The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
A strong third place by the AfD with maybe the CDU ousting Merkel could see it happen
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
Proportional representation. What's not to like?
Italy - between 1950 and 1980 - essentially had no government. It was a period of peace and extraordinary economic development.
There is an extraordinary mass delusion that governments somehow improve the well being of their citizens. As PJ O'Rourke puts it: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
We know that anarchy in southern europe is a plus for southern europe, but I don't think anarchy in Germany is a plus for them, though a weak Germany is certainly a plus for Britain.
Assuming the CSU/CDU is 12% ahead of the second placed party, I just don't see how they aren't in power; the only question is who their coalition partners are.
If the SPD really do (understandably!) refuse to enter another coalition, then, looking at the percentages, I guess the Jamaica option is indeed the only plausible outcome. It'll certainly be interesting!
Assuming the CSU/CDU is 12% ahead of the second placed party, I just don't see how they aren't in power; the only question is who their coalition partners are.
That is true, but if the CSU leaves the coalition the CDU on it's own would struggle with the SPD for first.
And then what if the CSU decides to switch coalition partners with the AFD, in that case you would have 3 party blocks (SPD, CDU, CSU/AFD) being almost even with around 25% each.
One thing about Gary Johnson making a fool of himself on TV about Aleppo.
Johnson is the candidate for smart decent people who are students and are on the internet. If Johnson is proven to be an idiot those people will go for Hillary, because although she is a crook she is deemed as smart.
The reason why Trump is losing college educated people, especially younger ones, is that he answers every question like an idiot (and racism too), and that makes the know-all internet crowd furious (see Johnson and Aleppo).
The lesson from this is that after G.W.Bush the american people will not vote for someone who sounds like an idiot for President, that's another problem for Trump, he needs to sound smart on TV.
Plenty of libertarians voted for George W Bush, they will not vote for Hillary even if they refuse to vote for Trump
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
A strong third place by the AfD with maybe the CDU ousting Merkel could see it happen
It's a stretch though. Take the average of the last three polls, and then add 5% to the AfD, and you get about 32% CDU, 15% AfD... and that's still not enough for power.
And then what if the CSU decides to switch coalition partners with the AFD, in that case you would have 3 party blocks (SPD, CDU, CSU/AFD) being almost even with around 25% each.
That's far more unthinkable than the Greens and the FDP being in coalition together.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
That's unlikely. We'll agree to the unequal and slightly crap trade deal that we get from the EU because it is better for both parties than not having it.
Which will require some free movement even if controlled
One thing about Gary Johnson making a fool of himself on TV about Aleppo.
Johnson is the candidate for smart decent people who are students and are on the internet. If Johnson is proven to be an idiot those people will go for Hillary, because although she is a crook she is deemed as smart.
The reason why Trump is losing college educated people, especially younger ones, is that he answers every question like an idiot (and racism too), and that makes the know-all internet crowd furious (see Johnson and Aleppo).
The lesson from this is that after G.W.Bush the american people will not vote for someone who sounds like an idiot for President, that's another problem for Trump, he needs to sound smart on TV.
Plenty of libertarians voted for George W Bush, they will not vote for Hillary even if they refuse to vote for Trump
But that was BEFORE G.W.Bush was a proven disaster.
Texas price has gone, but I've ensured a £10 free bet at the cost of 25 pence whilst looking like a regular customer..
It's not possible to bet on such things whilst "looking like a regular customer". Regular customers bet on football.
As a matter of interest, what alogarithims to bookies use to pick out customers that they would rather shed?
I bet on football and occassionally on other non-political markets, but probably 50% of my betting is on politics, an area where I have turned a modest profit.
Assuming the CSU/CDU is 12% ahead of the second placed party, I just don't see how they aren't in power; the only question is who their coalition partners are.
That is true, but if the CSU leaves the coalition the CDU on it's own would struggle with the SPD for first.
And then what if the CSU decides to switch coalition partners with the AFD, in that case you would have 3 party blocks (SPD, CDU, CSU/AFD) being almost even with around 25% each.
The CSU, although it disagrees with Merkel's views on the migrants, is (if anything) more pro-European than the CDU. (Given it is basically funded by Siemens, BMW and Mercedes that is no surprise.)
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
The jumped up leaders of these feeble EU offices may wish to "send a message" - but the board of directors of BMW certainly don't - they want to sell cars in the Uk and if a few Latvians can't pick turnips in Norfolk without a work permit then that will be a price worth paying for them.
Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access
@weejonnie Since an MP was murdered this year by someone who might very well have been attracted by a right wing Momentum, I'm not sure how you can be quite so confident about that.
I see Gove is the Telegraph's new book reviewer. Why is it never enough for these people to 'just' be an MP and spend their days legislating and helping constituents?
His staff budget is the same as just an MP as it was when he was a minister. As such he now has a lot of spare time as a lot of his MP work has been delegated for years to people who know what they are doing...
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
Proportional representation. What's not to like?
Italy - between 1950 and 1980 - essentially had no government. It was a period of peace and extraordinary economic development.
There is an extraordinary mass delusion that governments somehow improve the well being of their citizens. As PJ O'Rourke puts it: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
It is noticeable that since being led by an eccentric billionaire with a taste for younger women and dodgy hair that Italy went downhill. Hard to think of a contemporary country that would do such a thing though.
But a right-wing Momentum won't be sending death threats or threatening violence to MPs.
Their enemies will just mysteriously disappear instead.
I really don't get this idea about keeping another party true or whatever, it doesn't work like that. The SWP never kept labour 'true', for example, they were just easy to point at saying 'look, they're extremists'.
Indeed, with the flamin' galahs that are the Aussies prioritising the EU over us, brace yourselves.
They're telling the EU that they're prioritising them over us.
That ain't the same thing at all.
Who anyone is 'prioritising' is entirely beside the point, unless they only have one negotiator and one phone line. It's whether the two parties can reach agreement that dictates the speed of a deal.
Two parties in the case of Australia and the UK. Effectively twenty-eight with Australia and rEU.
Even with a two year headstart there's a good chance an Australia-EU deal will be completed later, if at all.
Yep, it was 10/1 a couple of days ago. A bit of a snip, I think.
Asked for £40 on that and got it - only requires Trump to lose Georgia and North Carolina (Which are both TCTC) and the rest of the states to "fall naturally"
It is noticeable that since being led by an eccentric billionaire with a taste for younger women and dodgy hair that Italy went downhill. Hard to think of a contemporary country that would do such a thing though.
America has been on the downhill 16 years beforehand though.
Speaking of which, a good poll for Trump in N.Carolina:
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
The jumped up leaders of these feeble EU offices may wish to "send a message" - but the board of directors of BMW certainly don't - they want to sell cars in the Uk and if a few Latvians can't pick turnips in Norfolk without a work permit then that will be a price worth paying for them.
Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access
Please define, "Single Market Access", you keep using this term in your posts on here but I do not know what you mean by it. Does Korea have, "Single Market Access"? How about the USA, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and so on?
The only reason I ask is all those countries seem to be able to sell into the single market and sell very successfully but none of them have to accept free movement of people from the EU countries.
It is noticeable that since being led by an eccentric billionaire with a taste for younger women and dodgy hair that Italy went downhill. Hard to think of a contemporary country that would do such a thing though.
Shame Berlusconi only first became prime minister in 1994, some 14 years after the period specified. Rather ruins your clever point, Doc.
Mr. Eagles, that's as comical as the 2008 (or so) poll that forecast a majority of about 200 seats for the Conservatives (it was around the time Brown led Labour to a polling share of 19%).
Indeed, with the flamin' galahs that are the Aussies prioritising the EU over us, brace yourselves.
They're telling the EU that they're prioritising them over us.
That ain't the same thing at all.
Who anyone is 'prioritising' is entirely beside the point, unless they only have one negotiator and one phone line. It's whether the two parties can reach agreement that dictates the speed of a deal.
Two parties in the case of Australia and the UK. Effectively twenty-eight with Australia and rEU.
Even with a two year headstart there's a good chance an Australia-EU deal will be completed later, if at all.
Indeed. Soothing words to make them feel good, also known as diplomacy.
It is noticeable that since being led by an eccentric billionaire with a taste for younger women and dodgy hair that Italy went downhill. Hard to think of a contemporary country that would do such a thing though.
Shame Berlusconi only first became prime minister in 1994, some 14 years after the period specified. Rather ruins your clever point, Doc.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
That's unlikely. We'll agree to the unequal and slightly crap trade deal that we get from the EU because it is better for both parties than not having it.
Which will require some free movement even if controlled
I am trying to recall my workplace in the early 1990's where we had many EEC employees. At that time they had to have some kind of permit to work here, I am pretty sure. I don't recall it being difficult to get but there was a process to go through.
It is noticeable that since being led by an eccentric billionaire with a taste for younger women and dodgy hair that Italy went downhill. Hard to think of a contemporary country that would do such a thing though.
Shame Berlusconi only first became prime minister in 1994, some 14 years after the period specified. Rather ruins your clever point, Doc.
Italy's growth since 1994 has still been derisory. Probably the worst in the EU, even from five or six years before they joined the Eurozone.
He did - of course - spend a lot of his time in power attempting to avoid prosecution for things in his business past.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is noticeable that since being led by an eccentric billionaire with a taste for younger women and dodgy hair that Italy went downhill. Hard to think of a contemporary country that would do such a thing though.
I looked into it once. It was uncanny how closely Italy's relative decline was correlated to Berlusconi's time in office. When he was in office Italy did worse than other countries. When he was out it did better again for a while. People want to buy the snake oil. Same with Trump.
Mr. Speedy, not my area, but someone on Twitter reckons the removal of the earphone socket is because it was being used for 'other' things which were not Apple-made/controlled/sold. And zis cannot be permitted.
''Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access ''
Well Hollande is gone. Renzi recently put back a referendum, presumably in the desperate hope that something, anything, might turn up. And Merkel is looking over her shoulder as the calls on immigration grow ever shriller.
Will these political zombies really fight so hard, even if they are still there when it comes to it?
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
Rob, don't you mean 'the withdrawal by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the treaties that constitute the European Union, namely the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon'?
''Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access ''
Well Hollande is gone. Renzi recently put back a referendum, presumably in the desperate hope that something, anything, might turn up. And Merkel is looking over her shoulder as the calls on immigration grow ever shriller.
Will these political zombies really fight so hard, even if they are still there when it comes to it?
My wife voted Leave in large part because she wanted to shock the EU into reform.
She finds it incredible that their first instinct is to believe it's Britain's problem, not theirs, and to position to punish it, rather than ask themselves why the EU was so unattractive one of its three largest members has just voted to Leave it.
And she can't, for the life of her, understand why Juncker is still there or what would make him go.
It is noticeable that since being led by an eccentric billionaire with a taste for younger women and dodgy hair that Italy went downhill. Hard to think of a contemporary country that would do such a thing though.
Shame Berlusconi only first became prime minister in 1994, some 14 years after the period specified. Rather ruins your clever point, Doc.
''Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access ''
Well Hollande is gone. Renzi recently put back a referendum, presumably in the desperate hope that something, anything, might turn up. And Merkel is looking over her shoulder as the calls on immigration grow ever shriller.
Will these political zombies really fight so hard, even if they are still there when it comes to it?
Juppe and Macron would be the same and maybe Sarkozy, only Le Pen and 5☆ in Italy different and AfD in Germany
This has James Goldsmith's Referendum Party written all over it. Mind you, it lasted 3 years.
James Goldsmith's Referendum Party established the principle that major European issues required referendums. That kept us out of the euro and led indirectly to the Leave vote.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
Rob, don't you mean 'the withdrawal by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the treaties that constitute the European Union, namely the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon'?
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
The jumped up leaders of these feeble EU offices may wish to "sendrth paying for them.
Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access
Please define, "Single Market Access", you keep using this term in your posts on here but I do not know what you mean by it. Does Korea have, "Single Market Access"? How about the USA, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and so on?
The only reason I ask is all those countries seem to be able to sell into the single market and sell very successfully but none of them have to accept free movement of people from the EU countries.
None were in the EU; UK was so will face goods restrictions if no free movement
Mr. Speedy, not my area, but someone on Twitter reckons the removal of the earphone socket is because it was being used for 'other' things which were not Apple-made/controlled/sold. And zis cannot be permitted.
Yes, with the earphone socket you can power an accessory without paying a licence fee to Apple, but without it, you need to pay $4 a pop to use the lightning port.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Which is their opening negotiating position. Have you ever held negotiations? You never open with your real bottom line.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
Rob, don't you mean 'the withdrawal by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the treaties that constitute the European Union, namely the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon'?
Mr. Speedy, not my area, but someone on Twitter reckons the removal of the earphone socket is because it was being used for 'other' things which were not Apple-made/controlled/sold. And zis cannot be permitted.
Yes, with the earphone socket you can power an accessory without paying a licence fee to Apple, but without it, you need to pay $4 a pop to use the lightning port.
This has James Goldsmith's Referendum Party written all over it. Mind you, it lasted 3 years.
James Goldsmith's Referendum Party established the principle that major European issues required referendums. That kept us out of the euro and led indirectly to the Leave vote.
They may have lasted only 3 years, but they won.
They and UKIP have certainly shown that it is possible to achieve great things in British politics despite not entering or barely entering Parliament.
Mr. Speedy, not my area, but someone on Twitter reckons the removal of the earphone socket is because it was being used for 'other' things which were not Apple-made/controlled/sold. And zis cannot be permitted.
Yes, with the earphone socket you can power an accessory without paying a licence fee to Apple, but without it, you need to pay $4 a pop to use the lightning port.
And yet the physical size of the phone is still one of the largest that's on the market for the screen size. Perhaps their engineering isn't all its cracked up to be.
Mr. Speedy, not my area, but someone on Twitter reckons the removal of the earphone socket is because it was being used for 'other' things which were not Apple-made/controlled/sold. And zis cannot be permitted.
Yes, with the earphone socket you can power an accessory without paying a licence fee to Apple, but without it, you need to pay $4 a pop to use the lightning port.
And yet the physical size of the phone is still one of the largest that's on the market for the screen size. Perhaps their engineering isn't all its cracked up to be.
Mr. Speedy, not my area, but someone on Twitter reckons the removal of the earphone socket is because it was being used for 'other' things which were not Apple-made/controlled/sold. And zis cannot be permitted.
Yes, with the earphone socket you can power an accessory without paying a licence fee to Apple, but without it, you need to pay $4 a pop to use the lightning port.
And yet the physical size of the phone is still one of the largest that's on the market for the screen size. Perhaps their engineering isn't all its cracked up to be.
Do you mean the thickness or the size of screen?
Height and width. The iPhone has huge bezels compared to most modern premium smartphones and many have bigger screens.
Please define, "Single Market Access", you keep using this term in your posts on here but I do not know what you mean by it. Does Korea have, "Single Market Access"? How about the USA, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and so on?
The only reason I ask is all those countries seem to be able to sell into the single market and sell very successfully but none of them have to accept free movement of people from the EU countries.
In principle it means a company from the UK (before Brexit), Germany or Norway can carry out business in France, say, on an equal basis to a company in France itself. Just as as Scottish company can trade without barriers in England. The French government is not allowed to place any discriminatory regulations or charges in the way. Just as the UK is a single market, so is the EU. The reality isn't as perfect as that but it is a lot closer than it is for a company from the US, Australia or the UK after Brexit, who are all exporting from outside the market.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
I only ask because it isn't an acronym, unless the PB brain trust can come up with a good one for BREXIT?
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
Once he's made up his mind no amount of argument or facts will make him change. Don't you remember the "Corbyn needs MP nominations" farce?
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
Rob, don't you mean 'the withdrawal by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the treaties that constitute the European Union, namely the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon'?
Don't forget the Single European Act of 1986!
Sunil, I think that was superseded by Maastricht:
"The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement which amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Maastricht Treaty (1993), known in updated form as the Treaty on European Union (2007) or TEU, and the Treaty of Rome (1958), known in updated form as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2007) or TFEU."
A question on point of fact for anyone who knows the answer.
I see everywhere that it states that Brexit will take 'at least 2 years' from the time of invoking Article 50. This seems wrong to me on a prima facie reading of 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."
Clearly, it may be impractical to conclude the withdrawal agreement within 2 years, but at least it is not in theory impossible, hence presumably if an agreement were reached within 2 months of Article 50 notification with immediate entry into force, then presumably the UK would exit at that point well before the 2 years were up.
But what (no matter how unlikely this scenario is) if the UK decides that an acceptable negotiated treaty is not possible and that it will thus fall back on WTO terms. Can it announce (or indeed, can the EU announce) unilaterally that no agreement will be possible and that it will be leaving as of such and such a date before the 2 years are up? I don't see anything explicit to stop this in the language of Article 50, but perhaps there is something elsewhere in the EU treaties, unless you argue that Article 50 is x (negotiated agreement) or y (2 years) or z (extended negotiations).
Yeah but only a 10 point lead with Whites apparently which is bs when even Romney had 20% lead with Whites. Trump has not lost 10% of White voters wtf is this garbage poll LOL?
''Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access ''
Well Hollande is gone. Renzi recently put back a referendum, presumably in the desperate hope that something, anything, might turn up. And Merkel is looking over her shoulder as the calls on immigration grow ever shriller.
Will these political zombies really fight so hard, even if they are still there when it comes to it?
My wife voted Leave in large part because she wanted to shock the EU into reform.
She finds it incredible that their first instinct is to believe it's Britain's problem, not theirs, and to position to punish it, rather than ask themselves why the EU was so unattractive one of its three largest members has just voted to Leave it.
And she can't, for the life of her, understand why Juncker is still there or what would make him go.
Brexit could be a danger or an opportunity for the EU. The reason I voted Leave was I had come to think reform of the EU was impossible, because while with each crisis the right noises might be made about needing to listen and change some things, eventually things would right themselves and populism became a dirty word, talk of 'contagion' of eurosketicism spreading demonstrating that they reason there would be no change in direction as because despite occasionally saying they accepted the need for change, the bureaucrats and the leaders who support them don't believe they do need to change. They momentarily come to think they might to stave off trouble, then change their mind and go back to what they are doing.
Brexit, one would think, would be the one time they realize that this time they really do need to start accepting some changes. It should be easier since if the UK does suffer leaving is less attractive and also most nations would be easier to mollify than we would be, a change in direction would not need to be revolutionary. It could paradoxically become a union we might not find that objectionable (too late for us) and which could cement its progress for another generation.
But will they have the sense to see it? The temptation of everyone who has been shunned is a petulant 'we didn't you anyway, bugger off' attitude, but it's not sensible us or them to adopt such attitudes.
Yeah but only a 10 point lead with Whites apparently which is bs when even Romney had 20% lead with Whites. Trump has not lost 10% of White voters wtf is this garbage poll LOL?
Mr. Speedy, not my area, but someone on Twitter reckons the removal of the earphone socket is because it was being used for 'other' things which were not Apple-made/controlled/sold. And zis cannot be permitted.
Yes, with the earphone socket you can power an accessory without paying a licence fee to Apple, but without it, you need to pay $4 a pop to use the lightning port.
And yet the physical size of the phone is still one of the largest that's on the market for the screen size. Perhaps their engineering isn't all its cracked up to be.
Do you mean the thickness or the size of screen?
Height and width. The iPhone has huge bezels compared to most modern premium smartphones and many have bigger screens.
What we don't want is Apple inventing standards for hardware that others have to follow, as it'll increase the cost for everyone.
As an aside, the article linked to below said that headphone jacks had been around for well over 100 years, and one of the earliest electrical standards.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
No that is precisely the point. The Italian trade minister made clear on Monday the more the UK restricts freedom of movement of EU nationals to the UK the more the EU will restrict access of UK goods to the EU
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
Once he's made up his mind no amount of argument or facts will make him change. Don't you remember the "Corbyn needs MP nominations" farce?
That position was supported by almost half the NEC when voted on, it was politics that decided the outcome
''Regardless of what some BMW directors think, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande have all agreed that aceess to the single market depends on free movement, so the less free movement, the less single market access ''
Well Hollande is gone. Renzi recently put back a referendum, presumably in the desperate hope that something, anything, might turn up. And Merkel is looking over her shoulder as the calls on immigration grow ever shriller.
Will these political zombies really fight so hard, even if they are still there when it comes to it?
My wife voted Leave in large part because she wanted to shock the EU into reform.
She finds it incredible that their first instinct is to believe it's Britain's problem, not theirs, and to position to punish it, rather than ask themselves why the EU was so unattractive one of its three largest members has just voted to Leave it.
And she can't, for the life of her, understand why Juncker is still there or what would make him go.
Brexit could be a danger or an opportunity for the EU. The reason I voted Leave was I had come to think reform of the EU was impossible, because while with each crisis the right noises might be made about needing to listen and change some things, eventually things would right themselves and populism became a dirty word, talk of 'contagion' of eurosketicism spreading demonstrating that they reason there would be no change in direction as because despite occasionally saying they accepted the need for change, the bureaucrats and the leaders who support them don't believe they do need to change. They momentarily come to think they might to stave off trouble, then change their mind and go back to what they are doing.
Brexit, one would think, would be the one time they realize that this time they really do need to start accepting some changes. It should be easier since if the UK does suffer leaving is less attractive and also most nations would be easier to mollify than we would be, a change in direction would not need to be revolutionary. It could paradoxically become a union we might not find that objectionable (too late for us) and which could cement its progress for another generation.
But will they have the sense to see it? The temptation of everyone who has been shunned is a petulant 'we didn't you anyway, bugger off' attitude, but it's not sensible us or them to adopt such attitudes.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Which is their opening negotiating position. Have you ever held negotiations? You never open with your real bottom line.
The most likely outcome is limited single market access for limited free movement but what is clear is the UK will not get full single market access as it will put at least some controls on free movement
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Which is their opening negotiating position. Have you ever held negotiations? You never open with your real bottom line.
The most likely outcome is limited single market access for limited free movement but what is clear is the UK will not get full single market access as it will put at least some controls on free movement
I still don't think partial free movement is likely. We may want it, but I doubt the EU would accept.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
No that is precisely the point. The Italian trade minister made clear on Monday the more the UK restricts freedom of movement of EU nationals to the UK the more the EU will restrict access of UK goods to the EU
Remind me never to let you negotiate anything on my behalf.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
I only ask because it isn't an acronym, unless the PB brain trust can come up with a good one for BREXIT?
Jeremy Corbyn – Attended a grammar school. His son went to a grammar school. John McDonnell – Attended a grammar school. Seumas Milne – Sent both his son and daughter to grammar schools. Diane Abbott – Attended a grammar school and sent her son to a private school. Jon Trickett – Attended a grammar school. Grahame Morris – Attended a grammar school. Paul Flynn – Attended a grammar school.
A question on point of fact for anyone who knows the answer.
I see everywhere that it states that Brexit will take 'at least 2 years' from the time of invoking Article 50. This seems wrong to me on a prima facie reading of 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."
Clearly, it may be impractical to conclude the withdrawal agreement within 2 years, but at least it is not in theory impossible, hence presumably if an agreement were reached within 2 months of Article 50 notification with immediate entry into force, then presumably the UK would exit at that point well before the 2 years were up.
But what (no matter how unlikely this scenario is) if the UK decides that an acceptable negotiated treaty is not possible and that it will thus fall back on WTO terms. Can it announce (or indeed, can the EU announce) unilaterally that no agreement will be possible and that it will be leaving as of such and such a date before the 2 years are up? I don't see anything explicit to stop this in the language of Article 50, but perhaps there is something elsewhere in the EU treaties, unless you argue that Article 50 is x (negotiated agreement) or y (2 years) or z (extended negotiations).
Good question. I think Article 50 is indeed x or y or z. In particular, it empowers the parties to extend negotiations, but not to curtail them, and the negotiated agreement has to "set[ting] out the arrangements for [uk's] withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" - i.e. it has to be a substantive agreement; an agreement to disagree is probably not enough. As the 2 year period is intended to benefit all parties, I don't think one of them can unilaterally waive it.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
Once he's made up his mind no amount of argument or facts will make him change. Don't you remember the "Corbyn needs MP nominations" farce?
That position was supported by almost half the NEC when voted on, it was politics that decided the outcome
And the High Court judgment was but a scratch, was it?
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Which is their opening negotiating position. Have you ever held negotiations? You never open with your real bottom line.
The most likely outcome is limited single market access for limited free movement but what is clear is the UK will not get full single market access as it will put at least some controls on free movement
I still don't think partial free movement is likely. We may want it, but I doubt the EU would accept.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Which is their opening negotiating position. Have you ever held negotiations? You never open with your real bottom line.
The most likely outcome is limited single market access for limited free movement but what is clear is the UK will not get full single market access as it will put at least some controls on free movement
I still don't think partial free movement is likely. We may want it, but I doubt the EU would accept.
Then a trade war it is!
That will please German manufacturers and what is left of Italian Industry.
The EU has a lot more to lose if they want to be childish than we do.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
No that is precisely the point. The Italian trade minister made clear on Monday the more the UK restricts freedom of movement of EU nationals to the UK the more the EU will restrict access of UK goods to the EU
Remind me never to let you negotiate anything on my behalf.
You cannot negotiate beyond the other party's bottom line, the bottom line of the EU is that it will not accept restrictions on free movement without concurrent restrictions on the access of goods of the party imposing the restrictions, otherwise the core freedoms of the EU fall apart and any nation could leave the EU and pick from the freedoms a la carte
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
Once he's made up his mind no amount of argument or facts will make him change. Don't you remember the "Corbyn needs MP nominations" farce?
That position was supported by almost half the NEC when voted on, it was politics that decided the outcome
And the High Court judgment was but a scratch, was it?
That judgment upheld the NEC's narrow majority decision and was not appealed unlike the ruling on the date at which members needed to have registered to vote where the High Court decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, the NEC having appealed
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Once again, HYUFD demonstrating his extraordinary ability to miss the point.
No that is precisely the point. The Italian trade minister made clear on Monday the more the UK restricts freedom of movement of EU nationals to the UK the more the EU will restrict access of UK goods to the EU
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The EU have not made anything clear. They have stated an opening negotiating position. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have made clear single market access depends on free movement
Which is their opening negotiating position. Have you ever held negotiations? You never open with your real bottom line.
The most likely outcome is limited single market access for limited free movement but what is clear is the UK will not get full single market access as it will put at least some controls on free movement
I still don't think partial free movement is likely. We may want it, but I doubt the EU would accept.
Then a trade war it is!
That will please German manufacturers and what is left of Italian Industry.
The EU has a lot more to lose if they want to be childish than we do.
We will lose Japanese investment and much of Lloyds of London to the EU too if we get no single market membership and it would hit both our economies in a negative way
Jeremy Corbyn – Attended a grammar school. His son went to a grammar school. John McDonnell – Attended a grammar school. Seumas Milne – Sent both his son and daughter to grammar schools. Diane Abbott – Attended a grammar school and sent her son to a private school. Jon Trickett – Attended a grammar school. Grahame Morris – Attended a grammar school. Paul Flynn – Attended a grammar school.
To be fair to Jeremy Corbyn here, while his son went to a grammar school, he ended up divorcing his then wife over the issue because he was so viscerally opposed to selection.
Comments
I suspect few of his voters could mark it on a map either.
There is an extraordinary mass delusion that governments somehow improve the well being of their citizens. As PJ O'Rourke puts it: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
And then what if the CSU decides to switch coalition partners with the AFD, in that case you would have 3 party blocks (SPD, CDU, CSU/AFD) being almost even with around 25% each.
I bet on football and occassionally on other non-political markets, but probably 50% of my betting is on politics, an area where I have turned a modest profit.
I really don't get this idea about keeping another party true or whatever, it doesn't work like that. The SWP never kept labour 'true', for example, they were just easy to point at saying 'look, they're extremists'.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/nicola-sturgeon-and-yvette-cooper-offer-to-house-syrian-refugees
Speaking of which, a good poll for Trump in N.Carolina:
Suffolk, N.Carolina.
Trump 44
Hillary 41
Johnson 4
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/9_8_2016_north_carolina_tables_updated.pdf
The only reason I ask is all those countries seem to be able to sell into the single market and sell very successfully but none of them have to accept free movement of people from the EU countries.
Mike: Net YouGov leader ratings amongst the 65+ group
TMay +56%
Corbyn -68%
He did - of course - spend a lot of his time in power attempting to avoid prosecution for things in his business past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cedwwL7kCSg
http://appleplugs.com/
Well Hollande is gone. Renzi recently put back a referendum, presumably in the desperate hope that something, anything, might turn up. And Merkel is looking over her shoulder as the calls on immigration grow ever shriller.
Will these political zombies really fight so hard, even if they are still there when it comes to it?
Rob, don't you mean 'the withdrawal by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the treaties that constitute the European Union, namely the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon'?
She finds it incredible that their first instinct is to believe it's Britain's problem, not theirs, and to position to punish it, rather than ask themselves why the EU was so unattractive one of its three largest members has just voted to Leave it.
And she can't, for the life of her, understand why Juncker is still there or what would make him go.
Clinton +4 (Last poll Trump +1)
Trump on 19% support with African Americans
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
They may have lasted only 3 years, but they won.
Same with Verghofstadt's doomed assumption that Britain needs to be taught a lesson to frighten other European citizens into line
The default assumption that all these concerns and protests are groundless.
"The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement which amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Maastricht Treaty (1993), known in updated form as the Treaty on European Union (2007) or TEU, and the Treaty of Rome (1958), known in updated form as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2007) or TFEU."
I see everywhere that it states that Brexit will take 'at least 2 years' from the time of invoking Article 50. This seems wrong to me on a prima facie reading of 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."
Clearly, it may be impractical to conclude the withdrawal agreement within 2 years, but at least it is not in theory impossible, hence presumably if an agreement were reached within 2 months of Article 50 notification with immediate entry into force, then presumably the UK would exit at that point well before the 2 years were up.
But what (no matter how unlikely this scenario is) if the UK decides that an acceptable negotiated treaty is not possible and that it will thus fall back on WTO terms. Can it announce (or indeed, can the EU announce) unilaterally that no agreement will be possible and that it will be leaving as of such and such a date before the 2 years are up? I don't see anything explicit to stop this in the language of Article 50, but perhaps there is something elsewhere in the EU treaties, unless you argue that Article 50 is x (negotiated agreement) or y (2 years) or z (extended negotiations).
Brexit, one would think, would be the one time they realize that this time they really do need to start accepting some changes. It should be easier since if the UK does suffer leaving is less attractive and also most nations would be easier to mollify than we would be, a change in direction would not need to be revolutionary. It could paradoxically become a union we might not find that objectionable (too late for us) and which could cement its progress for another generation.
But will they have the sense to see it? The temptation of everyone who has been shunned is a petulant 'we didn't you anyway, bugger off' attitude, but it's not sensible us or them to adopt such attitudes.
Sky Breaking news
Real Madrid , A Madrid to serve transfer bans over next two windows
Someone been naughty?
As an aside, the article linked to below said that headphone jacks had been around for well over 100 years, and one of the earliest electrical standards.
But why are they called 'jacks' ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/matt-cartoons-september-2016/
Jeremy Corbyn – Attended a grammar school. His son went to a grammar school.
John McDonnell – Attended a grammar school.
Seumas Milne – Sent both his son and daughter to grammar schools.
Diane Abbott – Attended a grammar school and sent her son to a private school.
Jon Trickett – Attended a grammar school.
Grahame Morris – Attended a grammar school.
Paul Flynn – Attended a grammar school.
Of course, the Tory leadership contests are less democratic* than Labour's so there is less chance of a hijacking.
*Not sure this is the right term
The EU has a lot more to lose if they want to be childish than we do.
https://twitter.com/Mrs_katjones/status/773945228239728640