Trump is turning into a Putin appeaser as Putin takes lumps of Volks-Russians off other states. That is unacceptable appeasement.
In the spirit of the thread header, why is it anathema to question whether state borders are in the right place?
The Russians only move them one way.
See Chechnya or Dagestan for details.
Russia peacefully gave up control of more territory after the dissolution of the USSR than any state in history has ever done.
I don't think so. We must have given up more with the end of Empire surely? The territory of Australia and Canada combined, both of which we have peacefully given up control over, is surely more than the former Soviet territories? Let alone the rest of the peacefully relinquished former Empire.
Yes, I was lumping the end of empire into one and putting it in the non-peaceful bracket but if you count Canada + Australia that would be bigger in area, but nowhere near in population.
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
If the EU can only survive by punishing would be Leavers then it is already a matter of time before it is dead.
Besides that is a very high risk nuclear strategy. What happens if the EU goes for its pound of flesh but Britain succeeds independently anyway? Then not only have we demonstrated that we can succeed but they've demonstrated that they are both vindictive and impotent.
Far better to just write us off as those eccentric Anglo Saxons that were never fully invested anyway.
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
If that is the case, if the institution has nothing positive to sell and can only be held together by punishing those with the temerity to leave, who would want to belong to it? Sounds very Soviet bloc-ish to me.
I'm sorry, I think this is tosh.
A text will be put before the Council of Ministers which will vote by QMV. The real negotiations will take place between the UK and the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain: all of which are very dependent on the UK as export market, each of which runs a trade surplus with the UK, and all of whom have governments that face re-election.
Do you seriously think any of them would prefer a recession in their own country, which would almost certainly lead to their ignominious removal, over a sensible solution? \
The fact is that the EU leaders, like the UK leaders, are talking tough.
We are talking about how we're quite happy with Hard Brexit, and how we don't need Single Market access, and even a free trade deal might not be necessary.
EU leaders are talking about dues for pensions, about Hard Brexit being the only options, etc.
It's all posturing. Unless you can convince the other side you will walk away, you will never secure a good deal. And the heads of state of Germany, France, etc., know that every bit as much as we do.
The Eurozone economies are finally emerging from an incredibly painful recession/depression, which has seen the rise of populist parties across the board, and has required significant, painful structural reforms. The "jobs for life" expectation has been torn up in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal, and in many other countries (except France). Civil servant salaries have been slashed. Savings rates have gone through the roof, as countries have re-oriented themselves towards exports. The last thing any of these countries want is an external shock.
Does this mean we'll get everything we want? No. I suspect we'll end up with significant "contributions" (albeit maybe coming directly from the financial services industry in return for maintaining passporting). But it is in the interests of both parties to come up with a solution that keeps the wheels on the bus. (And that is true for us every bit as much as them.)
I'm amazed Zac was even allowed to stand as the Con candidate at the GE.
Suppose you applied for a job and said "If the company does X I'll do my best to damage the company".
Would you expect to be hired?
That's the difference between being employed and being a political representative.
Con vs Zac vs LibDems in Richmond could be a fascinating battle. It's worth remembering that Zac is a Leaver, and Richmond-upon-Thames was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country.
I'd probably put my money on the LibDems. But, if the Conservatives were smart, they'd let Zac stand as an Independent and not oppose him, which would allow a Leaver to stay in parliament. Come 2020, they'd run against him if they had any sense.
Trump is turning into a Putin appeaser as Putin takes lumps of Volks-Russians off other states. That is unacceptable appeasement.
In the spirit of the thread header, why is it anathema to question whether state borders are in the right place?
The Russians only move them one way.
See Chechnya or Dagestan for details.
Russia peacefully gave up control of more territory after the dissolution of the USSR than any state in history has ever done.
I don't think so. We must have given up more with the end of Empire surely? The territory of Australia and Canada combined, both of which we have peacefully given up control over, is surely more than the former Soviet territories? Let alone the rest of the peacefully relinquished former Empire.
I was surprised to read not long ago that the British empire was the largest land empire in history. Given that there's nothing of substance left, I can't imagine that any country other than Britain has ever given up more.
A text will be put before the Council of Ministers which will vote by QMV. The real negotiations will take place between the UK and the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain: all of which are very dependent on the UK as export market, each of which runs a trade surplus with the UK, and all of whom have governments that face re-election.
Do you seriously think any of them would prefer a recession in their own country, which would almost certainly lead to their ignominious removal, over a sensible solution? \
The fact is that the EU leaders, like the UK leaders, are talking tough.
We are talking about how we're quite happy with Hard Brexit, and how we don't need Single Market access, and even a free trade deal might not be necessary.
EU leaders are talking about dues for pensions, about Hard Brexit being the only options, etc.
It's all posturing. Unless you can convince the other side you will walk away, you will never secure a good deal. And the heads of state of Germany, France, etc., know that every bit as much as we do.
The Eurozone economies are finally emerging from an incredibly painful recession/depression, which has seen the rise of populist parties across the board, and has required significant, painful structural reforms. The "jobs for life" expectation has been torn up in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal, and in many other countries (except France). Civil servant salaries have been slashed. Savings rates have gone through the roof, as countries have re-oriented themselves towards exports. The last thing any of these countries want is an external shock.
Does this mean we'll get everything we want? No. I suspect we'll end up with significant "contributions" (albeit maybe coming directly from the financial services industry in return for maintaining passporting). But it is in the interests of both parties to come up with a solution that keeps the wheels on the bus. (And that is true for us every bit as much as them.)
I think you misunderstand me. I was responding to the previous poster's assertion that the EU will seek to make Brexit as painful as possible for the UK, and particularly to ensure that the UK in no way could flourish after Brexit. Like you, I think that is complete tosh. But if that is what the EU is (which I do not believe), then my comment stands.
Or perhaps you were responding to bazzer72, not me.
I think you misunderstand me. I was responding to the previous poster's assertion that the EU will seek to make Brexit as painful as possible for the UK, and particularly to ensure that the UK in no way could flourish after Brexit. Like you, I think that is complete tosh. But if that is what the EU is (which I do not believe), then my comment stands.
Or perhaps you were responding to bazzer72, not me.
I apologise, I got confused between the two comments.
My assertion is a simple one: all economic actors, whether countries, people or businesses, will act in their own self interests - and will probably be quite short-term in defining those interests.
We are not principally dealing with the EU. We are principally dealing with the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is in their interests, and particularly their short term interests, to come to an accomodation with the UK. Tough talk is just pre-negotiation and should be ignored.
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
If that is the case, if the institution has nothing positive to sell and can only be held together by punishing those with the temerity to leave, who would want to belong to it? Sounds very Soviet bloc-ish to me.
Keep up with the thread!
It is fine and dandy to control other countries with threats and invasion (UK and USA excepted - where it is obviously not a good thing).
Stepped off PB to do some actual work. How remiss of me.
Trump is turning into a Putin appeaser as Putin takes lumps of Volks-Russians off other states. That is unacceptable appeasement.
In the spirit of the thread header, why is it anathema to question whether state borders are in the right place?
The Russians only move them one way.
See Chechnya or Dagestan for details.
Russia peacefully gave up control of more territory after the dissolution of the USSR than any state in history has ever done.
I don't think so. We must have given up more with the end of Empire surely? The territory of Australia and Canada combined, both of which we have peacefully given up control over, is surely more than the former Soviet territories? Let alone the rest of the peacefully relinquished former Empire.
I was surprised to read not long ago that the British empire was the largest land empire in history. Given that there's nothing of substance left, I can't imagine that any country other than Britain has ever given up more.
At a conservative estimate, British Empire at its height, incuding mandates and protectorates = 40 million sq. km. (15 million sq. miles)
Soviet Union in 1991 = 22 million sq. km (8.7 million sq. miles)
I think you misunderstand me. I was responding to the previous poster's assertion that the EU will seek to make Brexit as painful as possible for the UK, and particularly to ensure that the UK in no way could flourish after Brexit. Like you, I think that is complete tosh. But if that is what the EU is (which I do not believe), then my comment stands.
Or perhaps you were responding to bazzer72, not me.
I apologise, I got confused between the two comments.
My assertion is a simple one: all economic actors, whether countries, people or businesses, will act in their own self interests - and will probably be quite short-term in defining those interests.
We are not principally dealing with the EU. We are principally dealing with the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is in their interests, and particularly their short term interests, to come to an accomodation with the UK. Tough talk is just pre-negotiation and should be ignored.
I agree very much with your analysis with regard to the realities of the Brexit negotiations, and on the need to be able to walk if need be whilst remembering throughout that to walk is not the goal.
On the broader philosophical point raised here, there is the Palmerstonian school of international relations theory that says nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. I generally subscribe to this in the medium-term analysis (depending on the definition of permanent in relation to interests) but, like the rational economic man thesis, I think it oversimplifies reality.
In the shorter-term, personality, ego and institutional interests can play havoc with rational analysis of national interests. Or, and you particularly see this in arms control treaty review conferences like the upcoming Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference, bigger picture politics overwhelm narrower and more specific interests. Sometimes it is enough to know that the US is for something to decide it is imperative to be against it, regardless of whether that country's national interests on the specific issue are in opposition to or perfectly aligned with the US'.
I think you misunderstand me. I was responding to the previous poster's assertion that the EU will seek to make Brexit as painful as possible for the UK, and particularly to ensure that the UK in no way could flourish after Brexit. Like you, I think that is complete tosh. But if that is what the EU is (which I do not believe), then my comment stands.
Or perhaps you were responding to bazzer72, not me.
I apologise, I got confused between the two comments.
My assertion is a simple one: all economic actors, whether countries, people or businesses, will act in their own self interests - and will probably be quite short-term in defining those interests.
We are not principally dealing with the EU. We are principally dealing with the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is in their interests, and particularly their short term interests, to come to an accomodation with the UK. Tough talk is just pre-negotiation and should be ignored.
...Crucify Britain and lose half of those exports, for example- 1.5% of EU GDP for example, probably a better option from where, say, Alan Juppe is sitting than keeping that extra 1.5% and giving Le Pen etc a field day? And a chance to get one's hands on high finance once again which the Anglo Saxons have maddeningly captured since the Eighties? How about the Eastern Europeans etc, why give in on free movement-single market access? What are the incentives to play ball? I would have thought 1.5% of EU GDP would be a small price to pay to make an example of the UK and stop the rot from across the channel.
How much would the departure of even one country from the EU or Euro cost in EU GDP terms by comparison? Are we in danger of puffing up our own self-importance as usual I wonder...
"It is in their interests, and particularly their short term interests, to come to an accommodation with the UK" - what makes you so sure it is in France's interest, for example, or Poland's interest to come to a short-term accommodation with the UK? Is it all about this, perhaps, 1.5% of EU GDP that would be potentially at risk? Is this the inpenetrable shield which guarantees the EU will never do anything nasty to us? I have heard this again and again since the campaign, but I simply don't see the evidence to back it up.
Sacrificing 1.5% of EU GDP from UK exports on the one hand, but in exchange crucifying the city of London, and perhaps capture some of the spoils and tax revenue over time, while making a terrible example of the Brits - the country that kicked the stove when it did not work instead of fixing it and then found themselves complaining out in the cold,, would surely not be a bad route to look at from a continental perspective?
Trust in the news media is being eroded by perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by Americans' skepticism about what they read on social media.
Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.
Trust in the news media is being eroded by perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by Americans' skepticism about what they read on social media.
Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.
I wonder how much of that is intentional by the media itself. A chunk of strategy to hold a loyal viewer base is by pushing the idea that network x is untrustworthy and lying to you, you have to stay here to hear the truth etc.
NAFTA works without free movement so this 'free trade areas must have free movement' is nowt more than political dogma. If the EU wishes to preserve that dogma, so be it, but lets not pretend its something it isn't....I'm sure if the EU comes out and says 'We need free movement to complete the political project and turn the EU into a single country' then I think the majority of the British people will know they have made the correct choice....
For any who missed Mr Navabi's earlier two posts - two excellent links:
NAFTA works without free movement so this 'free trade areas must have free movement' is nowt more than political dogma. If the EU wishes to preserve that dogma, so be it, but lets not pretend its something it isn't....I'm sure if the EU comes out and says 'We need free movement to complete the political project and turn the EU into a single country' then I think the majority of the British people will know they have made the correct choice....
For any who missed Mr Navabi's earlier two posts - two excellent links:
NAFTA does actually have labour mobility provisions, but as in other respects (financial services, agriculture) it's less complete than the EU single market.
You can of course have free trade treaties that only include certain aspects of free trade. For example, you could make a free trade treaty that only covered cucumbers. But the single market is fairly broad and complete, and it covers people as well as cucumbers.
I wouldn't normally link to Guido....but this is on Mason:
The ramifications of this for the Court of Corbyn are magnificent. Milne will now be able to cite Mason’s disloyalty and lack of faith as a means to marginalise him. McDonnell will seethe that an ally like Mason is now without doubt passing him over for the younger, prettier Clive Lewis to be Corbyn’s successor. After Unite’s internal elections in 2018 the expectation is that McCluskey, having secured his own re-election, will decide to flex Unite’s financial and organisational muscle to put someone more competent and electable in as Labour’s leader.
NAFTA works without free movement so this 'free trade areas must have free movement' is nowt more than political dogma. If the EU wishes to preserve that dogma, so be it, but lets not pretend its something it isn't....I'm sure if the EU comes out and says 'We need free movement to complete the political project and turn the EU into a single country' then I think the majority of the British people will know they have made the correct choice....
For any who missed Mr Navabi's earlier two posts - two excellent links:
But the single market is fairly broad and complete, and it covers people as well as cucumbers.
But it doesn't need free movement to work (its very far from complete in services too) - that's a political choice - one the EU is perfectly entitled to make - but lets not pretend its something it isn't
Radicalised by the student protests of 2011, that bloke throwing a fire extinguisher off Tory HQ was their Rosa Parks moment. There is only one Jeremy, and Paul Mason is his prophet. They quote articles in the Canary as though it were the New York Times, and always start conversations about politics weirdly assuming you agree with them.
In an earlier era, they would have been the ones at a party buttonholing you to dispense some factoids they half-inched from an Economist article. But the new wave of radicalism, with its intricate rebuttal of the “narratives” of the MSM (mainstream media to you sheeple), has afforded a sexier outlet for that style of intellectual narcissism.
NAFTA works without free movement so this 'free trade areas must have free movement' is nowt more than political dogma. If the EU wishes to preserve that dogma, so be it, but lets not pretend its something it isn't....I'm sure if the EU comes out and says 'We need free movement to complete the political project and turn the EU into a single country' then I think the majority of the British people will know they have made the correct choice....
For any who missed Mr Navabi's earlier two posts - two excellent links:
But the single market is fairly broad and complete, and it covers people as well as cucumbers.
But it doesn't need free movement to work (its very far from complete in services too) - that's a political choice - one the EU is perfectly entitled to make - but lets not pretend its something it isn't
It doesn't need anything except cucumbers to work, but the benefits will be limited if it's limited to cucumbers.
The other problem with a cucumber-only deal is that countries that don't produce cucumbers won't be interested in signing it. You have similar problems if you try to exclude movement of people, because it was part of the quid-pro-quo for eastern countries without a very competitive manufacturing or financial services base to open up their markets.
NAFTA works without free movement so this 'free trade areas must have free movement' is nowt more than political dogma. If the EU wishes to preserve that dogma, so be it, but lets not pretend its something it isn't....I'm sure if the EU comes out and says 'We need free movement to complete the political project and turn the EU into a single country' then I think the majority of the British people will know they have made the correct choice....
For any who missed Mr Navabi's earlier two posts - two excellent links:
But the single market is fairly broad and complete, and it covers people as well as cucumbers.
But it doesn't need free movement to work (its very far from complete in services too) - that's a political choice - one the EU is perfectly entitled to make - but lets not pretend its something it isn't
You have similar problems if you try to exclude movement of people, because it was part of the quid-pro-quo for eastern countries without a very competitive manufacturing or financial services base to open up their markets.
From Mr Navabi's link
Visegrad Group - Citizens in UK: 1,054,000 UK - Citizens in Visegrad Group: 52,000
The Visegrad Group has adopted an early joint position on Brexit negotiations at the 16 September Bratislava Summit. Although fissures have erupted between the Visegrad partners, primarily in response to Poland and Hungary’s increasingly populist rhetoric, they remain united on one key issue within Brexit: securing their citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK. This position reflects the significant number of Visegrad nationals in the UK and the Group has said that it will veto any EU-UK deal that limits this. Although the Visegrad Member States do not have the qualified majority needed to block a deal in the Council, as a group of Member States unified on this single key issue, they cannot be ignored.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Emirate
Besides that is a very high risk nuclear strategy. What happens if the EU goes for its pound of flesh but Britain succeeds independently anyway? Then not only have we demonstrated that we can succeed but they've demonstrated that they are both vindictive and impotent.
Far better to just write us off as those eccentric Anglo Saxons that were never fully invested anyway.
A text will be put before the Council of Ministers which will vote by QMV. The real negotiations will take place between the UK and the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain: all of which are very dependent on the UK as export market, each of which runs a trade surplus with the UK, and all of whom have governments that face re-election.
Do you seriously think any of them would prefer a recession in their own country, which would almost certainly lead to their ignominious removal, over a sensible solution? \
The fact is that the EU leaders, like the UK leaders, are talking tough.
We are talking about how we're quite happy with Hard Brexit, and how we don't need Single Market access, and even a free trade deal might not be necessary.
EU leaders are talking about dues for pensions, about Hard Brexit being the only options, etc.
It's all posturing. Unless you can convince the other side you will walk away, you will never secure a good deal. And the heads of state of Germany, France, etc., know that every bit as much as we do.
The Eurozone economies are finally emerging from an incredibly painful recession/depression, which has seen the rise of populist parties across the board, and has required significant, painful structural reforms. The "jobs for life" expectation has been torn up in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal, and in many other countries (except France). Civil servant salaries have been slashed. Savings rates have gone through the roof, as countries have re-oriented themselves towards exports. The last thing any of these countries want is an external shock.
Does this mean we'll get everything we want? No. I suspect we'll end up with significant "contributions" (albeit maybe coming directly from the financial services industry in return for maintaining passporting). But it is in the interests of both parties to come up with a solution that keeps the wheels on the bus. (And that is true for us every bit as much as them.)
I'd probably put my money on the LibDems. But, if the Conservatives were smart, they'd let Zac stand as an Independent and not oppose him, which would allow a Leaver to stay in parliament. Come 2020, they'd run against him if they had any sense.
Or perhaps you were responding to bazzer72, not me.
My assertion is a simple one: all economic actors, whether countries, people or businesses, will act in their own self interests - and will probably be quite short-term in defining those interests.
We are not principally dealing with the EU. We are principally dealing with the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is in their interests, and particularly their short term interests, to come to an accomodation with the UK. Tough talk is just pre-negotiation and should be ignored.
Soviet Union in 1991 = 22 million sq. km (8.7 million sq. miles)
On the broader philosophical point raised here, there is the Palmerstonian school of international relations theory that says nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. I generally subscribe to this in the medium-term analysis (depending on the definition of permanent in relation to interests) but, like the rational economic man thesis, I think it oversimplifies reality.
In the shorter-term, personality, ego and institutional interests can play havoc with rational analysis of national interests. Or, and you particularly see this in arms control treaty review conferences like the upcoming Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference, bigger picture politics overwhelm narrower and more specific interests. Sometimes it is enough to know that the US is for something to decide it is imperative to be against it, regardless of whether that country's national interests on the specific issue are in opposition to or perfectly aligned with the US'.
They have the most to lose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/14/irelands-mushroom-farmers-become-early-victims-of-brexit/
Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016 https://t.co/pePOdx2lf4 https://t.co/KJXYTT9J3J
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.WAFwuI-ANBc
...Crucify Britain and lose half of those exports, for example- 1.5% of EU GDP for example, probably a better option from where, say, Alan Juppe is sitting than keeping that extra 1.5% and giving Le Pen etc a field day? And a chance to get one's hands on high finance once again which the Anglo Saxons have maddeningly captured since the Eighties? How about the Eastern Europeans etc, why give in on free movement-single market access? What are the incentives to play ball? I would have thought 1.5% of EU GDP would be a small price to pay to make an example of the UK and stop the rot from across the channel.
How much would the departure of even one country from the EU or Euro cost in EU GDP terms by comparison? Are we in danger of puffing up our own self-importance as usual I wonder...
"It is in their interests, and particularly their short term interests, to come to an accommodation with the UK" - what makes you so sure it is in France's interest, for example, or Poland's interest to come to a short-term accommodation with the UK? Is it all about this, perhaps, 1.5% of EU GDP that would be potentially at risk? Is this the inpenetrable shield which guarantees the EU will never do anything nasty to us? I have heard this again and again since the campaign, but I simply don't see the evidence to back it up.
Sacrificing 1.5% of EU GDP from UK exports on the one hand, but in exchange crucifying the city of London, and perhaps capture some of the spoils and tax revenue over time, while making a terrible example of the Brits - the country that kicked the stove when it did not work instead of fixing it and then found themselves complaining out in the cold,, would surely not be a bad route to look at from a continental perspective?
Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/ap-poll-just-6-percent-of-people-say-they-trust-the-media-2016-4?r=US&IR=T
NAFTA works without free movement so this 'free trade areas must have free movement' is nowt more than political dogma. If the EU wishes to preserve that dogma, so be it, but lets not pretend its something it isn't....I'm sure if the EU comes out and says 'We need free movement to complete the political project and turn the EU into a single country' then I think the majority of the British people will know they have made the correct choice....
For any who missed Mr Navabi's earlier two posts - two excellent links:
http://cicero-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Brexit-negotiations-The-View-from-the-EU.pdf
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/ditch-the-hard-brexit-fallacy
You can of course have free trade treaties that only include certain aspects of free trade. For example, you could make a free trade treaty that only covered cucumbers. But the single market is fairly broad and complete, and it covers people as well as cucumbers.
The ramifications of this for the Court of Corbyn are magnificent. Milne will now be able to cite Mason’s disloyalty and lack of faith as a means to marginalise him. McDonnell will seethe that an ally like Mason is now without doubt passing him over for the younger, prettier Clive Lewis to be Corbyn’s successor. After Unite’s internal elections in 2018 the expectation is that McCluskey, having secured his own re-election, will decide to flex Unite’s financial and organisational muscle to put someone more competent and electable in as Labour’s leader.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/14/chaos-court-corbyn/
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2016/oct/14/after-the-hipster-are-you-a-createenager-or-a-hugger-mugger-lets-hope-not
Canaristas
Radicalised by the student protests of 2011, that bloke throwing a fire extinguisher off Tory HQ was their Rosa Parks moment. There is only one Jeremy, and Paul Mason is his prophet. They quote articles in the Canary as though it were the New York Times, and always start conversations about politics weirdly assuming you agree with them.
In an earlier era, they would have been the ones at a party buttonholing you to dispense some factoids they half-inched from an Economist article. But the new wave of radicalism, with its intricate rebuttal of the “narratives” of the MSM (mainstream media to you sheeple), has afforded a sexier outlet for that style of intellectual narcissism.
The other problem with a cucumber-only deal is that countries that don't produce cucumbers won't be interested in signing it. You have similar problems if you try to exclude movement of people, because it was part of the quid-pro-quo for eastern countries without a very competitive manufacturing or financial services base to open up their markets.
Visegrad Group - Citizens in UK: 1,054,000
UK - Citizens in Visegrad Group: 52,000
The Visegrad Group has adopted an early joint position on Brexit negotiations at the 16 September Bratislava Summit. Although fissures have erupted between the Visegrad partners, primarily in response to Poland and Hungary’s increasingly populist rhetoric, they remain united on one key issue within Brexit: securing their citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK. This position reflects the significant number of Visegrad nationals in the UK and the Group has said that it will veto any EU-UK deal that limits this. Although the Visegrad Member States do not have the qualified majority needed to block a deal in the Council, as a group of Member States unified on this single key issue, they cannot be ignored.