 

The EU will not let the UK profit from leaving the EU. The EU has over thirty parliaments that all have just as much of a say in this as the UK. The European Parliament has a say, too. Let's not forget that Guy Verhofstadt is the chief negotiator.

There's two options:

1. No single market, no freedom of movement

2. Single market, freedom of movement.

The UK doesn't get to cherry-pick what they want. The EU leaders will do everything within their might to prevent the Euroskeptic movements within their countries from growing. The UK doesn't really matter.

I don't understand your idea of Russia and the US having much of a say in this either. Both probably favour a hard Brexit. The US because it means the UK will move towards the US more, and become their main ally. Russia because they want to see Europe lose geopolitical and economic power.

We've had this discussion before. You can't assume that Theresa May will propose a Hard Brexit and that then she will get a majority to vote for it when the majority of her own party were against Brexit.

Scotland has also become key in the discussion. They will almost definitely try to leave the UK once more if a Hard Brexit did take place which the UK doesn't want so this once again furthers the need for a Soft Brexit.

Migration only became a major issue because of the campaign. They can spin Brexit how they choose and people will be happy with it. A key issue was "taking the country back" due to the fact we had unelected people sat in Brussels interfering with the country's wishes.

They would become an issue if Brexit came to a stand still since they both want the UK to leave and it won't if the deal is bad. The UK won't be shafted by Brexit, it'll go for a Soft Brexit that keeps the single market and freedom of movement.

------------

Everything is being said on assumption from both of us. I'm fairly confident that the UK will go for a soft Brexit considering it's managed to calm down businesses by privately revealing it's plans for Brexit. They all wanted access to the single market and freedom of movement so it's safe to assume that the plan is to keep those intact. Every "negative" you and Simon speak of all come down to if the UK decided to cut every single tie with Europe, which it wont.

[Luc 4,776]

19 minutes ago, Benji said:

We've had this discussion before. You can't assume that Theresa May will propose a Hard Brexit and that then she will get a majority to vote for it when the majority of her own party were against Brexit.

Scotland has also become key in the discussion. They will almost definitely try to leave the UK once more if a Hard Brexit did take place which the UK doesn't want so this once again furthers the need for a Soft Brexit.

Migration only became a major issue because of the campaign. They can spin Brexit how they choose and people will be happy with it. A key issue was "taking the country back" due to the fact we had unelected people sat in Brussels interfering with the country's wishes.

They would become an issue if Brexit came to a stand still since they both want the UK to leave and it won't if the deal is bad. The UK won't be shafted by Brexit, it'll go for a Soft Brexit that keeps the single market and freedom of movement.

------------

Everything is being said on assumption from both of us. I'm fairly confident that the UK will go for a soft Brexit considering it's managed to calm down businesses by privately revealing it's plans for Brexit. They all wanted access to the single market and freedom of movement so it's safe to assume that the plan is to keep those intact. Every "negative" you and Simon speak of all come down to if the UK decided to cut every single tie with Europe, which it wont.

I can assure you that whatever they do, a majority in British parliament is pretty much guaranteed. The personal stances of all these Tory MPs don't matter at all, the important things here are winning the next elections, showing party unity and making sure the will of the people is somewhat respected.

May will keep a horror scenario of pro-EU Tory MPs turning against her in the back of her head when negotiating, but it will never actually get so far that the parliament will actually block the Brexit proposal.

[Benji 20,113]

1 minute ago, Luc said:

I can assure you that whatever they do, a majority in British parliament is pretty much guaranteed. The personal stances of all these Tory MPs don't matter at all, the important things here are winning the next elections, showing party unity and making sure the will of the people is somewhat respected.

May will keep a horror scenario of pro-EU Tory MPs turning against her in the back of her head when negotiating, but it will never actually get so far that the parliament will actually block the Brexit proposal.

A majority is not guaranteed at all when it comes to a hard Brexit, I don't know why you think you can assure it because it's simply not true. There's truth in what you and Simon have said, some of these things could come true if the UK wanted a hard Brexit but going for a hard Brexit could easily cost them an election due to the fallout of said Brexit.

Also party unity doesn't mean much at all, I mean just look at this single year of politics in the UK. The entire referendum was MPs going against their own parties and you have what happened to Labour post-referendum... nothing is a guarantee in politics in the UK since the MPs all want to have their own voices heard.