Calls the grammar messaging a mess, and echoes what I was saying last night, that May's biggest threat will be the Tory moderates, if she can't get a grown up and competent agenda together.
Apparently even Hammond is pushing back on May.
A clear majority of Tory members back May and more grammars, Tory 'moderates' and Remain/Cameroon diehards now have almost as little influence in the Tory Party as Blairites and moderates do within Labour!
If we look to be heading for a hard Brexit, I would not be surprised to see a leadership challenge against May.
There is a delusion on here that May reigns supreme.
She does not, and has already rubbed some noses out of joint. Disaffection tends to snowball as an administration ages.
In other news, apparently Fox has managed to annoy the CBI. Let me guess, business leaders are a bunch of Remoaners.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
According to this logic, Amazon has more to fear from me than I from them.
Well in some senses they do, you could always go back to the High Street or Royal Mail, it may be more difficult for them to replace the revenues they make from you
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU nations is maintained for their citizens
The EU 27 will be quite happy for the V4 to do some of their dirty work in negotiating against the UK. Negotatiating against a group of 27 all with their own special interests will be drawn out and the outcomes unsatisfactory.
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
All part of the infinitely complex game of 28-dimensional chess, which is liable to end with a compromise that gives everyone some of what they want, but leaves no-one really happy.
Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a border. Trying to beat the UK over the head may result in something of a sapping of political and popular appetite for mutual defence commitments towards those doing the beating.
Exactly, the UK and France are the main EU military powers and protectors of Eastern Europe. As Trump would tell them to fend for themselves, they may just want to rely mainly on the French to protect them from Putin!
Lets hope they don't see todays news reports then.
To be honest, I think the Eastern Europeans are much more interested in the US military than ours.
As pointed out we have nukes, as do the Russians but the Eastern Europeans do not, if Trump wins and abandons them their 'interest' in the US military will be effectively worthless
'Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a border. Trying to beat the UK over the head may result in something of a sapping of political and popular appetite for mutual defence commitments towards those doing the beating.'
Might also focus minds in the Baltic's.
What a good idea. Threaten European security architecture if we don't get our own way.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
It seems to me that the character of the interim trade arrangements post-Brexit will take on a critical dimension as no FTA is going to be in place at A50 + 2yrs. WTO or EEA are the only off the shelf arrangements. Could EEA be sold as a temporary safe berth as straight to WTO could be highly disruptive?
Indeed, the 'some limited control on migration' deal he talks about is what I think May will do, however it will not be enough for the hardcore Tory right and UKIP, though it may be enough for most Tory voters and the country as a whole
There would be a majority for free movement of labour, as opposed to people, with no recourse to public funds.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
Indeed. I don't think we have much to fear from a hard Brexit. If (in extremis) we drop to WTO rules, then we add 4% tax to all importers, and all exporters have to pay an extra 4% on exports. So we take the tax from the importers and give it to the exporters, and we are even again.
It works because of the level of EU imports we have. If the EU decide to play hard ball, they are going to look stupid.
Indeed, given we have more imports than exports to the EU we may even get a slight surplus. However that assumes Trump does not win and the WTO does not collapse as a result!
We may have a surplus on a significantly diminished economy.
Economics of the madhouse.
Of course we want a deal but the EU needs to compromise too
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU nations is maintained for their citizens
The EU 27 will be quite happy for the V4 to do some of their dirty work in negotiating against the UK. Negotatiating against a group of 27 all with their own special interests will be drawn out and the outcomes unsatisfactory.
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
All part of the infinitely complex game of 28-dimensional chess, which is liable to end with a compromise that gives everyone some of what they want, but leaves no-one really happy.
Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a border. Trying to beat the UK over the head may result in something of a sapping of political and popular appetite for mutual defence commitments towards those doing the beating.
Exactly, the UK and France are the main EU military powers and protectors of Eastern Europe. As Trump would tell them to fend for themselves, they may just want to rely mainly on the French to protect them from Putin!
SKY news have just told us the UK can't defend itself from countries like Russia
Completely coincidentally in the run-up to the "Autumn statement".
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU nations is maintained for their citizens
The EU 27 will be quite happy for the V4 to do some of their dirty work in negotiating against the UK. Negotatiating against a group of 27 all with their own special interests will be drawn out and the outcomes unsatisfactory.
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
Well she shouldn't have taken leave of her senses on this last year then should she. The Visegrad 4 have "won" I suspect because even tin eared Juncker can see he can't fight a two or three front war between Brexit, Club Med, and migrants to the Visegrad 4.
SKY news have just told us the UK can't defend itself from countries like Russia
When were we last able to do so? I don't suppose we have been theoretically able to defend ourselves from Russia in a conventional war since perhaps the 1930s. Sure things are worse now, but it's not like we are in a fundamentally different position today from say the 1960s. The assumption that a war with Russia would turn hot very quickly has long been held.
Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Has this problem not been resolved by Patrick Minford - we're going to drop all import tariffs, allow all our manufacturing to be off-shored and live of our service exports. Simples.
Calls the grammar messaging a mess, and echoes what I was saying last night, that May's biggest threat will be the Tory moderates, if she can't get a grown up and competent agenda together.
Apparently even Hammond is pushing back on May.
A clear majority of Tory members back May and more grammars, Tory 'moderates' and Remain/Cameroon diehards now have almost as little influence in the Tory Party as Blairites and moderates do within Labour!
If we look to be heading for a hard Brexit, I would not be surprised to see a leadership challenge against May.
There is a delusion on here that May reigns supreme.
She does not, and has already rubbed some noses out of joint. Disaffection tends to snowball as an administration ages.
In other news, apparently Fox has managed to annoy the CBI. Let me guess, business leaders are a bunch of Remoaners.
Even in the event of hard Brexit a leadership challenge would be crushed if it came from the Remain side, most Tories, especially members who will make the final decision, put control of immigration above access to the single market. More likely would be a challenge from the hard right of the party if they see any compromise with the EU in the terms of the Brexit deal, though I think May would still defeat it.
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
'The visegrad 4 have announced that they would veto any Brexit agreement in they do not get freedom of movement for their citizens.
So they are in effect threatening us with a hard Brexit? Do they realise that they will be negotiating with David Davis?'
That's fine, hopefully they have sufficient job opportunities for the two million or so citizens that may have to return home ?
Freedom of movement can be a two way street.
Don't also forget the job opportunities for the exporters of the €80bn of trade deficit between the U.K. And EU.
Judging by the thinly veiled threats made across the Channel so far, we shouldn't bother negotiating at all. Declare Art 50 on 1st Jan and say that we will leave the EU on 1st Jan 2019, it will be a 'hard' exit and we will use the two years to talk to anyone in the world about trade - starting with Aus, NZ, CA, ZA and maybe even USA - rather than wasting our efforts on the EU who have clearly decided to punish us, in order to send a message to others.
That is the approach I would advocate, only with A50 being notified sooner.
Though President Trump may not be so keen on free trade as we would like, and may force Hillary to tack to protectionism too for internal political reasons.
Art 50 declaration in 2016 was 25/1 last time I checked Betfair.
I think Trump might be amenable to a deal with Britain. He knows the place well, we speak the same language and have similar aims. We're not going to undercut their wages or ship huge numbers of jobs away from the US.
He is less keen on our financial services, indeed may make penalising these a feature not a bug.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
It seems to me that the character of the interim trade arrangements post-Brexit will take on a critical dimension as no FTA is going to be in place at A50 + 2yrs. WTO or EEA are the only off the shelf arrangements. Could EEA be sold as a temporary safe berth as straight to WTO could be highly disruptive?
Indeed, the 'some limited control on migration' deal he talks about is what I think May will do, however it will not be enough for the hardcore Tory right and UKIP, though it may be enough for most Tory voters and the country as a whole
There would be a majority for free movement of labour, as opposed to people, with no recourse to public funds.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
That is what May is heading towards with the government statement a week or so ago they were aiming to only allow EU migrants to come here with a job offer
'Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a border. Trying to beat the UK over the head may result in something of a sapping of political and popular appetite for mutual defence commitments towards those doing the beating.'
Might also focus minds in the Baltic's.
What a good idea. Threaten European security architecture if we don't get our own way.
They don't like it up 'em.
Tit for tat is a good basis for international relations. Foreign nations can't reasonably argue that we must come to their defence, allow free migration for their people, in return for what, exactly?
Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Has this problem not been resolved by Patrick Minford - we're going to drop all import tariffs, allow all our manufacturing to be off-shored and live of our service exports. Simples.
That sounds like a right wing mirror image of Tony Benn's siege economy. Just about plausible enough to be implemented, but not something you'd actually chose to do.
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU nations is maintained for their citizens
The EU 27 will be quite happy for the V4 to do some of their dirty work in negotiating against the UK. Negotatiating against a group of 27 all with their own special interests will be drawn out and the outcomes unsatisfactory.
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
All part of the infinitely complex game of 28-dimensional chess, which is liable to end with a compromise that gives everyone some of what they want, but leaves no-one really happy.
Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a border. Trying to beat the UK over the head may result in something of a sapping of political and popular appetite for mutual defence commitments towards those doing the beating.
Exactly, the UK and France are the main EU military powers and protectors of Eastern Europe. As Trump would tell them to fend for themselves, they may just want to rely mainly on the French to protect them from Putin!
Lets hope they don't see todays news reports then.
To be honest, I think the Eastern Europeans are much more interested in the US military than ours.
As pointed out we have nukes, as do the Russians but the Eastern Europeans do not, if Trump wins and abandons them their 'interest' in the US military will be effectively worthless
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
According to this logic, Amazon has more to fear from me than I from them.
Well in some senses they do, you could always go back to the High Street or Royal Mail, it may be more difficult for them to replace the revenues they make from you
I assure you that if I withdrew my services from Amazon, Jeff Bezos would not notice.
But if Amazon refused to supply me, it would be a chore, and probably more expensive, to find alternative suppliers.
In this metaphor, I lose if I decide not to use Amazon any more.
This idea that the EU has more to lose, is not only based on wishful thinking --- it is just plain false.
Let me guess, this is within the normal parameters of xenophobic violence, statistically insignificant and nought to do with Brexit.
I find the reporting of individual cases like this to make some sort of wider point bizarre, mendacious and reprehensible. By contrast, the rape of thousands in Rotherham HAD statistical significance and went unreported for years. It's purely and simply manipulation of people's emotional responses to believe a narrative, helped along by permanently outraged dimwits on social media.
I don't rememeber weekly stabbings, beatings and murders of Polish people before the xenophobia started recently.
That's because you wouldn't have read about them before the 'xenophobia started', because they weren't part of a narrative then, so wouldn't have been reported in the national press.
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
'Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a border. Trying to beat the UK over the head may result in something of a sapping of political and popular appetite for mutual defence commitments towards those doing the beating.'
Might also focus minds in the Baltic's.
What a good idea. Threaten European security architecture if we don't get our own way.
They don't like it up 'em.
Tit for tat is a good basis for international relations. Foreign nations can't reasonably argue that we must come to their defence, allow free migration for their people, in return for what, exactly?
Defence in return for their best people. It seems like a balanced trade to me.
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
Indeed. I don't think we have much to fear from a hard Brexit. If (in extremis) we drop to WTO rules, then we add 4% tax to all importers, and all exporters have to pay an extra 4% on exports. So we take the tax from the importers and give it to the exporters, and we are even again.
It works because of the level of EU imports we have. If the EU decide to play hard ball, they are going to look stupid.
Indeed, given we have more imports than exports to the EU we may even get a slight surplus. However that assumes Trump does not win and the WTO does not collapse as a result!
We may have a surplus on a significantly diminished economy.
Economics of the madhouse.
Of course we want a deal but the EU needs to compromise too
Yes, if logic were to rule the negotiation. But as we see, politics intrudes.
Already folks on here - OK, you - are talking up a hard Brexit. Yet this is obviously not in our best interests.
As far as I could see the principal consequence is to support a minor industry of citizenship test pre-coaching courses and websites that potential applicants end up paying for, before they start paying for the actual testing itself. Most of the knowledge they gain is obscure facts about Britain that few actual Britons will know themselves.
I think Dr Fox's contention is that, while each individual question is a mere trivium, their sum total does require the applicant to actually know something - in fact something quite substantial - about the traditions, culture, history and geography of the country they are taking allegiance to.
While for one I'd leave out questions on the precise height of London landmarks*, it is unfair to judge the obscure factoid nature of an individual question - what you learn from the totality is more important. If you learn 10 random facts, you have pretty much just learned 10 random facts, even if they're all on the same theme. If you learn thousands of such facts, all on the same theme, you've ultimately learned something about said theme.
Sure, the average Brit may not know many individual answers either, but they'd do better on a general knowledge quiz about the UK than someone who speaks no English, watches only satellite TV and rarely interacts with the locals here - our own version of a substantial chunk of British expats in Spain or elsewhere, I suppose.
* There'd actually be something to be said for a question like "What was the tallest building in London until the Post Office Tower overtook it in 1962?" Or the related question and less London-centric question: "Which English building was the tallest in the world from 1311 to 1549, when it was damaged by lightning?" But in terms of British cultural experience, I'd also be tempted to throw in "what did Del Boy say as he fell through the bar?"
'The visegrad 4 have announced that they would veto any Brexit agreement in they do not get freedom of movement for their citizens.
So they are in effect threatening us with a hard Brexit? Do they realise that they will be negotiating with David Davis?'
That's fine, hopefully they have sufficient job opportunities for the two million or so citizens that may have to return home ?
Freedom of movement can be a two way street.
Don't also forget the job opportunities for the exporters of the €80bn of trade deficit between the U.K. And EU.
Judging by the thinly veiled threats made across the Channel so far, we shouldn't bother negotiating at all. Declare Art 50 on 1st Jan and say that we will leave the EU on 1st Jan 2019, it will be a 'hard' exit and we will use the two years to talk to anyone in the world about trade - starting with Aus, NZ, CA, ZA and maybe even USA - rather than wasting our efforts on the EU who have clearly decided to punish us, in order to send a message to others.
That is the approach I would advocate, only with A50 being notified sooner.
Though President Trump may not be so keen on free trade as we would like, and may force Hillary to tack to protectionism too for internal political reasons.
Art 50 declaration in 2016 was 25/1 last time I checked Betfair.
I think Trump might be amenable to a deal with Britain. He knows the place well, we speak the same language and have similar aims. We're not going to undercut their wages or ship huge numbers of jobs away from the US.
He is less keen on our financial services, indeed may make penalising these a feature not a bug.
We could say the same about their apparently borderless tech firms. Those two areas would be the most difficult but would probably be overcome if the will was there.
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU nations is maintained for their citizens
The EU 27 will be quite happy for the V4 to do some of their dirty work in negotiating against the UK. Negotatiating against a group of 27 all with their own special interests will be drawn out and the outcomes unsatisfactory.
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
Well she shouldn't have taken leave of her senses on this last year then should she. The Visegrad 4 have "won" I suspect because even tin eared Juncker can see he can't fight a two or three front war between Brexit, Club Med, and migrants to the Visegrad 4.
Though that may still happen anyway, especially if Hungary's referendum to end refugee quotas occurs and 5* wins in Italy all while Brexit talks are still ongoing
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
According to this logic, Amazon has more to fear from me than I from them.
Well in some senses they do, you could always go back to the High Street or Royal Mail, it may be more difficult for them to replace the revenues they make from you
I assure you that if I withdrew my services from Amazon, Jeff Bezos would not notice.
But if Amazon refused to supply me, it would be a chore, and probably more expensive, to find alternative suppliers.
In this metaphor, I lose if I decide not to use Amazon any more.
This idea that the EU has more to lose, is not only based on wishful thinking --- it is just plain false.
Of course they won't notice - you make up an absolutely minuscule part of their revenue stream.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
Indeed. I don't think we have much to fear from a hard Brexit. If (in extremis) we drop to WTO rules, then we add 4% tax to all importers, and all exporters have to pay an extra 4% on exports. So we take the tax from the importers and give it to the exporters, and we are even again.
It works because of the level of EU imports we have. If the EU decide to play hard ball, they are going to look stupid.
Indeed, given we have more imports than exports to the EU we may even get a slight surplus. However that assumes Trump does not win and the WTO does not collapse as a result!
We may have a surplus on a significantly diminished economy.
Economics of the madhouse.
Of course we want a deal but the EU needs to compromise too
Yes, if logic were to rule the negotiation. But as we see, politics intrudes.
Already folks on here - OK, you - are talking up a hard Brexit. Yet this is obviously not in our best interests.
It reminds me of the Russian joke that if they don't get their way, Putin would bomb Voronezh in retaliation.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
Indeed. I don't think we have much to fear from a hard Brexit. If (in extremis) we drop to WTO rules, then we add 4% tax to all importers, and all exporters have to pay an extra 4% on exports. So we take the tax from the importers and give it to the exporters, and we are even again.
It works because of the level of EU imports we have. If the EU decide to play hard ball, they are going to look stupid.
Indeed, given we have more imports than exports to the EU we may even get a slight surplus. However that assumes Trump does not win and the WTO does not collapse as a result!
We may have a surplus on a significantly diminished economy.
Economics of the madhouse.
Of course we want a deal but the EU needs to compromise too
Yes, if logic were to rule the negotiation. But as we see, politics intrudes.
Already folks on here - OK, you - are talking up a hard Brexit. Yet this is obviously not in our best interests.
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU nations is maintained for their citizens
The EU 27 will be quite happy for the V4 to do some of their dirty work in negotiating against the UK. Negotatiating against a group of 27 all with their own special interests will be drawn out and the outcomes unsatisfactory.
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
All part of the infinitely complex game of 28-dimensional chess, which is liable to end with a compromise that gives everyone some of what they want, but leaves no-one really happy.
Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a b
Exactly, the UK and France are t
Lets hope they don't see todays news reports then.
To be honest, I think the Eastern Europeans are much more interested in the US military than ours.
As pointed out we have nukes, as do the Russians but the Eastern Europeans do not, if Trump wins and abandons them their 'interest' in the US military will be effectively worthless
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
Did anyone ever suggest the negotiations would be painless?
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Some on here - SeanT, for example - understand that Brexit will have an economic cost - but supported it anyway to reclaim sovereignty.
That's fine, although I personally disagree with the trade-off.
Many others though seem to be drinking the same brew that Corbyn's been at; they'd disagree that 1 and 1 made 2 if they thought it would help the Brexit cause.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
According to this logic, Amazon has more to fear from me than I from them.
Well in some senses they do, you could always go back to the High Street or Royal Mail, it may be more difficult for them to replace the revenues they make from you
I assure you that if I withdrew my services from Amazon, Jeff Bezos would not notice.
But if Amazon refused to supply me, it would be a chore, and probably more expensive, to find alternative suppliers.
In this metaphor, I lose if I decide not to use Amazon any more.
This idea that the EU has more to lose, is not only based on wishful thinking --- it is just plain false.
They are plenty of alternative suppliers in today's economy. However the comparison is not the same as you are not selling any goods to Amazon, they are only selling goods to you
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
Indeed. I don't think we have much to fear from a hard Brexit. If (in extremis) we drop to WTO rules, then we add 4% tax to all importers, and all exporters have to pay an extra 4% on exports. So we take the tax from the importers and give it to the exporters, and we are even again.
It works because of the level of EU imports we have. If the EU decide to play hard ball, they are going to look stupid.
Indeed, given we have more imports than exports to the EU we may even get a slight surplus. However that assumes Trump does not win and the WTO does not collapse as a result!
We may have a surplus on a significantly diminished economy.
Economics of the madhouse.
Of course we want a deal but the EU needs to compromise too
Yes, if logic were to rule the negotiation. But as we see, politics intrudes.
Already folks on here - OK, you - are talking up a hard Brexit. Yet this is obviously not in our best interests.
Not but if we are prepared to make a few concessions and the EU is not then clearly there will be no alternative to hard Brexit
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
Did anyone ever suggest the negotiations would be painless?
Many on here seem to be whiteboarding the negotiating strategy in a fantasy universe.
"When Putin reaches Tallinn they'll have no choice but to concede on tariff free access to the single market!"
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
I know you don't hold that view Sean. However much of what's lionised on her as WWC patriotism over Brexit is just substituting " EU " or " immigration " for " Thatcher " in a fairly bankrupt analysis of globalisation and postmodernity. When it's " Thatcher " these communities are ' Pity Cities " who can't move on. When it's " immigrants " they are British Lions. It's all politics so I don't really mind the hypocricy or abandonment of critical faculties to secure an end like Brexit. It's Bolsover, Doncaster and Sunderland I've no sympathy for. However Karmic retribution is on it's way for such communities. Be in doubt about that.
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
Actually there were precious few global supply/value chains in 1840. Ah, for the days of the opium trade!
Sadly for the Brexiteers it is 2016. Reintroduction of tariffs would cause a major economic shock as it dent or destroy the margins of the supply chains that generate our exports.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
It seems to me that the character of the interim trade arrangements post-Brexit will take on a critical dimension as no FTA is going to be in place at A50 + 2yrs. WTO or EEA are the only off the shelf arrangements. Could EEA be sold as a temporary safe berth as straight to WTO could be highly disruptive?
Indeed, the 'some limited control on migration' deal he talks about is what I think May will do, however it will not be enough for the hardcore Tory right and UKIP, though it may be enough for most Tory voters and the country as a whole
There would be a majority for free movement of labour, as opposed to people, with no recourse to public funds.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
That is what May is heading towards with the government statement a week or so ago they were aiming to only allow EU migrants to come here with a job offer
Which is reasonable enough ( maybe subject to you must earn - checked by HMRC - 80 or 100% of mean wages?), as long as it's under our control. We will need migrants for sure, but not open doors to any 18 yr old to wash dishes. However, if we are seriously being forced to accept the status quo, having voted out that's a big red line. That's foreigners dictating who lives in our society. Just no fucking way. Anglo Saxon two fingers to that.
Hopefully calm will prevail and a better outcome for both us and them, but we shouldn't be afraid to walk away from the table.
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
All part of the infinitely complex game of 28-dimensional chess, which is liable to end with a compromise that gives everyone some of what they want, but leaves no-one really happy.
Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a b
Exactly, the UK and France are t
Lets hope they don't see todays news reports then.
To be honest, I think the Eastern Europeans are much more interested in the US military than ours.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
Did anyone ever suggest the negotiations would be painless?
Many on here seem to be whiteboarding the negotiating strategy in a fantasy universe.
"When Putin reaches Tallinn they'll have no choice but to concede on tariff free access to the single market!"
I agree that is ridiculous. Perhaps I should clarify, did any sensible posters suggest it would be painless?
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
It seems to me that the character of the interim trade arrangements post-Brexit will take on a critical dimension as no FTA is going to be in place at A50 + 2yrs. WTO or EEA are the only off the shelf arrangements. Could EEA be sold as a temporary safe berth as straight to WTO could be highly disruptive?
Indeed, the 'some limited control on migration' deal he talks about is what I think May will do, however it will not be enough for the hardcore Tory right and UKIP, though it may be enough for most Tory voters and the country as a whole
There would be a majority for free movement of labour, as opposed to people, with no recourse to public funds.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
That is what May is heading towards with the government statement a week or so ago they were aiming to only allow EU migrants to come here with a job offer
Hard Brexit is the default option. If the A50 negotiations run out of time or run into the sand we're out and on WTO terms. This is quite likely imo, and bearing in mind that A50 is not about negotiating a FTA, the pressure to avoid a crash landing will grow. An interim EEA arrangement would draw the sting of the A50 deadline and enable us to take time to get a FTA. Brexit is a vast and complex undertakng and trying to do everything at once could be traumatic.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
According to this logic, Amazon has more to fear from me than I from them.
Well in some senses they do, you could always go back to the High Street or Royal Mail, it may be more difficult for them to replace the revenues they make from you
I assure you that if I withdrew my services from Amazon, Jeff Bezos would not notice.
But if Amazon refused to supply me, it would be a chore, and probably more expensive, to find alternative suppliers.
In this metaphor, I lose if I decide not to use Amazon any more.
This idea that the EU has more to lose, is not only based on wishful thinking --- it is just plain false.
Of course they won't notice - you make up an absolutely minuscule part of their revenue stream.
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
Did anyone ever suggest the negotiations would be painless?
Yes, repeatedly and testily at the very suggestion that they might not be. The line to take was that EU leaders were rational and it was in their own interests to give Britain a deal that was congenial to Leavers.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
I know you don't hold that view Sean. However much of what's lionised on her as WWC patriotism over Brexit is just substituting " EU " or " immigration " for " Thatcher " in a fairly bankrupt analysis of globalisation and postmodernity. When it's " Thatcher " these communities are ' Pity Cities " who can't move on. When it's " immigrants " they are British Lions. It's all politics so I don't really mind the hypocricy or abandonment of critical faculties to secure an end like Brexit. It's Bolsover, Doncaster and Sunderland I've no sympathy for. However Karmic retribution is on it's way for such communities. Be in doubt about that.
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
Did anyone ever suggest the negotiations would be painless?
Many on here seem to be whiteboarding the negotiating strategy in a fantasy universe.
"When Putin reaches Tallinn they'll have no choice but to concede on tariff free access to the single market!"
I agree that is ridiculous. Perhaps I should clarify, did any sensible posters suggest it would be painless?
I think Charles, rcs1000, MaxPB and Richard Tyndall possibly gave the impression that it would all be pretty straightforward.
Some on here - SeanT, for example - understand that Brexit will have an economic cost - but supported it anyway to reclaim sovereignty.
That's fine, although I personally disagree with the trade-off.
Many others though seem to be drinking the same brew that Corbyn's been at; they'd disagree that 1 and 1 made 2 if they thought it would help the Brexit cause.
There may also be a difference in time horizons. When I voted, it was on the basis of a 30 or 40 year horizon. Short-term pain or gain barely entered the equation: clearly the vote would have short-term effects either way, but it wasn't an inherently short-term vote, and I felt the long-term effects were more important.
I don't recall rcs (a leaver who knows his economic onions) claiming that the short-term consequences would all be positive, but I think he believed that the "big trends" at play in the world made Brexit economically preferable in the long-run. I don't think Rob is the only one in that boat.
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
Did anyone ever suggest the negotiations would be painless?
Yes, repeatedly and testily at the very suggestion that they might not be. The line to take was that EU leaders were rational and it was in their own interests to give Britain a deal that was congenial to Leavers.
Hm, I don't remember it quite like that, although perhaps I was too busy wondering which way to vote.
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
All part of the infinitely complex game of 28-dimensional chess, which is liable to end with a compromise that gives everyone some of what they want, but leaves no-one really happy.
Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a b
Exactly, the UK and France are t
Lets hope they don't see todays news reports then.
To be honest, I think the Eastern Europeans are much more interested in the US military than ours.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
A common spend of 1% will give them an honour guard, but not much more.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
It seems to me that the character of the interim trade arrangements post-Brexit will take on a critical dimension as no FTA is going to be in place at A50 + 2yrs. WTO or EEA are the only off the shelf arrangements. Could EEA be sold as a temporary safe berth as straight to WTO could be highly disruptive?
Indeed, the 'some limited control on migration' deal he talks about is what I think May will do, however it will not be enough for the hardcore Tory right and UKIP, though it may be enough for most Tory voters and the country as a whole
There would be a majority for free movement of labour, as opposed to people, with no recourse to public funds.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
That is what May is heading towards with the government statement a week or so ago they were aiming to only allow EU migrants to come here with a job offer
Which is reasonable enough ( maybe subject to you must earn - checked by HMRC - 80 or 100% of mean wages?), as long as it's under our control. We will need migrants for sure, but not open doors to any 18 yr old to wash dishes. However, if we are seriously being forced to accept the status quo, having voted out that's a big red line. That's foreigners dictating who lives in our society. Just no fucking way. Anglo Saxon two fingers to that.
Hopefully calm will prevail and a better outcome for both us and them, but we shouldn't be afraid to walk away from the table.
It would not be open doors as such, they would have to have a job offer to wash dishes before they even arrived at the border, let alone got let through
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
According to this logic, Amazon has more to fear from me than I from them.
Well in some senses they do, you could always go back to the High Street or Royal Mail, it may be more difficult for them to replace the revenues they make from you
I assure you that if I withdrew my services from Amazon, Jeff Bezos would not notice.
But if Amazon refused to supply me, it would be a chore, and probably more expensive, to find alternative suppliers.
In this metaphor, I lose if I decide not to use Amazon any more.
This idea that the EU has more to lose, is not only based on wishful thinking --- it is just plain false.
Of course they won't notice - you make up an absolutely minuscule part of their revenue stream.
Read it again.
"I assure you that if I withdrew my services from Amazon, Jeff Bezos would not notice."
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
EU27 GDP is $14.2 trillion approx. At 1% that would be just over twice Russia's military spend of $66bn. An integrated EU military would have no problem competing with Russia.
. So the 4 may find that if they are turning on migrants themselves the other EU nations may start to lose patience with their demands that full freedom of movement to western EU
Merkel will not be happy with Germany being forced to accept more refugees because some Eastern EU nations refuse to have any, especially given the rise of the Afd.
All part of the infinitely complex game of 28-dimensional chess, which is liable to end with a compromise that gives everyone some of what they want, but leaves no-one really happy.
Besides anything else, V4 unity will be sorely tested because of Poland's antagonism towards Russia, with which it shares a b
Exactly, the UK and France are t
Lets hope they don't see todays news reports then.
To be honest, I think the Eastern Europeans are much more interested in the US military than ours.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves a
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
Firstly, the EU spends more of its GDP on its military than most EU nations do on theirs, if they wish to combine forces as the EU to hold off Putin all to the good, it means less of a burden for us to defend Eastern Europe, but again the largest military powers in the EU are France and the UK at present so without the UK they would be a weaker force against the Russians
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
Left and Right wing populism, rising nationalism, an economic downturn, American isolationism, a trade war and a programme of re-militarisation in Germany.
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is once you invoke the count down clock on Hard Brexit begins. The leaving states negotiating position deteriorates by the day. Basically no sort of Soft Brexit can be negotiated in just two years. A50 is written to protect the continuity EU. The added problem is our relative size and location. We're too big to bully completely but not big enough like Germany to bring the whole show down. The fact that MAD isn't assured increases the risk of someone going nuclear. In this sense a mid sized € country might be in a stronger position.
The EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU, arguably they have more to lose from a fully hard Brexit than we do
It seems to me that the character of the interim trade arrangements post-Brexit will take on a critical dimension as no FTA is going to be in place at A50 + 2yrs. WTO or EEA are the only off the shelf arrangements. Could EEA be sold as a temporary safe berth as straight to WTO could be highly disruptive?
There would be a majority for free movement of labour, as opposed to people, with no recourse to public funds.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
That is what May is heading towards with the government statement a week or so ago they were aiming to only allow EU migrants to come here with a job offer
Hard Brexit is the default option. If the A50 negotiations run out of time or run into the sand we're out and on WTO terms. This is quite likely imo, and bearing in mind that A50 is not about negotiating a FTA, the pressure to avoid a crash landing will grow. An interim EEA arrangement would draw the sting of the A50 deadline and enable us to take time to get a FTA. Brexit is a vast and complex undertakng and trying to do everything at once could be traumatic.
Provided the UK electorate accepts it and provided it does indeed allow for at least some migration controls then maybe
Judging by the thinly veiled threats made across the Channel so far, we shouldn't bother negotiating at all. Declare Art 50 on 1st Jan and say that we will leave the EU on 1st Jan 2019, it will be a 'hard' exit and we will use the two years to talk to anyone in the world about trade - starting with Aus, NZ, CA, ZA and maybe even USA - rather than wasting our efforts on the EU who have clearly decided to punish us, in order to send a message to others.
"I don't know why I bother with the BBC. I've got offers from Radio North Norwich. That'll show them" - Alan Partridge.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
No, it is realpolitik, if some Eastern European nations refuse to do a free trade deal with the UK and demand free movement exactly as it was before then of course we will respond in a way they may not like either
I see that Leavers' assertions earlier in the year that Brexit terms would be painlessly negotiated and could never have an impact on European security are long forgotten.
A common spend of 1% will give them an honour guard, but not much more.
The current shortfall from the 2% target is about $100 billion or so, absent a substantial European presence of US forces the European NATO members would have an even larger hole to fill.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
No, it is realpolitik, if some Eastern European nations refuse to do a free trade deal with the UK and demand free movement exactly as it was before then of course we will respond in a way they may not like either
Absurd. We were members of NATO far before any free trade or free movement of people agreement.
Sorry, job offer to wash dishes is open door in all but name. Unacceptable. Way too open to abuse and relatives already here offering "jobs". Got to be checked by tax receipts or some other monetary mechanism or some other work permit national need. If that's the deal I'd prefer hard Brexit.
Judging by the thinly veiled threats made across the Channel so far, we shouldn't bother negotiating at all. Declare Art 50 on 1st Jan and say that we will leave the EU on 1st Jan 2019, it will be a 'hard' exit and we will use the two years to talk to anyone in the world about trade - starting with Aus, NZ, CA, ZA and maybe even USA - rather than wasting our efforts on the EU who have clearly decided to punish us, in order to send a message to others.
"I don't know why I bother with the BBC. I've got offers from Radio North Norwich. That'll show them" - Alan Partridge.
The EU is only 27 other countries. There are nearly 200 other countries.
EU27 GDP is $14.2 trillion approx. At 1% that would be just over twice Russia's military spend of $66bn. An integrated EU military would have no problem competing with Russia.
And we mustn't confuse the A50 agreement, the eventual FTA and any transitional arrangements to bridge the gap between the two. But the point is o
It seems to me that the character of the interim trade arrangements post-Brexit will take on a critical dimension as no FTA is going to be in place at A50 + 2yrs. WTO or EEA are the only off the shelf arrangements. Could EEA be sold as a temporary safe berth as straight to WTO could be highly disruptive?
There would be a majority for free movement of labour, as opposed to people, with no recourse to public funds.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
That is what May is heading towards with the government statement a week or so ago they were aiming to only allow EU migrants to come here with a job offer
Hard Brexit is the default option. If the A50 negotiations run out of time or run into the sand we're out and on WTO terms. This is quite likely imo, and bearing in mind that A50 is not about negotiating a FTA, the pressure to avoid a crash landing will grow. An interim EEA arrangement would draw the sting of the A50 deadline and enable us to take time to get a FTA. Brexit is a vast and complex undertakng and trying to do everything at once could be traumatic.
Provided the UK electorate accepts it and provided it does indeed allow for at least some migration controls then maybe
Even an EEA arrangement represents substantial progress: out of the EU (referendum honoured), out of political union, out of the ECJ, out of the customs union (bilateral trade deals possible), out of CAP and CFP, restoration of territorial waters. A comprehensive FTA could be presented as a work in progress.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
No, it is realpolitik, if some Eastern European nations refuse to do a free trade deal with the UK and demand free movement exactly as it was before then of course we will respond in a way they may not like either
Absurd. We were members of NATO far before any free trade or free movement of people agreement.
We had free trade with Europe long before NATO, if they wish to restrict access of UK goods to the EU it could be on the table
Even an EEA arrangement represents substantial progress: out of the EU (referendum honoured), out of political union, out of the ECJ, out of the customs union (bilateral trade deals possible), out of CAP and CFP, restoration of territorial waters. A comprehensive FTA could be presented as a work in progress.
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
No, it is realpolitik, if some Eastern European nations refuse to do a free trade deal with the UK and demand free movement exactly as it was before then of course we will respond in a way they may not like either
Absurd. We were members of NATO far before any free trade or free movement of people agreement.
We had free trade with Europe long before NATO, if they wish to restrict access of UK goods to the EU it could be on the table
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
I know you don't hold that view Sean. However much of what's lionised on her as WWC patriotism over Brexit is just substituting " EU " or " immigration " for " Thatcher " in a fairly bankrupt analysis of globalisation and postmodernity. When it's " Thatcher " these communities are ' Pity Cities " who can't move on. When it's " immigrants " they are British Lions. It's all politics so I don't really mind the hypocricy or abandonment of critical faculties to secure an end like Brexit. It's Bolsover, Doncaster and Sunderland I've no sympathy for. However Karmic retribution is on it's way for such communities. Be in doubt about that.
Your outlook is very nihilistic.
I think that @yellowsubmarine is right. In 20 years Remania will still be the most pleasant and wealthy parts of the country (on both a macro and micro scale) while Leaver-stan will still be backward and poor. Somehow it will still be the fault of the EU...
Sorry, job offer to wash dishes is open door in all but name. Unacceptable. Way too open to abuse and relatives already here offering "jobs". Got to be checked by tax receipts or some other monetary mechanism or some other work permit national need. If that's the deal I'd prefer hard Brexit.
Good, well vote UKIP then but that is the deal May will most likely do
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
EU27 GDP is $14.2 trillion approx. At 1% that would be just over twice Russia's military spend of $66bn. An integrated EU military would have no problem competing with Russia.
You're assuming that an integrated EU military would spend money on tanks and planes, rather than 27 new sets of brass hats and a massive new headquarters, where they can all meet to argue about how and when they should be deployed, deciding eventually to adjourn for a long lunch and come back next month to decide the same again.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
Even an EEA arrangement represents substantial progress: out of the EU (referendum honoured), out of political union, out of the ECJ, out of the customs union (bilateral trade deals possible), out of CAP and CFP, restoration of territorial waters. A comprehensive FTA could be presented as a work in progress.
However the voters would not buy it without any migration controls at all, Leave only won because of immigration
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
You're assuming that an integrated EU military would spend money on tanks and planes, rather than 27 new sets of brass hats and a massive new headquarters, where they can all meet to argue about how and when they should be deployed, deciding eventually to adjourn for a long lunch and come back next month to decide the same again.
I have to admit I'm chuckling at the idea of EU centralisation saving money.
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
I know you don't hold that view Sean. However much of what's lionised on her as WWC patriotism over Brexit is just substituting " EU " or " immigration " for " Thatcher " in a fairly bankrupt analysis of globalisation and postmodernity. When it's " Thatcher " these communities are ' Pity Cities " who can't move on. When it's " immigrants " they are British Lions. It's all politics so I don't really mind the hypocricy or abandonment of critical faculties to secure an end like Brexit. It's Bolsover, Doncaster and Sunderland I've no sympathy for. However Karmic retribution is on it's way for such communities. Be in doubt about that.
Your outlook is very nihilistic.
I think that @yellowsubmarine is right. In 20 years Remania will still be the most pleasant and wealthy parts of the country (on both a macro and micro scale) while Leaver-stan will still be backward and poor. Somehow it will still be the fault of the EU...
Not entirely, I imagine Sevenoaks and Stratford on Avon will still be rather more pleasant than Leicester and Glasgow!
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
No, it is realpolitik, if some Eastern European nations refuse to do a free trade deal with the UK and demand free movement exactly as it was before then of course we will respond in a way they may not like either
Absurd. We were members of NATO far before any free trade or free movement of people agreement.
We had free trade with Europe long before NATO, if they wish to restrict access of UK goods to the EU it could be on the table
It absolutely won't be on the table.
Nothing will be off the table depending on how the negotiations pan out
"I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). Mrs May’s final words to Osborne after sacking him were: ‘Go away and learn some emotional intelligence.’"
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
I think most of us here, sitting in Mrs May's shoes that day, would have told George to run away too.
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
My partner and I are staying in Birmingham. We went from our hotel towards the shops and came across what I thought was a rally for Palestine or something. Then I thought "I recognise that voice" - and I looked around and saw it was Jeremy Corbyn. There were only about 2-300 people there. Surprised there weren't more. There was something in the local paper that he wants nationalise Great British Bake Off!
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
If Trump had his way Russia would be our ally.
And what is wrong with that?
I didn't say there was, but talking about Putin 'liberating' Ukraine is absolutely asinine.
Completely off-topic: Just caught up with GBBO Extra Slice. Ed Balls having a whale of a time on the panel, I just don't see him re-entering Parliament. He'll be the Labour Brandreth/Heseltine.
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
Have the idiots explained how they are going to enforce any fines?
What military capability has the EU to stop Putin or anyone else reaching Berlin or Paris in a few weeks if we and the US decide wenare washing our hair that day and decline to get involved.
Maybe nato should just be pared back to us the US and Canada if they are going to be awkward over brexit and not spend 2% of their GNP on military?
Comments
There is a delusion on here that May reigns supreme.
She does not, and has already rubbed some noses out of joint. Disaffection tends to snowball as an administration ages.
In other news, apparently Fox has managed to annoy the CBI. Let me guess, business leaders are a bunch of Remoaners.
EDIT: link - http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-17/fox-tells-uk-businesses-to-invest-more-abroad/
Threaten European security architecture if we don't get our own way.
They don't like it up 'em.
So if you get a job you can come here, if you don't have a job you go back home if you can't support yourself from savings.
Er no, there are restrictions that can be put in.
As Barkworth explains.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/10/the-three-brexiteers-are-overlooking-a-crucial-detail-on-trade/'
'It would also give us a unilateral right to exercise some limited control over immigration from the rest of the EU '
Not much of an explanation.
Murderballwheelchair rugby final matches start shortly. GB go in 35 mins but they're outside the medals.But if Amazon refused to supply me, it would be a chore, and probably more expensive, to find alternative suppliers.
In this metaphor, I lose if I decide not to use Amazon any more.
This idea that the EU has more to lose, is not only based on wishful thinking --- it is just plain false.
Honestly Malcolm, don't be such a turnip.
'What a good idea.
Threaten European security architecture if we don't get our own way.
They don't like it up 'em.'
Unilateral trade negotitions, what a good idea.
But as we see, politics intrudes.
Already folks on here - OK, you - are talking up a hard Brexit. Yet this is obviously not in our best interests.
While for one I'd leave out questions on the precise height of London landmarks*, it is unfair to judge the obscure factoid nature of an individual question - what you learn from the totality is more important. If you learn 10 random facts, you have pretty much just learned 10 random facts, even if they're all on the same theme. If you learn thousands of such facts, all on the same theme, you've ultimately learned something about said theme.
Sure, the average Brit may not know many individual answers either, but they'd do better on a general knowledge quiz about the UK than someone who speaks no English, watches only satellite TV and rarely interacts with the locals here - our own version of a substantial chunk of British expats in Spain or elsewhere, I suppose.
* There'd actually be something to be said for a question like "What was the tallest building in London until the Post Office Tower overtook it in 1962?" Or the related question and less London-centric question: "Which English building was the tallest in the world from 1311 to 1549, when it was damaged by lightning?" But in terms of British cultural experience, I'd also be tempted to throw in "what did Del Boy say as he fell through the bar?"
That's fine, although I personally disagree with the trade-off.
Many others though seem to be drinking the same brew that Corbyn's been at; they'd disagree that 1 and 1 made 2 if they thought it would help the Brexit cause.
"When Putin reaches Tallinn they'll have no choice but to concede on tariff free access to the single market!"
Sadly for the Brexiteers it is 2016. Reintroduction of tariffs would cause a major economic shock as it dent or destroy the margins of the supply chains that generate our exports.
Hopefully calm will prevail and a better outcome for both us and them, but we shouldn't be afraid to walk away from the table.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3793776/PETER-OBORNE-jealous-George-trying-sabotage-Theresa-s-revolution.html
I don't recall rcs (a leaver who knows his economic onions) claiming that the short-term consequences would all be positive, but I think he believed that the "big trends" at play in the world made Brexit economically preferable in the long-run. I don't think Rob is the only one in that boat.
I agreed.
Why would that ever lead to trouble?
About 15-20pc of our exports to Europe are then repackaged somehow and exported on outside EU.
A further percentage presumably are repackaged and exported within the EU, but I don't have an estimate for that.
This component of trade has grown massively since the 90s and continues to outpace the "ordinary" sort of export.
@HYUFD
Sorry, job offer to wash dishes is open door in all but name. Unacceptable. Way too open to abuse and relatives already here offering "jobs". Got to be checked by tax receipts or some other monetary mechanism or some other work permit national need. If that's the deal I'd prefer hard Brexit.
Even an EEA arrangement represents substantial progress: out of the EU (referendum honoured), out of political union, out of the ECJ, out of the customs union (bilateral trade deals possible), out of CAP and CFP, restoration of territorial waters. A comprehensive FTA could be presented as a work in progress.
"I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). Mrs May’s final words to Osborne after sacking him were: ‘Go away and learn some emotional intelligence.’"
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
What military capability has the EU to stop Putin or anyone else reaching Berlin or Paris in a few weeks if we and the US decide wenare washing our hair that day and decline to get involved.
Maybe nato should just be pared back to us the US and Canada if they are going to be awkward over brexit and not spend 2% of their GNP on military?