Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by takyon on Tuesday January 17 2017, @12:42PM   Printer-friendly

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has given a major speech calling for a clean break from the EU:

Theresa May has said the UK "cannot possibly" remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean "not leaving the EU at all". But the prime minister promised to push for the "greatest possible" access to the single market following Brexit. In a long-awaited speech, she also announced Parliament would get a vote on the final deal agreed between the UK and the European Union. And Mrs May promised an end to "vast contributions" to the European Union.

Live updates at BBC.

Previously: Brexit: The Focus is on the EU Single Market

Related Stories

Brexit: The Focus is on the EU Single Market 58 comments

At least one UK businessman is attaching a condition to his continued support of the ruling Conservative Party:

A major Tory donor has threatened to stop funding the party if Theresa May plans to remove the UK from the "critical" single market after Brexit. Sir Andrew Cook, who has given more than £1.2m to the party, told BBC Radio 4 that ending single market access was "chronic and dangerous" to the economy. The engineering firm chairman said at least one of his factories was almost "entirely dependent" on access to it.

Sir Andrew backed the Remain campaign in the EU referendum. "There are barriers to entry without the single market, there are tariffs," said Sir Andrew, who chairs William Cook, his family's firm which makes components for the rail, energy and defence industries. "One of my factories has 200 people employed making engineering parts that go to France, Germany and Italy," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Also at Reuters. Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has offered to take a Scottish independence referendum off the table in exchange for a "soft Brexit" involving access to the single market.

The BBC reports that while the EU's presence in London is likely to shrink, organizations like the European Banking Authority (EBA) might stick around if the UK remains in the single market.

Finally, have you applied for your Irish passport yet?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @12:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @12:55PM (#454865)

    Brexit better not reduce my benefits, ya scrotes.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:05PM (#454886)

      I'm sure the Justice Society of America will be just fine no matter what happens with Brexit.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @08:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @08:44PM (#455053)

        Shut your fucking hole you ignorant American shit!

        JSA is Jobseeker's Allowance, the dole, unemployment benefits.

        If OP said "gimme free shit" or "gimme basic income" you'd fucking understand it. You bloody wanker!

  • (Score: 1) by Kawumpa on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:24PM

    by Kawumpa (1187) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:24PM (#454891)

    I am still waiting for someone to outline tangible benefits of leaving the EU and how to realistically achieve them.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:32PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:32PM (#454894) Journal

      There are all sorts of benefits. Some for the start: The US will be able to get a much more beneficial trade deal with the UK rather than with the EU as a whole -- exporting food that would be deemed unsafe in the EU for example. People like Murdoch will have more power to pass his laws, when he talks to Brussels they laugh, when he talks to Downing Street they listen (ala Blair), or they get booted out (ala Major). Frankfurt has a great opportunity to take some of the financial industry out of London.

      • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:53AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:53AM (#455335)

        Don't forget the bonfire of worker's rights. Businesses have already been drawing up their wishlist of rights to dispose of, the top one being holiday entitlement for overtime.

        We also get to devalue our currency quite significantly, making us more competitive on wages with India and China. Countries are lining up to do trade deals with us too, because they know we are up a certain creek without a paddle and will be willing to accept whatever outrageous terms they dictate. We have taken back control and are now free to give it away to other countries, rather than being limited to just EU rules which we mostly wrote.

        Oh, and one day we might be able to get rid of all the dirty immigrants, that's the most important bit. Who needs doctors and farm staff and a diverse culture when we can Make Britain Racially Pure Again.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by FunkyLich on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:42PM

      by FunkyLich (4689) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:42PM (#454899)

      I don't mean to rain on your parade but I think you'd have to brace yourself for some long waiting time.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:53PM (#454904)

        I hear she's going to make Britain great again.

        • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58AM

          by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58AM (#455337)

          The "great" in Great Britain refers to the greater British Isles, i.e. the bit containing England, Scotland and Wales. Technically it doesn't include Northern Ireland, or most of our other various territories.

          So given that Scotland is quite likely to have another independence referendum, and somewhat likely to leave the United Kingdom, it won't really be Great Britain any more.

          Gibraltar is completely fucked too, not that anyone seems to care or bother to mention.

          --
          const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:53PM (#454903)

      By cutting off Europe's main financial center from the EU, the financial sector might just shrink to reasonable size relative to the rest of the economy, therefore restoring sanity.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by aim on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:00PM

      by aim (6322) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:00PM (#454910)

      How about the independence of Scotland, soon following Brexit? Disbandment of the scottish naval base for the Tridents subs?

      Maybe even Northern Ireland quitting the UK, possibly uniting with Ireland?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by theluggage on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:27PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:27PM (#454916)

      I am still waiting for someone to outline tangible benefits of leaving the EU and how to realistically achieve them.

      ...we may see an end to 40 years of endless arguments about whether we should be in the EU. Maybe. Oh, and the government will need a new excuse for imposing bureaucracy and superfluous legislation.

      Then in 10 years time we'll join the USA in return for help in airlifting the royal family out of various palaces in the newly-declared Independent European States of Central London and Scotland. By then, though, USA will mean a hard choice between the Coastal Federation of Democratic-with-a-big-D States (aka Disneyland) or the Central Republic of the American People (aka. Trumpton) - although if we go with Trumpton they'll also have the skills to help us re-build Hadrian's wall and fortify the M25 central reservation to keep out EU migrants.

      • (Score: 1) by Kawumpa on Tuesday January 17 2017, @04:39PM

        by Kawumpa (1187) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @04:39PM (#454953)

        ...we may see an end to 40 years of endless arguments about whether we should be in the EU. Maybe. Oh, and the government will need a new excuse for imposing bureaucracy and superfluous legislation.

        I doubt that. In the medium term, the EU will still be the scapegoat for every piece of legislation and of course for every bad economic event, because they forced it on the UK or because they are punishing the UK for leaving. Nothing is ever Westminster's fault. Maybe the UK, or parts of it..., desperately need one big delusion. It used to be the world beating, title contending English national football team, but that myth seems to have been busted. Now it appears to be suffering from the delusion that it can achieve international economic and political influence on the same level the EU, China or the US can on its own. No European country can do that.

        Maybe you're right and after Scotland, NI and Wales (once they realised that they shot themselves in both feet) have seceded, England will join Trumpistan. Interesting times...

        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:58PM

          by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:58PM (#455161) Journal

          > [...] England will join Trumpistan.

          Scotland, it appears, is welcome to join:

          Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!

          -- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/746272130992644096 [twitter.com]

        • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:01PM

          by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:01PM (#455341)

          They keep kicking the immigration can down the road. They could stop more than half of it tomorrow if they wanted to, as it is non-EU immigration, and put severe limits on EU migration in place too. But they don't. They keep avoiding doing anything, because they need those immigrants (fee paying students, skilled workers, farm staff).

          Once they can no longer blame it on the EU they will have a real problem. Economic suicide or unpopular immigration.

          --
          const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:10PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:10PM (#454990)

        > have the skills to help us re-build Hadrian's wall

        Well, as soon as Scotland declares it wants a two-state solution, the English can both rebuild the wall and start settlements in the middle of the North Bank, declaring the Lochs and the sub base to be an essential strategic asset that they will never part with.
        Should buy them at least 60 years...

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:48PM (#455015)

        Benefits? Surely you can pull out the Brexit "messanging" from 6 months ago.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC8qO1nyYoM [youtube.com]

        Take Control.
        Save Money.
        Save the NHS.
        Invest in Science.
        Get change.
        The safer choice.

        I think we'll get plenty of No. 1 on the list and not much of anything else.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:31PM (#455006)

      Benefits: we can gaze into our own navel without interruption for at least 20 years patting ourselves on the back occasionally for have a large empire once.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @08:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @08:47PM (#455057)

        Empires are a lot of work, mate. Wouldn't you rather smoke a bowl instead?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:32PM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:32PM (#455009) Journal
      To understand Brexit, you need to understand the political situation in the UK. A lot of people resent the fact that we Westminster Parliament has constantly put the interests of the South East at the expense of the rest of the country. To protest this and other misuses of power by the political establishment, they decided to vote to give more power to the Westminster Parliament. Theresa May, a staunch authoritarian, is using this to ensure that there are as few checks as possible on the power of the government.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:19AM

        by isostatic (365) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:19AM (#455312) Journal

        The irony bein g that while Westminster rarely spends outside of the south east, the EU did. The most deprived areas of the uk had the most eu funding. The poorest people in the uk had the most eu protection. Those deprived areas voted out.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:33PM (#455088)

      The EU can become a real country. The UK can remain with the Pound, in 5-eyes, and a commonwealth nation.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:37PM (#454920)

    As a european with some interest and experience with EU law:

    The EU members will make the UK pay very very dearly for any acess to the common market. IF the EU members do not make the UK pay a very steep pricefor access to the common market, it will tempt other contries to consider leaving the EU.

    I forsee a similar situation/sollution between the UK and the EU for access to the common market as presently exists between Norway and the EU.
    Norway is not a member of the EU but has full access to the common market, but to get this access they need to comply to an ever changeing list of parameters. Presently Norway scaores better on complying with EU regulations than ANY actual EU country.

    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:10PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:10PM (#455022) Journal

      Replace EU with Germany and it sounds more sinister, but the damage is the same.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:29PM (#455027)

      Ship has already sailed my friend long ago. When Greece screwed the pooch, it stopped any countries not in Euro common currency from even thinking about joining. That in itself set off the dominoes down the chain.

      EU is only an economic alliance. No one will join it if there are no economic benefits. For defense you have NATO. EU has no cohesive military might. Only benefits are economic. And these benefits do not benefit everyone within the member states equally, and some none at all. Worse, some are disadvantaged and will seek to get the hell out.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:37PM (#455090)

        The EU will be in a fiscal squeeze if Trump comes through and insists upon them paying their fair share to support NATO.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:17PM (#455111)

          Fun factoid: the US contributes at most 33 percent (the highest reasonable calculation I've seen myself, in a letter to the Financial Times) to NATO's budget -- the one concrete figure given by the White House itself is in fact 22 percent (NATO Common Funded budgets) [whitehouse.gov]. As the White House website declares, "every $22 the United States contributes leverages $100 worth of Alliance capability."

          Your -- and Trump's -- illusion that it's in fact the US which pays for NATO comes from another factoid published on NATO's website: total US defence expenditure amounts to 77 percent [nato.int] of the whole defense budget of all allies combined. In other words, (a) in relative terms, France, Germany and the UK alone, which contribute over 50 percent of the rest of NATO's budget, far outplay the US in relative terms [per head of their population] of funding NATO, and (b) the defense budget of all European members of NATO combined is larger, by a serious margin, than the US (official) military funding in total.

          Facts [cbsnews.com] -- ain't the Internet grand for it?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:12AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:12AM (#455164)

            Here's some more fun factoids:

            Don't provide links if you don't want people to read them. From your own NATO link section on Indirect Funding where you are trying to school me in a very patronizing manner:

            Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

            Note the deft use of language to split hairs. They're saying "this does not mean the US pays 73 percent of things covered by Direct Funding, but they do pay for 73 percent of Indirect Funding for things like intelligence, etc., etc., etc."

            Your 22 percent number, incidentally, is the cost-sharing amount set for the US for Direct Funding. That is based upon a formula taking into account the GDP of each country. However, the US does pay the "lions share" of the indirect funding. So the US pays 22 percent into keeping NATO running and alive, but it pays 73 percent when it actually does something.

            You also ignore the fact that out of 28 member nations, only five have met the 2-percent contribution level (US, Britain, Poland, Greece, and Estonia). However, in defense of NATO on this point, their response now is basically "well, now that Putin is rolling tanks into other countries, we're going to start throwing in some more money in the pot."

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:14AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:14AM (#455166)

              Crap, sorry, forgot to add a condescending tag at the end to tell people how stupid you are:

              Facts [your own NATO links], yes, indeed, the internet is great for that.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:52PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:52PM (#455356)

                It clearly isn't great for reading comprehension, though I stand corrected: replace the 77 percent I mentioned with 73 percent, and we're all good. No?

      • (Score: 1) by Kawumpa on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:40PM

        by Kawumpa (1187) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:40PM (#455092)

        Yeah no, that would make sense if the EU were actually the reason for the economic woes of the southern members.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:45AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:45AM (#455281) Journal

          Yeah no, that would make sense if the EU were actually the reason for the economic woes of the southern members.

          It does make sense. Most countries [wikipedia.org] with the sort of woes that Greece has, can't get more than a few tens of their GDP as public debt (for example, Argentina with public debt 42% of its GDP). Greece had a solid 179% public debt to GDP ratio as of 2015. A shifty country like Greece can't get into that kind of trouble without the backing of a more reliable party, such as the EU. And of course, once Greece has borrowed that much, the EU is a decent tool for extracting the wealth out of Greek society to cover those debts.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:06PM

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:06PM (#455104) Journal

      As you point out, there are other countries what are members of the EU Single Market but not members of the EU.
      Norway isn't the only one. And

      So that puts the lie to what May said right there.
      It is possible to access the single market without swallowing the whole hook line and sinker.

      As soon as Merkel is gone everything changes.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by tonyPick on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:20AM

        by tonyPick (1237) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:20AM (#455313) Homepage Journal

        It is possible to access the single market without swallowing the whole hook line and sinker.

        Sort of - as far as membership of the EEA goes (the actual single market[1]) the members are all EU or EFTA members. Norway is an EFTA member, and *is* signed up to all the market regulations and the four basic EU freedoms[2], as are Iceland & Liechtenstein.

        There's only one EFTA member that isn't signed up to everything as part of the EEA, and that's Switzerland[3]. However the Swiss-EU agreement still signs up the Swiss to almost all of the EEA legislation, and in particular the free movement of people (they're part of the Schengen Area).

        The bad news for the UK government is that freedom of movement (the thing they absolutely will not sign up to) is a dealbreaker for the EU, and the Swiss attempt to restrict free movement will push them out of the EEA by default[4].

        The other piece of bad news is that the Swiss deal took over five years to negotiate, seven years to implement, and as of 11 years later had 210 negotiated treaties to get to the state they're in.

        The UK needs to resolve all of this in a year and a half.

        (
        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area [wikipedia.org]
        [2] http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features#4 [efta.int]
        [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations [wikipedia.org]
        [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014 [wikipedia.org]
        )

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Bot on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:41PM

    by Bot (3902) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:41PM (#454923) Journal

    > brexit
    > breaking news

    My AI sees what you did here.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:01PM

    by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:01PM (#455066)

    Despite voting against leaving the EU, and disagreeing with the UK government's current policy approach, I must admit that Theresa May laid out her reasoning very well in her speech (or at least the highlights I heard on Radio 4).

    It's just a shame that it took six months for us to hear anything more concrete or profound than the tautology "Brexit means Brexit".

    I get the impression that Nicola Sturgeon's bluff has been called somewhat (she was advocating kkeping a closer relationship, and keeping single market access for Scotland at least), as having threatened a second independence referedum if she didn't get her way, current opinion polls suggest Scotland isn't ready to vote with her on that one. As for Northern Ireland's land border, the lack of a political administration (resignations leading to fresh elections in six weeks time) is the more pressing issue at the moment.

  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:30PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:30PM (#455150) Journal

    Ms. May says "[...] membership of the single market [...] would, to all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all." By that logic, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland are EU members.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area [wikipedia.org]

    Could this be sour grapes in response to getting the cold shoulder from EU ministers?

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:13AM

      by isostatic (365) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:13AM (#455309) Journal

      No, it's the facist fantasies of a control freak. The EEA means paying a membership fee and accepting freedom of movement, something a monkey of people in the country didn't want on June 24th.

      May knows the only way to reduce immigration is to make the UK a terrible place to be, so that's what she's doing. I remember before the EU enlargement in 2005, there were plenty of Eastern Europeans working illegally in the uk, we didn't stop them then. We don't keep to non eu targets, we won't keep to and eu ones.

      Many people voted to leave to stop "museums" from "invading". The dangers of a plebiscite were known before the referendum, fortunately the overwhelming mandate for "boaty mcBoatface" was ignored. Sadly this referendum wasn't.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:56PM (#455657)

        *fascist

  • (Score: 2) by hellcat on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:11AM

    by hellcat (2832) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:11AM (#455216) Homepage

    There's a clause in the contract between the EU members that states it's the parliment that has to start the exit process, not a popular vote. And the process follows a fairly specific format.

    Also, the other "states" contained in the UK don't want to exit with Britain. They presumably have a say.

    Is it possible May is simply posturing, saying whatever it takes to make a splash? Kind of like our own "Agent Orange."

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:06AM

      by isostatic (365) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:06AM (#455307) Journal

      No there isn't. The actual method for invoking article 50 isn't defined in article 50. The belief by the unelected uk government is it can be invoked by the pm using "royal perogatove". The belief by the uk courts is it needs to be invoked by parliament. May, being a fascist, doesn't like this lack of power to change the law without parliamentary process. The courts seem to disagree with her, despite the trashy nazi loving papers like the daily mail branding the judiciary "enemies of the people"

      The Supreme Court will deliver its final verdict, likely next week. May will then draft a quick law which will be swiftly passed by parliament, however it means she won't have the ability to ride roughshod over our rights without at least a rubber stamp from parliament.

      Sadly parliament is majority Tory, and will just bend over to our unelected leader. There's no effective opposition as Corbin i useless and destroying labour, leaving the only real challenge from snp and lib dems.

      Without a new election (the manifesto that Cameron's Tory party were elected on is worthless) we'll just carry on with a dictator until 2020.