The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Do we think anyone is talking to anyone at the moment, even unofficially? Maybe some officials?
Or is all the speculation about options that are being floated and leaked just to see what reaction they get?
The answer to your first paragraph is yes. The FCO will have been talking to people in other governments about options and positions for months. It is after all what they are there for, why we have embassies even in this age of instant communication. The are also, I have to admit, rather good at it on the whole.
As to such leaks as there may have been, who knows? In my experience most leaks come from politicians and SPADs playing silly buggers and trying to get one up on their rivals.
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
EEA means FoM means electoral suicide.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
Well done sunil. Good to see you write something more challenging than a stream of one line soundbites.
I'm convinced that Brexit was a calamitous decision which when enacted will turn us from the fifth largest economy in the world to a basket case with a third world currency disintegrating public services and social squalour the like of which we haven't seen for decades.
France is a country which is visibly buzzing again and nothing was as telling as their bemusement and certainty that the UK had committed hara-kiri. As the currency collapsed it became even clearer who the new poor men of Europe were going to be. While the French shrugged British shoulders dropped.
I believe the decision should now be reversed by parliament. This was a decision taken by some very ignorant people (in the literal sense of the word) against the unanimous judgement of experts and against the overwhelming will of parliament.
Parliament owes the people a duty of care. There are several examples where under exceptional circumstances professional bodies can override the rights of the individual. If saving a country from impoverishment doesn't come into that category then nothing does
I was in Avignon recently - shocked to confirm that much of what SeanT said about the declining quality of French food was true. Italy has far surpassed French cuisine, and the mediocre wines were eye wateringly expensive.
I love France, but it appears to be a society stuck in the 1980s with an approach to labour rules from the 1960s.
Oh - and you're wrong, quel surprise, about Brexit. Worse, you clearly don't care a fig for democracy.
If you think unfiltered democracy (unlike parliamentary democracy ) is a reasonable way to determine our future I suggest you read Plato and her twitter chums. There are some real and serious nutters out there and its infectious. Their judgement isn't safe. We need some checks and balances and in this referendum that didn't happen.
The referendum is not unfiltered democracy it was specifically enabled by a vote in parliament. The parliamentary democracy decided to ask the people, the enabling legislation to do so was passed by a vote of 544 to 53 with all major parties except the SNP supporting it.
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
EEA means FoM means electoral suicide.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
How long can we make the transition period? 50 years?
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Do we think anyone is talking to anyone at the moment, even unofficially? Maybe some officials?
Or is all the speculation about options that are being floated and leaked just to see what reaction they get?
The answer to your first paragraph is yes. The FCO will have been talking to people in other governments about options and positions for months. It is after all what they are there for, why we have embassies even in this age of instant communication. The are also, I have to admit, rather good at it on the whole.
As to such leaks as there may have been, who knows? In my experience most leaks come from politicians and SPADs playing silly buggers and trying to get one up on their rivals.
Mr L,
I was reading an LRB last night, and came across the following book review about a part of the Second World War I knew little about before: the cold war for uranium from the Congo. I thought it might be of interest. Ignore the rather clickbaity title:
''Indeed. The best hope for compromise I feel, is we pay X in and you give us X control back. We get control they get to say it's a worse deal.''
If we got control of immigration, financial passporting, free movement of goods, do your own trade deals and UK law predominates then that is worth more than we pay in currently. Potentially it is worth substantially more.
And the EU could claim we are its biggest contributor, and our money is paying for all that pork they are throwing at voters.
And it also acts as a deterrent to other potential leavers. You wanna leave? have you seen what Britain pays?
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
EEA means FoM means electoral suicide.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
How long can we make the transition period? 50 years?
I would say five to seven years.
This enables us - the UK - to have a sensible discussion, endorsed by actual votes in the actual ballot boxes about what Brexit means. (Beyond Brexit.)
This enables us to forge relationships abroad.
This enables businesses to implement transitional arrangements.
This enables us to publicise the tariff arrangements we'll have with the world post-Brexit, so business can plan.
And most importantly, it sends out the message to business that we are guided by outcomes, not ideology.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
The recovery of our trade balance will be a J shaped curve. It is a well recognised phenomenon.
The quickest way for our trade to balance is for us to "do a Spain", which is what we did in 1990-1991, and during which the savings rate rose 7%.
(Currently, the UK savings rate is 3%. The level at which your trade comes into balance is about 10%. Those with really big surpluses, like Switzerland, tend to have savings rates around 15%.)
Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain what 'doing a spain' is please?
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
The recovery of our trade balance will be a J shaped curve. It is a well recognised phenomenon.
The quickest way for our trade to balance is for us to "do a Spain", which is what we did in 1990-1991, and during which the savings rate rose 7%.
(Currently, the UK savings rate is 3%. The level at which your trade comes into balance is about 10%. Those with really big surpluses, like Switzerland, tend to have savings rates around 15%.)
Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain what 'doing a spain' is please?
Savings rate shoots up. Horrible recession. Lots of unemployed people.
Spain's savings rate went from 2% in 2007 to 12% in 2012, and unemployment went from 10% to close to 30%.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
''Indeed. The best hope for compromise I feel, is we pay X in and you give us X control back. We get control they get to say it's a worse deal.''
If we got control of immigration, financial passporting, free movement of goods, do your own trade deals and UK law predominates then that is worth more than we pay in currently. Potentially it is worth substantially more.
And the EU could claim we are its biggest contributor, and our money is paying for all that pork they are throwing at voters.
And it also acts as a deterrent to other potential leavers. You wanna leave? have you seen what Britain pays?
Everyone claims victory. Everyone is (largely) happy.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
EEA means FoM means electoral suicide.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
Will we achieve the PB Leavers' nirvana of EEA!!??
Increasing productivity is the way to increase the overall wealth of a nation in the long term.
So how is the UK doing?
Labour productivity grew by 0.6% in Q2 2016, according to new data released today by ONS. As a result, the UK’s output per hour worked has returned to its pre-downturn level for the first time since the onset of the economic downturn. While productivity remains far below the level implied by its pre-downturn trend, this is the first time that the UK has passed this threshold.
New estimates of the ‘productivity gap’ between the UK and other leading economies are also published today. They show that the gap between the UK and the rest of the G7 remains stubbornly wide – at around 18 percentage points in GDP per hour worked terms in 2015 – unchanged on a year earlier. On this measure, productivity in the UK in 2015 was 27, 30 and 35 percentage points lower than in France, the USA and Germany respectively.
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
EEA means FoM means electoral suicide.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
How long can we make the transition period? 50 years?
I would say five to seven years.
This enables us - the UK - to have a sensible discussion, endorsed by actual votes in the actual ballot boxes about what Brexit means. (Beyond Brexit.)
This enables us to forge relationships abroad.
This enables businesses to implement transitional arrangements.
This enables us to publicise the tariff arrangements we'll have with the world post-Brexit, so business can plan.
And most importantly, it sends out the message to business that we are guided by outcomes, not ideology.
The problem is that leads to five to seven years of uncertainty. For one thing, no-one knows what the 'sensible discussion' will lead to. How long will the transitional arrangements last? What will the tarriffs be?
How will companies invest given these uncertainties?
Worst of all, what happens if the actual votes in the actual ballot boxes goes against it?
You chose to leave, and to do so you had to make common cause with people who disagree with your EEA-style approach. You may not get your way.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
The recovery of our trade balance will be a J shaped curve. It is a well recognised phenomenon.
The quickest way for our trade to balance is for us to "do a Spain", which is what we did in 1990-1991, and during which the savings rate rose 7%.
(Currently, the UK savings rate is 3%. The level at which your trade comes into balance is about 10%. Those with really big surpluses, like Switzerland, tend to have savings rates around 15%.)
Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain what 'doing a spain' is please?
Savings rate shoots up. Horrible recession. Lots of unemployed people.
Spain's savings rate went from 2% in 2007 to 12% in 2012, and unemployment went from 10% to close to 30%.
That does depend quite a lot on labour flexibility. Many people were surprised at how limited the rise in unemployment was in the 2008-10 recession, and then the fiscal consolidation that followed. Whether there's still the same scope for pay restraint I don't know, though I expect the possibility is higher than the reality was in Spain.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
That'd it be a big asp for them then?
Gets coat
That's it. I've adder nuff.
I know. We voted not to be a mamba of the EU anymore.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
''Everyone claims victory. Everyone is (largely) happy. ''
Frankly, I'm only surprised it wasn;t tried when we were in.
Our strategy should have been to be the biggest contributor. By far. In the end, money talks, bullsh8t walks. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
I rather suspect that any deal that ends up with the UK paying even more money each year to the EU will not be acceptable to parliament or the electorate.
I think you have some kind of syndication set up that automatically posts your retweets here? Would you mind turning it off - we all have twitter, if we want to read your retweets we'll follow you there.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
That'd it be a big asp for them then?
Gets coat
That's it. I've adder nuff.
You're all speaking a lot of mamba jumbo. Let's just krait this conversation.
I should adder these puns into my jokes database. It's written in python.
I see the pound shop Gordon Brown is acting like a control freak again and pissing off her ministers.
Tory MPs voiced alarm today after Downing Street blocked Boris Johnson from appointing a long-standing aide as his chief of staff.
One MP said it was “irregular” for No 10 to interfere with the Foreign Secretary’s appointments to his own office, and feared it was a sign of Downing Street throwing its weight around.
Will Walden, who was previously Mr Johnson’s £130,000-a-year director of communications at City Hall, had been expected to be confirmed in a more senior role in Whitehall as strategic adviser and chief of staff.
However, Mr Walden has now withdrawn his application after it became clear that the Prime Minister’s office was refusing to sign it off.
Downing Street would not comment or explain its refusal today.
A Tory MP said the incident would alarm backbenchers. “It is a big surprise that the number three in the Government is not being allowed to appoint his own staff,” said the MP. “It is quite irregular.” The dispute comes after signs that No 10 wants to keep tight control over rival ministers and their special advisers.
It emerged today that Mr Walden had been working unpaid in Mr Johnson’s office while his official status was discussed.
He offered to work for a substantial salary cut after No 10 initially questioned his proposed remuneration, and then proposed a reduced title when the objections changed.
''Indeed. The best hope for compromise I feel, is we pay X in and you give us X control back. We get control they get to say it's a worse deal.''
If we got control of immigration, financial passporting, free movement of goods, do your own trade deals and UK law predominates then that is worth more than we pay in currently. Potentially it is worth substantially more.
And the EU could claim we are its biggest contributor, and our money is paying for all that pork they are throwing at voters.
And it also acts as a deterrent to other potential leavers. You wanna leave? have you seen what Britain pays?
Everyone claims victory. Everyone is (largely) happy.
All that just to avoid reforming our welfare system.....
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
EEA means FoM means electoral suicide.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
To retain membership of the EEA, Britain would need to either join EFTA at the same time as leaving the EU, or become a third party to the arrangement as a stand-alone state alongside the EU and EFTA. Neither of those is impossible but nor are they anything like a given.
Besides, 'transitional periods' and 'suspended' still implies that the four freedoms remain in place at a fundamental level. Perhaps today's politicians would be happy enough to kick the can far enough down the road that it'll be their successors that have to deal with the problem. That still doesn't mean it would have gone away.
"In an interview with the BBC, Woolfe said there was “something rotten” in Ukip, and said the party was in a “death spiral”, beset with a “visceral hatred” of anyone connected with Farage."
CCHQ were warned months ago that they should sack Sam Armstrong, the Tory aide who has been arrested over an alleged rape in the Commons. Back in June Rob Halfon appealed to Lord Feldman to remove Armstrong from his job with South Thanet MP Craig Mackinlay.
"In an interview with the BBC, Woolfe said there was “something rotten” in Ukip, and said the party was in a “death spiral”, beset with a “visceral hatred” of anyone connected with Farage."
No, but there's something deeply slippery about someone who asked a fellow MEP to step outside to discuss their differences pretending he's not part of the 'something rotten'.
The problem is that leads to five to seven years of uncertainty. For one thing, no-one knows what the 'sensible discussion' will lead to. How long will the transitional arrangements last? What will the tarriffs be?
How will companies invest given these uncertainties?
Worst of all, what happens if the actual votes in the actual ballot boxes goes against it?
You chose to leave, and to do so you had to make common cause with people who disagree with your EEA-style approach. You may not get your way.
That encapsulates my thoughts too, Mr. J.. Extending the period of uncertainty from at most a couple of years out to six or seven doesn't seem to solve the problem. In addition there is the danger (if that is the right word) that the interim arrangements become the permanent ones - inertia takes over.
If the decision is to change then lady MacBeth's advice is very wise. "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly".
CCHQ were warned months ago that they should sack Sam Armstrong, the Tory aide who has been arrested over an alleged rape in the Commons. Back in June Rob Halfon appealed to Lord Feldman to remove Armstrong from his job with South Thanet MP Craig Mackinlay.
''Everyone claims victory. Everyone is (largely) happy. ''
Frankly, I'm only surprised it wasn;t tried when we were in.
Our strategy should have been to be the biggest contributor. By far. In the end, money talks, bullsh8t walks. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Don't think that could have worked in isolation. Germany calls the tune not only because it is the biggest contributor but because it's also politically integrated into the project.
Britain could certainly have been an EU leader but only by joining the Euro and Schengen. Had we signed up to it at Maastricht, there's a reasonable chance that the ECB could have been based in London (indeed, it could have been a condition of signing up).
But while that level of political commitment might have been possible around the turn of the century when New Labour was dominant, it would quickly have unwound in a very nasty way.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
An interesting assessment JJ. Personally I think you understate the other EU members' wish to avoid a Hard Exit .... once they are over the angry stage which is all too evident right now. After all they will still want us as a soft trading partner as well as needing our billions to fund their hyper wasteful EU budget. In the same order as your 4 options, I would suggest instead :
Hard Exit .................. 35% Semi-Soft Brexit ....... 35% Soft Brexit ................ 20% Remain in EU as is .... 10%
CCHQ were warned months ago that they should sack Sam Armstrong, the Tory aide who has been arrested over an alleged rape in the Commons. Back in June Rob Halfon appealed to Lord Feldman to remove Armstrong from his job with South Thanet MP Craig Mackinlay.
Well done sunil. Good to see you write something more challenging than a stream of one line soundbites.
I'm convinced that Brexit was a calamitous decision which when enacted will turn us from the fifth largest economy in the world to a basket case with a third world currency disintegrating public services and social squalour the like of which we haven't seen for decades.
France is a country which is visibly buzzing again and nothing was as telling as their bemusement and certainty that the UK had committed hara-kiri. As the currency collapsed it became even clearer who the new poor men of Europe were going to be. While the French shrugged British shoulders dropped.
I believe the decision should now be reversed by parliament. This was a decision taken by some very ignorant people (in the literal sense of the word) against the unanimous judgement of experts and against the overwhelming will of parliament.
Parliament owes the people a duty of care. There are several examples where under exceptional circumstances professional bodies can override the rights of the individual. If saving a country from impoverishment doesn't come into that category then nothing does
Well, at least you're honest about hating democracy.
Well done sunil. Good to see you write something more challenging than a stream of one line soundbites.
I'm convinced that Brexit was a calamitous decision which when enacted will turn us from the fifth largest economy in the world to a basket case with a third world currency disintegrating public services and social squalour the like of which we haven't seen for decades.
France is a country which is visibly buzzing again and nothing was as telling as their bemusement and certainty that the UK had committed hara-kiri. As the currency collapsed it became even clearer who the new poor men of Europe were going to be. While the French shrugged British shoulders dropped.
I believe the decision should now be reversed by parliament. This was a decision taken by some very ignorant people (in the literal sense of the word) against the unanimous judgement of experts and against the overwhelming will of parliament.
Parliament owes the people a duty of care. There are several examples where under exceptional circumstances professional bodies can override the rights of the individual. If saving a country from impoverishment doesn't come into that category then nothing does
Well, at least you're honest about hating democracy.
As I said below, many leavers would be 'hating democracy' and wanting the referendum result to be ignored if they'd lost. Some were even doing it *before* the referendum ...
It was all going to happen anyway. It's actually good news. It's a price worth paying. It doesn't matter. It's not true. It's been worst in the past. (EDIT: we have a winner, thanks GIN).
Take your pick, as I'm not on the distribution for 'headbanger excuse of the day'.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
An interesting assessment JJ. Personally I think you understate the other EU members' wish to avoid a Hard Exit .... once they are over the angry stage which is all too evident right now. After all they will still want us as a soft trading partner as well as needing our billions to fund their hyper wasteful EU budget. In the same order as your 4 options, I would suggest instead :
Hard Exit .................. 35% Semi-Soft Brexit ....... 35% Soft Brexit ................ 20% Remain in EU as is .... 10%
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
Then there are the problems of getting all the EU members to agree. At times this has been difficult enough; getting agreement on a semi-soft or soft Brexit in anything like a timely manner might be near to impossible. And in the meantime we have more uncertainty.
It may be simpler for them just to grant us a Hard Exit.
(I'm finding it difficult to avoid calling a 'Hard Exit' the 'Withdrawal Method' ... )
Tory MPs voiced alarm today after Downing Street blocked Boris Johnson from appointing a long-standing aide as his chief of staff.
Another blow against the chumocracy!
Why does the Foreign Secretary need a 'chief of staff'? Don't we have a civil service for that?
Theresa May has two Chiefs of Staff. Why does she need two or even one when she has the civil service?
l imagine that it comes down to the number of extra-CS advisors that a minister has. I don't like the trend of dozens of SPADs being attached all over Whitehall and especially to the PM but I can see that if there are a lot of them then there may be a case for someone to oversee that group who is also outside the civil service but is not necessarily the minister in question.
But having said that, I don't know if that is the job of a CoS and in any case, there wouldn't be the need if there weren't so many underlings.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
An interesting assessment JJ. Personally I think you understate the other EU members' wish to avoid a Hard Exit .... once they are over the angry stage which is all too evident right now. After all they will still want us as a soft trading partner as well as needing our billions to fund their hyper wasteful EU budget. In the same order as your 4 options, I would suggest instead :
Hard Exit .................. 35% Semi-Soft Brexit ....... 35% Soft Brexit ................ 20% Remain in EU as is .... 10%
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
Then there are the problems of getting all the EU members to agree. At times this has been difficult enough; getting agreement on a semi-soft or soft Brexit in anything like a timely manner might be near to impossible. And in the meantime we have more uncertainty.
It may be simpler for them just to grant us a Hard Exit.
(I'm finding it difficult to avoid calling a 'Hard Exit' the 'Withdrawal Method' ... )
I also like the idea that whereas our decision accepted that a diminution in economic well-being was a price worth paying to assert our sovereignty, the EU27 will act in a strictly economic manner with nary a thought for national pride or sovereignty themselves.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
An interesting assessment JJ. Personally I think you understate the other EU members' wish to avoid a Hard Exit .... once they are over the angry stage which is all too evident right now. After all they will still want us as a soft trading partner as well as needing our billions to fund their hyper wasteful EU budget. In the same order as your 4 options, I would suggest instead :
Hard Exit .................. 35% Semi-Soft Brexit ....... 35% Soft Brexit ................ 20% Remain in EU as is .... 10%
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
Then there are the problems of getting all the EU members to agree. At times this has been difficult enough; getting agreement on a semi-soft or soft Brexit in anything like a timely manner might be near to impossible. And in the meantime we have more uncertainty.
It may be simpler for them just to grant us a Hard Exit.
(I'm finding it difficult to avoid calling a 'Hard Exit' the 'Withdrawal Method' ... )
Worth noting that not all the members need to agree. The final agreement will be decided by QMV. The European parliament, by contrast, does have a veto.
It was all going to happen anyway. It's actually good news. It's a price worth paying. It doesn't matter. It's not true. It's been worst in the past. (EDIT: we have a winner, thanks GIN).
Take your pick, as I'm not on the distribution for 'headbanger excuse of the day'.
You've forgotten "it's a price worth paying": Sean_F will be up shortly to tell you that the British are prepared to trade wealth and prosperity for 'sovereignty'
It was all going to happen anyway. It's actually good news. It's a price worth paying. It doesn't matter. It's not true. It's been worst in the past. (EDIT: we have a winner, thanks GIN).
Take your pick, as I'm not on the distribution for 'headbanger excuse of the day'.
You've forgotten "it's a price worth paying": Sean_F will be up shortly to tell you that the British are prepared to trade wealth and prosperity for 'sovereignty'
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
An interesting assessment JJ. Personally I think you understate the other EU members' wish to avoid a Hard Exit .... once they are over the angry stage which is all too evident right now. After all they will still want us as a soft trading partner as well as needing our billions to fund their hyper wasteful EU budget. In the same order as your 4 options, I would suggest instead :
Hard Exit .................. 35% Semi-Soft Brexit ....... 35% Soft Brexit ................ 20% Remain in EU as is .... 10%
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
Then there are the problems of getting all the EU members to agree. At times this has been difficult enough; getting agreement on a semi-soft or soft Brexit in anything like a timely manner might be near to impossible. And in the meantime we have more uncertainty.
It may be simpler for them just to grant us a Hard Exit.
(I'm finding it difficult to avoid calling a 'Hard Exit' the 'Withdrawal Method' ... )
I also like the idea that whereas our decision accepted that a diminution in economic well-being was a price worth paying to assert our sovereignty, the EU27 will act in a strictly economic manner with nary a thought for national pride or sovereignty themselves.
The other thing about this is that as we saw with both Brexit and Trump, free trade is currently unpopular. This applies not only to the EU but also to any other countries that Britain may want to make a trade agreement with. It's just a really, really shitty time to be making trade agreements.
I think all this points to everybody wanting to kick the can down the road and hope to pick it up again as and when this whole anti-globalization craze blows over.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
The mechanism you refer to, I think, deals with crisis situations where you act first and justify later. The suspension goes into dispute with the oversight body and you are supposed to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible and reinstate the suspended "freedom". (Sorry I don't have the text in front of me with the exact articles and terminology).
I would be astonished if the EU would accept a long term suspension because we don't feel like implementing the treaty rather than because there is an immediate crisis. I also doubt they would be happy if we went into an arrangement with them intending from the start to work around it.
I was very surprised that back in Autumn 1997 there were no serious demands for a recount in respect of the Welsh Referendum result. A margin of 0.6% is the equivalent of 300 votes in an average parliamentary constituency and would certainly result in - at the very least - a bundle recount .Moreover, there have been occasions when such a majority has been reversed following a recount.
Tory MPs voiced alarm today after Downing Street blocked Boris Johnson from appointing a long-standing aide as his chief of staff.
Another blow against the chumocracy!
Why does the Foreign Secretary need a 'chief of staff'? Don't we have a civil service for that?
He doesn't and we do indeed. The problem is and has been for a couple of decades is that MPs have become glorified social workers and as such have staff to deal with correspondence and such like. They like to reward and keep such staff as and when they achieve office.
Furthermore, I think the intellectual quality of people that become ministers has been in steady decline and they need to have people around them who will do their thinking for them and, nearly, always agree with them. Ministers like to have staff who are loyal to them personally.
The obverse is that for ambitious would-be politicians being a SPAD has been a route to becoming an MP and a fast track to becoming a minister themselves. (see Balls, Cameron, Osborne for recent examples).
Then their is the issue of trust in the Civil Service. "Yes, Minister" was a satire but it was so good that many took it to be a playbook of how the Civil Service actually operates, or at least operated.
As far as I am concerned the rot really set in when in about '94 Heseltine in moving from one job to another in government insisted on taking his top civil servants with him to his new department - thus bringing together the two themes of personally loyal staff and distrust in the civil service.
A couple of final thoughts. As with so many other things there has since 1945 been a habit of the UK aping the USA and national politicians in the USA do have personal staff. Secondly Cameron came to power in 2010 saying he would clamp down on SPADs, their power and their numbers and their salaries - then like most of his promises didn't.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
An interesting assessment JJ. Personally I think you understate the other EU members' wish to avoid a Hard Exit .... once they are over the angry stage which is all too evident right now. After all they will still want us as a soft trading partner as well as needing our billions to fund their hyper wasteful EU budget. In the same order as your 4 options, I would suggest instead :
Hard Exit .................. 35% Semi-Soft Brexit ....... 35% Soft Brexit ................ 20% Remain in EU as is .... 10%
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
You may be right JJ ...... it is surely no coincidence that the expression "Pour encourager les autres" works best when used in the French language!
It was all going to happen anyway. It's actually good news. It's a price worth paying. It doesn't matter. It's not true. It's been worst in the past. (EDIT: we have a winner, thanks GIN).
Take your pick, as I'm not on the distribution for 'headbanger excuse of the day'.
You've forgotten "it's a price worth paying": Sean_F will be up shortly to tell you that the British are prepared to trade wealth and prosperity for 'sovereignty'
You need to check your spectacle prescription
Cripes! You say that on the very day I bought some eye drops for my sore peepers! Apologies sir.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
The mechanism you refer to, I think, deals with crisis situations where you act first and justify later. The suspension goes into dispute with the oversight body and you are supposed to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible and reinstate the suspended "freedom". (Sorry I don't have the text in front of me with the exact articles and terminology).
I would be astonished if the EU would accept a long term suspension because we don't feel like implementing the treaty rather than because there is an immediate crisis. I also doubt they would be happy if we went into an arrangement with them intending from the start to work around it.
So apparently the model people are looking at for this is Liechtenstein, which originally had a transition control in their accession treaty, then when that expired they redefined it as an exceptional measure, which the EU kept agreeing they could extend.
But in their case it's a country with a population under 40,000 people that's already become majority immigrant, so it's a lot easier for them to claim there's something exceptional going on than the UK, and it's also a lot easier to overlook.
It's also not obvious how you play the "transitional" card when you're nominally transitioning from a situation where anybody can come and go, to a situation where anybody can come and go.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
The mechanism you refer to, I think, deals with crisis situations where you act first and justify later. The suspension goes into dispute with the oversight body and you are supposed to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible and reinstate the suspended "freedom". (Sorry I don't have the text in front of me with the exact articles and terminology).
I would be astonished if the EU would accept a long term suspension because we don't feel like implementing the treaty rather than because there is an immediate crisis. I also doubt they would be happy if we went into an arrangement with them intending from the start to work around it.
I likewise don't have the text in front of me but it says something about it (immigration) having to cause large scale social and economic upheaval.
As somebody said, three delusions about Brexit are running out of road at the same time:
1. That Brexit won't happen in reality. 2. That EU partners are desperate to give the UK a good deal out of self interest. 3. That the UK Government will negotiate a high quality alternative to EU membership.
Delusions held by different people at the same time. Put together and shown to be deluded, it means Hard Brexit.
LOL. Prepare for much frothing and several comments like "the will of the people".
What happens when the Government lose the Article 50 court case?
Not going to happen but if it does the government puts a one line bill to Parliament saying along the lines of "The United Kingdom will leave the European Union, the Prime Minister is to inform the European Council of this decision and invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union to start exit negotiations". Let's see who dares oppose that.
Well done sunil. Good to see you write something more challenging than a stream of one line soundbites.
I'm convinced that Brexit was a calamitous decision which when enacted will turn us from the fifth largest economy in the world to a basket case with a third world currency disintegrating public services and social squalour the like of which we haven't seen for decades.
France is a country which is visibly buzzing again and nothing was as telling as their bemusement and certainty that the UK had committed hara-kiri. As the currency collapsed it became even clearer who the new poor men of Europe were going to be. While the French shrugged British shoulders dropped.
I believe the decision should now be reversed by parliament. This was a decision taken by some very ignorant people (in the literal sense of the word) against the unanimous judgement of experts and against the overwhelming will of parliament.
Parliament owes the people a duty of care. There are several examples where under exceptional circumstances professional bodies can override the rights of the individual. If saving a country from impoverishment doesn't come into that category then nothing does
I was in Avignon recently - shocked to confirm that much of what SeanT said about the declining quality of French food was true. Italy has far surpassed French cuisine, and the mediocre wines were eye wateringly expensive.
I love France, but it appears to be a society stuck in the 1980s with an approach to labour rules from the 1960s.
Oh - and you're wrong, quel surprise, about Brexit. Worse, you clearly don't care a fig for democracy.
I've been researching this. The decline in French food and their silly labour laws are actually linked. Restaurants can't afford so many chefs and sous-chefs, so increasingly they use the microwave and the freezer, and culinary innovation stops.
You only have to look at those protests in France a few months ago over revised labour laws. The way they were protesting you would think they were passing laws to allow zero hour contracts on 1 euro an hour, when in reality they were the most minor of changes, like after a long process you might JUST be able to let somebody go.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
If true, that's bloody stupid. Cue easy opposition win in the HoC, plus a difficult by-election.
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
That's a tricky balance for them. If they look like they are going to the mattresses to stop us doing well out of leaving, and then we still do well, they look ineffectual and irrelevant, which is much worse than looking like they gave us a soft deal.
I was very surprised that back in Autumn 1997 there were no serious demands for a recount in respect of the Welsh Referendum result. A margin of 0.6% is the equivalent of 300 votes in an average parliamentary constituency and would certainly result in - at the very least - a bundle recount .Moreover, there have been occasions when such a majority has been reversed following a recount.
I agree, although statistically, it's much less likely that a majority of, say, 0.3% would be overturned in a turnout of a million votes than an election of 100k votes, never mind one of 1k votes.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
The mechanism you refer to, I think, deals with crisis situations where you act first and justify later. The suspension goes into dispute with the oversight body and you are supposed to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible and reinstate the suspended "freedom". (Sorry I don't have the text in front of me with the exact articles and terminology).
I would be astonished if the EU would accept a long term suspension because we don't feel like implementing the treaty rather than because there is an immediate crisis. I also doubt they would be happy if we went into an arrangement with them intending from the start to work around it.
I likewise don't have the text in front of me but it says something about it (immigration) having to cause large scale social and economic upheaval.
Not sure we could argue that.
"Article 112
1.If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.
2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. "
Article 113
2. The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
That's a tricky balance for them. If they look like they are going to the mattresses to stop us doing well out of leaving, and then we still do well, they look ineffectual and irrelevant, which is much worse than looking like they gave us a soft deal.
That's easy. The " and then we still do well," will not just be arguable either way, but will only be known many years or decades in the future. They can disregard it for the moment.
In contrast, the threat of other member states leaving is much more immediate.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
If true, that's bloody stupid. Cue easy opposition win in the HoC, plus a difficult by-election.
Surely the by election would only happen if the government wins not if it loses a free vote on this?
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
If true, that's bloody stupid. Cue easy opposition win in the HoC, plus a difficult by-election.
Precisely ...... if TM cannot see those precise consequencies then my opinion of her political nous has just decreased dramatically. At least Dave in a rather cowardly way had the good sense to keep putting off the evil day.
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
That's a tricky balance for them. If they look like they are going to the mattresses to stop us doing well out of leaving, and then we still do well, they look ineffectual and irrelevant, which is much worse than looking like they gave us a soft deal.
That's easy. The " and then we still do well," will not just be arguable either way, but will only be known many years or decades in the future. They can disregard it for the moment.
In contrast, the threat of other member states leaving is much more immediate.
Conversely member states with one eye on the exit (Italy) are not likely to be voting in favour of a tough response which might well form the response for themselves in a couple or so years, or potentially sooner if Renzi loses his referendum bid.
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
The mechanism you refer to, I think, deals with crisis situations where you act first and justify later. The suspension goes into dispute with the oversight body and you are supposed to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible and reinstate the suspended "freedom". (Sorry I don't have the text in front of me with the exact articles and terminology).
I would be astonished if the EU would accept a long term suspension because we don't feel like implementing the treaty rather than because there is an immediate crisis. I also doubt they would be happy if we went into an arrangement with them intending from the start to work around it.
So apparently the model people are looking at for this is Liechtenstein, which originally had a transition control in their accession treaty, then when that expired they redefined it as an exceptional measure, which the EU kept agreeing they could extend.
But in their case it's a country with a population under 40,000 people that's already become majority immigrant, so it's a lot easier for them to claim there's something exceptional going on than the UK, and it's also a lot easier to overlook.
It's also not obvious how you play the "transitional" card when you're nominally transitioning from a situation where anybody can come and go, to a situation where anybody can come and go.
The thing about Liechtenstein is that it is the size of the postage stamps they flog and BTW 95%, or whatever, of the limited space they do have is uninhabitable mountain. Residence is limited but the right to work isn't. Most workers pop across the border from Austria or Switzerland for the day. None of that is comparable for the UK.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
Would that mean the PM will allow Cabinet Ministers + backbenchers a vote on conscience?
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
Would that mean the PM will allow Cabinet Ministers + backbenchers a vote on conscience?
What would be the point of suspending collective responsibility if you didn't allow them to vote freely?
The EEA, for non-EU states, explicitly allows the Four Freedoms to be suspended. It would be a perfect fudge for both sides, so long as we're paying up, for FoM to be restricted during the transitional period.
The mechanism you refer to, I think, deals with crisis situations where you act first and justify later. The suspension goes into dispute with the oversight body and you are supposed to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible and reinstate the suspended "freedom". (Sorry I don't have the text in front of me with the exact articles and terminology).
I would be astonished if the EU would accept a long term suspension because we don't feel like implementing the treaty rather than because there is an immediate crisis. I also doubt they would be happy if we went into an arrangement with them intending from the start to work around it.
I likewise don't have the text in front of me but it says something about it (immigration) having to cause large scale social and economic upheaval.
Not sure we could argue that.
One could argue that the Brexit vote is evidence of either or both.
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
That's a tricky balance for them. If they look like they are going to the mattresses to stop us doing well out of leaving, and then we still do well, they look ineffectual and irrelevant, which is much worse than looking like they gave us a soft deal.
That's easy. The " and then we still do well," will not just be arguable either way, but will only be known many years or decades in the future. They can disregard it for the moment.
In contrast, the threat of other member states leaving is much more immediate.
Conversely member states with one eye on the exit (Italy) are not likely to be voting in favour of a tough response which might well form the response for themselves in a couple or so years, or potentially sooner if Renzi loses his referendum bid.
Exactly. And we're supposed to come to a timely deal through this morass of competing sentiments and objectives.
It may be possible, but I doubt it. Then there's the question of whether any deal they do agree on would be acceptable to us ...
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
This says to me that May is a sensible pragmatist, and she's also willing to court unpopularity - in her own constituency.
This in turn says Soft Brexit, I reckon, especially when you listen to the mood music from the Tory party, where May (if the Times is right - ££) is siding with Hammond and cracking down on Fox and BoJo.
As TSE says, hard Brexit means a donors strike. Makes fighting an election against a massively union funded Labour party difficult.
Comments
As to such leaks as there may have been, who knows? In my experience most leaks come from politicians and SPADs playing silly buggers and trying to get one up on their rivals.
I was reading an LRB last night, and came across the following book review about a part of the Second World War I knew little about before: the cold war for uranium from the Congo. I thought it might be of interest. Ignore the rather clickbaity title:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n20/bernard-porter/send-more-blondes
If we got control of immigration, financial passporting, free movement of goods, do your own trade deals and UK law predominates then that is worth more than we pay in currently. Potentially it is worth substantially more.
And the EU could claim we are its biggest contributor, and our money is paying for all that pork they are throwing at voters.
And it also acts as a deterrent to other potential leavers. You wanna leave? have you seen what Britain pays?
This enables us - the UK - to have a sensible discussion, endorsed by actual votes in the actual ballot boxes about what Brexit means. (Beyond Brexit.)
This enables us to forge relationships abroad.
This enables businesses to implement transitional arrangements.
This enables us to publicise the tariff arrangements we'll have with the world post-Brexit, so business can plan.
And most importantly, it sends out the message to business that we are guided by outcomes, not ideology.
Spain's savings rate went from 2% in 2007 to 12% in 2012, and unemployment went from 10% to close to 30%.
Gets coat
Press Association set to use 'robot' reporters across business, sport and elections coverage https://t.co/XvQ4MbYL5u https://t.co/Tmw6Mba0dP
It breaks down how the various forms of voting (Postal, Early in person, election day etc) split for Obama and Romney.
Frankly, I'm only surprised it wasn;t tried when we were in.
Our strategy should have been to be the biggest contributor. By far. In the end, money talks, bullsh8t walks. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
So how is the UK doing?
Labour productivity grew by 0.6% in Q2 2016, according to new data released today by ONS. As a result, the UK’s output per hour worked has returned to its pre-downturn level for the first time since the onset of the economic downturn. While productivity remains far below the level implied by its pre-downturn trend, this is the first time that the UK has passed this threshold.
New estimates of the ‘productivity gap’ between the UK and other leading economies are also published today. They show that the gap between the UK and the rest of the G7 remains stubbornly wide – at around 18 percentage points in GDP per hour worked terms in 2015 – unchanged on a year earlier. On this measure, productivity in the UK in 2015 was 27, 30 and 35 percentage points lower than in France, the USA and Germany respectively.
How will companies invest given these uncertainties?
Worst of all, what happens if the actual votes in the actual ballot boxes goes against it?
You chose to leave, and to do so you had to make common cause with people who disagree with your EEA-style approach. You may not get your way.
Are you a snake in the grass?
I should adder these puns into my jokes database. It's written in python.
Tory MPs voiced alarm today after Downing Street blocked Boris Johnson from appointing a long-standing aide as his chief of staff.
One MP said it was “irregular” for No 10 to interfere with the Foreign Secretary’s appointments to his own office, and feared it was a sign of Downing Street throwing its weight around.
Will Walden, who was previously Mr Johnson’s £130,000-a-year director of communications at City Hall, had been expected to be confirmed in a more senior role in Whitehall as strategic adviser and chief of staff.
However, Mr Walden has now withdrawn his application after it became clear that the Prime Minister’s office was refusing to sign it off.
Downing Street would not comment or explain its refusal today.
A Tory MP said the incident would alarm backbenchers. “It is a big surprise that the number three in the Government is not being allowed to appoint his own staff,” said the MP. “It is quite irregular.” The dispute comes after signs that No 10 wants to keep tight control over rival ministers and their special advisers.
It emerged today that Mr Walden had been working unpaid in Mr Johnson’s office while his official status was discussed.
He offered to work for a substantial salary cut after No 10 initially questioned his proposed remuneration, and then proposed a reduced title when the objections changed.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-alarm-as-no-10-blocks-boris-johnson-over-appointment-of-his-key-aide-a3371961.html
Besides, 'transitional periods' and 'suspended' still implies that the four freedoms remain in place at a fundamental level. Perhaps today's politicians would be happy enough to kick the can far enough down the road that it'll be their successors that have to deal with the problem. That still doesn't mean it would have gone away.
Buyer's remorse? should you have gone for Leadsom or Gove?
"In an interview with the BBC, Woolfe said there was “something rotten” in Ukip, and said the party was in a “death spiral”, beset with a “visceral hatred” of anyone connected with Farage."
I wanted to back Gove, but JohnO persuaded me other wise
http://order-order.com/2016/10/18/minister-warned-cchq-rape-arrest-aide/
I'm sure Mr Woolfe will go far.
If the decision is to change then lady MacBeth's advice is very wise. "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly".
Reduced investment.
Weakened pound.
Rising prices.
Why does the Foreign Secretary need a 'chief of staff'? Don't we have a civil service for that?
Britain could certainly have been an EU leader but only by joining the Euro and Schengen. Had we signed up to it at Maastricht, there's a reasonable chance that the ECB could have been based in London (indeed, it could have been a condition of signing up).
But while that level of political commitment might have been possible around the turn of the century when New Labour was dominant, it would quickly have unwound in a very nasty way.
In the same order as your 4 options, I would suggest instead :
Hard Exit .................. 35%
Semi-Soft Brexit ....... 35%
Soft Brexit ................ 20%
Remain in EU as is .... 10%
2-way:
Clinton 51
Trump 43
4-way:
Clinton 46
Trump 40
https://t.co/8XuS6RjOcC
Clinton 51 .. Trump 43
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-clinton-maintains-solid-national-lead-n667751
It's actually good news.
It's a price worth paying.
It doesn't matter.
It's not true.
It's been worst in the past. (EDIT: we have a winner, thanks GIN).
Take your pick, as I'm not on the distribution for 'headbanger excuse of the day'.
Then there are the problems of getting all the EU members to agree. At times this has been difficult enough; getting agreement on a semi-soft or soft Brexit in anything like a timely manner might be near to impossible. And in the meantime we have more uncertainty.
It may be simpler for them just to grant us a Hard Exit.
(I'm finding it difficult to avoid calling a 'Hard Exit' the 'Withdrawal Method' ... )
Some of us remember when inflation really did "soar" to 15%, 18% even 20%!
Theresa May has two Chief of Staffs. Why does she need two or even one when she has the civil service?
Possibly to share pot of teas with.
But having said that, I don't know if that is the job of a CoS and in any case, there wouldn't be the need if there weren't so many underlings.
Trump in deep, deep trouble.
I remember the old 1970s jokes.
Man goes into greengrocers and asks for pound of apples.
That'll be 75 new pence
75 new pence! strewth! well, here's a pound, and you better keep the change
Why?
I trod on a grape on my way in
Why would Boris need a 'communications expert' as 'Chief of Staff'?
To serve the country, or to serve Boris?
I think all this points to everybody wanting to kick the can down the road and hope to pick it up again as and when this whole anti-globalization craze blows over.
I would be astonished if the EU would accept a long term suspension because we don't feel like implementing the treaty rather than because there is an immediate crisis. I also doubt they would be happy if we went into an arrangement with them intending from the start to work around it.
Furthermore, I think the intellectual quality of people that become ministers has been in steady decline and they need to have people around them who will do their thinking for them and, nearly, always agree with them. Ministers like to have staff who are loyal to them personally.
The obverse is that for ambitious would-be politicians being a SPAD has been a route to becoming an MP and a fast track to becoming a minister themselves. (see Balls, Cameron, Osborne for recent examples).
Then their is the issue of trust in the Civil Service. "Yes, Minister" was a satire but it was so good that many took it to be a playbook of how the Civil Service actually operates, or at least operated.
As far as I am concerned the rot really set in when in about '94 Heseltine in moving from one job to another in government insisted on taking his top civil servants with him to his new department - thus bringing together the two themes of personally loyal staff and distrust in the civil service.
A couple of final thoughts. As with so many other things there has since 1945 been a habit of the UK aping the USA and national politicians in the USA do have personal staff. Secondly Cameron came to power in 2010 saying he would clamp down on SPADs, their power and their numbers and their salaries - then like most of his promises didn't.
But in their case it's a country with a population under 40,000 people that's already become majority immigrant, so it's a lot easier for them to claim there's something exceptional going on than the UK, and it's also a lot easier to overlook.
It's also not obvious how you play the "transitional" card when you're nominally transitioning from a situation where anybody can come and go, to a situation where anybody can come and go.
Not sure we could argue that.
1. That Brexit won't happen in reality.
2. That EU partners are desperate to give the UK a good deal out of self interest.
3. That the UK Government will negotiate a high quality alternative to EU membership.
Delusions held by different people at the same time. Put together and shown to be deluded, it means Hard Brexit.
1.If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.
2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. "
Article 113
2. The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
In contrast, the threat of other member states leaving is much more immediate.
I note the Trump rampers generally have quietened :-)
It may be possible, but I doubt it. Then there's the question of whether any deal they do agree on would be acceptable to us ...
Fancy a wager?
£10 charity bet?