Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
one only needs to read from the like of this ambassador to realise that he would rather block Brexit by whatever means necessary and failing that push it towards failure than see the nation succeed after leaving.
Please point me to the text in his resignation email that supports this ridiculous statement.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
There is an element of that, one only needs to read from the like of this ambassador to realise that he would rather block Brexit by whatever means necessary and failing that push it towards failure than see the nation succeed after leaving. There are very many people, especially in the civil service, who are actively seeking a recession after leaving to punish the masses who tore them away from their beloved EU. Now obviously the vast majority of people who voted to remain aren't minded that way, but unfortunately those who count seem to be in the cult of the EU. Purging them may be a a distasteful but necessary step to get a good deal.
The letter is a direct and searching critique of the government's inability to take on board difficult propositions and address them. We seem to have reached the stage where any suggestion of a problem is seen by Leavers as sabotage. And they wonder why Remainers think they are deranged.
"Serious multilateral negotiating experience is in short supply in Whitehall, and that is not the case in the Commission or in the Council."
"Senior Ministers, who will decide on our positions, issue by issue, also need from you detailed, unvarnished – even where this is uncomfortable - and nuanced understanding of the views, interests and incentives of the other 27."
Yet, despite all his experience, we were so dissatisfied with the outcome of his work and underwhelmed by his achievements we voted to Leave. I do hope he isn't expecting some kind of remuneration.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
There is an element of that, one only needs to read from the like of this ambassador to realise that he would rather block Brexit by whatever means necessary and failing that push it towards failure than see the nation succeed after leaving. There are very many people, especially in the civil service, who are actively seeking a recession after leaving to punish the masses who tore them away from their beloved EU. Now obviously the vast majority of people who voted to remain aren't minded that way, but unfortunately those who count seem to be in the cult of the EU. Purging them may be a a distasteful but necessary step to get a good deal.
We must purge the wreckers, cosmopolitans and intellectuals in order to protect the Workers revolution. All power to the Brexit Soviets!
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
If one were to simply look at the facts
In June we voted to Leave
A Remainer took over as PM soon after
It's January and we haven't even put the keys in the ignition
TSE Has May been throwing stuff around and screaming like Brown did? Not as far as I am aware. However Brown was unlucky in the sense that he came to office just as the Tories had an electable leader, May is more fortunate in that she has come to power with Labour led by their worst leader since Foot
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We need people who can cut a good deal with the EU, not just state our demands in an antagonistic manner. We can have 100 Farages or Foxes runs the negotiations if it will make us feel more powerful, but that isn't how we move the point where we meet the EU in the middle closer to us.
The fundamental problem we have is that, while the EU cannot force us to do anything in the future, we want something from the EU. If we want something from them then we need to reach a compromise between what they want and what we want. Being rude about them, even if it's justified, is not particularly effective in our national interest.
(That last comment isn't meant to criticise anyone here.)
Remind us who got more out of the EEC/EU Thatcher or Blair?
I might do a thread on voting systems sometime this month.
We've got so many elections in May in this country using different voting systems, and I need to do a thread on the quasi AV system the French use to elect their President.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We need people who can cut a good deal with the EU, not just state our demands in an antagonistic manner. We can have 100 Farages or Foxes runs the negotiations if it will make us feel more powerful, but that isn't how we move the point where we meet the EU in the middle closer to us.
The fundamental problem we have is that, while the EU cannot force us to do anything in the future, we want something from the EU. If we want something from them then we need to reach a compromise between what they want and what we want. Being rude about them, even if it's justified, is not particularly effective in our national interest.
(That last comment isn't meant to criticise anyone here.)
There's a difference between compromise and just giving in, though.
I don't understand what he has said which makes you think he doesn't think Brexit can work, or isn't willing to work his hardest for the UK. He doesn't say that we have to accept free movement, or anything like that.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We need people who can cut a good deal with the EU, not just state our demands in an antagonistic manner. We can have 100 Farages or Foxes runs the negotiations if it will make us feel more powerful, but that isn't how we move the point where we meet the EU in the middle closer to us.
The fundamental problem we have is that, while the EU cannot force us to do anything in the future, we want something from the EU. If we want something from them then we need to reach a compromise between what they want and what we want. Being rude about them, even if it's justified, is not particularly effective in our national interest.
(That last comment isn't meant to criticise anyone here.)
Remind us who got more out of the EEC/EU Thatcher or Blair?
The current stance of Davis/Fox/Farage isn't like Thatcher, and I'm not saying we negotiate like Blair.
The letter is a direct and searching critique of the government's inability to take on board difficult propositions and address them. We seem to have reached the stage where any suggestion of a problem is seen by Leavers as sabotage. And they wonder why Remainers think they are deranged.
I think you have seen me post time and again that the government silence on Brexit is both stupid and damaging. I also think setting an A50 date but not at the same time setting out the main aims of what we want to achieve was stupid as well. I'm also not a massive fan of the government on domestic matters, overall team May are making a hash of everything they lay their hands on.
The difference is that I don't think Dave's deal was very good and was not involved in getting such a weak deal for the nation in the first place. For that simple act he should have been axed along with Dave after the leave vote along with Lord Hill who at least had the decency to resign.
The government are right not to have any confidence in the man and the team who negotiated Dave's terrible deal, as I've said on a number of occasions, it is my opinion that his rubbish deal is what won it for Leave. The disrespect shown by the EU to the second largest nation and economy in it swayed a lot of people from remain to leave, especially in areas and social classes where one wouldn't expect it. If that kind of deal lost Dave his job, them Theresa is rightly sacking the person and team responsible.
On the central charge, that the government is not taking the hard decisions, it's possible. But it's also possible that the ambassador was taken out of the loop because No 10 don't think he can be trusted. I probably would have done that and set up a parallel working group to take over once he resigned.
Either way, this is no great loss, we have to wait and see who the replacement is, but this is the same as a premier league team selling some reserve player and the opposition fans pretending your club has lost a superstar. It is patently clear he is a second rater, at least after that terrible deal.
I thought that Mike was going to mention how some PBers made a killing on Referendum betting thanks to a certain spreadsheet, but he didn't get the chance!
The fury of the remainer's at the resignation of Sir Ivan Rogers does make you think that they have lost a key ally in their quest to frustrate leaving the EU. His history does indicate that he was far from eurosceptic and did a poor deal for Cameron.
Theresa May is right to appoint a Brexiteer to the post and I expect in the next few weeks, post the Supreme Court decision, that she will lay out her demands and put in hand the legislation if needed to serve A50
I have not noticed any names for the ambassador but how about Lord Digby Jones or John Longworth
I thought that Mike was going to mention how some PBers made a killing on Referendum betting thanks to a certain spreadsheet, but he didn't get the chance!
At least Mike used my line about given how the Tories managed to portray Ed Miliband as a national security risk after the way he ate a bacon sarnie, just imagine what they'll do to someone like Corbyn with his rich IRA/Hamas history.
I thought that Mike was going to mention how some PBers made a killing on Referendum betting thanks to a certain spreadsheet, but he didn't get the chance!
At least Mike used my line about given how the Tories managed to portray Ed Miliband as a national security risk after the way he ate a bacon sarnie, just imagine what they'll do to someone like Corbyn with his rich IRA/Hamas history.
On balance, gradually moving an even higher proportion of one's pension investments out of UK-focused stocks into assets denominated in dollars, Swiss francs, or other currencies other than the Euro, seems a sensible precaution, with little downside risk*. The Eurozone is likely to be hit almost as badly as we are by any turbulence, so I'd be cautious of jumping out of the frying pan into that particular fire - especially since our EU friends seems to be if anything even more clueless than the UK.
* Yes, President Trump is looking like a relative safe haven. What a weird world.
I thought that Mike was going to mention how some PBers made a killing on Referendum betting thanks to a certain spreadsheet, but he didn't get the chance!
At least Mike used my line about given how the Tories managed to portray Ed Miliband as a national security risk after the way he ate a bacon sarnie, just imagine what they'll do to someone like Corbyn with his rich IRA/Hamas history.
That was an uncomfortable moment.
The only saving grace for Corbyn is that back in 2015/16 the Tories conducted some focus groups on Corbyn, when they told the focus groups what Corbyn had said in the past, the focus groups were like 'No way he said/The Labour party won't have elected someone like that as Leader'
On balance, gradually moving an even higher proportion of one's pension investments out of UK-focused stocks into assets denominated in dollars, Swiss francs, or other currencies other than the Euro, seems a sensible precaution, with little downside risk*. The Eurozone is likely to be hit almost as badly as we are by any turbulence, so I'd be cautious of jumping out of the frying pan into that particular fire - especially since our EU friends seems to be if anything even more clueless than the UK.
* Yes, President Trump is looking like a relative safe haven. What a weird world.
Gulp. This govt is not going so well if one of its most loyal supporters is advocating currency flight.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
There is an element of that, one only needs to read from the like of this ambassador to realise that he would rather block Brexit by whatever means necessary and failing that push it towards failure than see the nation succeed after leaving. There are very many people, especially in the civil service, who are actively seeking a recession after leaving to punish the masses who tore them away from their beloved EU. Now obviously the vast majority of people who voted to remain aren't minded that way, but unfortunately those who count seem to be in the cult of the EU. Purging them may be a a distasteful but necessary step to get a good deal.
The letter is a direct and searching critique of the government's inability to take on board difficult propositions and address them. We seem to have reached the stage where any suggestion of a problem is seen by Leavers as sabotage. And they wonder why Remainers think they are deranged.
Is there not an equally valid interpretation that he was unable to take on board the difficult propositions from the government re Brexit and address them?
He was asked to execute polices that are the antithesis of his beliefs and values, and therefore he may not be able to reconcile those fundamental ethical, intellectual and moral conflicts in any other way than claiming faults in the other party.
The fury of the remainer's at the resignation of Sir Ivan Rogers does make you think that they have lost a key ally in their quest to frustrate leaving the EU. His history does indicate that he was far from eurosceptic and did a poor deal for Cameron.
Theresa May is right to appoint a Brexiteer to the post and I expect in the next few weeks, post the Supreme Court decision, that she will lay out her demands and put in hand the legislation if needed to serve A50
I have not noticed any names for the ambassador but how about Lord Digby Jones or John Longworth
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
Golly, recursive paranoia (all xs hold such and such a belief about all ys). Are you sure you aren't over generalising at all? Because both groups are rather large and diverse. As you would have discovered if you had gone out and engaged voters by knocking on doors and begging for their vote last year, rather than assuming that the good referendum fairies would magically deliver your chosen outcome. Complacency has a cost.
No, you want someone confident, steely, and Brexiteer.
Flashman, perhaps?
That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
The fury of the remainer's at the resignation of Sir Ivan Rogers does make you think that they have lost a key ally in their quest to frustrate leaving the EU. His history does indicate that he was far from eurosceptic and did a poor deal for Cameron.
Theresa May is right to appoint a Brexiteer to the post and I expect in the next few weeks, post the Supreme Court decision, that she will lay out her demands and put in hand the legislation if needed to serve A50
I have not noticed any names for the ambassador but how about Lord Digby Jones or John Longworth
Both good suggestions.
Yes, we have had enough of experts. Lets put someone with no diplomatic experience into a critical diplomatic role.
Telling too that the deputy resigned first. To lose one senior diplomat is unfortunate, to lose two...
The fury of the remainer's at the resignation of Sir Ivan Rogers does make you think that they have lost a key ally in their quest to frustrate leaving the EU. His history does indicate that he was far from eurosceptic and did a poor deal for Cameron.
Theresa May is right to appoint a Brexiteer to the post and I expect in the next few weeks, post the Supreme Court decision, that she will lay out her demands and put in hand the legislation if needed to serve A50
I have not noticed any names for the ambassador but how about Lord Digby Jones or John Longworth
Both good suggestions.
Yes, we have had enough of experts. Lets put someone with no diplomatic experience into a critical diplomatic role.
Telling too that the deputy resigned first. To lose one senior diplomat is unfortunate, to lose two...
Brexiteers are to EU negotiations what alcoholics are to wine cellars.
They will be very, very enthusiastic indeed, but it won't end well.
No longer is the question is whether Brexit is good or bad. Everyone is discussing exactly how bad Brexit will be.
You are confusing the daily cohort of whiners from Remain with 'everyone'.
Most people are not discussing Brexit at all.
Because most people don't follow the day to day minutiae of politics. The beautiful thing about Brexit is that it guarantees a day, at some point in the future, when *everyone* will be forced to pay attention and realise that the whole Leave movement has been a 20 year con. British Euroscepticism is on trial, and the evidence against it is mounting.
...As always your simpleton nature mistakes interest for support...civil service who are actively trying to make Brexit a failure...Talk about Stockholm syndrome...federalists who are paid up EUphiles should be shoved off the top of the shard...He's a fully paid up EUphile...very many people...who are actively seeking a recession after leaving...those who count seem to be in the cult of the EU...Purging them may be a a distasteful but necessary step...
I was going to make a witty rejoinder, but I figured if I just precis'd your utterances from tonight, you'd get the point.
No, you want someone confident, steely, and Brexiteer.
Flashman, perhaps?
That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Gulp. This govt is not going so well if one of its most loyal supporters is advocating currency flight.
I don't think you've ever understood that I don't do blind party loyalty. I support the Conservative Party strongly when it's being sensible, which was most of the time from 2005 until June 2015. I support it less strongly, or not at all, at other times.
Of course, Theresa May is the only game in town, and infinitely preferable to the leaders of the other UK-wide parties, so in that sense I'm still a strong supporter. Nonetheless, it's a goddam mess, and even if she were anything like as good a PM as Cameron, she'd still have a near-impossible task ahead. So one has to be realistic - the risk of a very damaging Brexit is increasing in my view. The risk isn't so much about the long term, as getting there, a point which many Brexiteers don't seem to be able to get their heads around.
I posted before the referendum that I estimated the chances of the economy being hit (in the short-to-medium term) by Brexit as badly as 2008/9 was around 20%, with a similar probability of us getting through with little damage. The 60% balance of the probability was a less serious downturn (and zero chance of Brexit being good in the short to medium term). Now we have more information, I reckon that was quite a good, albeit rather vague, assessment, with the one proviso that I had the timescales too short - rather than the two years or so I mentioned at the time, I think we are now talking about the damage showing up over three or four years.
No, you want someone confident, steely, and Brexiteer.
Flashman, perhaps?
That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Gulp. This govt is not going so well if one of its most loyal supporters is advocating currency flight.
I don't think you've ever understood that I don't do blind party loyalty. I support the Conservative Party strongly when it's being sensible, which was most of the time from 2005 until June 2015. I support it less strongly, or not at all, at other times.
Of course, Theresa May is the only game in town, and infinitely preferable to the leaders of the other UK-wide parties, so in that sense I'm still a strong supporter. Nonetheless, it's a goddam mess, and even if she were anything like as good a PM as Cameron, she'd still have a near-impossible task ahead. So one has to be realistic - the risk of a very damaging Brexit is increasing in my view. The risk isn't so much about the long term, as getting there, a point which many Brexiteers don't seem to be able to get their heads around.
I posted before the referendum that I estimated the chances of the economy being hit (in the short-to-medium term) by Brexit as badly as 2008/9 was around 20%, with a similar probability of us getting through with little damage. The 60% balance of the probability was a less serious downturn (and zero chance of Brexit being good in the short to medium term). Now we have more information, I reckon that was quite a good, albeit rather vague, assessment, with the one proviso that I had the timescales too short - rather than the two years or so I mentioned at the time, I think we are now talking about the damage showing up over three or four years.
In short, we're screwed. The question is by how much and when will it start.
Gulp. This govt is not going so well if one of its most loyal supporters is advocating currency flight.
I don't think you've ever understood that I don't do blind party loyalty. I support the Conservative Party strongly when it's being sensible, which was most of the time from 2005 until June 2015. I support it less strongly, or not at all, at other times.
Of course, Theresa May is the only game in town, and infinitely preferable to the leaders of the other UK-wide parties, so in that sense I'm still a strong supporter. Nonetheless, it's a goddam mess, and even if she were anything like as good a PM as Cameron, she'd still have a near-impossible task ahead. So one has to be realistic - the risk of a very damaging Brexit is increasing in my view. The risk isn't so much about the long term, as getting there, a point which many Brexiteers don't seem to be able to get their heads around.
I posted before the referendum that I estimated the chances of the economy being hit (in the short-to-medium term) by Brexit as badly as 2008/9 was around 20%, with a similar probability of us getting through with little damage. The 60% balance of the probability was a less serious downturn (and zero chance of Brexit being good in the short to medium term). Now we have more information, I reckon that was quite a good, albeit rather vague, assessment, with the one proviso that I had the timescales too short - rather than the two years or so I mentioned at the time, I think we are now talking about the damage showing up over three or four years.
I agree, and I don't care.
I think Brexit will cost us maybe 3-4% GDP in the short-medium term.
Why don't I care?
Being rich enough for hardship not to impact you has nothing to do with it of course.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
There is an element of that, one only needs to read from the like of this ambassador to realise that he would rather block Brexit by whatever means necessary and failing that push it towards failure than see the nation succeed after leaving. There are very many people, especially in the civil service, who are actively seeking a recession after leaving to punish the masses who tore them away from their beloved EU. Now obviously the vast majority of people who voted to remain aren't minded that way, but unfortunately those who count seem to be in the cult of the EU. Purging them may be a a distasteful but necessary step to get a good deal.
The letter is a direct and searching critique of the government's inability to take on board difficult propositions and address them. We seem to have reached the stage where any suggestion of a problem is seen by Leavers as sabotage. And they wonder why Remainers think they are deranged.
Is there not an equally valid interpretation that he was unable to take on board the difficult propositions from the government re Brexit and address them?
He was asked to execute polices that are the antithesis of his beliefs and values, and therefore he may not be able to reconcile those fundamental ethical, intellectual and moral conflicts in any other way than claiming faults in the other party.
Read his resignation note. He wasn't asked to execute any policies because the Government doesn't have any.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
There is an element of that, one only needs to read from the like of this ambassador to realise that he would rather block Brexit by whatever means necessary and failing that push it towards failure than see the nation succeed after leaving. There are very many people, especially in the civil service, who are actively seeking a recession after leaving to punish the masses who tore them away from their beloved EU. Now obviously the vast majority of people who voted to remain aren't minded that way, but unfortunately those who count seem to be in the cult of the EU. Purging them may be a a distasteful but necessary step to get a good deal.
The letter is a direct and searching critique of the government's inability to take on board difficult propositions and address them. We seem to have reached the stage where any suggestion of a problem is seen by Leavers as sabotage. And they wonder why Remainers think they are deranged.
Is there not an equally valid interpretation that he was unable to take on board the difficult propositions from the government re Brexit and address them?
He was asked to execute polices that are the antithesis of his beliefs and values, and therefore he may not be able to reconcile those fundamental ethical, intellectual and moral conflicts in any other way than claiming faults in the other party.
Read his resignation note. He wasn't asked to execute any policies because the Government doesn't have any.
May is an empty vessel. There's no there there.
How can he execute any policies while A50 has not been invoked? The EU have been pretty clear on their stance that there is to be no negotiations prior to invocation.
Gulp. This govt is not going so well if one of its most loyal supporters is advocating currency flight.
I don't think you've ever understood that I don't do blind party loyalty. I support the Conservative Party strongly when it's being sensible, which was most of the time from 2005 until June 2015. I support it less strongly, or not at all, at other times.
Of course, Theresa May is the only game in town, and infinitely preferable to the leaders of the other UK-wide parties, so in that sense I'm still a strong supporter. Nonetheless, it's a goddam mess, and even if she were anything like as good a PM as Cameron, she'd still have a near-impossible task ahead. So one has to be realistic - the risk of a very damaging Brexit is increasing in my view. The risk isn't so much about the long term, as getting there, a point which many Brexiteers don't seem to be able to get their heads around.
I posted before the referendum that I estimated the chances of the economy being hit (in the short-to-medium term) by Brexit as badly as 2008/9 was around 20%, with a similar probability of us getting through with little damage. The 60% balance of the probability was a less serious downturn (and zero chance of Brexit being good in the short to medium term). Now we have more information, I reckon that was quite a good, albeit rather vague, assessment, with the one proviso that I had the timescales too short - rather than the two years or so I mentioned at the time, I think we are now talking about the damage showing up over three or four years.
I agree, and I don't care.
I think Brexit will cost us maybe 3-4% GDP in the short-medium term.
Why don't I care?
Because I reckon Brexit will make us MUCH more prosperous in the long term. In the upcoming tech revolution, countries will have to adapt super-quickly and nimbly. Get migrants where they want them, not randoms who wander in. Etc etc etc
Being a member of the EU in its present behemothic, unreformable, non-democratic state (and there is literally no sign of it reforming) is probably the least optimal place to find oneself, in the face of epochal changes. Like being locked below decks on an 18th century man o war, as it suddenly and unexpectedly confronts a hostile aircraft carrier.
This post is so 90s. It's a new world now: Trump is in the White House. Great power diplomacy is back.
We have a privileged position within the EU if we could just embrace it. Trying to execute Brexit at the moment would be like France rebuilding the Maginot line as a response to Russian aggression in Ukraine - it's been tested to destruction once already.
The world is changing so fast. You even discussed it today. Supermarkets without staff. Driverless cars. &c
In this light, Brexit is small change - but good change. The most adaptive, nimble, responsive, and democratic countries will prosper. The EU ain't that.
A reactionary Brexit Britain, led by a new political class that looks at the world through rose tinted specs seeking to recreate a pastiche of Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, is not adaptive, nimble responsive or democratic.
A beautiful boutique hotel with knowledgable staff who knew everyone's name was turned into a shabby chain 'inn' where the staff didn't know each other's names for the sake of a few £££... it's going to take time to restore its reputation.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome in that resignation explanation email. He's a fully paid up EUphile. We need someone who is going to fight our corner, not give in because the rest of the EU won't like us. Good riddance.
We want someone who fights for the national interest, not the narrow interest of the Brexit B team.
Leavers believe that no Remainer can reliably assess the national interest. They believe that Remainers who have not changed their minds are inherently treacherous.
It is the only explanation for Leavers' conduct.
There is an element of that, one only needs to read from the like of this ambassador to realise that he would rather block Brexit by whatever means necessary and failing that push it towards failure than see the nation succeed after leaving. There are very many people, especially in the civil service, who are actively seeking a recession after leaving to punish the masses who tore them away from their beloved EU. Now obviously the vast majority of people who voted to remain aren't minded that way, but unfortunately those who count seem to be in the cult of the EU. Purging them may be a a distasteful but necessary step to get a good deal.
The letter is a direct and searching critique of the government's inability to take on board difficult propositions and address them. We seem to have reached the stage where any suggestion of a problem is seen by Leavers as sabotage. And they wonder why Remainers think they are deranged.
Is there not an equally valid interpretation that he was unable to take on board the difficult propositions from the government re Brexit and address them?
He was asked to execute polices that are the antithesis of his beliefs and values, and therefore he may not be able to reconcile those fundamental ethical, intellectual and moral conflicts in any other way than claiming faults in the other party.
Read his resignation note. He wasn't asked to execute any policies because the Government doesn't have any.
May is an empty vessel. There's no there there.
Brexit means Brexit is the antithesis of his beliefs.
One assumes he will have spoken with political masters in UK and found the direction was one outside his scope to negotiate.
This post is so 90s. It's a new world now: Trump is in the White House. Great power diplomacy is back.
We have a privileged position within the EU if we could just embrace it. Trying to execute Brexit at the moment would be like France rebuilding the Maginot line as a response to Russian aggression in Ukraine - it's been tested to destruction once already.
Wasn't our privileged position within the EU the subject of a recent referendum?
The most prosperous nations in Europe, Norway, Switzerland etc are already outside the EU. Personally I was happy to stay in the EU as long as we were outside the Eurozone but now we are out we will stay out and make the best of it
The world is changing so fast. You even discussed it today. Supermarkets without staff. Driverless cars. &c
In this light, Brexit is small change - but good change. The most adaptive, nimble, responsive, and democratic countries will prosper. The EU ain't that.
A reactionary Brexit Britain, led by a new political class that looks at the world through rose tinted specs seeking to recreate a pastiche of Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, is not adaptive, nimble responsive or democratic.
It is the opposite of that.
Oh good god. It really isn't. We haven't been taken over by Bufton Tufton. Theresa May is uninspiring, Liam Fox is a bit of a dick, but who cares, this is generational change which will take decades and eventually transform the country. There will be thousands, millions, of actors. We the people will be the change-makers.
Britain is going to be wholly exposed to the winds of global competition, and it will hurt, at first. But it will be good for us in the end. We will learn to be self reliant. New ways of thinking and trading will arise. We are the nation of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. We can do it.
Romantic twaddle won't fix this. Especially the half cocked pseudo historical bullshit Brexiteers go in for.
In Brexit Britain, disillusioned 'experts' Faraday and Newton will move to MIT and Brunel would be deported.
No, you want someone confident, steely, and Brexiteer.
Flashman, perhaps?
That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
The world is changing so fast. You even discussed it today. Supermarkets without staff. Driverless cars. &c
In this light, Brexit is small change - but good change. The most adaptive, nimble, responsive, and democratic countries will prosper. The EU ain't that.
A reactionary Brexit Britain, led by a new political class that looks at the world through rose tinted specs seeking to recreate a pastiche of Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, is not adaptive, nimble responsive or democratic.
It is the opposite of that.
Oh good god. It really isn't. We haven't been taken over by Bufton Tufton. Theresa May is uninspiring, Liam Fox is a bit of a dick, but who cares, this is generational change which will take decades and eventually transform the country. There will be thousands, millions, of actors. We the people will be the change-makers.
Britain is going to be wholly exposed to the winds of global competition, and it will hurt, at first. But it will be good for us in the end. We will learn to be self reliant. New ways of thinking and trading will arise. We are the nation of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. We can do it.
If that's the best a rhetorician with your skill can do then Brexit really is on the rocks. Even you don't believe it anymore.
Incidentally, Milo's book won't be published by S&S in the UK. I'm intrigued by the outrage of Milo Yiannopoulous' book, but not that of the multi-coloured bullshit fountain Camila Batmanghelidjh.
Comments
No longer is the question is whether Brexit is good or bad. Everyone is discussing exactly how bad Brexit will be.
In June we voted to Leave
A Remainer took over as PM soon after
It's January and we haven't even put the keys in the ignition
Believe in BRITAIN! Be LEAVE!
We've got so many elections in May in this country using different voting systems, and I need to do a thread on the quasi AV system the French use to elect their President.
Most people are not discussing Brexit at all.
@eddo75
Hull sack Mike Phelan in the same week they sack youth coach, Peter Ndlovu
How would the FN react to a tactical voting shut out, and if so then who are the final duo?
The difference is that I don't think Dave's deal was very good and was not involved in getting such a weak deal for the nation in the first place. For that simple act he should have been axed along with Dave after the leave vote along with Lord Hill who at least had the decency to resign.
The government are right not to have any confidence in the man and the team who negotiated Dave's terrible deal, as I've said on a number of occasions, it is my opinion that his rubbish deal is what won it for Leave. The disrespect shown by the EU to the second largest nation and economy in it swayed a lot of people from remain to leave, especially in areas and social classes where one wouldn't expect it. If that kind of deal lost Dave his job, them Theresa is rightly sacking the person and team responsible.
On the central charge, that the government is not taking the hard decisions, it's possible. But it's also possible that the ambassador was taken out of the loop because No 10 don't think he can be trusted. I probably would have done that and set up a parallel working group to take over once he resigned.
Either way, this is no great loss, we have to wait and see who the replacement is, but this is the same as a premier league team selling some reserve player and the opposition fans pretending your club has lost a superstar. It is patently clear he is a second rater, at least after that terrible deal.
No 2 AV 68%
Yes 2 AV 32%
"We left because we got a crap deal from Europe"
"We will now get a brilliant deal from Europe..."
Ummm
Let's face it, he's awesome.
Theresa May is right to appoint a Brexiteer to the post and I expect in the next few weeks, post the Supreme Court decision, that she will lay out her demands and put in hand the legislation if needed to serve A50
I have not noticed any names for the ambassador but how about Lord Digby Jones or John Longworth
* Yes, President Trump is looking like a relative safe haven. What a weird world.
He was asked to execute polices that are the antithesis of his beliefs and values, and therefore he may not be able to reconcile those fundamental ethical, intellectual and moral conflicts in any other way than claiming faults in the other party.
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/816420196470636544
That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
http://dndlaw.com/aa-gill-on-brexit/
Telling too that the deputy resigned first. To lose one senior diplomat is unfortunate, to lose two...
They will be very, very enthusiastic indeed, but it won't end well.
Did the rail line from Doncaster to Hull (via Selby) today!
Of course, Theresa May is the only game in town, and infinitely preferable to the leaders of the other UK-wide parties, so in that sense I'm still a strong supporter. Nonetheless, it's a goddam mess, and even if she were anything like as good a PM as Cameron, she'd still have a near-impossible task ahead. So one has to be realistic - the risk of a very damaging Brexit is increasing in my view. The risk isn't so much about the long term, as getting there, a point which many Brexiteers don't seem to be able to get their heads around.
I posted before the referendum that I estimated the chances of the economy being hit (in the short-to-medium term) by Brexit as badly as 2008/9 was around 20%, with a similar probability of us getting through with little damage. The 60% balance of the probability was a less serious downturn (and zero chance of Brexit being good in the short to medium term). Now we have more information, I reckon that was quite a good, albeit rather vague, assessment, with the one proviso that I had the timescales too short - rather than the two years or so I mentioned at the time, I think we are now talking about the damage showing up over three or four years.
The reality is they are in fact Casino Royale 1967
Happy New Year OGH!
May is an empty vessel. There's no there there.
We have a privileged position within the EU if we could just embrace it. Trying to execute Brexit at the moment would be like France rebuilding the Maginot line as a response to Russian aggression in Ukraine - it's been tested to destruction once already.
It is the opposite of that.
One assumes he will have spoken with political masters in UK and found the direction was one outside his scope to negotiate.
*innocent face*
In Brexit Britain, disillusioned 'experts' Faraday and Newton will move to MIT and Brunel would be deported.
I heard on the radio after he died that he was profoundly dyslexic and saw and thought in pictures. That piece is a brilliant example.
SeanT makes valid points about the ability to react with speed, versatility, flexibility and innovation. All are likely to be better outside EU.
I don't see any appetite for going back in time. That is incompatible with a progressive society, which we are, in or out of EU
NEW THREAD
There is no evidence for that. I cite Britain just before it went into the EU as a counter argument.