Delusional

[Suff]

Well now we have a better clue who is delusional. As Juncker tells a conference in Florence that English is losing it's influence in the EU and so he would express himself in French.

English never had any real influence in Brussels till the Swede's joined and started saying "good morning" to everyone they met. Then the new former USSR countries joined and they were only interested in communicating with others in English.

Britain leaving the EU is not going to change the fact that, for better or worse, English is the international language of communication. Telling a bunch of Italians that he's going to speak in French is exactly what the EEC was all about, the EU was supposed to have cured that. Apparently some can't get over it.

I have spent so long in mainland Europe, living and working. I speak French with a French accent and a minimal vocab and grammar but enough to converse now. I speak German with a German accent for living and travelling but not conversing. But I have spent 20 years watching the people of the EU gathering together to talk. Bring two countries together and they sometimes talk in one language. Bring three together and it's English. Always!

Juncker is one of the old crowd. Those who firmly believed that the EEC (now EU), was French and that the Germans had a right to pay for it. They didn't want the UK because they knew that we would upset the apple cart. They should have thought a bit more about what expansion would do too.

Ah well. I'll leave him to his fantasy island and we'll get on with leaving the EU.

[Workingman]

French is still an official language of diplomacy, but English is the de facto language in most relationships.

English is the official language of commerce. English is the official language of aviation. English is the official maritime language. English became an official language of the EEC with its expansion in 1975. It was also a procedural language when the EEC was incorporated into the EU in 1992, and remains so to this day.

Sweden did not join the EU till 1995, so to claim Swedes saying "good morning" was the prime mover for English being widely accepted in Brussels/the EU is absolute rubbish.

If Junker wants to address people in French that is his choice, but if he wants to be widely understood he will stick with English as it is the most understood language with the peoples of the EU and Europe.... even the world.

I could not give a toss either way.

[cromwell]

Me neither.
It was a silly thing for Juncker to say though; deliberately spiteful in the circumstances but it just makes him look a bit pathetic.

[Suff]

WM, in Brussels English was still an outsider language until the late 90's. It was not the de facto language for collaboration in Brussels and was frowned on. All documents were still produced in French first and then translated to English. With Maastricht that changed. It changed again when the new 10 former east European countries joined.

Even then, the Constitution was written in French with native French speakers being the majority of the creators. It was then translated into the other languages.

Juncker was, in a not so subtle way, insinuating that going back to a default of French was in the cards.

The point I was making is that he's an idiot if he thinks that the UK leaving will change the status quo on which languages are used.

But then he's proved himself an idiot many times already. Well in my opinion.

[Workingman]

In amongst all the Junker nonsense I found this from Michel Barnier, speaking at the same conference. He, remember, is the hated EU's chief negotiator.

"I will speak in English - obviously, I wish to be understood by the people who speak French, especially two days before this crucial election in my country, but it is equally important to be understood by the British people," he said.

There were a few blunt remarks like this: "Some in the UK have tried to blame member states for the continued uncertainty that citizens have been confronted with for 10 months now. That is wrong. The only cause of uncertainty is Brexit."

But he then went on to humanise Brexit in a way that many have not.

Using careful language he spelt out the human consequences of Britain's withdrawal from the EU.

He reminded those listening that 3.2 million EU citizens work and live in the UK and 1.2 million British citizens live and work in the EU. None yet have any guarantees on their future.

"Let me give you some examples," Mr Barnier said.

"For instance, what if a skilled Polish worker for BMW who works at Plant Oxford, loses his job? Will he keep his right to UK unemployment benefit for a few months even if he goes back to Poland to look for a job? That is what EU law allows today.

"What if a self-employed photographer from Manchester who lives in Malaga goes bankrupt?

"Will she still have access to the same healthcare - under the same conditions - as Spanish nationals? If she decides to restart her professional life in the UK, will she still be able to require that her social security rights obtained in Spain are taken into account by the UK."

In the speech he spelt out the many complexities of just the first hurdle of the Brexit negotiations ahead - citizens' rights.

He ended it with a personal reflection that would seem closer to Mr Tusk's calm, polite tone than to that of his boss, Mr Juncker.

"I remember that my very first vote, when I was 21, long time ago, last century, in France, was to say 'yes' to the accession of the UK... and I campaigned at that time for the 'yes' for the accession," Mr Barnier said.

"It was not so easy for a member of the Gaullist Party. But I did it. And sincerely, I never regretted that vote. And that is the reason why I regret what is happening now.

"But let's turn the page together. In mutual respect and find solutions together."

It is all rather calm and fairly positive, but for some it does not fit with hating everything the EU stands for. I bet that if I could be bothered to (I can't) I would find similar more calm statements from both sides, yes, even our (UK) side. The problem is that these calmer statements are not liked (are hated) by the media and Brexi-zealts whose only agenda is to divide us at every possible turn.

[Suff]

WM, whilst I welcome what he has said, I also remember that he was the one demanding that the UK sign up, sight unseen, to an exit bill which is growing legs and tails, by the day; before he would talk about the fate of the 4.4 million people caught up in this mess.

Fine words, today, when his initial belligerent stance was thrown back in his face and found himself facing a brick wall he could not climb. His only recourse? Get the owner of the brick wall to take it down.

He is, now, trying to shame the UK into paying the Brexit bill on the back of rights for 1.2m UK citizens. When he knows, very well, that the biggest issue is the 3.2m EU citizens working in the UK.

When the Germans and the Italians thought they recognised what May was doing (electioneering), they said "ah I understand this", I also recognise the change in stance and I understand it very well too.

The only good thing about this speech is, for me, that Barnier has finally recognised that if he's going to negotiate anything at all he's going to have to get someone to climb down from their starting position. He hasn't, yet, realised that it will have to be the EU27 and just how massive a job that is going to be.

[Workingman]

Disagree.

The only statements we get are the controversial ones and then the media uses them to poison the whole Brexit issue and drive us apart.

There will be a whole raft of more considered things that have been said and are being said, on both sides, but they have to be hushed up. The media panders to the extremes in order to make itself look relevant, but there are millions of us, former remainers and leavers, who are in the middle. We are probably the majority, yet we are being ignored. We neither hate the EU, but nor are we admirers of May.

[Suff]

We neither hate the EU, but nor are we admirers of May.

Very true. But, in the end, the EU is not the sum of the countries, it is the sum of the institutions and I do hate them very much indeed. We will not be negotiating with the countries and the people, we will be negotiating with the institutions. Love her or hate her, May has a better chance of giving the UK a good exit from the EU than any other politician currently standing for election...

Not a great place to be in if you don't like May, but this is not a great place to be in full stop.

[Workingman]

Suff, I do not understand all this hot air, pique and raised blood pressure over every reported utterance from within the EU. It is not as if any of you leavers, or even us remainers, can change things at this late stage.

It is even more puzzling when Leavers do not know what Brexit they will get. I keep on asking for what the real deal will be but nobody will say. May is not letting one, either. All she keeps going on about is "strong and stable", "no deal is better than a bad deal" and "I need a good negotiating hand..."; soundbites that tell us nothing about the sort of deal she is after.

I have a niggling suspicion that she might come back with a heavily modified version of Norway's deal with the EU, but that is not Brexit. It will be sold to us all as Brexit, but is far from it. We will probably get access to parts of the single market and customs union, and there might be some small changes to the absolute freedom of movement rules. We will still have to pay in to various EU programmes and agencies, but we will get no rebate. This kind of deal is not beyond the realms of possibility.

The question then comes down to what Leavers do. They will not have got Brexit in any way, shape or form, just a bucket of fudge. They will obviously not leave it to MPs and parliament as it will be rubber stamped. Will they then take to the streets clamouring for the people to get a vote, a referendum, for the ordinary man and woman to have their say? It would not be surprising as that would be consistent with all their inconsistencies thus far.

[Suff]

Yes I've seen the ruminations on the Norway deal.

However I don't understand the "they have said nothing".

There are three clear objectives and a few more middling to major objectives.

Removal of the ECJ from decisions on UK law
Removal of right of free movement for EU citizens.
Extraction of the UK from Customs Union

After that, take your pick. Control of immigration on UK rules, realignment of UK laws to suit the UK and not the EU. Removal of Mutual Benefits (or, simply put, UK benefits for EU workers in the UK or returned home).

Plus a host of other things.

But those three core elements which May has repeatedly made her goals and is about to make Conservative party manifesto, mean that a Norway style deal is impossible. In fact it means that unlimited access to EU markets is impossible and it means any "deal" with the EU will be heavily constrained. This is why the EU is going gaga, because they need the unlimited access to the UK far more than the UK needs unlimited access to the EU.

I know the press has real issues reporting this and tries to play down every word she says and "interpret" them, but his is the core of what is on offer.

Now we need to either accept it and enable her or fight it and disable her.

She has left it to the people to decide. The press, as usual, is deciding what they will tell us she means...