http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/britain-set-to-lose-eu-banking-and-medicine-agencies_uk_58f37b3ce4b0da2ff86163b2?utm_hp_ref=uk

I find hilarious that moving back EU agencies in the EU 27 could be seen as a plot

Indeed. Some might see ot as a negotiation move by the EU, but then why would EU agencies remain in a non EU country anyway?

Surely that was expected to happen... I'm thinking the HuffPost is trying to make it newsworthy.

Apparently non-EU stuff like Galileo satellite contracts and ECMWF weather supercomputer are also on the way out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... contracts/

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39144990

JJJ wrote:

Apparently non-EU stuff like Galileo satellite contracts and ECMWF weather supercomputer are also on the way out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... contracts/

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39144990

This is soo unfair! Why are Europeans being so mean and petty?

Surely Britain should be entitled to have their cake and eat it too? So what if they chose Brexit? That doesn't mean you deny them access to European contracts and deals?

Just petty!

BawliBooch wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Apparently non-EU stuff like Galileo satellite contracts and ECMWF weather supercomputer are also on the way out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... contracts/

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39144990

This is soo unfair! Why are Europeans being so mean and petty?

Surely Britain should be entitled to have their cake and eat it too? So what if they chose Brexit? That doesn't mean you deny them access to European contracts and deals?

Just petty!

Don't worry. David Davis doesn't accept it, so it won't happen.



I thought he was the brightest of the bunch?

Astonishment is the right word !

Typical blackmail by the EU.

seahawk wrote:

Typical blackmail by the EU.

It would only be blackmail if they threatened to remove those agencies if the UK didn't comply with one of their request. But they aren't. They're just removing them because the UK decided to step away from the EU.

Call it spite if it soothes your anti-EU bias, but it doesn't fit the definition of blackmail.

And why should the EU keep EU agencies in a non-EU country? What possible reason would they have to leave them there, even if the UK and the EU had separated on more amicable terms?

Seems like the UK government expects them to stay in the UK.

Publicly, the UK government has been acting delusional ever since Brexit. One wonders if that's how they really feel, or if it's just a show for the voters.

seahawk wrote:

Seems like the UK government expects them to stay in the UK.

The height of delusion. If the UK government expected eu institutions to be based in non eu countries then they must be the most retarded idiotic people in the country after Jeremy corbyn.

Dutchy wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Publicly, the UK government has been acting delusional ever since Brexit. One wonders if that's how they really feel, or if it's just a show for the voters.

Most of the MP's were against it, May herself was against it.

The hard brexiters are running the show and the gutter Press are going on about how brexit will be the best thing ever and that Britain will suddenly become a great power again

[photoid][/photoid]

seahawk wrote:

Seems like the UK government expects them to stay in the UK.

By wishing really, really hard apparently.

I think the UK government will make up demands under which conditions the EU will be allowed to follow the wishes of the UK soon.

Dutchy wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Most of the MP's were against it, May herself was against it.

The hard brexiters are running the show and the gutter Press are going on about how brexit will be the best thing ever and that Britain will suddenly become a great power again

Whom are those? Boris Johnson, who else? UKIP isn't a force to recon with, right?

Bastions of virtue like Iain Duncan Smith.. See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... clean-bre/

There is a delusional bunch who think that Britain has the upper hand in any EU negotiation and that it can pick and choose what parts of the EU benefit it and keep those.

JJJ wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

seahawk wrote:

Seems like the UK government expects them to stay in the UK.

By wishing really, really hard apparently.

And holding their breath and wailing and crying....

The EU institutions in Strasbourg and Brussels should be moved to London as a compensation for having forced UK out of EU.
/sarcasm mode off

TheUK is not in that powerful a position, but they are very important to the EU in some areas (like NATO) and they also have various investments in "EU companies" (like Airbus). These positions alone make the UK someone to respect and to avoid high levels of animosity that we are starting to see. UK politicians with a brain didn't want BRITEX, which should be noticed by EU politicians, EU politicians should also recognize there might be other departure votes in the future and work to hold EU countries (including the UK) close.

par13del wrote:

So to be clear, the EU is allowed to remove its agencies DURING the two year negotiation period, but the UK must continue to meet all its obligations as a member during the two year period?
Its a question....

Those agencies will still work for all EU citizens (including British) after relocation to another country so very much yes.

par13del wrote:

So to be clear, the EU is allowed to remove its agencies DURING the two year negotiation period, but the UK must continue to meet all its obligations as a member during the two year period?
Its a question....

No, that's wrong. The EU is not ALLOWED to remove its agencies DURING the negotiation period. They MUST do so. If they haven't been removed by 2019, then it is a major failure by the EU which must be corrected ASAP, and those who are responsible for the delay shall be treated accordingly.

EU institutions have always been, and shall always be, placed in an EU country. That's not a negotiation issue. That's not open to negotiation at all. It's so obvious that.... no, I won't say more.

seahawk wrote:

Typical blackmail by the EU.

So you think EU agencies should continue to operate in a non-EU country. And removing them is blackmail?

Redd wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Typical blackmail by the EU.

So you think EU agencies should continue to operate in a non-EU country. And removing them is blackmail?

Who says the UK does want to leave EMA, as also EFTA states are using it.

par13del wrote:

So just as the EU has a responsibility to ensure that its institutions continue to function after the two year period so too does the UK who must now set up institutions to govern its country after they leave, and as a responsible government they must do so now.
A number of these will require money as new personnel must be hired, trained, facilities built and a host of other functions, how much of the UK's contribution to the EU can they now allocate to this development?

Nothing.. It was all supposed to go the NHS...

seahawk wrote:

Who says the UK does want to leave EMA, as also EFTA states are using it.

Ms. May. She wants a hard brexit. Her negotiations starting point doesn't leave that option.

Best regards
Thomas

vrbarreto wrote:

Nothing.. It was all supposed to go the NHS...

Nooe. Minus 200 million pounds, 350 millon/week to the nhs, just 150 million gift or tale net pay.

Best regards
Thomas

http://www.newsweek.com/john-elliott-br ... dia-585593
BRITISH MINISTERS RUN INTO A BRICK WALL IN INDIA

Three British Cabinet ministers, plus the governor of the Bank of England and two other government ministers, trooped through India just before Easter in a seemingly desperate bid to drum up support from their largest former colony as Brexit looms—and before, following today’s announcement, they start campaigning for the U.K.’s June 8 general election.

They were well received by the Indian government, but the U.K. no longer rates as one of India’s leading foreign relationships, and they made little impression outside their formal meetings. This revived memories of visit splurges staged to little effect by former Prime Minister David Cameron.

Two prominent investment bankers in Mumbai said “zero” and “none” when I asked about the impact of the visit by Philip Hammond, chancellor of the exchequer, who brought Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, with him. “I didn’t know they were here,” said the head of a large business group.

par13del wrote:

So just as the EU has a responsibility to ensure that its institutions continue to function after the two year period so too does the UK who must now set up institutions to govern its country after they leave, and as a responsible government they must do so now.
A number of these will require money as new personnel must be hired, trained, facilities built and a host of other functions, how much of the UK's contribution to the EU can they now allocate to this development?

The agency will operate until the very last minute the UK is in.

Where the agency is located physically is irrelevant to the discussion. Or else you would have 27 countries asking for a discount because it's in another country.

Someone mentioned EFTA members also using EMA. Yes they do because the purpose of the EMA is to have a single homologation for all EU (and close associates like EFTA).

Problem is for example Norway has already said they don't want the UK back in, which is quite ironic since the UK was a founding member of the EFTA intended to be a competing structure to the EEC.

In any case, just like British politicians are so fond of reminding Scotland, they would have to get back in line and possibly wait several years even if Norway relented.

par13del wrote:

So just as the EU has a responsibility to ensure that its institutions continue to function after the two year period so too does the UK who must now set up institutions to govern its country after they leave, and as a responsible government they must do so now.
A number of these will require money as new personnel must be hired, trained, facilities built and a host of other functions, how much of the UK's contribution to the EU can they now allocate to this development?

Can you stop paying rent on your flat while you're building your new house ?

par13del wrote:

What is relevant to the discussion is how many jobs are being moved out of the UK in the interim and how that affects the economy of the UK.
Unlike the cousins across the pond, government direct involvement in the economy by actual hires is much greater, so how many jobs are being lost, one would assume that until protections are in place, if the agency is staffed by UK citizens when moved what happens, do the UK staff go with them, or in best case, the agencies were staffed by non-UK citizens in which case the only hit to the economy is taxes and consumer purchases.

We're talking about approx 1,000 highly paid people who live in the UK.plus a lot of people coming and going from Europe and beyond.

Anyone who thought Brexit was going to be easy were deluded.

Perhaps the UK can outsource their medical certification to the 'pesky' EU. Otherwise they will have to build their own medical certification process, which will cost millions.

Or you just join the US system.

par13del wrote:

Highly Paid, so I assume they make more than the 70k that Labour says are rich and not paying their fair share of tax....
Interesting...

Missed the rent question, how does one go about building your new house when the landlord says he wants the last months rent now, and will not give you the required credit reference to obtain the loan to build your house until you satisfy the bill, to which he has also added miscellaneous fees for possible damage before you leave....

Britain doesn't need any credit reference to build their own food and drug administration.

And the paying till the end bit it's just the way contracts work. It's cheaper than the penalty for a hard withdrawal.

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

So just as the EU has a responsibility to ensure that its institutions continue to function after the two year period so too does the UK who must now set up institutions to govern its country after they leave, and as a responsible government they must do so now.
A number of these will require money as new personnel must be hired, trained, facilities built and a host of other functions, how much of the UK's contribution to the EU can they now allocate to this development?

Can you stop paying rent on your flat while you're building your new house ?

Well technically yes but you'd lose your deposit.. Your landlord could also take you through the courts to recover the rent owed as well.. Anyone who's watched 'Can't pay we'll take it away' will get an insight into what the effects of possibly not even paying rent for 6 months can have.

seahawk wrote:

Or you just join the US system.

In the EU several countries (including the UK itself) control drug prices, while in the US it's a free for all, so I'm not sure that would work out too well.

par13del wrote:

A number of these will require money as new personnel must be hired, trained, facilities built and a host of other functions, how much of the UK's contribution to the EU can they now allocate to this development?

Nil, nada, zip, nichts, intet, nothing.

That the UK has chosen to leave the EU is their decision, but they can't run from the responsibility or expect someone else to pick up the tab. The UK will have to pay their contributions to the EU until they leave in March 2019, whatever else financial obligations it decides to foist upon itself is entirely up to them to finance.

Well, you don't need to build a new asset and choose to reuse the one that EU will leave no ?

par13del wrote:

So fine, one can then expect that the EU will also maintain all their obligations to the UK as a member for the next two years, obligations are a two way street.
If the EU decides to remove assets from a member state which has an economic impact that member has cause to ensure that the removal follows the rules already in place.
The UK is leaving and they must fund their exits, the issue that was being debated was whether the EU can just commence removing assets from the UK without following due process.

The procedure for relocating an agency is presently within the Commission executive powers (art 352)

No doubt the procedure can be improved for future occasions but so far due process is just that. These are uncharted waters after all.

The UK can probably still appeal to the ombudsman, though.

I've tried to keep up with all the Brexit stuff, but why did the U.K vote to leave the union?