Brexit - the end of the beginning - the negotiations begin

In the FAZ article, there's a mention of EU nationals. May said that she wanted an agreement by the end of June. Juncker said the time scale was impossible, as there would have to be consultation and agreement with all 27 states, especially over healthcare arrangements.

Margaret The article has nothing in it that Juncker hasn't been saying all along, before any mention of Frexit.

The article is about transparency. May doesn't want the negotiations to be made public.

I found it tagged onto an article about the Downing Street dinner but I cannot remember where - been reading and watching news channels while cooking for us and a guest!

This is the FT's take on the meeting:

Number 10 looks to steer Brexit talks in Juncker-Barnier meeting

May seeks low-key negotiation while EU wants more transparent approach

Theresa May began to try and exert a personal grip on Brexit negotiations when she met Michel Barnier, the chief EU negotiator, for the first time on Wednesday night at a dinner in Downing Street.

The dinner, which was also attended by European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and other senior Brexit negotiators, was a sign of the prime minister’s intention to steer the talks that will define her premiership if she wins the general election on June 8.

Britain is pressing for low-key technical talks, with the details of negotiations kept under wraps, while the EU is looking for a more transparent approach.

Mrs May’s preferred format would put the emphasis on discussions among officials, giving a less prominent public role to senior politicians, including most notably David Davis, the Brexit secretary.

Mr Davis is trusted by Mrs May — he was among the ministers briefed in advance about the snap election — and attended Wednesday’s dinner, but his statements and activities have been closely scrutinised for signals about the government’s Brexit aims.

Olly Robbins, a highly regarded civil servant and Mrs May’s lead “sherpa”, will play a key role in the negotiations, as will Nick Timothy, her co-chief of staff, who is drafting the Conservative manifesto.

But mixed signals over the make-up of Britain’s negotiating team have caused confusion in Brussels.

“It is very strange,” said one senior diplomat for the remaining 27 EU member states (EU-27). “We need a politician on the other side.”

British officials said that details of the negotiating strategy and team were still being decided.

As the EU’s chief negotiator, Mr Barnier, a former French foreign minister and two-time European commissioner, was expected to engage principally with Mr Davis in formal negotiations. The two had tentatively scheduled a meeting, soon after last Saturday’s summit of EU-27 leaders, for “talks on talks” that would set the format and tempo of discussions over coming months.

However, that meeting was cancelled after Mrs May last week called a snap general election and she invited Mr Juncker to Downing Street instead.

Mr Juncker brought Mr Barnier, Sabine Weyand, the EU’s deputy negotiator, and Martin Selmayr, his chief of staff. Mr Selmayr, a powerful operator in Brussels, was expected to meet Mr Timothy, his influential counterpart in Downing Street, for the first time at the dinner.

Number 10 said after the dinner that Mrs May and Mr Juncker had “a very constructive meeting”.

“Following the UK’s letter of notification under Article 50, she reiterated the UK’s commitment to achieving a deep and special partnership with the European Union,” a spokesman said.

In recent weeks, Mr Robbins has stressed to other European diplomats that Mrs May wants to depoliticise the preparations for Brexit as much as possible, and keep the details of discussions quiet.

This contrasts with the commission’s plans for a more transparent and ordered process, where all of its main negotiating position papers would be public. Mr Barnier is advocating for week-long “negotiating rounds” taking place around once a month, which would potentially involve Mr Davis and Mr Barnier giving press conferences. The “heavy lifting” on technical matters would be left to Mr Robbins and Ms Weyand.

WW where can I find TMs position on EU nationals? I've not been able to find anything as detailed as you describe.
Certainly this is one she ought to settle quickly now.

I think the FAZ article has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Its been put about with an eye on the French election that the French don't get the idea that Frexit will be an easy ride.
I have not heard that any Brits have rushed to take up a second nationality. Looking back I remember when we moved in this house 30 years ago it was on a building site and then I had an Englishman digging over the 'garden' and
laying down lawn seed. DH made a joke about it for years.

Mrs May made a mistake by making it a bargaining point
Can she speak French or German? I can imagine if she can't then that will be a disadvantage.

I've read the original article and it's nothing to do with punishment. Juncker repeated what he's been saying all along. Apparently May arranged the dinner at short notice. She wanted Juncker to stop being so transparent by publishing all negotiations. May also wanted Juncker to support her, as there was a general election coming up and she suggested that it would be better if she wins a large majority.

The summary of the FAZ's article by Jeremy Cliffe is accurate. The article was given to the FAZ by one of Juncker's aids and would appear to have been offcially sanctioned. The EU Commission often uses the newspaper to report official business. It's one of Germany's biggest circulation newspapers and is considered to be centre-right.

Davies
the Welsh Brexiteer MP
or Davis?

WW I thought all Davies said was that no way should the bill be £50bn, and that was before our own lawyers questioned whether it was a legal obligation at all? And the transitional arrangements suggested were limited and insufficient. In any event my point is simply that if everyone wants something that causes minimum harm, it surely can happen. But the EU have something of a punishment agenda in mind, which isn't surprising given their concern about other pro-exit parties in member states. I think that may be main barrier to a good deal for the UK rather than sloppy negotiating on the part of the UK team.

I noticed that, Welshwife.
Do you think she might change her mind and make a big song and dance about it before the election?

Looks as if there may be a big stumbling block before talks really start - May sees no problem with the EU nationals in UK - they can immediately start being treated as outside the EU nationals are - getting nothing and short term Visas only. The same of course would apply to UK Nationals in the EU.
The EU stance is that everyone retains the same rights as they do now.

It seems to me quite likely that we will end up with either no deal or a very bad deal.

The important question is the "meaningful choice" offered either to parliament or the electorate in those circumstances. Would it be the option of falling off the cliff and resorting to WTO rules or the far more sensible choice of staying in the EU?.

Already many who voted Leave are regretting it, but how many more will feel like that when they know what we may actually be faced with?

I wonder what the odds are for a no deal. Worth a look.

* jalima1108*
Or, I'll abbreviate it to junk as in 'articles that are considered useless or of little value'

Someone in the Cabinet - Davis I think - has already said that Uk will pay it's bill - he thinks it will be necessary and the EU have already said they will agree to a transitional period after Brexit. This was all said a few weeks ago,

WW - sounds like a bit of a train crash! But there will be compromise options if both sides want them. For example, it also sounds as though the EU may accept we have no legal obligation to pay the leaving bill. If we agree to do so, and I would think we will subject to reasonable quid pro quo, we might shake on a transitional deal whereby the current trading arrangements last for an additional period while detailed terms are agreed. Not saying that's the way forward, but just an example as to how things could be made to work for both sides. But as things stand the EU position seems to be (1) agree the bill first, together with other exit arrangements, (2) then start on trade talks which will in any event take much more that the full two years let alone whatever is left after other discussions (3) in the meantime don't talk to any other country about a trade deal.
She may well be making a hash of it (looks like she is) but she can't just settle for the above without some attempt at finding a solution that works for everyone.
To be honest, the EU ought to see that a bad deal for the UK could prove much worse for europe than simply affecting EU trade. We all need to ensure good relations between the EU and UK in respect of issues like defence and security as a minimum. If the EU turn the screws over Brexit that would be grist to the mill for ukip/eurosceptic rhetoric and could lead to a very anti-EU government.

I think junker rhymes better with drunker, is that right petra?

durhamjen
Your little green eyed monster is rearing its ugly head again

Surprised at 'Briton ' Petra

FAZ stands for: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ... one of Germany's leading newspapers apparently.

This is a link to the story they ran based on the dinner party as reported above. This is not from the English language edition, Chrome translated it into English for me.

I hope it's still in English if you follow the link!

www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/brexit/eu-kommission-skeptisch-vor-brexit-verhandlungen-14993673.html

14) May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared.
15) ie as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit

I have seen an explanation of that. Apparently there were 130 measures and EU member countries were allowed to opt out of them all, then opt in to the ones they felt applied to them. As I recall TM opted back in to about 35. The explanation I saw emphasised that the opt out/opt back in was built into the process of agreeing to these regulations. The situation was nothing like Brexit.

If I can find the explanation again I'll post it.

Considering you are always telling us about how cosmopolitan you are, petra, You'd think you should be able to spell Juncker properly.

" The eu commission boss ( junker) conceded there are serious disagreements within the club ( at least he got that word right) over how Brussels should finance its gargantuan needs without briton which are threatening to shatter the current calm"

I found the notes I mentioned before in a more readable format. It is thought this is a sort of official 'leak' .

1) May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems; but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.
2) May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be re-elected as PM.
3) It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.
4) May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures - three times.
5) EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June.
6) Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.
7) Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.
8) May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process.
9) Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.
10) EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them.
11) Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".
12) May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed.
13) She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality.
14) May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared.
15) ie as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit
16) "The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner)
17) May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties.
18) Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club
19) Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
20) ...leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).
21) "I leave Downing St ten times as sceptical as I was before" Juncker told May as he left
22) Next morning at c7am Juncker called Merkel on her mobile, said May living in another galaxy & totally deluding herself
23) Merkel quickly reworked her speech to Bundestag to include her now-famous "some in Britain still have illusions" comment
24) FAZ concludes: May in election mode & playing to crowd, but what use is a big majority won by nurturing delusions of Brexit hardliners?
25) Juncker's team now think it more likely than not that Brexit talks will collapse & hope Brits wake up to harsh realities in time.
26) What to make of it all? Obviously this leak is a highly tactical move by Commission. But contents deeply worrying for UK nonetheless.
27) The report points to major communications/briefing problems. Important messages from Berlin & Brussels seem not to be getting through.
28) Presumably as a result, May seems to be labouring under some really rather fundamental misconceptions about Brexit & the EU27.
29) Also clear that (as some of us have been warning for a while...) No 10 should expect every detail of the Brexit talks to leak.
30/30) Sorry for the long thread. And a reminder: full credit for all the above reporting on the May/Juncker dinner goes to the FAZ.

WW I think they will need more money - the UK put more in that it took out. I agree with what you say about peace in terms of relations between members, but EU relations with Russia is clearly an issue.
I'm sure Brexit will give them some impetus towards reform. Shame it needed us to leave.

For years people - even top Europeans - have admitted that the EU needs some reform. Exactly what has yet to be decided- it was also said that they should drop for the foreseeable future the idea of abpn EU army of any sort as NATO was successfully filling the bill.
At the moment there are 28 States with 28 lots of grants etc being given. When UK leaves there will be only 27 so they will not need as much money for grants etc. That will gradually settle itself - it is only this current lot of funding which is being affected and that finishes in 2020.
The point is that the EU is at the moment the best we have for ensuring there is some form of peace. For hundreds of years Europe has had wars going on - one of the main reasons for forming the Union in the first place. That is a strong reason I think we should stay. We only need a trigger happy Prime Minister to find our young men embroiled again.