You must live further away than I thought - we're still on daylight savings here until 11/6
Ah, but what time did PB stop working for me?
On an earlier thread, Pong or Pulpstar got the two of us confused. Perhaps it's time for a re-post of the vast list of differences between TimB and TimT.
"I had problems for about an hour from 3pm EST" I can't imagine what time it stopped
There is a reality I think that Remainers need to recognise. The leadership of the EU did absolutely nothing to keep us in. Juncker is antagonistic to a point, where you start to feel we, the British have been played.
I don't think they were being obstructive or antagonistic. It's more that they see things in a very different way, so they couldn't understand what we were bitching about.
The Daniel Korski article which was discussed here yesterday has some good illustrations of this:
And the eurocrats don't think there is any need for reform anyway.
They very much do. They very much believe there is a strong need for them to have more power.
What's more, you can see their point. Having a bunch of obscure Walloons in some minor country wrecking the trade deal they've been painstakingly negotiating in the wider interests of the EU (and, especially, the UK, had we remained members) must be frustrating.
The Prime Minister made clear that she will ignore EU leaders by attempting to strike trade deals around the world before the country formally leaves the EU. Brussels leaders have demanded that Britain does not try to do any deals before Brexit, which is expected in 2019.
However, Mrs May said on Friday: "The UK has long been one of the strongest advocates on Europe for free trade and will continue to be so.
"Indeed I want the UK to become more active not less in making the case for free trade around the world. That means that while we remain a member of the EU the UK will continue to back the EU's free trade negotiations.
"And as we prepare to leave the EU, I've been clear that the UK is discussing our future trading relationship with third countries.
"This will not undermine the EU's trade agenda. It is not in competition with it. We will continue to help the EU reach these important trade agreements. It is about seizing the opportunities of Brexit. About forging an ambitious and optimistic new role for Britain in the world."
But she also just said that the UK will participate fully in the EU till we leave. That won't work. The other members won't take kindly to having the UK in the room with them discussing EU trade if at the same time we're discussing unilateral trade agreements with other countries. So the other EU members will, quite rightly, exclude us from any discussions where they feel the position is compromised.
Even after A50 is invoked, we remain full members of the EU with all the rights and obligations that entails. But if the rest of the EU wants to curtail our rights, I'm sure HMG would be happy to overlook our obligations...
Technically we are still members but, seriously, what is the point in insisting on this after A50 has been invoked? Why piss off the people we need to negotiate with it's going to be hard enough as it is
If we are going to be unwillingly excluded from the EU in practice once we invoke Article 50, why should we not take a similar attitude towards our £1bn monthly cheques to Brussels?
We should just simply willingly exclude ourselves as it serves no useful purpose as we will be in the process of leaving. Getting a good deal is going to be difficult as it is but May and her 3 Brexiteers seem determined to make it worse. I simply do not understand the logic.
There is a reality I think that Remainers need to recognise. The leadership of the EU did absolutely nothing to keep us in. Juncker is antagonistic to a point, where you start to feel we, the British have been played.
I don't think they were being obstructive or antagonistic. It's more that they see things in a very different way, so they couldn't understand what we were bitching about.
The Daniel Korski article which was discussed here yesterday has some good illustrations of this:
You must live further away than I thought - we're still on daylight savings here until 11/6
Ah, but what time did PB stop working for me?
On an earlier thread, Pong or Pulpstar got the two of us confused. Perhaps it's time for a re-post of the vast list of differences between TimB and TimT.
"I had problems for about an hour from 3pm EST" I can't imagine what time it stopped
I'll have to dig that list out
How's Heidi doing? Aoife's getting some arthritis in her hips, and Fionn is about as big as her now. He is too darn fast for his own good. Lost him in the back field again today, but this time for about 30 minutes before he came running back. It is deer mating season, so I guess that is what he was chasing.
I am currently in Canada doing deals that will hopefully generate a little bit of cash for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone asks about Brexit. They are generally amused, more than anything else.
They'll be less amused once CETA dies because 3m Belgians have rejected it.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
#Mayday.
There is no catastrophe.
Remainer parliament who's mandate has been superceded points to May invoking A50 next March then announcing a dissolution resolution the same day. The Castrovalva of Xenophobic post truth effluent that was the Leave event is unravelling. But not unravelling anywhere near fast enough imho to prevent #Mayday. I was arguing europhiles need to up our game and pray for bigger " events " that we've currently had. May needs #Mayday in order to confront the hard choices of Brexit but can only achieve #Mayday if those hard choices come after #Mayday. The clock ticks. The games afoot.
You are literally praying for the UK to meet economic disaster, so the country can be forced back in to the democratic nightmare of the EU, against the voters' originally expressed desire for independence.
I am not drunk. Not even remotely drunk by my standards. I am in a benign mood, and happy to chat with all. But when describing you, I struggle to find an alternative word to: traitor. You are a traitor.
That reminds me of a club I used to go to. There was a stick hetrosexual couple holding hands in a red circle with a line through them. The slogan was " You've got to be queer to get in here. " I reclaim the word the Traitor and wear it as a badge of pride.
To be serious for a moment if you can cope with that. Brexit is a political process. It's not over till it's over. Your 3.8% majority didn't come down the mountain on tablets of stone. Your use of dehumanising abuse to freeze your narrow victory in stone is amusing. I may well do the same in your position. It is however undemocratic and frankly stupid to suggest Po?Utica stopped on 24th of June. Brexit is a fiendishly complex thing with myriad variables interplaying with myriad other variables. Butterflies beating their wings in the Amaxon will effect Brexit.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
I fail to see why remainers keep saying "free trade deals from a position of relative weakness" or some such thing. We are the 5th largest economy in the world.
I fail to see why it's ALL ABOUT TRADE DEALS in the first place. We have a trade surplus (so I'm told) with the US and NO TRADE DEAL. We rely totally on Chinese and Indian imports but those countries have NO TRADE DEAL with us. Our current much lauded FREE MARKET ACCESS sees us with a whopping trade deficit with the rest of the EU. We are not the winner in this scenario.
SELL something people want to BUY. It really is as simple as that folks.
If Juncker didn't understand, he should have learnt. Point 5 of his manifesto was keeping the British in the EU...
At some point he either couldn't be bothered, or he felt no need to adopt or understand a perspective he thought was wrong.
It wasn't his decision.
Not sure I understand your point.
Juncker was committed to keeping the UK in, but between his election and the referendum it seems he never understood why anyone in the UK would want to leave.
I am currently in Canada doing deals that will hopefully generate a little bit of cash for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone asks about Brexit. They are generally amused, more than anything else.
They'll be less amused once CETA dies because 3m Belgians have rejected it.
There are talks already about stripping the things from CETA that mean it requires unanimity. So a butchered version of it will probably come into force next year.
So long as the Canadians don't give up in disgust.
I am currently in Canada doing deals that will hopefully generate a little bit of cash for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone asks about Brexit. They are generally amused, more than anything else.
They'll be less amused once CETA dies because 3m Belgians have rejected it.
They are not laughing at us. They just think the whole thing is funny. Probably because from where they sit it looks like a mess at the moment, which it undoubtedly is. In terms of trade deals, the TPP is clearly the number one issue over here by a country mile.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
I fail to see why remainers keep saying "free trade deals from a position of relative weakness" or some such thing. We are the 5th largest economy in the world.
I fail to see why it's ALL ABOUT TRADE DEALS in the first place. We have a trade surplus (so I'm told) with the US and NO TRADE DEAL. We rely totally on Chinese and Indian imports but those countries have NO TRADE DEAL with us. Our current much lauded FREE MARKET ACCESS sees us with a whopping trade deficit with the rest of the EU. We are not the winner in this scenario.
SELL something people want to BUY. It really is as simple as that folks.
I struggle to understand all of this emphasis on "trade deals" as well.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating staninia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
#Mayday.
There is no catastrophe.
Remainer parliament who's mandate has been superceded points to May invoking A50 next March then announcing a dissolution resolution the same day. The Castrovalva of Xenophobic post truth effluent that was the Leave event is unravelling. But not unravelling anywhere near fast enough imho to prevent #Mayday. I was arguing europhiles need to up our game and pray for bigger " events " that we've currently had. May needs #Mayday in order to confront the hard choices of Brexit but can only achieve #Mayday if those hard choices come after #Mayday. The clock ticks. The games afoot.
You are literally praying for the UK to meet economic disaster, so the country can be forced back in to the democratic nightmare of the EU, against the voters' originally expressed desire for independence.
I am not drunk. Not even remotely drunk by my standards. I am in a benign mood, and happy to chat with all. But when describing you, I struggle to find an alternative word to: traitor. You are a traitor.
That reminds me of a club I used to go to. There was a stick hetrosexual couple holding hands in a red circle with a line through them. The slogan was " You've got to be queer to get in here. " I reclaim the word the Traitor and wear it as a badge of pride.
To be serious for a moment if you can cope with that. Brexit is a political process. It's not over till it's over. Your 3.8% majority didn't come down the mountain on tablets of stone. Your use of dehumanising abuse to freeze your narrow victory in stone is amusing. I may well do the same in your position. It is however undemocratic and frankly stupid to suggest Po?Utica stopped on 24th of June. Brexit is a fiendishly complex thing with myriad variables interplaying with myriad other variables. Butterflies beating their wings in the Amaxon will effect Brexit.
Judging by your remarks, you are a traitor. Sorry. But there it is.
I don't mind that label either, the liberating thing about having voted to Remain is that feel absolutely no responsibility for what happens from here on in!
Re not being able to access the site today; the DynDNS servers (which resolve names such as www.politicalbetting.com into IP addresses) were taken down by a DDoS attack today. Some people (those who's DNS servers are pwered by DynDNS) who were unlucky enough to have come to the end of their cache period (browsers and computers and even some networks cache DNS look-ups) will have therefore failed to connect to the site for a while today.
You must live further away than I thought - we're still on daylight savings here until 11/6
Ah, but what time did PB stop working for me?
On an earlier thread, Pong or Pulpstar got the two of us confused. Perhaps it's time for a re-post of the vast list of differences between TimB and TimT.
"I had problems for about an hour from 3pm EST" I can't imagine what time it stopped
I'll have to dig that list out
How's Heidi doing? Aoife's getting some arthritis in her hips, and Fionn is about as big as her now. He is too darn fast for his own good. Lost him in the back field again today, but this time for about 30 minutes before he came running back. It is deer mating season, so I guess that is what he was chasing.
Heidi (10 at the end of June) is doing just fine! You know, all my life I've always thought that dogs enjoyed being loyal, obedient and loving companions. I have more than a suspicion that Heidi lives purely for pleasure, and I'm the enabling schmuck.
There are talks already about stripping the things from CETA that mean it requires unanimity. So a butchered version of it will probably come into force next year.
So long as the Canadians don't give up in disgust.
This is a very important point in terms of how it impacts on our negotiations. I hope that very serious thought is being given on our side to trying to devise a deal which can be passed by QMV. If it falls back on to something requiring unanimity, I suspect we (and the EU, for that matter), are going to be badly stuffed by years of delay and uncertainty.
I do get the feeling *something* is going to happen with Russia within the next 5-10 years. Just seems to be so much "agitation" towards a Russia/West conflict.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
There is no catastrophe.
Depends on your point of view. The fact (and it is a fact) that we've gone into Brexit woefully ill prepared is - at the very least - concerning.
At present we have a Gordian knot. Can't go back, can't go forward.
Brexit is still, morally and democratically, the correct option. I suspect you agree, deep down.
Certainly when you see the shysters currently running the EU, you remember why it happened. Juncker has much to answer the for IMO.
But the problem remains, Brexit is woefully ill defined. It could mean anything from the status quo to a very unBritish xenophobic isolationism.
I don't see anything very moral in pursuing policies that will make a lot of people worse off then they are now. But that's democracy. So, I am not sure Brexit is the moral thing to do, but it is certainly the democratic thing to do.
I voted remain. But the idea that we could be forced to stay in the EU against the decision of the people makes me worried that we will end up in some kind of civil war. Its better to leave and focus our efforts on trying to agree some sort of transitional arrangement with the EU while we try and achieve the 'leave' vision the country signed up to. The true cost will be far more than £4300 per household or whatever. Way, way more than that.
If Juncker didn't understand, he should have learnt. Point 5 of his manifesto was keeping the British in the EU...
At some point he either couldn't be bothered, or he felt no need to adopt or understand a perspective he thought was wrong.
It wasn't his decision.
Not sure I understand your point.
Juncker was committed to keeping the UK in, but between his election and the referendum it seems he never understood why anyone in the UK would want to leave.
No, he probably didn't, but my point was simply that it wasn't in his power to decide on the terms we were offered. That power resided with the Council of Ministers, ie the EU27.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating staninia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
#Mayday.
There is no catastrophe.
Remainer parliament who's mandate has been superceded points to May invoking A50 next March then announcing a dissolution resolution the same day. The Castrovalva of Xenophobic post truth effluent that was the Leave event is unravelling. But not unravelling anywhere near fast enough imho to prevent #Mayday. I was arguing europhiles need to up our game and pray for bigger " events " that we've currently had. May needs #Mayday in order to confront the hard choices of Brexit but can only achieve #Mayday if those hard choices come after #Mayday. The clock ticks. The games afoot.
You are literally praying for the UK to meet economic disaster, so the country can be forced back in to the democratic nightmare of the EU, against the voters' originally expressed desire for independence.
I am not drunk. Not even remotely drunk by my standards. I am in a benign mood, and happy to chat with all. But when describing you, I struggle to find an alternative word to: traitor. You are a traitor.
That reminds me of a club I used to go to. There was a stick hetrosexual couple holding hands in a red circle with a line through them. The slogan was " You've got to be queer to get in here. " I reclaim the word the Traitor and wear it as a badge of pride.
To be serious for a moment if you can cope with that. Brexit is a political process. It's not over till it's over. Your 3.8% majority didn't come down the mountain on tablets of stone. Your use of dehumanising abuse to freeze your narrow victory in stone is amusing. I may well do the same in your position. It is however undemocratic and frankly stupid to suggest Po?Utica stopped on 24th of June. Brexit is a fiendishly complex thing with myriad variables interplaying with myriad other variables. Butterflies beating their wings in the Amaxon will effect Brexit.
Judging by your remarks, you are a traitor. Sorry. But there it is.
I don't mind that label either, the liberating thing about having voted to Remain is that feel absolutely no responsibility for what happens from here on in!
No responsibility, that is the key. Let Brussels set the rules and laws, then I have no responsibility.
I think the EU - and the Commission especially - fundamentally misunderstands the British. We do look at the world differently, our past is very distinct and that has shaped what we are, how we think and how we react to stuff. When I come to Canada or go to Australia or New Zealand an Anglosphere makes a lot of sense to me. I'd keep the Americans out of it, though. However, economically leaving the single market is going to cost us big time. I just don't see a way round that. This has always been my concern.
Those countries are the obvious focus for us after Brexit. It's a much smaller sphere than we are used to and, when all is said and done, those countries are more interested in the EU than in us alone.
I understand why people feel the EU isn't for us. You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't sign up for everything,. Maybe the EU is over the line for us. But let's not pretend Brexit is anything other than a disconnection and a rejection of an internationalist way of doing things. It's Britain turning inwards. I regret that.
Trump can still win. His support is still solid. We await in trepidation the outcome.
He can't win. His support is solid but insufficient and his ratings with those he needs to win over are too poor.
He was only 4% behind in the latest YouGov/Economist poll. That doesn't seem like an unsurmountable deficit with more than 2 week to go.
No, but it almost certainly is. Look at the trackers. Although they've been close at various points, Trump has almost never risen above 44% in the two-way; Clinton has hardly ever fallen below it. He's at or near his ceiling and in such a divisive race, there are even fewer swing voters than ever (though perhaps more that aren't sure whether they'll vote or not).
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating staninia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
#Mayday.
There is no catastrophe.
Remainer parliament who's mandate has been superceded points to May invoking A50 next March then announcing a dissolution resolution the same day. The Castrovalva of Xenophobic post truth effluent that was the Leave event is unravelling. But not unravelling anywhere near fast enough imho to prevent #Mayday. I was arguing europhiles need to up our game and pray for bigger " events " that we've currently had. May needs #Mayday in order to confront the hard choices of Brexit but can only achieve #Mayday if those hard choices come after #Mayday. The clock ticks. The games afoot.
You are literally praying for the UK to meet economic disaster, so the country can be forced back in to the democratic nightmare of the EU, against the voters' originally expressed desire for independence.
I am not drunk. Not even remotely drunk by my standards. I am in a benign mood, and happy to chat with all. But when describing you, I struggle to find an alternative word to: traitor. You are a traitor.
That reminds me of a club I used to go to. There was a stick hetrosexual couple holding hands in a red circle with a line through them. The slogan was " You've got to be queer to get in here. " I reclaim the word the Traitor and wear it as a badge of pride.
To be serious for a moment if you can cope with that. Brexit is a political process. It's not over till it's over. Your 3.8% majority didn't come down the mountain on tablets of stone. Your use of dehumanising abuse to freeze your narrow victory in stone is amusing. I may well do the same in your position. It is however undemocratic and frankly stupid to suggest Po?Utica stopped on 24th of June. Brexit is a fiendishly complex thing with myriad variables interplaying with myriad other variables. Butterflies beating their wings in the Amaxon will effect Brexit.
Judging by your remarks, you are a traitor. Sorry. But there it is.
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
I am currently in Canada doing deals that will hopefully generate a little bit of cash for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone asks about Brexit. They are generally amused, more than anything else.
They'll be less amused once CETA dies because 3m Belgians have rejected it.
There are talks already about stripping the things from CETA that mean it requires unanimity. So a butchered version of it will probably come into force next year.
So long as the Canadians don't give up in disgust.
Isn't that going to hollow it out a lot? Anything which doesn't use ISDS (the main issue) means any agreement is worthless.
Re not being able to access the site today; the DynDNS servers (which resolve names such as www.politicalbetting.com into IP addresses) were taken down by a DDoS attack today. Some people (those who's DNS servers are pwered by DynDNS) who were unlucky enough to have come to the end of their cache period (browsers and computers and even some networks cache DNS look-ups) will have therefore failed to connect to the site for a while today.
And there's not a lot we can do about it.
I did notice a couple of websites I visit (not PB) were inaccessible for a time today.
Its scary how quickly the whole thing (the internet) can go down isn't it?
I think the EU - and the Commission especially - fundamentally misunderstands the British. We do look at the world differently, our past is very distinct and that has shaped what we are, how we think and how we react to stuff. When I come to Canada or go to Australia or New Zealand an Anglosphere makes a lot of sense to me. I'd keep the Americans out of it, though. However, economically leaving the single market is going to cost us big time. I just don't see a way round that. This has always been my concern.
Those countries are the obvious focus for us after Brexit. It's a much smaller sphere than we are used to and, when all is said and done, those countries are more interested in the EU than in us alone.
I understand why people feel the EU isn't for us. You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't sign up for everything,. Maybe the EU is over the line for us. But let's not pretend Brexit is anything other than a disconnection and a rejection of an internationalist way of doing things. It's Britain turning inwards. I regret that.
For some it's Britain turning inwards but for others it's Britain embracing the rest of the world. I grew up in Australia and I think its a real shame that after joining the EU we jacked up tariffs and other barriers against Australians and Kiwis etc as a result of our membership.
Leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to rectify that inequity.
You must live further away than I thought - we're still on daylight savings here until 11/6
Ah, but what time did PB stop working for me?
On an earlier thread, Pong or Pulpstar got the two of us confused. Perhaps it's time for a re-post of the vast list of differences between TimB and TimT.
"I had problems for about an hour from 3pm EST" I can't imagine what time it stopped
I'll have to dig that list out
How's Heidi doing? Aoife's getting some arthritis in her hips, and Fionn is about as big as her now. He is too darn fast for his own good. Lost him in the back field again today, but this time for about 30 minutes before he came running back. It is deer mating season, so I guess that is what he was chasing.
Heidi (10 at the end of June) is doing just fine! You know, all my life I've always thought that dogs enjoyed being loyal, obedient and loving companions. I have more than a suspicion that Heidi lives purely for pleasure, and I'm the enabling schmuck.
In our house, the cats definitely have me trained.
I do get the feeling *something* is going to happen with Russia within the next 5-10 years. Just seems to be so much "agitation" towards a Russia/West conflict.
The EU army will probably be the instigator.
It's not a 'feeling', it's very deliberate political and big media ramping, emanating from the US. It's been that way for years, and at the bottom of it is the plain truth that Russia is a threat to US global hegemony.
In that sense, rather ironically, a Trump victory might lead to relative word peace and stability! (which may be why it's being portrayed as armageddon)
If Juncker didn't understand, he should have learnt. Point 5 of his manifesto was keeping the British in the EU...
At some point he either couldn't be bothered, or he felt no need to adopt or understand a perspective he thought was wrong.
It wasn't his decision.
His behaviour most certainly was, and I expect that his ability to influence EU initiatives was also more than is implied in your comment. But as President of the Commission, I'd have thought it certainly within his remit to keep the show on the road. Perhaps, being cynical, he thought that Brexit was a price worth paying to do so.
This fanatical pro-EU stance amongst some is a mind set. If they had been around in the 1930s they would have been communists or Nazi's, lately they would have been ranting about global warming. Now religion seems to have faded there needs needs to be for some/ something to grasp to. Today its the EU, tomorrow who knows.
I think the EU - and the Commission especially - fundamentally misunderstands the British. We do look at the world differently, our past is very distinct and that has shaped what we are, how we think and how we react to stuff. When I come to Canada or go to Australia or New Zealand an Anglosphere makes a lot of sense to me. I'd keep the Americans out of it, though. However, economically leaving the single market is going to cost us big time. I just don't see a way round that. This has always been my concern.
Those countries are the obvious focus for us after Brexit. It's a much smaller sphere than we are used to and, when all is said and done, those countries are more interested in the EU than in us alone.
I understand why people feel the EU isn't for us. You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't sign up for everything,. Maybe the EU is over the line for us. But let's not pretend Brexit is anything other than a disconnection and a rejection of an internationalist way of doing things. It's Britain turning inwards. I regret that.
For some it's Britain turning inwards but for others it's Britain embracing the rest of the world. I grew up in Australia and I think its a real shame that after joining the EU we jacked up tariffs and other barriers against Australians and Kiwis etc as a result of our membership.
Leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to rectify that inequity.
I simply don't believe that. Obviously I can't argue against you on unknowable facts.
PS. I should say, in general or as an outcome. There are some people who have convinced themselves that Brexit is a new world order. If you like, those are the Hannanites. They will be very frustrated, as Daniel Hannan already is, as far as I can tell.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
The UK has been a world leader in animal welfare since the beginning of the 19th century. There is little reason to see why this will not continue. In many cases the UK's animal welfare standards are significantly higher than the minimum required by the EU.
As has been pointed out to YellowSubmarine and his fellow moaners before, the UK is and has always been a leader in health and safety too. Many of the EU rules grew out of UK rules or UK initiatives. Why they would think that should change because of Brexit, god only knows.
You're rebutting a point I didn't make. If we want " Free Trade " ( whatever that is ) with countries with lower standards than hours we'll have to drop those standards. Or else we won't have Free Trade. There's a trade off. One those keen to cast aside our trade with broadly comparable rich European democracies in search of Trade with ????/Rwanda/The White Commonwealth/Narnia seem keen to avoid talking about. It doesn't mean we can't do it. It just means we're replacing one set of trade offs with EU membership with a different set of trade offs.
If Juncker didn't understand, he should have learnt. Point 5 of his manifesto was keeping the British in the EU...
At some point he either couldn't be bothered, or he felt no need to adopt or understand a perspective he thought was wrong.
It wasn't his decision.
His behaviour most certainly was, and I expect that his ability to influence EU initiatives was also more than is implied in your comment. But as President of the Commission, I'd have thought it certainly within his remit to keep the show on the road. Perhaps, being cynical, he thought that Brexit was a price worth paying to do so.
According to Daniel Korski: "Juncker seemed to be seeking to give the U.K. a fair deal — as long as it didn’t require too fundamental a reform ", which sounds very plausible to me. That would also have been the view of Angela Merkel and many of the other key players, I would expect.
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
Your refusal to accept the democratic and clear (to win with 100 votes would have been a victory - to win with more than 3.8 million is by any measure incontestable) result of a referendum that was offered on the basis of a parliamentary vote is shameful and pitiable. We all know that if Remain had won you would have claimed this settled the matter permanently, so please don't try to claim otherwise.
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
Your refusal to accept the democratic and clear (to win with 100 votes would have been a victory - to win with more than 3.8 million is by any measure incontestable) result of a referendum that was offered on the basis of a parliamentary vote is shameful and pitiable. We all know that if Remain had won you would have claimed this settled the matter permanently, so please don't try to claim otherwise.
If Juncker didn't understand, he should have learnt. Point 5 of his manifesto was keeping the British in the EU...
At some point he either couldn't be bothered, or he felt no need to adopt or understand a perspective he thought was wrong.
It wasn't his decision.
His behaviour most certainly was, and I expect that his ability to influence EU initiatives was also more than is implied in your comment. But as President of the Commission, I'd have thought it certainly within his remit to keep the show on the road. Perhaps, being cynical, he thought that Brexit was a price worth paying to do so.
According to Daniel Korski: "Juncker seemed to be seeking to give the U.K. a fair deal — as long as it didn’t require too fundamental a reform ", which sounds very plausible to me. That would also have been the view of Angela Merkel and many of the other key players, I would expect.
In which case a workable deal was never on. It was a huge missed opportunity because proper reform could have been to everyone's benefit, not just Britain. Indeed, it was when Cameron switched from looking for that deeper reform, as in the Bloomberg speech, to a special deal for Britain that the wheels began to come loose.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
The UK has been a world leader in animal welfare since the beginning of the 19th century. There is little reason to see why this will not continue. In many cases the UK's animal welfare standards are significantly higher than the minimum required by the EU.
As has been pointed out to YellowSubmarine and his fellow moaners before, the UK is and has always been a leader in health and safety too. Many of the EU rules grew out of UK rules or UK initiatives. Why they would think that should change because of Brexit, god only knows.
You're rebutting a point I didn't make. If we want " Free Trade " ( whatever that is ) with countries with lower standards than hours we'll have to drop those standards. Or else we won't have Free Trade. There's a trade off. One those keen to cast aside our trade with broadly comparable rich European democracies in search of Trade with ????/Rwanda/The White Commonwealth/Narnia seem keen to avoid talking about. It doesn't mean we can't do it. It just means we're replacing one set of trade offs with EU membership with a different set of trade offs.
What does this mean? Can you give us an example of what standards we would need to drop to have free trade with these countries?
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
You object to a decision made one day in time but then four decades of ever closer union with Treaties ratified by Parliament even though manifesto's had committed to a referendum is perfectly fine to you?
There's nothing treasonous of opposing Brexit. What you're doing though is actively wishing great damage upon the country. That is unpleasant at the very least.
This fanatical pro-EU stance amongst some is a mind set. If they had been around in the 1930s they would have been communists or Nazi's, lately they would have been ranting about global warming. Now religion seems to have faded there needs needs to be for some/ something to grasp to. Today its the EU, tomorrow who knows.
Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that people are simply pro- or anti-EU. All analysis and thought presupposes either the EU is good, or the EU is bad. It is therefore, almost in its entirety, pointless. I know that certain posters will defend any EU decision (no matter how deranged), while others could find fault with Juncker, even if he threw himself in front of a bus to save Nigel Farage's life.
Those who see the world with a fundamentally anti-EU mindset see their opponents as fanatics. (And assume everyone who does not share their hatred must be an EU loving Quisling.) While those who have decided that the EU is a Good Thing paint their opponents as racists and fruitcakes.
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
Your refusal to accept the democratic and clear (to win with 100 votes would have been a victory - to win with more than 3.8 million is by any measure incontestable) result of a referendum that was offered on the basis of a parliamentary vote is shameful and pitiable. We all know that if Remain had won you would have claimed this settled the matter permanently, so please don't try to claim otherwise.
1.27m, not 3.8m. It was 3.8%.
I stand corrected, but it doesn't alter the point.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
The UK has been a world leader in animal welfare since the beginning of the 19th century. There is little reason to see why this will not continue. In many cases the UK's animal welfare standards are significantly higher than the minimum required by the EU.
As has been pointed out to YellowSubmarine and his fellow moaners before, the UK is and has always been a leader in health and safety too. Many of the EU rules grew out of UK rules or UK initiatives. Why they would think that should change because of Brexit, god only knows.
You're rebutting a point I didn't make. If we want " Free Trade " ( whatever that is ) with countries with lower standards than hours we'll have to drop those standards. Or else we won't have Free Trade. There's a trade off. One those keen to cast aside our trade with broadly comparable rich European democracies in search of Trade with ????/Rwanda/The White Commonwealth/Narnia seem keen to avoid talking about. It doesn't mean we can't do it. It just means we're replacing one set of trade offs with EU membership with a different set of trade offs.
What does this mean? Can you give us an example of what standards we would need to drop to have free trade with these countries?
All free trade agreements involve accepting binding international arbitration, either via ISDS tribunals, the EFTA court or the ECJ.
Even NATO has a court for dealing with Treaty infringements.
This fanatical pro-EU stance amongst some is a mind set. If they had been around in the 1930s they would have been communists or Nazi's, lately they would have been ranting about global warming. Now religion seems to have faded there needs needs to be for some/ something to grasp to. Today its the EU, tomorrow who knows.
I do get the feeling *something* is going to happen with Russia within the next 5-10 years. Just seems to be so much "agitation" towards a Russia/West conflict.
The EU army will probably be the instigator.
It's not a 'feeling', it's very deliberate political and big media ramping, emanating from the US. It's been that way for years, and at the bottom of it is the plain truth that Russia is a threat to US global hegemony.
In that sense, rather ironically, a Trump victory might lead to relative word peace and stability! (which may be why it's being portrayed as armageddon)
Russia is a second-rank power. The threat to the US (and Russia, potentially), comes from China.
There are talks already about stripping the things from CETA that mean it requires unanimity. So a butchered version of it will probably come into force next year.
So long as the Canadians don't give up in disgust.
This is a very important point in terms of how it impacts on our negotiations. I hope that very serious thought is being given on our side to trying to devise a deal which can be passed by QMV. If it falls back on to something requiring unanimity, I suspect we (and the EU, for that matter), are going to be badly stuffed by years of delay and uncertainty.
Yes. I agree. Frankly, getting 28 people to agree on anything important to them is tough. Anything at all.
Some of the comments in the thread generalise too much about what "the British" think - SeanT seems to think 48% of the population are traitors, which is a bit worrying, and even Southam Observer reckons that he knows what "we" think. and it's inter alia a natural affinity to Australians. I've nothing against Australia, but I don't feel any affinity to it at all, while the Netherlands or Denmark or indeed Germany seem pretty similar to us. That doesn't mean Southam isn't speaking for lots of people, but really we're such a diverse country that there isn't a coherent general view. And that's an important point to make at this moment on national uncertainty - for Brexit to make any sense at all, we need to try to get a balanced outcome with reasonable access to both the EU and the rest of the world, rather than focus all our efforts on one or the other and assume it's what everyone wants.
I do get the feeling *something* is going to happen with Russia within the next 5-10 years. Just seems to be so much "agitation" towards a Russia/West conflict.
The EU army will probably be the instigator.
It's not a 'feeling', it's very deliberate political and big media ramping, emanating from the US. It's been that way for years, and at the bottom of it is the plain truth that Russia is a threat to US global hegemony.
In that sense, rather ironically, a Trump victory might lead to relative word peace and stability! (which may be why it's being portrayed as armageddon)
Russia is a second-rank power. The threat to the US (and Russia, potentially), comes from China.
Russia exports rather less than, for example, Belgium.
So it would be better to describe it as a first rate army, attached to a brilliant population, with fabulous natural resources, let down by a kleptomaniac political class.
All free trade agreements involve accepting binding international arbitration, either via ISDS tribunals, the EFTA court or the ECJ.
Even NATO has a court for dealing with Treaty infringements.
I know of no ISDS remotely as intrusive as the ECJ though. The problem is that the ISDS is not a mere tribunal, it is an effective Supreme Court of the European Union.
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
Your refusal to accept the democratic and clear (to win with 100 votes would have been a victory - to win with more than 3.8 million is by any measure incontestable) result of a referendum that was offered on the basis of a parliamentary vote is shameful and pitiable. We all know that if Remain had won you would have claimed this settled the matter permanently, so please don't try to claim otherwise.
#1 It wasn't won by 3.8m votes. You mean 3.8% of votes cast. #2 You aren't psychic. You don't know what I'd have said if Remain had won by 3.8% #3 I have accepted the result. Why else would I be debating how to respond to, shape the outcome and frustrate the result if I didn't accept it ? #4 As you well know life goes on. Leave was the culmination of a project birthed in the Maastricht rebellion. Why should europhiles not be entitled to a generational project ?
This fanatical pro-EU stance amongst some is a mind set. If they had been around in the 1930s they would have been communists or Nazi's, lately they would have been ranting about global warming. Now religion seems to have faded there needs needs to be for some/ something to grasp to. Today its the EU, tomorrow who knows.
Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that people are simply pro- or anti-EU. All analysis and thought presupposes either the EU is good, or the EU is bad. It is therefore, almost in its entirety, pointless. I know that certain posters will defend any EU decision (no matter how deranged), while others could find fault with Juncker, even if he threw himself in front of a bus to save Nigel Farage's life.
Those who see the world with a fundamentally anti-EU mindset see their opponents as fanatics. (And assume everyone who does not share their hatred must be an EU loving Quisling.) While those who have decided that the EU is a Good Thing paint their opponents as racists and fruitcakes.
I can only speak for myself, but this doesn't fit my view. I think the EU is a ridiculous organisation, but I don't hate it - I hated British membership of it. As long as Britain is sovereign, I don't see it as any of my business what the EU does.
Accordingly, I don't really mind Juncker either - he seems like a bit of a laugh. I also believe that free movement notwithstanding, he did his best to accommodate the UK with a proposed 'semi-detached' status, but Cameron rebuffed him, believing he could tie the UK in utterly with no sweat. Therefore I reserve my loathing for Cameron's conduct, not Juncker's.
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
You object to a decision made one day in time but then four decades of ever closer union with Treaties ratified by Parliament even though manifesto's had committed to a referendum is perfectly fine to you?
There's nothing treasonous of opposing Brexit. What you're doing though is actively wishing great damage upon the country. That is unpleasant at the very least.
Yes. That's how parliamentary democracy works. Parliamentary democracy then gave us a referendum which gave us a different result. You had to suck up the first bit. I have to suck up this bit.
In which case a workable deal was never on. It was a huge missed opportunity because proper reform could have been to everyone's benefit, not just Britain. Indeed, it was when Cameron switched from looking for that deeper reform, as in the Bloomberg speech, to a special deal for Britain that the wheels began to come loose.
I think it is certainly true that a significantly better deal was never on. I think some people had unrealistic expectations of what was possible, which probably explains why I was in a minority in thinking it was a good deal (a view I still hold). Of course, there was also a strong element of the Europhobes trashing it whatever it contained.
Looking at it from the continental point of view, I'm quite sure they think that they bent over backwards to be helpful to the UK, and all they got in return was a kick in the teeth.
Understanding of all these dynamics needs to be factored into our planning and expectations of what the exit deal is going to be. I'm not very optimistic, because I think the lack of mutual understanding has got even worse. Much of the blame for this lies with the UK - as someone quoted in the Economist yesterday said "the government is behaving as if it is negotiating with itself, not with 27 other countries and the EU institutions."
From a financial planning point of view, therefore, I think it is prudent to assume a bad scenario is likely.
All free trade agreements involve accepting binding international arbitration, either via ISDS tribunals, the EFTA court or the ECJ.
Even NATO has a court for dealing with Treaty infringements.
I know of no ISDS remotely as intrusive as the ECJ though. The problem is that the ISDS is not a mere tribunal, it is an effective Supreme Court of the European Union.
I agree with that.
But I think we have a tendency to imagine the rest of the world's democracies to be unsullied by supranational bodies, when they're not.
In the late 1990s, the Quebec government sought to ban GM crops, as it was a power devolved to them under the Canadian constitution. Monsanto brought a case against Canada in a secret ISDS Tribunal in the US, and argued that the ban contravened Canada's treaty obligations to allow US seed companies (which sold GM seeds) to compete with Canadian ones (who didn't). It ruled in favour of Monsanto, and the Quebec government had to withdraw their law.
Now that is not as intrusive as the ECJ, for sure. But if we are to enter into arrangements like the TPP we have to accept similar oversight. (Worse, one might argue, as you are treaty bound to keep your intellectual property legislation in lock step with the US.)
I do get the feeling *something* is going to happen with Russia within the next 5-10 years. Just seems to be so much "agitation" towards a Russia/West conflict.
The EU army will probably be the instigator.
It's not a 'feeling', it's very deliberate political and big media ramping, emanating from the US. It's been that way for years, and at the bottom of it is the plain truth that Russia is a threat to US global hegemony.
In that sense, rather ironically, a Trump victory might lead to relative word peace and stability! (which may be why it's being portrayed as armageddon)
Russia is a second-rank power. The threat to the US (and Russia, potentially), comes from China.
Of course it is. But it is one that refuses to be controlled by the US (unlike, for example, Western Europe or Japan), and is therefore a threat. If Britain did the same, we would be a threat. You are of course correct that China is a bigger threat, but you have to take out the smaller pieces first.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
The UK has been a world leader in animal welfare since the beginning of the 19th century. There is little reason to see why this will not continue. In many cases the UK's animal welfare standards are significantly higher than the minimum required by the EU.
As has been pointed out to YellowSubmarine and his fellow moaners before, the UK is and has always been a leader in health and safety too. Many of the EU rules grew out of UK rules or UK initiatives. Why they would think that should change because of Brexit, god only knows.
You're rebutting a point I didn't make. If we want " Free Trade " ( whatever that is ) with countries with lower standards than hours we'll have to drop those standards. Or else we won't have Free Trade. There's a trade off. One those keen to cast aside our trade with broadly comparable rich European democracies in search of Trade with ????/Rwanda/The White Commonwealth/Narnia seem keen to avoid talking about. It doesn't mean we can't do it. It just means we're replacing one set of trade offs with EU membership with a different set of trade offs.
Like how in the EU we Free Trade (and Free Movement in fact) with countries that have as their standard a national minimum wage of approximately £1 per hour. Therefore as members of the EU by your standards we clearly have to lower our national minimum wage to just £1 per hour right? That's the trade off for EU membership?
In which case a workable deal was never on. It was a huge missed opportunity because proper reform could have been to everyone's benefit, not just Britain. Indeed, it was when Cameron switched from looking for that deeper reform, as in the Bloomberg speech, to a special deal for Britain that the wheels began to come loose.
I think it is certainly true that a significantly better deal was never on. I think some people had unrealistic expectations of what was possible, which probably explains why I was in a minority in thinking it was a good deal (a view I still hold). Of course, there was also a strong element of the Europhobes trashing it whatever it contained.
Looking at it from the continental point of view, I'm quite sure they think that they bent over backwards to be helpful to the UK, and all they got in return was a kick in the teeth.
Understanding of all these dynamics needs to be factored into our planning an expectations of what the exit deal is going to be. I'm not very optimistic, because I think the lack of mutual understanding has got even worse. Much of the blame for this lies with the UK - as someone quoted in the Economist yesterday said "the government is behaving as if it is negotiating with itself, not with 27 other countries and the EU institutions."
From a financial planning point of view, therefore, I think it is prudent to assume a bad scenario is likely.
The view from most of the people I speak to - from Asia, North America etc. - is that it is the UK that is behaving badly.
I think the problem is that Boris is newsworthy, while the EU leaders (by and large) are not. And so the rest of the world sees the UK demanding things, and as a disruptive influence.
May's comments are significant in that #1 It's another enormous hint we're leaving the Customs Union. Which seems todate to be Hammond's resignation point. Though the later could also be Hammond's opening negotiating stance. Leaving the Customs Union also complicates the Irish Border. #2 May is relying on new free trade deals at precisely the point new free trade deals are becoming harder to secure. We're back to the contradictions of the Leave coalition. Run by a draw bridge down elite but win by drawbridge up voters. Negotiating bilateral free trade deals from a position of relative weakness is certainly possible. But the price will be opening up our markets to Foriegn competition and gutting EU health, safety, animal welfare, quality standards to an extent that will horrify Tory Remainia, the NFU and many Mail readers.
Not that I blame May for not being clear about this. The internal debate is ongoing, she's still in a honeymoon and sans another £ devaluation she needs to keep details till after #Mayday. This is also not a catastrophe of her making. But she volunteered for the job and has brutally owned Leave. We have less than 6 months to expose these choices and drive Brexit into the sand. We have less than six months to prevent #Mayday.
The UK has been a world leader in animal welfare since the beginning of the 19th century. There is little reason to see why this will not continue. In many cases the UK's animal welfare standards are significantly higher than the minimum required by the EU.
Yes I know. So how is ' Free Trade ' with a load of countries with much lower standards and thus cheaper products going to work ? Once you ban Slavery or Heroin there is no such thing as Free Trade. It's all relative and a trade off with other cultural values.
I would strongly suggest looking at countries who are well known for exporting high quality meat to obtain the answer to your question.
This fanatical pro-EU stance amongst some is a mind set. If they had been around in the 1930s they would have been communists or Nazi's, lately they would have been ranting about global warming. Now religion seems to have faded there needs needs to be for some/ something to grasp to. Today its the EU, tomorrow who knows.
Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that people are simply pro- or anti-EU. All analysis and thought presupposes either the EU is good, or the EU is bad. It is therefore, almost in its entirety, pointless. I know that certain posters will defend any EU decision (no matter how deranged), while others could find fault with Juncker, even if he threw himself in front of a bus to save Nigel Farage's life.
Those who see the world with a fundamentally anti-EU mindset see their opponents as fanatics. (And assume everyone who does not share their hatred must be an EU loving Quisling.) While those who have decided that the EU is a Good Thing paint their opponents as racists and fruitcakes.
I can only speak for myself, but this doesn't fit my view. I think the EU is a ridiculous organisation, but I don't hate it - I hated British membership of it. As long as Britain is sovereign, I don't see it as any of my business what the EU does.
Accordingly, I don't really mind Juncker either - he seems like a bit of a laugh. I also believe that free movement notwithstanding, he did his best to accommodate the UK with a proposed 'semi-detached' status, but Cameron rebuffed him, believing he could tie the UK in utterly with no sweat. Therefore I reserve my loathing for Cameron's conduct, not Juncker's.
For myself for what its worth. Juncker is dangerous I don't think he believes in anything, he is in it for himself. If tomorrow it became obvious the he would be better off supporting the martians against the EU he would be making speeches on their behalf.
I do get the feeling *something* is going to happen with Russia within the next 5-10 years. Just seems to be so much "agitation" towards a Russia/West conflict.
The EU army will probably be the instigator.
It's not a 'feeling', it's very deliberate political and big media ramping, emanating from the US. It's been that way for years, and at the bottom of it is the plain truth that Russia is a threat to US global hegemony.
In that sense, rather ironically, a Trump victory might lead to relative word peace and stability! (which may be why it's being portrayed as armageddon)
Russia is a second-rank power. The threat to the US (and Russia, potentially), comes from China.
China is a potential threat; Russia is a live and present threat. China mostly adheres to international norms at present. It certainly doesn't have a policy of invasion of sovereign states and deliberate destabilisation of third countries as a bargaining chip.
You can call me what you want. Your rhetorical device of freezing a 3.8% Electoral victory on one day in time to give you power to do anything you want unscrutinised is laughable. Your ultramontane belief you are entitled to define what Brexit means exactly then change your mind every twelve hours according to your blood chemistry is laughable. Your defence of democracy by labeling your opponent's traitors is laughable.
Your refusal to accept the democratic and clear (to win with 100 votes would have been a victory - to win with more than 3.8 million is by any measure incontestable) result of a referendum that was offered on the basis of a parliamentary vote is shameful and pitiable. We all know that if Remain had won you would have claimed this settled the matter permanently, so please don't try to claim otherwise.
#1 It wasn't won by 3.8m votes. You mean 3.8% of votes cast. #2 You aren't psychic. You don't know what I'd have said if Remain had won by 3.8% #3 I have accepted the result. Why else would I be debating how to respond to, shape the outcome and frustrate the result if I didn't accept it ? #4 As you well know life goes on. Leave was the culmination of a project birthed in the Maastricht rebellion. Why should europhiles not be entitled to a generational project ?
Trying to "frustrate the result" is not "accepting the result". The Maastricht rebellion in the early nineties started nearly two decades after the EU membership referendum in the seventies.
@Richard_Nabavi@David_Herdson I've come to see I was wrong about this. I though Cameron's deal was the least worst that was available in his timescale ( quick and without Treaty change ) We could have banked it then worked on opening further the Door's he'd prised ajar. I also thought he'd learned from both sides of #indyref. Be seen to have tried to renegotiate to look reasonable. Present the Vow first rather than in panic.
The response to the deal from the public does suggest that the perception gap is now just too wide and something had to give. How the experience of Dave's renegotiation lead's people to believe we'll get a great deal now we're leaving is beyond me though.
I do get the feeling *something* is going to happen with Russia within the next 5-10 years. Just seems to be so much "agitation" towards a Russia/West conflict.
The EU army will probably be the instigator.
It's not a 'feeling', it's very deliberate political and big media ramping, emanating from the US. It's been that way for years, and at the bottom of it is the plain truth that Russia is a threat to US global hegemony.
In that sense, rather ironically, a Trump victory might lead to relative word peace and stability! (which may be why it's being portrayed as armageddon)
Russia is a second-rank power. The threat to the US (and Russia, potentially), comes from China.
China is a potential threat; Russia is a live and present threat. China mostly adheres to international norms at present. It certainly doesn't have a policy of invasion of sovereign states and deliberate destabilisation of third countries as a bargaining chip.
Of course it does! China would and will do whatever it takes. And so does the US - and by extension the West. In fact they wrote the book. Honestly, where have you been?
There are talks already about stripping the things from CETA that mean it requires unanimity. So a butchered version of it will probably come into force next year.
So long as the Canadians don't give up in disgust.
This is a very important point in terms of how it impacts on our negotiations. I hope that very serious thought is being given on our side to trying to devise a deal which can be passed by QMV. If it falls back on to something requiring unanimity, I suspect we (and the EU, for that matter), are going to be badly stuffed by years of delay and uncertainty.
Yes. I agree. Frankly, getting 28 people to agree on anything important to them is tough. Anything at all.
Some of the comments in the thread generalise too much about what "the British" think - SeanT seems to think 48% of the population are traitors, which is a bit worrying, and even Southam Observer reckons that he knows what "we" think. and it's inter alia a natural affinity to Australians. I've nothing against Australia, but I don't feel any affinity to it at all, while the Netherlands or Denmark or indeed Germany seem pretty similar to us. That doesn't mean Southam isn't speaking for lots of people, but really we're such a diverse country that there isn't a coherent general view. And that's an important point to make at this moment on national uncertainty - for Brexit to make any sense at all, we need to try to get a balanced outcome with reasonable access to both the EU and the rest of the world, rather than focus all our efforts on one or the other and assume it's what everyone wants.
I am not seeking to speak for anyone but myself. The country I feel most connected to outside of England is Spain. However, in terms of the way that people are generally the countries that seem closest to the UK (England) to me are Australia, New Zealand and anglophone Canada (in particular the Atlantic provinces). In Europe, the closest to us are the Dutch, in my experience, and the Irish, of course. I understand that for others - especially those with different heritages - it may be very different.
In which case a workable deal was never on. It was a huge missed opportunity because proper reform could have been to everyone's benefit, not just Britain. Indeed, it was when Cameron switched from looking for that deeper reform, as in the Bloomberg speech, to a special deal for Britain that the wheels began to come loose.
I think it is certainly true that a significantly better deal was never on. I think some people had unrealistic expectations of what was possible, which probably explains why I was in a minority in thinking it was a good deal (a view I still hold). Of course, there was also a strong element of the Europhobes trashing it whatever it contained.
Looking at it from the continental point of view, I'm quite sure they think that they bent over backwards to be helpful to the UK, and all they got in return was a kick in the teeth.
Understanding of all these dynamics needs to be factored into our planning an expectations of what the exit deal is going to be. I'm not very optimistic, because I think the lack of mutual understanding has got even worse. Much of the blame for this lies with the UK - as someone quoted in the Economist yesterday said "the government is behaving as if it is negotiating with itself, not with 27 other countries and the EU institutions."
From a financial planning point of view, therefore, I think it is prudent to assume a bad scenario is likely.
The view from most of the people I speak to - from Asia, North America etc. - is that it is the UK that is behaving badly.
I think the problem is that Boris is newsworthy, while the EU leaders (by and large) are not. And so the rest of the world sees the UK demanding things, and as a disruptive influence.
We don't do a very good PR job, all round.
Anyone trying to change the status quo is by definition disruptive, doesn't make them wrong. Plus it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease even if through gritted teeth, bending over backwards seeking nothing other than begrudged opt-outs hasn't been productive.
Though if you switch Boris for Farage I'd agree that he's a big PR problem. He's like a big international troll, now shilling for Trump.
I think the EU - and the Commission especially - fundamentally misunderstands the British. We do look at the world differently, our past is very distinct and that has shaped what we are, how we think and how we react to stuff. When I come to Canada or go to Australia or New Zealand an Anglosphere makes a lot of sense to me. I'd keep the Americans out of it, though. However, economically leaving the single market is going to cost us big time. I just don't see a way round that. This has always been my concern.
Those countries are the obvious focus for us after Brexit. It's a much smaller sphere than we are used to and, when all is said and done, those countries are more interested in the EU than in us alone.
I understand why people feel the EU isn't for us. You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't sign up for everything,. Maybe the EU is over the line for us. But let's not pretend Brexit is anything other than a disconnection and a rejection of an internationalist way of doing things. It's Britain turning inwards. I regret that.
I regret it and I don't like it. But I understand it.
In which case a workable deal was never on. It was a huge missed opportunity because proper reform could have been to everyone's benefit, not just Britain. Indeed, it was when Cameron switched from looking for that deeper reform, as in the Bloomberg speech, to a special deal for Britain that the wheels began to come loose.
I think it is certainly true that a significantly better deal was never on. I think some people had unrealistic expectations of what was possible, which probably explains why I was in a minority in thinking it was a good deal (a view I still hold). Of course, there was also a strong element of the Europhobes trashing it whatever it contained.
Looking at it from the continental point of view, I'm quite sure they think that they bent over backwards to be helpful to the UK, and all they got in return was a kick in the teeth.
Understanding of all these dynamics needs to be factored into our planning an expectations of what the exit deal is going to be. I'm not very optimistic, because I think the lack of mutual understanding has got even worse. Much of the blame for this lies with the UK - as someone quoted in the Economist yesterday said "the government is behaving as if it is negotiating with itself, not with 27 other countries and the EU institutions."
From a financial planning point of view, therefore, I think it is prudent to assume a bad scenario is likely.
The view from most of the people I speak to - from Asia, North America etc. - is that it is the UK that is behaving badly.
I think the problem is that Boris is newsworthy, while the EU leaders (by and large) are not. And so the rest of the world sees the UK demanding things, and as a disruptive influence.
We don't do a very good PR job, all round.
Anyone trying to change the status quo is by definition disruptive, doesn't make them wrong. Plus it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease even if through gritted teeth, bending over backwards seeking nothing other than begrudged opt-outs hasn't been productive.
Though if you switch Boris for Farage I'd agree that he's a big PR problem. He's like a big international troll, now shilling for Trump.
Nevertheless, things said for domestic consumption do get widely shared, and I'm not sure that's always to our advantage.
@Richard_Nabavi@David_Herdson I've come to see I was wrong about this. I though Cameron's deal was the least worst that was available in his timescale ( quick and without Treaty change ) We could have banked it then worked on opening further the Door's he'd prised ajar. I also thought he'd learned from both sides of #indyref. Be seen to have tried to renegotiate to look reasonable. Present the Vow first rather than in panic.
The response to the deal from the public does suggest that the perception gap is now just too wide and something had to give. How the experience of Dave's renegotiation lead's people to believe we'll get a great deal now we're leaving is beyond me though.
Because getting a great deal and being members are incompatible, Dave has demonstrated that. What we want and want membership entails are just too far apart. Getting a great deal outside is at least possible so let's roll the dice.
In which case a workable deal was never on. It was a huge missed opportunity because proper reform could have been to everyone's benefit, not just Britain. Indeed, it was when Cameron switched from looking for that deeper reform, as in the Bloomberg speech, to a special deal for Britain that the wheels began to come loose.
I think it is certainly true that a significantly better deal was never on. I think some people had unrealistic expectations of what was possible, which probably explains why I was in a minority in thinking it was a good deal (a view I still hold). Of course, there was also a strong element of the Europhobes trashing it whatever it contained.
Looking at it from the continental point of view, I'm quite sure they think that they bent over backwards to be helpful to the UK, and all they got in return was a kick in the teeth.
Understanding of all these dynamics needs to be factored into our planning an expectations of what the exit deal is going to be. I'm not very optimistic, because I think the lack of mutual understanding has got even worse. Much of the blame for this lies with the UK - as someone quoted in the Economist yesterday said "the government is behaving as if it is negotiating with itself, not with 27 other countries and the EU institutions."
From a financial planning point of view, therefore, I think it is prudent to assume a bad scenario is likely.
The view from most of the people I speak to - from Asia, North America etc. - is that it is the UK that is behaving badly.
I think the problem is that Boris is newsworthy, while the EU leaders (by and large) are not. And so the rest of the world sees the UK demanding things, and as a disruptive influence.
We don't do a very good PR job, all round.
Anyone trying to change the status quo is by definition disruptive, doesn't make them wrong. Plus it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease even if through gritted teeth, bending over backwards seeking nothing other than begrudged opt-outs hasn't been productive.
Though if you switch Boris for Farage I'd agree that he's a big PR problem. He's like a big international troll, now shilling for Trump.
Nevertheless, things said for domestic consumption do get widely shared, and I'm not sure that's always to our advantage.
I'm not sure it's always to our disadvantage either. People don't just take seriously those who are pleasant mats that can be walked over.
I would strongly suggest looking at countries who are well known for exporting high quality meat to obtain the answer to your question.
That's an interesting question. Returning to our earlier discussion on WTO tariffs there is the real possibility that the UK will see its EU tariff quotas removed on high quality beef and lamb as well as other agricultural products as part of its membership renegotiation. It would also presumably be outside the EU tariff system and would effectively be blocked from its main agricultural export market. So UK farmers would need to compete on prices that are at least one third lower than they are struggling with at present and are no longer able to export to their main European market. It would see across the board farm bankruptcy. It is free trade of a kind, it's the price we may have to pay to keep going through the WTO, and the cost of food should go down. Should we care about the decimation of farming in the UK? Farmers presumably care, but they are not that important in economic terms. In any case they mostly voted for Brexit.
I think the EU - and the Commission especially - fundamentally misunderstands the British. We do look at the world differently, our past is very distinct and that has shaped what we are, how we think and how we react to stuff. When I come to Canada or go to Australia or New Zealand an Anglosphere makes a lot of sense to me. I'd keep the Americans out of it, though. However, economically leaving the single market is going to cost us big time. I just don't see a way round that. This has always been my concern.
Those countries are the obvious focus for us after Brexit. It's a much smaller sphere than we are used to and, when all is said and done, those countries are more interested in the EU than in us alone.
I understand why people feel the EU isn't for us. You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't sign up for everything,. Maybe the EU is over the line for us. But let's not pretend Brexit is anything other than a disconnection and a rejection of an internationalist way of doing things. It's Britain turning inwards. I regret that.
I regret it and I don't like it. But I understand it.
Interesting and robust discussion as ever. At least with Brexit we'll have plenty of time to revisit the topic as details unfold. About 7 to 10 years I suspect. However for now two things trouble me. Otherwise sane and sensible people who #1 Don't appear to grasp that all the issues of Free Trade we currently have with the EU, product standards, Labour, environmental, social standards, dispute resolution, will still be there with these amazing new trade deals we're going to do. When we deal with Rwanda we can either shadow the EU standards, gold plate them or under cut them. It's fairly clear what most of those in charge of Brexit want to do. #2 The extraordinary view that having narrowly won a referendum to start the world's most complex negotiation everyone should then shut up about the negotiation. Brexit could mean everything from 0% to 95% of what we have now. The belief people who wanted 100% aren't going to fight to get the figure nearer 95% rather than 0% is bizzare.
Actually I'll add a third. It's clearly possible to differentiate between leaving the European Union and the validation of the Leave Campaign. Leave winning was a huge cultural and political event. It's perfectly possible to accept the political outcome, Brexit, while wanting to discredit, dismantle, destroy the tissue of Xenophobic lies ( as we see it ) the campaign was. Politics doesn't stand still. The post Brexit debate is as much about the next campaign as anything. The Aid budget, non EU immigration, the role of referendums etc etc. Put crudely if Leave get away with it we'll have this again. Establishing down the track that £350m per week for the NHS was a big fat lie s not the same as reversing the Referendum result.
I would strongly suggest looking at countries who are well known for exporting high quality meat to obtain the answer to your question.
That's an interesting question. Returning to our earlier discussion on WTO tariffs there is the real possibility that the UK will see its EU tariff quotas removed on high quality beef and lamb as well as other agricultural products as part of its membership renegotiation. It would also presumably be outside the EU tariff system and would effectively be blocked from its main agricultural export market. So UK farmers would need to compete on prices that are at least one third lower than they are struggling with at present and are no longer able to export to their main European market. It would see across the board farm bankruptcy. It is free trade of a kind, it's the price we may have to pay to keep going through the WTO, and the cost of food should go down. Should we care about the decimation of farming in the UK? Farmers presumably care, but they are not that important in economic terms. In any case they mostly voted for Brexit.
I am not seeking to speak for anyone but myself. The country I feel most connected to outside of England is Spain. However, in terms of the way that people are generally the countries that seem closest to the UK (England) to me are Australia, New Zealand and anglophone Canada (in particular the Atlantic provinces). In Europe, the closest to us are the Dutch, in my experience, and the Irish, of course. I understand that for others - especially those with different heritages - it may be very different.
Fair enough! You did say "we" rather than "I", I think.
Trump can still win. His support is still solid. We await in trepidation the outcome.
He can't win. His support is solid but insufficient and his ratings with those he needs to win over are too poor.
He was only 4% behind in the latest YouGov/Economist poll. That doesn't seem like an unsurmountable deficit with more than 2 week to go.
His state position is far worse.
The battleground is, say Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina. Trump needs to win all five battles... and find a shock gain somewhere.
I'd say it wasn't so much a question of Trump being worse off state-by-state than nationally, as of his national position being worse than the 4% Clinton lead in that YouGov poll would indicate. The averages of the national polls indicate a Clinton lead of 6-7%.
That is actually consistent with the state position, where he needs to win the states you mention (though perhaps he could do without Nevada) and also win Pennsylvania or something similar. According to 538, Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania is currently 7.3% (RCP thinks 6.2%).
So either way you look at it, to win, Trump needs to do 3-3.5% better than the polls are currently indicating.
Comments
I'll have to dig that list out
At some point he either couldn't be bothered, or he felt no need to adopt or understand a perspective he thought was wrong.
What's more, you can see their point. Having a bunch of obscure Walloons in some minor country wrecking the trade deal they've been painstakingly negotiating in the wider interests of the EU (and, especially, the UK, had we remained members) must be frustrating.
Certainly there is evidence there is someone/some people attempting to take down the internet.
To be serious for a moment if you can cope with that. Brexit is a political process. It's not over till it's over. Your 3.8% majority didn't come down the mountain on tablets of stone. Your use of dehumanising abuse to freeze your narrow victory in stone is amusing. I may well do the same in your position. It is however undemocratic and frankly stupid to suggest Po?Utica stopped on 24th of June. Brexit is a fiendishly complex thing with myriad variables interplaying with myriad other variables. Butterflies beating their wings in the Amaxon will effect Brexit.
SELL something people want to BUY. It really is as simple as that folks.
Juncker was committed to keeping the UK in, but between his election and the referendum it seems he never understood why anyone in the UK would want to leave.
So long as the Canadians don't give up in disgust.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/789508066127515648
And there's not a lot we can do about it.
The EU army will probably be the instigator.
Its better to leave and focus our efforts on trying to agree some sort of transitional arrangement with the EU while we try and achieve the 'leave' vision the country signed up to.
The true cost will be far more than £4300 per household or whatever. Way, way more than that.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/stop-this-stupid-sabre-rattling-against-russia/
There's also a good piece on why Mark Carney should take his spivvy suits and sod off back to Canada (my words not the authors):
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/mark-carney-has-to-go-heres-why/
I understand why people feel the EU isn't for us. You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't sign up for everything,. Maybe the EU is over the line for us. But let's not pretend Brexit is anything other than a disconnection and a rejection of an internationalist way of doing things. It's Britain turning inwards. I regret that.
Its scary how quickly the whole thing (the internet) can go down isn't it?
Leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to rectify that inequity.
In that sense, rather ironically, a Trump victory might lead to relative word peace and stability! (which may be why it's being portrayed as armageddon)
The battleground is, say Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina. Trump needs to win all five battles... and find a shock gain somewhere.
PS. I should say, in general or as an outcome. There are some people who have convinced themselves that Brexit is a new world order. If you like, those are the Hannanites. They will be very frustrated, as Daniel Hannan already is, as far as I can tell.
There's nothing treasonous of opposing Brexit. What you're doing though is actively wishing great damage upon the country. That is unpleasant at the very least.
Those who see the world with a fundamentally anti-EU mindset see their opponents as fanatics. (And assume everyone who does not share their hatred must be an EU loving Quisling.) While those who have decided that the EU is a Good Thing paint their opponents as racists and fruitcakes.
Even NATO has a court for dealing with Treaty infringements.
I don't have a "trade deal" with them so I'm hoping they will want to do business with me.
Wish me luck...
Some of the comments in the thread generalise too much about what "the British" think - SeanT seems to think 48% of the population are traitors, which is a bit worrying, and even Southam Observer reckons that he knows what "we" think. and it's inter alia a natural affinity to Australians. I've nothing against Australia, but I don't feel any affinity to it at all, while the Netherlands or Denmark or indeed Germany seem pretty similar to us. That doesn't mean Southam isn't speaking for lots of people, but really we're such a diverse country that there isn't a coherent general view. And that's an important point to make at this moment on national uncertainty - for Brexit to make any sense at all, we need to try to get a balanced outcome with reasonable access to both the EU and the rest of the world, rather than focus all our efforts on one or the other and assume it's what everyone wants.
So it would be better to describe it as a first rate army, attached to a brilliant population, with fabulous natural resources, let down by a kleptomaniac political class.
Accordingly, I don't really mind Juncker either - he seems like a bit of a laugh. I also believe that free movement notwithstanding, he did his best to accommodate the UK with a proposed 'semi-detached' status, but Cameron rebuffed him, believing he could tie the UK in utterly with no sweat. Therefore I reserve my loathing for Cameron's conduct, not Juncker's.
Looking at it from the continental point of view, I'm quite sure they think that they bent over backwards to be helpful to the UK, and all they got in return was a kick in the teeth.
Understanding of all these dynamics needs to be factored into our planning and expectations of what the exit deal is going to be. I'm not very optimistic, because I think the lack of mutual understanding has got even worse. Much of the blame for this lies with the UK - as someone quoted in the Economist yesterday said "the government is behaving as if it is negotiating with itself, not with 27 other countries and the EU institutions."
From a financial planning point of view, therefore, I think it is prudent to assume a bad scenario is likely.
But I think we have a tendency to imagine the rest of the world's democracies to be unsullied by supranational bodies, when they're not.
In the late 1990s, the Quebec government sought to ban GM crops, as it was a power devolved to them under the Canadian constitution. Monsanto brought a case against Canada in a secret ISDS Tribunal in the US, and argued that the ban contravened Canada's treaty obligations to allow US seed companies (which sold GM seeds) to compete with Canadian ones (who didn't). It ruled in favour of Monsanto, and the Quebec government had to withdraw their law.
Now that is not as intrusive as the ECJ, for sure. But if we are to enter into arrangements like the TPP we have to accept similar oversight. (Worse, one might argue, as you are treaty bound to keep your intellectual property legislation in lock step with the US.)
Or is your claim patently false?
I think the problem is that Boris is newsworthy, while the EU leaders (by and large) are not. And so the rest of the world sees the UK demanding things, and as a disruptive influence.
We don't do a very good PR job, all round.
The response to the deal from the public does suggest that the perception gap is now just too wide and something had to give. How the experience of Dave's renegotiation lead's people to believe we'll get a great deal now we're leaving is beyond me though.
Though if you switch Boris for Farage I'd agree that he's a big PR problem. He's like a big international troll, now shilling for Trump.
- the people of the UK
- governments
- business people abroad
I think we concentrate on the first two, but forget about the effect on the third.
Right, bed for me
Actually I'll add a third. It's clearly possible to differentiate between leaving the European Union and the validation of the Leave Campaign. Leave winning was a huge cultural and political event. It's perfectly possible to accept the political outcome, Brexit, while wanting to discredit, dismantle, destroy the tissue of Xenophobic lies ( as we see it ) the campaign was. Politics doesn't stand still. The post Brexit debate is as much about the next campaign as anything. The Aid budget, non EU immigration, the role of referendums etc etc. Put crudely if Leave get away with it we'll have this again. Establishing down the track that £350m per week for the NHS was a big fat lie s not the same as reversing the Referendum result.
That is actually consistent with the state position, where he needs to win the states you mention (though perhaps he could do without Nevada) and also win Pennsylvania or something similar. According to 538, Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania is currently 7.3% (RCP thinks 6.2%).
So either way you look at it, to win, Trump needs to do 3-3.5% better than the polls are currently indicating.