UK: PM Theresa May calls snap General Election

[hellheaven1987]

So I guess a hard Brexit is pretty much check? Although the option of "soft" Brexit never exists anyway, so I am not sure what is the point of this election.

[Gaidin]

So I guess a hard Brexit is pretty much check? Although the option of "soft" Brexit never exists anyway, so I am not sure what is the point of this election.

Brexit is pretty much what it's supposed to be. They come, they vote, and the government does stuff. When the voting population catches up they get to go "Oh crap did I do that?!" Just like every other Western Government.

[Cyclops]

Brexit is pretty much what it's supposed to be. They come, they vote, and the government does stuff. When the voting population catches up they get to go "Oh crap did I do that?!" Just like every other Western Government.

I though there was a soft "sign a lot of treaties so we're still largely "in" Europe and get the trade and travel benefits" Brexit as opposed to the "the wall is up" hard Brexit?

[Gaidin]

I though there was a soft "sign a lot of treaties so we're still largely "in" Europe and get the trade and travel benefits" Brexit as opposed to the "the wall is up" hard Brexit?

First rule about anything that involves voting. The result always involves "Oh crap did I do that?!".

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I though there was a soft "sign a lot of treaties so we're still largely "in" Europe and get the trade and travel benefits" Brexit as opposed to the "the wall is up" hard Brexit?

Indeed, though as Gaidin points out even in the soft case, it's still pretty for the UK- but in different ways- a soft brexit, particularly the 'most likely' version- that being Norway will see the UK still adopting most EU regulations and rules and freedom of movement etc...but now with no say in how their formed. Hard brexit is as it presents its own set of economic issues (key being the UK service industry and what's left of our manufacturing base really needs markets whose participants have a high level of disposable income to compensate..and if we're trading with the EU on WTO rules, we're in trouble there as its either China- who are hugely protectionist, or the US who are all too willing to sign a free trade deal with the UK, which judging on all other US trade deals would see the UK very much the junior partner as we're run roughshod over to the detriment of UK domestic industry and our 'european-style' product regulations).

Just as a general note though:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7798076.html

Mr Davis 'i'll make the biggest row of summer to make sure we don't follow the EU's negotiating structure and/or admit we owe them a divorce bill'... has in the first few hours of negotiations u-turned on his own statement and completely caved. You know its 'bad' when even the Daily Mail is pointing out he's caved in and given the EU literally everything they wanted from this opening bought without any of his promised 'row'. The UK will now follow the EU's timetable of sequential and not parallel format- which is to our detriment as it weakens an already position further, and also points towards the UK accepting we owe the EU a lot of money to leave.

Its amusing that the Conservatives time and time again stated 'Corbyn would cave on the first day'... bit awkward. I'll be interested to see the brexiteer backlash as this seems to set the tone for whats going to happen- one of their own seems to be trying to pursue the 'soft' approach.

In general terms though i'll make a crystal-ball prediction now and am going to put down the coming EU negotiations as being the modern day 'Suez crisis' for Britain- when an overestimation of international power comes bang up against the reality of geopolitics. We are very much at the mercy of the EU- brexit will not be negotiated by Britain, but dictated by the EU over how and what form it will take for us, and in the process the further decline of British geopolitical importance will be highlighted i think.

Also what this and the failed election (from a Conservative point if view) should show is that the Conservatives alone are not the ones to do brexit, they are the worst and arguably weakest option, and now have no real mandate with the DUP further complicating a bitter internal dispute in the party about brexit- it needs to be cross-party now- not only is that what i think the results of the General election were crying out for (right now May is finished as leader- particularly after the last few days- she is the centerpiece though that both the hard-right brexiteers and newly empowered remainers/soft brexiters are fighting over- both sides threatening to topple her and/or the Tories if things don't go there way- the Conservative party is a split mess)- thus this mess is not the right group to do it alone as they are and will continue to put party politics ahead of the national interest. It should be cross-party matter, with no more messing around and pretending we have a powerful hand that needs 'hiding' the Tories have jack-- the election rather saw to that, we have about 1 dubious card to play and that's the 'we have a horrific trade imbalance with you guys- we buy stuff' - which to be spun as any real kind of strength is ridiculous. We need to do as one Greek finance minister who had also negotiated with the EU (famous guy- whose name i typically cannot recall alas) said, and that is to go into the talks openly, recognize the EU's strength and lay out straight away a fair offer- no holding out for better, just go straight out with it, and build from there- if the EU want to punish us, they will and there is nothing we can do about it, likewise if they want a fair deal- that's what they'll get, but it'll all be on there terms. We have to now accept that reality and stop the silly political posturing for domestic politics (which lets face it, hasn't done the Tories any favours electorally anyway...)

[Cyclops]

... the 'most likely' version- that being Norway will see the UK still adopting most EU regulations and rules and freedom of movement etc...but now with no say in how their formed. Hard brexit is as it presents its own set of economic issues (key being the UK service industry and what's left of our manufacturing base really needs markets whose participants have a high level of disposable income to compensate..and if we're trading with the EU on WTO rules, we're in trouble there as its either China- who are hugely protectionist, or the US who are all too willing to sign a free trade deal with the UK, which judging on all other US trade deals would see the UK very much the junior partner as we're run roughshod over to the detriment of UK domestic industry and our 'european-style' product regulations)....

Ouch. We signed a number of trade deal with the US and we have benefited less than them: for all Trumps about "worst deals ever" the US usually wins massively on its trade deals.

The economic benefits of existing the free trade zone are just so huge, its made thew whole of Europe better off. Were the benefits really being siphoned off to a few fat cats? Do people think the economic growth was the result of Maggie Thatcher rather than Brussels? Do they think the crash started with Merkel rather than in Wall Street? Leaving the EU because of the GFC is like punching your boss because your girlfriend stole your credit card.

[hellheaven1987]

I though there was a soft "sign a lot of treaties so we're still largely "in" Europe and get the trade and travel benefits" Brexit as opposed to the "the wall is up" hard Brexit?

Negotiation is two parties, not one; even British wants a "soft" approach, EU, particularly powerful secondary members such as Poland,would not let UK go off easily. It is pretty clear Brussels' message is "either you don't leave, or prepare a hard ride."

[L'Ost]

In 2016, 254% raise in british asking french nationality, apparently duy to Brexit. 2017 is expected
http://www.lemonde.fr/referendum-sur-le-brexit/article/2017/06/19/hausse-de-254-du-nombre-de-britanniques-demandant-la-nationalite-francaise-en-2016_5147585_4872498.html

Another raise in 2017 is expected.

Also in 2016, 361% raise for british asking german nationality.

[Adar]

Just as a general note though:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7798076.html

Mr Davis 'i'll make the biggest row of summer to make sure we don't follow the EU's negotiating structure and/or admit we owe them a divorce bill'... has in the first few hours of negotiations u-turned on his own statement and completely caved. You know its 'bad' when even the Daily Mail is pointing out he's caved in and given the EU literally everything they wanted from this opening bought without any of his promised 'row'. The UK will now follow the EU's timetable of sequential and not parallel format- which is to our detriment as it weakens an already position further, and also points towards the UK accepting we owe the EU a lot of money to leave.

I commented on the this already in April. As soon as the UK invoked article 50 it went onto a path where it got absolutely no leverage to control the negotiations. The entire leaving process is rigged to make it impossible to leave the EU on good terms as it is consciously made too short for meaningful negotiations. By invoking article 50 UK effectively agreed to play a rigged game which it cannot win and the EU refusing negotiations in parallell is just the diplomatic equivalent of pissing on the UK to show dominance, the fact that even Mr Davis kneels and take it in the face just underlines how utterly crap the UK negotiation position is. In any other century the only rational thing to do was to start blockading enemy ports. But the UK does no longer have even that opportunity anymore.

My sympathy for the British Brexit fans and politicians who allowed/made it happen is minimal. But it is painful to see it all play out as expected as it strengthens the EU federalists.

[L'Ost]

The entire leaving process is rigged to make it impossible to leave the EU on good terms as it is consciously made too short for meaningful negotiations.

Another UK whine.
EU is waiting for you since 24th june of 2016, then there was Cameron saying "next autumn", then "begining of 2017" then "who cares anyway it'll be hard brexit" then "after legislatives" then now, "uh-oh, we have no time left, this is a conspiracy !".

Look at you, UK !

By pride, they seeked hard Brexit (that was before understanding hard brexit serves the best the strongest, so EU's interest there), so everyone should be happy then ?

There is a card to play in Soft Brexit, as it works toward the interest of France (nobody wants a tramp neighborhood) and UK, whereas hard brexit only serves EU's interests as a whole because EU can act as a scavenger of UK's economy with one signature (by removing the ability of a foreign country to be the main market for bonds in Euro - we're talking about Euro's sovereignty there : EU can't allow manipulation of the Euro by a third party, esp UK which always considered blackmail as a valid diplomacy trick, AND THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE MAIN RISK FOR UK).
Financial services represent 29% of British exports, 13% of its GDP. It is an unquantified part of the trust of world banks put toward the sterling pound.
If they lose exports then trust in £ drop, £ goes down in value and UK already importing everything would pay with toilet paper.

They have to play wise. Bluffing, whining or hard brexit goes nowhere this time.

UK should ask Farage the trader expert, he's the white knight who vainquished EU slavery, only to replace it by banking slavery.
He should know what to do next since it was his plan to begin with.

[caratacus]

UK should ask Farage the trader expert, he's the white knight who vainquished EU slavery, only to replace it by banking slavery.
He should know what to do next since it was his plan to begin with.

That's rich coming from someone who's country just voted in a banker's puppet.

Who is behind the new President of France Emmanuel Macron?
http://europeanpost.co/who-is-behind...manuel-macron/
"Emmanuel Macron, the new President of France, will be the main protagonist in the European and International politics in the upcoming years. He is considered to be the ‘new‘ man. The man who will save the European Union from ‘populists’ and ‘eurosceptic’ movements."

But is he really independent? Wikileaks disseminated the list of some of his main and most famous financiers:
Soros: 2 365 910,16 €
David Rothschild: 976 126,87 €
Goldman-Sachs: 2 145 100 €
Obama: 10 654 €

There is no hard or soft Brexit for the British people, only exit from the EU, the type of EU Macon and his backers want.

[Adar]

Another UK whine.
EU is waiting for you since 24th june of 2016, then there was Cameron saying "next autumn", then "begining of 2017" then "who cares anyway it'll be hard brexit" then "after legislatives" then now, "uh-oh, we have no time left, this is a conspiracy !".

Look at you, UK !

By pride, they seeked hard Brexit (that was before understanding hard brexit serves the best the strongest, so EU's interest there), so everyone should be happy then ?

There is a card to play in Soft Brexit, as it works toward the interest of France (nobody wants a tramp neighborhood) and UK, whereas hard brexit only serves EU's interests as a whole because EU can act as a scavenger of UK's economy with one signature (by removing the ability of a foreign country to be the main market for bonds in Euro - we're talking about Euro's sovereignty there : EU can't allow manipulation of the Euro by a third party, esp UK which always considered blackmail as a valid diplomacy trick, AND THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE MAIN RISK FOR UK).
Financial services represent 29% of British exports, 13% of its GDP. It is an unquantified part of the trust of world banks put toward the sterling pound.
If they lose exports then trust in £ drop, £ goes down in value and UK already importing everything would pay with toilet paper.

They have to play wise. Bluffing, whining or hard brexit goes nowhere this time.

UK should ask Farage the trader expert, he's the white knight who vainquished EU slavery, only to replace it by banking slavery.
He should know what to do next since it was his plan to begin with.

I think you need to reread my post again as:
1) I am Swedish.
2) My major point is that the British are really ing themselves up right now.

I am not a fan of a federalist EU and I think the regulations for leaving the EU are a massive scam made to placate the masses while pushing through the Lisbon treaty. That does however not mean that I am against the European Union or believe that Brexit is a good idea.

[L'Ost]

That's rich coming from someone who's country just voted in a banker's puppet.

At least we're not the one surrending to global finance there. I guess M. Farage should be saying something among the lines of "please buy pounds in pounds", no ? UK is ed up by banks.

Superb list from 8 may, coming right from Macron volontars proactivly leaking redacted material to wikileaks, or letting stupid redacted stuff on their site ready to be hacked. Or just made up by a salty Trumpist / Brexiter / whatever.
You should file a claim right away, since all of those amounts are illegal, even if your very documented article say otherwise. Maximum in France is 7500€ / person a year. Filing a claim is free here.

Go on, I'm watching.

Though I've got to warn you that fake news, fake denonciation or slandering are infractions here. You'd better be sure.

Sarkozy is struggling in justice with a sticky 50.000 euros donation from Bettencourt since 2007. Thinking our 4th secret service in France, Tracfin, which worries about finance, would be noobs & feared the president, is coming from a very undocumented person to the very least.
-edit- at least if you want a scandal on him, find a real one:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/le-s...-las-vegas.php

I think the regulations for leaving the EU are a massive scam made to placate the masses while pushing through the Lisbon treaty.

UK & 27 others agreed on Lisbon. UK voted Brexit, rules did not changed and were known by then.
Nobody changes the rules of a game while playing it, even if it's a national sport in UK.

Now the best interest for both neighborhood countries & UK is UK doesn't transform as a dumpster. So soft brexit.
Best interest of the economical EU block of 27 is to play a vulture game with UK : raising nat. UK pride into making people think hard brexit is a good thing only finishes as the queen of United Kingdom sitting on a trash pile because as an importation country UK need bank trust and AAA rates more than anything to have high pound value.

This is basic economy and if Farage had a single neuron of talent he, or some of his buddies, should have though of & solved that problem since 10 years.
UK should ask the guy, and I'm not joking. I don't know what could be worse than the situation they are in anyway.

[Cyclops]

Negotiation is two parties, not one; even British wants a "soft" approach, EU, particularly powerful secondary members such as Poland,would not let UK go off easily. It is pretty clear Brussels' message is "either you don't leave, or prepare a hard ride."

Yes I was clear on that point, its a matter of whether Britain asks for one kick in the teeth, or two.

[Love Mountain]

Yes I was clear on that point, its a matter of whether Britain asks for one kick in the teeth, or two.

And even then the EU may decide to give it three. Oh well, at least its not my country that ed up this time. It's nice to eat popcorn for once.

[Adar]

UK & 27 others agreed on Lisbon. UK voted Brexit, rules did not changed and were known by then.
Nobody changes the rules of a game while playing it, even if it's a national sport in UK.

Now the best interest for both neighborhood countries & UK is UK doesn't transform as a dumpster. So soft brexit.
Best interest of the economical EU block of 27 is to play a vulture game with UK : raising nat. UK pride into making people think hard brexit is a good thing only finishes as the queen of United Kingdom sitting on a trash pile because as an importation country UK need bank trust and AAA rates more than anything to have high pound value.

This is basic economy and if Farage had a single neuron of talent he, or some of his buddies, should have though of & solved that problem since 10 years.
UK should ask the guy, and I'm not joking. I don't know what could be worse than the situation they are in anyway.

You are confusing two issues here.

1) The Lisbon treaty.

2) How the UK decided to leave the EU according to the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon treaty was ratified by politicians but got no real popular support. As long as there is a relative political harmony among EU leaders it will remain in place but it will be ignored or bypassed just as easily as any economic stability pact if the major powers in the EU say so.

My criticism of the UK is based on the fact that they went about Brexit in the dumbest way possible. From a constitutional perspective the Teresa May was not obliged to invoke Article 50 due to the referendum. Not doing it sooner or later would be political suicide but she rushed the process and invoked it without any preparations for the fact that the entire process is set up to make negotiations impossible to do well for the leaving nation.

EU leaders want a quick Brexit so they can get on with their United States of Europe vision but even if they refused to negotiate prior to invoking article 50 there were strong incentives for the UK to take it slowly. The promises by the Brexit campaign were a joke and its entire leadership fled the political scene as soon as they realised what they had done. So regardless of what the EU federalists wanted it would have made sense for May to take her time to set up a negotiation team (which the UK lack), deal with technicalities such as parallell negotiations, and vote against any budget increases for the next EU budget period to reduce the EU bill demanded by the EU negotiators.

Unfortunately May instead decided to rush the process to make sure that angry voters would not claim that she, as a Bremainer, was trying to undermine the result of the referendum. In the short term I believe that her quick actions helped her on the domestic level. But with Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the opposition and the Brexit leaders fleeing the team no one would have been able to make a credible challenge to her position if she declared that she would invoke Article 50 as soon as certain criteria were met.

[L'Ost]

You are confusing two issues here.

1) The Lisbon treaty.

2) How the UK decided to leave the EU according to the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon treaty was ratified by politicians but got no real popular support. As long as there is a relative political harmony among EU leaders it will remain in place but it will be ignored or bypassed just as easily as any economic stability pact if the major powers in the EU say so.

This is a constitutional treaty, don't forget that. It is not a small treaty you can bypass easilly.
You can't ignore/bypass it without amending it, and this is a slow process since it needs to enter the constitutions of most problematic of the 27+1. Like Ireland or France for exemple, which can block the out of this project.

I'm quite confident that this would never be voted in France just to ease UK - an UK joke with our constitution would be very costy for the semi-existant UK diplomacy there, and could cost a government to Macron, which is his new shiny toy.

My criticism of the UK is based on the fact that they went about Brexit in the dumbest way possible. From a constitutional perspective the Teresa May was not obliged to invoke Article 50 due to the referendum. Not doing it sooner or later would be political suicide but she rushed the process

Because they pushed delays at least 5 times. Cameron 3 times, then May 2 times, stating international tells in plain peak level of Brexit euphoria.
First thing they did is not paying the bills in the process because it boosted inner moral : why did you think EU pressed them ?

and invoked it without any preparations for the fact that the entire process is set up to make negotiations impossible to do well for the leaving nation.

Funny thing is I remember the making of #50 is a UK request.
It can be okay if you are not jokers and prepared. Truth is it is a massive comedy, to implode EU if France choosed Frexit so that they can't be called the responsibles. We saw them begging for it during all of our last elections all over the internet.
There you have an inner political situation that involves 27 other countries in a made-in-UK . I say either they are serious now or let them die.

EU leaders want a quick Brexit so they can get on with their United States of Europe vision but even if they refused to negotiate prior to invoking article 50 there were strong incentives for the UK to take it slowly. The promises by the Brexit campaign were a joke and its entire leadership fled the political scene as soon as they realised what they had done. So regardless of what the EU federalists wanted it would have made sense for May to take her time to set up a negotiation team (which the UK lack)

Yeah, but still they had to pay to buy time when they didn't. Why do you think EU be kind with an unpaying customer. Those guys gets ousted in most situations, right ?

deal with technicalities such as parallell negotiations

Unconstitutional, problem solved.
This is written black on white in the treaty. No country is allowed to have a one to one agrement on a foreign country in the EU block.
If you want to revise that, ask France & Ireland & other nay-sayers to put this in their Constitutions.

It is not "technical", it is unconstitutional. So of no legal value : you can't write a commercial treaty if it have no legal value in one side and can be voided in approximativly a week here by any citizen, it would be dangerous for all parties.

and vote against any budget increases for the next EU budget period to reduce the EU bill demanded by the EU negotiators.

I agree but not only that. By not triggering 50, they could parasite the EU so we lose time when EU needs it in the next 4 years for the Trump reason.
Because the guy will probably need 1 or 2 EU reaction in the next few years, and UK wanting a new bff could even be a better US trojan than they are today.
EU doesn't only press because it's fun to be unpaid, EU press also because it's a matter of survival in the UK situation they are ingeneering.

Unfortunately May instead decided to rush the process to make sure that angry voters would not claim that she, as a Bremainer, was trying to undermine the result of the referendum. In the short term I believe that her quick actions helped her on the domestic level. But with Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the opposition and the Brexit leaders fleeing the team no one would have been able to make a credible challenge to her position if she declared that she would invoke Article 50 as soon as certain criteria were met.

How typical, not very courageous and very disapointing of them.
Someone say in England and nobody takes a responsibility : "perfide Albion" french caricature in its whole splendor.

This UK attitude consisting of shoting themselves in the foot, blaming the others who asked for nothing in the first place then requiring repair is an unacceptable joke in diplomatic levels.

I predict the next joke in the next 5 years is them asking for financial trust for the pound. I wish them luck for that because the UK bride is quite ugly today and could grow a small pox reputation.

[Adar]

This is a constitutional treaty, don't forget that. It is not a small treaty you can bypass easilly.
You can't ignore/bypass it without amending it, and this is a slow process since it needs to enter the constitutions of most problematic of the 27+1. Like Ireland or France for exemple, which can block the out of this project.

I'm quite confident that this would never be voted in France just to ease UK - an UK joke with our constitution would be very costy for the semi-existant UK diplomacy there, and could cost a government to Macron, which is his new shiny toy.

No one is arguing that the Lisbon treaty should be changed. It will however be thrown on the scrap heap as soon as major EU powers such as France decide that it does not fit their national interests. Furthermore it is only relevant after a country has invoked article 50 and it does not go into technical details such as parallell vs serial negotiations.

Unconstitutional, problem solved.
This is written black on white in the treaty. No country is allowed to have a one to one agrement on a foreign country in the EU block.
If you want to revise that, ask France & Ireland & other nay-sayers to put this in their Constitutions.

It is not "technical", it is unconstitutional. So of no legal value : you can't write a commercial treaty if it have no legal value in one side and can be voided in approximativly a week here by any citizen, it would be dangerous for all parties.


I agree but not only that. By not triggering 50, they could parasite the EU so we lose time when EU needs it in the next 4 years for the Trump reason.
Because the guy will probably need 1 or 2 EU reaction in the next few years, and UK wanting a new bff could even be a better US trojan than they are today.
EU doesn't only press because it's fun to be unpaid, EU press also because it's a matter of survival in the UK situation they are ingeneering.

How typical, not very courageous and very disapointing of them.
Someone say in England and nobody takes a responsibility : "perfide Albion" french caricature in its whole splendor.

This UK attitude consisting of shoting themselves in the foot, blaming the others who asked for nothing in the first place then requiring repair is an unacceptable joke in diplomatic levels.

I predict the next joke in the next 5 years is them asking for financial trust for the pound. I wish them luck for that because the UK bride is quite ugly today and could grow a small pox reputation.

Britains current problem is that there is no way for them to assemble a negotiation team and conclude negotiations within 2 years. It is not possible from purely practical aspects and will also fail as they have absolutely no diplomatic leverage as evidenced by Davis actions.

EU federalists would have been very upset about Britain delaying Brexit but all they would have to offer is hot air with little practical implications for Britain. Its not unconstitutional at all to discuss technical details such as how the negotiations should be performed prior to invoking article 50 (feel free to look for yourself in article 50 and article 218 that describe negotiations). Furthermore any delaying action would most likely have very minor national repercussions as the average Joe in Europe range from mildly positive to negative in their view of the European Union, meaning that there is little or no support for punitive expeditions against Britain.



So even if Britain had delayed invoking article 50 for purely domestic purposes it would have been advantageous for them compared to the current mess where they constantly shoot themselves in the foot, knee caps and abdomen out of some kind of misplaced national pride and having a prime minister desperate to look strong.

[L'Ost]

Still, "No T-bagging after that crap" is a legitimate EU request.
UK wants to be out, this is ok already but they have to grow a respectability in terms of how they adress to the world and are to start cutting the whines from their diplomatic arsenal right away.
I tell this in their best interest : nobody wants to do business with a whiner.

We can consider the whole agreement void until said otherwise. This is what told Davis yesterday.
So in substance we shouldn't really expect something coming out of this mascarade and why should we move then.

They will continue to shoot all by themselves in the exiting foot like that for the next year. This is an expensive show but at least angry englishmen are always quite funny to watch. Then it'll be panic mode and the cook is ready.
Is that really what UK wants because they are freewheeling since a year ? Where is British's legendary phlegm ?

Or, UK start to work seriously and we can agree for a longer time than 2 years (this what will imo happen : 50.3 : "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.").

[hellheaven1987]

There is a card to play in Soft Brexit, as it works toward the interest of France (nobody wants a tramp neighborhood) and UK, whereas hard brexit only serves EU's interests as a whole because EU can act as a scavenger of UK's economy with one signature (by removing the ability of a foreign country to be the main market for bonds in Euro - we're talking about Euro's sovereignty there : EU can't allow manipulation of the Euro by a third party, esp UK which always considered blackmail as a valid diplomacy trick, AND THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE MAIN RISK FOR UK).
Financial services represent 29% of British exports, 13% of its GDP. It is an unquantified part of the trust of world banks put toward the sterling pound.
If they lose exports then trust in £ drop, £ goes down in value and UK already importing everything would pay with toilet paper.

Yes but unfortunately it is not strictly relating with economy only; French government is afraid that by championing soft Brexit it would give a wrong message to the homefront that leaving EU has few penalty, hence help the Euroscepticism and rising the popular support of FN. It would also endager France's leader position in EU, as powerful secondary powers such as Poland would be dissatisfied with French's soft approach. Those concerns would mean that France would not have an united homefront regarding Brexit, and unless a compromise is reached, France probably would not lead the negotiation process due to lack of clear policy.