Support NeoGAF

[accel]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/691589/Britain-BOOMS-EU-vote-economy-economic-news-Brexit

Someone explain how come they are saying something totally different.

I see you haven't been given a real explanation yet (that property thing is not it), so here goes:

Some of the numbers they are reporting are fine (example: unemployment falling), some are lacking context (example: FTSE 100 soared not because prospects are good, but rather because FTSE 100 is kind of special in that it is predominantly international and pound fell, growth of the index is a reflection of that fall) and some of the numbers that should perhaps be there aren't there (example: FTSE 250).

Sum total, they are being more optimistic than warranted - perhaps intentionally - although most of what they say is true.

---
Another exhibit with a useful picture - one of the phrases in the Daily Express piece is "On Tuesday, the IMF - whose head Christine Lagarde warned in May that the consequences of Brexit would be “pretty bad to very, very bad” - forecast UK growth in 2017 to be 1.3 per cent, the fastest in Europe ahead of both France and Germany."

When you read the phrase, it gives an impression that there was an initial forecast that was terrible, and now that forecast has been reverted and things are back to normal, because, hey, the new forecast has the UK outperforming France and Germany, so things are presumably fine. The problem is in that last part - it's not back to normal, it's everyone going down somewhat and the UK having a higher start.

The numbers from IMF are these:

Source: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Article...Forecasts-on-Brexit-Warns-of-Risks-to-Outlook

The numbers for the UK are 2.2 (2015) - 1.7 (2016) - 1.3 (2017), France 1.3 - 1.5 - 1.2, Germany 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.2. The UK does outpace France and Germany in all years, but that might not continue, and it goes down the most - mostly because of Brexit.

The sky is not falling, but the article is misleading, it paints an unrealistic picture that is way too rosy.

 

[nickcv]

Not sure about Denmark, but polls in NL swing around 50% for support of a referendum, most slightly below that. Support for leaving seems to be consistently below 50%. Who knows how that will change in the future though, I certainly wouldn't risk a referendum.

I still find it fascinating. In Italy such referendum could never happen for the simple reason that it is unconstitutional: we are not allowed to have referendums on foreign affairs.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Some of the numbers they are reporting are fine (example: unemployment falling)

The unemployment numbers they give are from May.
How are they even remotely relevant with Brexit?

(not that I expect them to be bad for this quarter, nothing much has happened yet; it's still very, very bad journalism, as you showed with the growth number)

 

[Kabouter]

I still find it fascinating. In Italy such referendum could never happen for the simple reason that it is unconstitutional: we are not allowed to have referendums on foreign affairs.

A referendum could only happen here if parliament decided to go for one, a majority is opposed. What's obnoxious is that idiots in parliament created a law for consultative referendums which can be requested with enough signatures for every new law. So any time anything EU-related comes up, the plan for idiots here is to have a referendum until they get what they want.

 

[accel]

The unemployment numbers they give are from May.
How are they even remotely relevant with Brexit?

(not that I expect them to be bad for this quarter, nothing much has happened yet; it's still very, very bad journalism, as you showed with the growth number)

Well, I meant that there is no sleight of hand (eg, omission of context) here - there are no later numbers; as you say, later numbers, when they appear, will perhaps be good as well; and numbers pre-Brexit show that on that part the economy is in relatively good shape (and so can take some hits if it has to).

---
On a different topic, here is yesterday's blog from the Adam Smith institute:

http://www.adamsmith.org/research/the-case-for-the-interim-eea-option

The blog is essentially a link to this PDF.

They say a lot of the same things I did, now you get to hear them from an institute.

See item 4 in particular.

 

[inoperativ]

Well, I meant that there is no sleight of hand (eg, omission of context) here - there are no later numbers; as you say, later numbers, when they appear, will perhaps be good as well; and numbers pre-Brexit show that on that part the economy is in relatively good shape (and so can take some hits if it has to).

---
On a different topic, here is yesterday's blog from the Adam Smith institute:

http://www.adamsmith.org/research/the-case-for-the-interim-eea-option

The blog is essentially a link to this PDF.

They say a lot of the same things I did, now you get to hear them from an institute.

See item 4 in particular.

To be fair, if you're interested in the real world the ASI is not a terribly good source of analysis. They are pretty firmly in libertarian la la land (as is the case with most ideological institutes).

 

[Jisgsaw]

Well, I meant that there is no sleight of hand (eg, omission of context) here - there are no later numbers; as you say, later numbers, when they appear, will perhaps be good as well; and numbers pre-Brexit show that on that part the economy is in relatively good shape (and so can take some hits if it has to).

Yes, the economy was in great shape pre-Brexit, it does help a lot.

---
On a different topic, here is yesterday's blog from the Adam Smith institute:

http://www.adamsmith.org/research/the-case-for-the-interim-eea-option

The blog is essentially a link to this PDF.

They say a lot of the same things I did, now you get to hear them from an institute.

See item 4 in particular.

Again, you of course could do what you proposed.
It would just be a terrible idea as it would destroy your diplomatic reputation. On top of getting overturn after three month via art. 111.

That is of course unless you somehow manage to convince the EU/EEA to put a special amendment/annexe for the UK in order to be allowed to immediately and indefinitively invoke art. 112 to be allowed quotas, however you would achieve that.

 

[accel]

To be fair, if you're interested in the real world the ASI is not a terribly good source of analysis. They are pretty firmly in libertarian la la land (as is the case with most ideological institutes).

I agree to an extent. Ie, I briefly reviewed the PDF and it is not ideal, there are several unfortunate omissions which make it too rosy again (although workable in my view) - I think the authors are too quick to state some things.

I just think that this - things discussed in the PDF, properly extended and in some places corrected - is going to be the central topic of the political debates for the next several years, and we are going to hear much of the same things from other institutes and bodies.

We'll see, I guess.

Again, you of course could do what you proposed.
It would just be a terrible idea as it would destroy your diplomatic reputation. On top of getting overturn after three month via art. 111.

That is of course unless you somehow manage to convince the EU/EEA to put a special amendment/annexe for the UK in order to be allowed to immediately and indefinitively invoke art. 112 to be allowed quotas, however you would achieve that.

I disagree with sentences 2 and 3 in the first para, but I think we should give it a rest for some time. I will research this more and if I come with a better argument / explanation than I had, I will post it - and if in the process of researching the subject I change my opinion on some matters, I will post that, too.

As one last thing, I will reiterate that it all started with this statement of mine - "If the UK exits into EEA, freedom of movement might be limited through article 112 - or it might not, ie, for political reasons. I am fine with this not happening there as long as exiting into EEA is an intermediate step of exiting "for real"." - in particular, I am fine with it not happening and I acknowledge it may not happen (not being in the interest of the UK is one possible reason).

 

[Lime]

Well Im on my phone at the moment and can't look it up, but after the referendum there were several Europe wide polls posted on GAF showing leave opinions in other countries with the likes of Denmark and Holland being solidly pro leave. Unless I'm misremembering?

In Denmark: Support for the EU has risen after Brexit because people realize how dumb it was. So thank UK for shooting yourself in the head to make a point to the Danish population at large (until now).

But the shit that happened in the UK would totally have happened in Denmark because the country is super duper racist and wants to irrationally "close the borders" no matter the consequences.

Denmark voted against a EU "retsforbehold" back in December, despite the fact how much it would have helped the country. Now we are at the back of the line when it comes to security and intelligence issues. Good job!

 

[PJV3]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

 

[inoperativ]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

I'd be surprised if this worked out like presented here. It would mark the beginning of the end of free movement within the EU as populist movements could point to an example of a member state making the decision to swap democratic say over decisions for restrictions on immigration. You would incentivise a system where the EU was nothing more than a trading union ruled by a few countries which really isn't sustainable in the long term. It makes much more sense to allow the UK to join the EEA and see what happens to immigration, if it doesn't go down by itself (which it probably will) just allow article 112 to be used for some silly quotas.

 

[PJV3]

I'd be surprised if this worked out like presented here. It would mark the beginning of the end of free movement within the EU as populist movements could point to an example of a member state making the decision to swap democratic say over decisions for restrictions on immigration. You would incentivise a system where the EU was nothing more than a trading union ruled by a few countries which really isn't sustainable in the long term. It makes much more sense to allow the UK to join the EEA and see what happens to immigration, if it doesn't go down by itself (which it probably will) just allow article 112 to be used for some silly quotas.

It's not a great deal for the UK, it loses any input and still has to pay the club fees, after the timed period expires it has to allow free movement again.

I was expecting a shorter transitional period, but perhaps Poland will knock it back to 5ish years in negotiations, 10 seems way too high.

 

[inoperativ]

It's not a great deal for the UK, it loses any input and still has to pay the club fees, after the timed period expires it has to allow free movement again.

I was expecting a shorter transitional period, but perhaps Poland will knock it back to 5ish years in negotiations, 10 seems way too high.

Sure it's not great but there are many people in many EU countries that would take that kind of deal quite happily. If you already believe the EU is undemocratic what difference does it make if your country loses its democratic representation?

 

[PdotMichael]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce.

Bullshit. That's the wet dream of the Brexit crowd but not a reliable plan for the EU.

 

[kmag]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

Can't see it. There's nowt in it for the accession countries. That's why it's always been next to impossible. I'm sure Germany, Italy and Holland would be fine with it, but the other countries who are not economically exposed to UK trade but do 'export' people to it? What are they getting? Why wouldn't say Denmark(where immigration is a hot button subject) not want the same deal. I'm sure they're talking about it, it's one of the options on the table, can't ever see it going through.

 

[norinrad]

Not sure about Denmark, but polls in NL swing around 50% for support of a referendum, most slightly below that. Support for leaving seems to be consistently below 50%. Who knows how that will change in the future though, I certainly wouldn't risk a referendum.

There are more older people here, and if they do lose their minds to go with a referendum we will end up like the UK with most younger people not being bothered to vote.

 

[Pandy]

Yes, that's why I said 'assuming that the claim is even true'. I've seen no breakdown of why these regulations exist and what they actually do. In fact, the same point can be said of people who dismiss the argument, I guess.

As per Jameson's comment about the John Oliver show, all they did for those claims was go into Eurolex and search for keywords, without checking the legislation to see what context the keyword was presented in.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/search.htm...LEX&type=quick&lang=en&DTS_SUBDOM=LEGISLATION

I get 110 hits for 'pillow' now.

 

[norinrad]

I'd be surprised if this worked out like presented here. It would mark the beginning of the end of free movement within the EU as populist movements could point to an example of a member state making the decision to swap democratic say over decisions for restrictions on immigration. You would incentivise a system where the EU was nothing more than a trading union ruled by a few countries which really isn't sustainable in the long term. It makes much more sense to allow the UK to join the EEA and see what happens to immigration, if it doesn't go down by itself (which it probably will) just allow article 112 to be used for some silly quotas.

If and when they do go ahead with such plans, its the Eastern and Southern European countries that are going to be screwed.

 

[PdotMichael]

Is there even another paper that reports that nonsense?

 

[Tyaren]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

That would be suicidal. The EU would break into bits and pieces if the UK whould get their way after all.
There would be a whole lot of xenophobes in Europe that would trade single market without a say but with immigration controls any day of the week. Just like the pro Brexiters.

As a EU citizen outside the UK I would hope the EU isn't that dumb and that of a pushover. Don't be mean to the UK but be firm and fair. I want the EU to last.

 

[Pandy]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

Well, I meant that there is no sleight of hand (eg, omission of context) here - there are no later numbers; as you say, later numbers, when they appear, will perhaps be good as well; and numbers pre-Brexit show that on that part the economy is in relatively good shape (and so can take some hits if it has to).

---
On a different topic, here is yesterday's blog from the Adam Smith institute:

http://www.adamsmith.org/research/the-case-for-the-interim-eea-option

The blog is essentially a link to this PDF.

They say a lot of the same things I did, now you get to hear them from an institute.

See item 4 in particular.

Of course there are individuals/factions that would be happy for a deal like this, but there's not one chance that all the other countries agree.

Also, lol'ing at the ASI paper stressing about Turkey joining the EU.

EDIT: Also, 'looks like such and such could be the deal' will remain complete rubbish, whoever says it, until after Article 50 is triggered and at least the initial phase of negotiations are underway.

 

[Acorn]

It's not a great deal for the UK, it loses any input and still has to pay the club fees, after the timed period expires it has to allow free movement again.

I was expecting a shorter transitional period, but perhaps Poland will knock it back to 5ish years in negotiations, 10 seems way too high.

Sure but do you think right wingers in the EU are going to bother mentioning or emphasising the downsides when making their proclamations?

Edit think what Farage would've said if X country had got that deal 5 years ago for an example on all the problems with this.

 

[Camp Freddie]

As per Jameson's comment about the John Oliver show, all they did for those claims was go into Eurolex and search for keywords, without checking the legislation to see what context the keyword was presented in.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/search.htm...LEX&type=quick&lang=en&DTS_SUBDOM=LEGISLATION

I get 110 hits for 'pillow' now.

That's nothing, I get 141 regulations on penis. When will those EU bureaucrats take their hands off our proud British cocks?

I haven't yet looked at whether bendy penises are banned.

 

[SporeCrawler]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

Completely unrealistic. No way germany or france would support this unless they want to see austria, netherlands etc. go out to

 

[Pandy]

That's nothing, I get 141 regulations on penis. When will those EU bureaucrats take their hands off our proud British cocks?

I haven't yet looked at whether bendy penises are banned.

I'm now left wondering whether mine is compliant!

 

[KingSnake]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

I said this might be the way forward and it looks like a timed restriction on movement could be the deal.

Hopefully it works out, Sarkozy winning the election would make it a lot easier.

Emergency break on freedom of movement AND a reduced contribution to EU? Neah, this is a wet dream.

Why would anybody from inside EU want that?

That would be suicidal for EU. There's nothing to win for anybody in EU in this kind of deal. (everybody would have to pay more to EU for the honour of giving UK access to the single market with no disadvantages attached)

 

[SporeCrawler]

It's not a great deal for the UK, it loses any input and still has to pay the club fees, after the timed period expires it has to allow free movement again.

I was expecting a shorter transitional period, but perhaps Poland will knock it back to 5ish years in negotiations, 10 seems way too high.

Its a great deal (rather a unrealistic one) if they keep the banking passport.

Emergency break on freedom of movement AND a reduced contribution to EU? Neah, this is a wet dream.

Why would anybody from inside EU want that?

That would be suicidal for EU. There's nothing to win for anybody in EU in this kind of deal. (everybody would have to pay more to EU for the honour of giving UK access to the single market with no disadvantages attached)

Exactly, if its better outside the union why stay there?

Also the governments of the memberstates clearly stated unisono that single market access is only possible with freedom of movement

 

[Zaph]

That would be suicidal for EU. There's nothing to win for anybody in EU in this kind of deal. (everybody would have to pay more to EU for the honour of giving UK access to the single market with no disadvantages attached)

Oh no, it would limit their "economic shock" from Brexit lol

It's absolute pie in the sky nonsense. The EU aren't the ones with an imminent danger of severe economic shock.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I considere the guardian to be a serious newsoutlet.. The piece is quite dissapointing with no solid evidence or quotes. Just an ominous: diplomats are working on a deal. This completely contradicts what the EU officials and governments of the memberships have said: 1. No cherry picking 2. No negotiations becore Article 50

 

[norinrad]

Emergency break on freedom of movement AND a reduced contribution to EU? Neah, this is a wet dream.

Why would anybody from inside EU want that?

That would be suicidal for EU. There's nothing to win for anybody in EU in this kind of deal. (everybody would have to pay more to EU for the honour of giving UK access to the single market with no disadvantages attached)

This is the same EU that was torn when sanctions against Russia had to be discussed. They will bend backwards eventually they also do.

Hey Poland, how about taking in some refugees, no we won't. Brussels ok then.

EU and Poland lol. How about lunch and more funds for you infrastructure oh and the refugee thing is off the table. Sure.

 

[Xando]

British Media seems like a dreamworld at the moment.

Good luck trying to get emergency brake on movement + reduced budget when there are multiple elections next year and polls already showed vast majority of germans want merkel to be harsh on the UK

Merkel is gonna do fuck all to help Brexiters when the AFD is around the corner

Don't know about the french but i doubt it's much different

 

[SporeCrawler]

This is the same EU that was torn when sanctions against Russia had to be discussed. They will bend backwards eventually they also do.

Hey Poland, how about taking in some refugees, no we won't. Brussels ok then.

EU and Poland lol. How about lunch and more funds for you infrastructure oh and the refugee thing is off the table. Sure.

With the big difference that

1. UK will no longer be a part of the family but a stranger wanting access.
2. This is not about an issue where certain memberstates have refused to comply but an issue about leaving the union altogether. The leverage is different.
3. All EU states have a common interest that the Union does not crumble because of a lenient deal to the UK

Also I dont get your comment about the sanctions. There are sanctions in place against russia. You may argue that they are not strict enough or that they have no effect but..

 

[KingSnake]

This paragraph is the most baffling one, especially being Guardian's analysis:

While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce.

There is no economic "shock" estimated for EU in any serious analysis. Yes, there are negative impacts, but nothing close to shock. And the negative impact is not even considering the possible positive impact from capital and investments shift.

And the political damage to the European project would be far greater in case of such a deal than from a normal Brexit.

 

[SporeCrawler]

This paragraph is the most baffling one, especially being Guardian's analysis:



There is no economic "shock" estimated for EU in any serious analysis. Yes, there are negative impacts, but nothing close to shock. Not even considering the possible positive impact from capital and investments shift.

And the political damage to the European project would be far greater in case of such a deal than from a normal Brexit.

So is any other outlet reporting this or is this tabloit gibberish?

 

[Linkstrikesback]

There are more older people here, and if they do lose their minds to go with a referendum we will end up like the UK with most younger people not being bothered to vote.

Let's put a stop to that.

The one news outlet that reported the 36% figure of uk 18-24voters, think it was bskyb, turned out they functionally made the number up by using data from the 2015 election instead. Probably deliberately to discredit the young.

We don't know how many young people voted. Other estimates put it way higher as close to 70% but the actual truth is no-one actually knows how many of each demographic turned up.

 

[accel]

So is any other outlet reporting this or is this tabloit gibberish?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-considers-temporarily-exempting-uk-freedom-movement-rules-1572198

 

[pswii60]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/691589/Britain-BOOMS-EU-vote-economy-economic-news-Brexit

Someone explain how come they are saying something totally different.

Joke post? They are picking and choosing the reports and analysis that fits with their agenda. Like many on here to be fair. The truth lies somewhere between.

 

[PdotMichael]

High-ranking UK officials

 

[accel]

By the way, "emergency brake" is the same wording that Germany and France used when they feared visa-free entrance from Turkey.

A glimpse into those times:

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/725645635278479360

You can see how others want something like that article 112 to be available for use by individual members of the EU as well.

 

[kmag]

By the way, "emergency brake" is the same wording that Germany and France used when they feared visa-free entrance from Turkey.

A glimpse into those times:

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/725645635278479360

You can see how others want something like that article 112 to be available for use by individual members of the EU as well.

There has always been a 7 year staged introduction (transitional arrangements in the EU parlance) to freedom of movement from accession countries. The UK under Blair just opted not to enforce it, and it's not article 112 which is an EEA only exclusion which is designed as a response mechanism and isn't designed for prolonged periods of use. What there never has been has been an blanket ban on movement from all members even Lichtenstein has arrangements which are partial and took a hell of a lot of negotiation to get through. Lichtenstein for obvious reasons has a bit more of a problem than the UK's we don't like immigrants (almost half are non EU anyway, the EU/EEA immigrants per capita in the UK is nothing special at all).

This whole Guardian article seems like an opening gambit for the UK putting out what they want. I'd be very doubtful of any UK press on this, because they'll be getting their info from largely UK sources.

 

[KingSnake]

High-ranking UK officials

Yeah, seems to be rather the UK wishlist than something that is even discussed within EU.

 

[2MF]

Yeah, seems to be rather the UK wishlist than something that is even discussed within EU.

But it also says:

"Senior British and EU sources"

edit - And they quote two sources from Italy / Holland. So it is indeed being discussed within (at least parts of) the EU.

 

[PdotMichael]

Yeah, the EU is in such a desperate state that they already giving up on the most important point of the EEA long before UK triggers the exit clause.

The Empire did it once again.

 

[Xando]

But it also says:

"Senior British and EU sources"

edit - And they quote two sources from Italy / Holland. So it is indeed being discussed within (at least parts of) the EU.

Not sure if i would call a advisor to Mogherini and and a dutch MEP who says "we might look at it" as senior sources. Neither of them will be making any decisions on the process

 

[2MF]

Not sure if i would call a advisor to Mogherini and and a dutch MEP who says "we might look at it" as serious sources. Neither of them will be making much decisions on the process

I didn't say they're serious sources, only that this is not just Boris Johnson and friends' pipe dream relayed via the guardian.

 

[accel]

I guess we'll keep hearing "UK officials" and "seems to be just the UK" until someone points out that there are EU names right in the article. They are: Hans van Baalen (a Dutch), and Nathalie Tocci (an Italian).

Is it widely discussed in the EU? No, because it all (real talks regarding Brexit) just starts. Is it a "UK officials only"-thing? No.

 

[kmag]

I guess we'll keep hearing "UK officials" and "seems to be just the UK" until someone points out that there are EU names right in the article. They are: Hans van Baalen (a Dutch), and Nathalie Tocci (an Italian).

Is it widely discussed in the EU? No, because it all (real talks regarding Brexit) just starts. Is it a "UK officials only"-thing? No.

Tocci is a thinktank director who happens to be a former consultant to a commissioner, not an EU official. It'd be like taking Adam Werrity's opinion on something and saying it's British Government policy.

The other is an MEP who from the quote seems to be talking about something a bit different to what the Guardian spelled out ("This could be invoked when the British labour market is under particular pressure.") the UK labour market is under no pressure what with the record low unemployment and all that.


You could probably go and get similar quotes about anything from the complete breakup of the EU, to it establishing a colony on Venus.

 

[SporeCrawler]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-considers-temporarily-exempting-uk-freedom-movement-rules-1572198

So italy will back this but germany and france wont, which means it wont happen.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I guess we'll keep hearing "UK officials" and "seems to be just the UK" until someone points out that there are EU names right in the article. They are: Hans van Baalen (a Dutch), and Nathalie Tocci (an Italian).

Is it widely discussed in the EU? No, because it all (real talks regarding Brexit) just starts. Is it a "UK officials only"-thing? No.

Unless Juncker, Merkel or Hollande say something similar it is just speculation from some people that have little say.

The official stance of the EU and the memberstates is that there are no negotiatikns becore art.50 is triggered.

 

[axisofweevils]

Stuff like this really annoys me. The Express (The "Get us out of the EU" paper) is stunned that leaving the EU means we can no longer have EU benefits....

Bitter Brussels bloc 'to BAN British students from foreign exchange study after Brexit'
BRITISH students could face the “tragedy” of being excluded from a foreign exchange university programme as the EU hits back after Brexit.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/69...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer