@davidtorrance: Strip out immigration stuff & PM's speech isn't far off what Salmond might've been saying re: UK had he won in 2014: gov.uk/government/spe…
@alexmassie: Quite so. "We repudiated you; now let's be adults and make sure you give us everything we want." twitter.com/davidtorrance/…
no Richard that was what the industry did by itself, the turnround in fortunes was despite HMG not because of it. In between we had a serial shutdown of UK capacity in the period 1997-2007 to the yells of it doesnt really matter.
I can't speak for 1997-2010, but 2010-2017 is pretty damned impressive.
So far Mrs Merkel seems to be picking a fight with 2 of her top 3 trading partners.
I agree with Nick.
Merkel has many cards to play internationally, within Europe, and within Germany. The most successful statesperson since Bismarck.
Wasn't the Bismarck sunk by the Royal Navy?
Bismarck the man was asked towards the end of his life I believe (he died about 1898 I think) what the most important political fact of the 20th Century was going to be, and he replied "the fact that North America speaks English".
Mr. 83, some would vote for First Contact, or Voyage Home.
Mr. Urquhart, reference to the apparently deleted slavery tweet?
Incidentally, I'd vote for DS9. Best plot arcs, strong recurring secondary cast, some slightly grimmer edges (would Kira justifying killing innocent people to persuade Damar to continue his freedom fighting/terrorism get an airing today?) are all good positives.
There are the Ferengi, but every series has its weak spots.
Voyager with 7 of 9 for me
Agreed. When I was working 18 hour days at Goldman in the late 90s, I'd get home at 11, and watch an episode or two. It saved my sanity.
And 7 of 9 was cool :-)
7 of 9 was meh. Too blonde.
Here's a question politics junkies should know without reference to T'Internet; how did the divorce of the actress who plays 7 of 9 (potentially) alter US politics?
Wasn't it due to some spousal abuse scandal that knocked a mid-tier politician out of the running for a senate seat and opened the way for Obama?
"That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU." - T.May
What is the difference between customs union and customs agreement ?
We are currently in THE customs union of the EU and bound fully by it. Turkey, for example, is in A customs union with the EU. It can trade freely with EU but is also free to cut other trade deals. All May is saying is we're out of THE customs union but seek to join A customs union.
It's a bit more complex than that.
A customs union means that once a product is inside the zone, it can travel anywhere in the zone without incurring tariffs. There are no 'rules of origin' on products inside the zone.
So, if we were to enter into a customs union with the EU, and then we entered into a free trade agreement with China, then products could flow from China to us to the EU without incurring a tariff.
For Turkey this is not a big deal. Of EU states, it borders only Greece, and Greece itself is pretty cut off from the rest of the EU, so there is little likelihood/need to worry about Turkey cutting trade deals with China. It would simply be too much hassle to bring things into Turkey and then re-export them.
But that isn't necessarily true for us. I suspect a customs union as part of transitional agreements makes sense. But longer-term, it's a harder call.
Yes - agree it is more detailed than I let on. But...we could without too much hassle put 'country of origin' controls on arrived goods from outside EU for re-export to avoid precisely this kind of Uk=Forwarding agent type of problem.
Mr. 83, some would vote for First Contact, or Voyage Home.
Mr. Urquhart, reference to the apparently deleted slavery tweet?
Incidentally, I'd vote for DS9. Best plot arcs, strong recurring secondary cast, some slightly grimmer edges (would Kira justifying killing innocent people to persuade Damar to continue his freedom fighting/terrorism get an airing today?) are all good positives.
There are the Ferengi, but every series has its weak spots.
Voyager with 7 of 9 for me
Agreed. When I was working 18 hour days at Goldman in the late 90s, I'd get home at 11, and watch an episode or two. It saved my sanity.
And 7 of 9 was cool :-)
7 of 9 was meh. Too blonde.
Here's a question politics junkies should know without reference to T'Internet; how did the divorce of the actress who plays 7 of 9 (potentially) alter US politics?
Jeri Ryan divorced Jack Ryan, who stepped down from the Senate, allowing a young chap named Barack Obama to get his breakthrough?
no Richard that was what the industry did by itself, the turnround in fortunes was despite HMG not because of it. In between we had a serial shutdown of UK capacity in the period 1997-2007 to the yells of it doesnt really matter.
I can't speak for 1997-2010, but 2010-2017 is pretty damned impressive.
It should be much higher
15 years ago we had 3 van manufacturers today we have one. It;s a structural deficit.
UK car manufacturing peaked in the 1970s at 2 million, really we should be producing 2.5 million cars today.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
"That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU." - T.May
What is the difference between customs union and customs agreement ?
I remember this being discussed on PB about a week ago. In a customs union we are bound by the terms of the union and its agreement with other countries being obliged to apply a common tariff. In a customs agreement there is no tariff in respect of goods or services generated within the union but if goods are imported here on which we have agreed a different tariff then they would have to be declared if exported to the EU and the appropriate tariff paid. There is a downside of some additional paperwork but there is an upside of being able to negotiate our own tariffs with the rest of the world. If I understood it correctly Turkey has something like this with the EU at the moment.
I thought Turkey is in a customs union with the EU but it does not cover agricultural products.
Mr. 83, some would vote for First Contact, or Voyage Home.
Mr. Urquhart, reference to the apparently deleted slavery tweet?
Incidentally, I'd vote for DS9. Best plot arcs, strong recurring secondary cast, some slightly grimmer edges (would Kira justifying killing innocent people to persuade Damar to continue his freedom fighting/terrorism get an airing today?) are all good positives.
There are the Ferengi, but every series has its weak spots.
Voyager with 7 of 9 for me
Agreed. When I was working 18 hour days at Goldman in the late 90s, I'd get home at 11, and watch an episode or two. It saved my sanity.
And 7 of 9 was cool :-)
7 of 9 was meh. Too blonde.
Here's a question politics junkies should know without reference to T'Internet; how did the divorce of the actress who plays 7 of 9 (potentially) alter US politics?
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this.
What did she promise Nissan, and how can she deliver that without agreement?
no Richard that was what the industry did by itself, the turnround in fortunes was despite HMG not because of it. In between we had a serial shutdown of UK capacity in the period 1997-2007 to the yells of it doesnt really matter.
I can't speak for 1997-2010, but 2010-2017 is pretty damned impressive.
It should be much higher
15 years ago we had 3 van manufacturers today we have one. It;s a structural deficit.
UK car manufacturing peaked in the 1970s at 2 million, really we should be producing 2.5 million cars today.
Mr. 83, some would vote for First Contact, or Voyage Home.
Mr. Urquhart, reference to the apparently deleted slavery tweet?
Incidentally, I'd vote for DS9. Best plot arcs, strong recurring secondary cast, some slightly grimmer edges (would Kira justifying killing innocent people to persuade Damar to continue his freedom fighting/terrorism get an airing today?) are all good positives.
There are the Ferengi, but every series has its weak spots.
Voyager with 7 of 9 for me
Agreed. When I was working 18 hour days at Goldman in the late 90s, I'd get home at 11, and watch an episode or two. It saved my sanity.
And 7 of 9 was cool :-)
7 of 9 was meh. Too blonde.
Here's a question politics junkies should know without reference to T'Internet; how did the divorce of the actress who plays 7 of 9 (potentially) alter US politics?
Jeri Ryan divorced Jack Ryan, who stepped down from the Senate, allowing a young chap named Barack Obama to get his breakthrough?
no Richard that was what the industry did by itself, the turnround in fortunes was despite HMG not because of it. In between we had a serial shutdown of UK capacity in the period 1997-2007 to the yells of it doesnt really matter.
I can't speak for 1997-2010, but 2010-2017 is pretty damned impressive.
It should be much higher
15 years ago we had 3 van manufacturers today we have one. It;s a structural deficit.
UK car manufacturing peaked in the 1970s at 2 million, really we should be producing 2.5 million cars today.
Why 'should' we? We don't have any world-class competitive advantage in terms of geographic position, low wages or access to raw materials. And those 1970s manufacturers only survived because UK consumers were largely forced to buy their junk whether they liked it or not, and governments subsidised them.
Of course, I agree it's not the government as such which should take the credit for the recent UK resurgence in the industry. A lot of it is due to German investment
"That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU." - T.May
What is the difference between customs union and customs agreement ?
We are currently in THE customs union of the EU and bound fully by it. Turkey, for example, is in A customs union with the EU. It can trade freely with EU but is also free to cut other trade deals. All May is saying is we're out of THE customs union but seek to join A customs union.
It's a bit more complex than that.
A customs union means that once a product is inside the zone, it can travel anywhere in the zone without incurring tariffs. There are no 'rules of origin' on products inside the zone.
So, if we were to enter into a customs union with the EU, and then we entered into a free trade agreement with China, then products could flow from China to us to the EU without incurring a tariff.
For Turkey this is not a big deal. Of EU states, it borders only Greece, and Greece itself is pretty cut off from the rest of the EU, so there is little likelihood/need to worry about Turkey cutting trade deals with China. It would simply be too much hassle to bring things into Turkey and then re-export them.
But that isn't necessarily true for us. I suspect a customs union as part of transitional agreements makes sense. But longer-term, it's a harder call.
Yes - agree it is more detailed than I let on. But...we could without too much hassle put 'country of origin' controls on arrived goods from outside EU for re-export to avoid precisely this kind of Uk=Forwarding agent type of problem.
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this.
What did she promise Nissan, and how can she deliver that without agreement?
Corporation Tax cut if we cannot get duty free access.
@CarlottaVance I find Forsythe one of the most perspicacious political commentators. I think he was derided by someone here as a teenage scribbler for the Spectator. But so what?
In 1990, while dealing blackjack at a charity event, the actress met investment banker and future Republican political candidate Jack Ryan. The couple married on June 15, 1991, and had a son, Alex, on August 15, 1994. Throughout the marriage, they took turns commuting between Los Angeles and Chicago for their careers, but divorced on August 27, 1999. Although Ryan mentioned in an interview for Star Trek that the frequent separations had been difficult for the marriage, the reasons for the divorce were kept sealed at their mutual request.[25] A few years after she joined the Voyager cast, Ryan began dating Star Trek: Voyager producer Brannon Braga.[26] Between February and November 2000, they were stalked by Marlon Estacio Pagtakhan, who was convicted for harassment and threats in May 2001.[27][28][29]
When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.[30]
On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files.[31] The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request and reversed the decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years earlier, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public,[32] and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris.[30][33] Jeri described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips, and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[34] Jack denied these allegations. Although Jeri only made a brief statement,[35] and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack to withdraw his candidacy;[36][37] his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.[38]
Not seen much comment on TM's speech from EU leaders/bigwigs ?
There's a summary on Die Welt in re the Germans. Tusk called it 'realistic'. There's not a huge amount that demands a response at this point - they're still keeping message discipline, no talks until A50.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this.
What did she promise Nissan, and how can she deliver that without agreement?
Corporation Tax cut if we cannot get duty free access.
Hammond getting the prospective retaliation in before the speech was inspired.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think the trouble with this is that once the strategy of treating it as a negotiation from scratch breaks down it will be impossible to characterise it as anything other than wanting to 'keep bits of membership' in that way that May asserts she is not doing.
She only gets one chance to pull off the gambit of conceding hard Brexit and then negotiating from zero back up to the relationship she wants.
Why do we need to wait to March now? Supreme Court announce result next week and then straight to Parliament to trigger A50.
I think she should meet with trump first, gives her some negotiating ammunition.
Expect to hear an ever more panicky Commission screech ever more insistently and plaintively, but with a growing timbre of self-doubt, that the UK cannot even start trade talks with others until the Brexit deal is done.
Interestingly, Tusk has just come out welcoming the speech and calling it "realistic".
Of course , they expect it to be as Hard a Brexit as you can get
Nicola releases huffy statement - NO mention of further referendum.
Cluck cluck cluck...
Would you care to have a bet on a second Indy refendum being called within say the next 2 years. Don't think I could manage a grand, but a ton say?
Called or a Uk govt approved referendum held ?
Nats call for one every week.
Formally called for by the Scottish government.
No bet - they call for one every week.
How does it go again?
Cluck cluck cluck...
Happy to bet on there being a referendum - or that Nippy resigns permanently in protest at May blocking one.
Yep, I'll certainly take a bet against the notion that May blocking a referendum would weaken Sturgeon to the point of resigning. I'll also take a bet on there being a referendum before the end of 2020 - Shadsy & Betfred currently offering 11/10, I'll generously take evens.
Jane Merrick is a British political journalist and former political editor of the Independent on Sunday newspaper. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
I wonder if we might then get to a handshake alot quicker that most currently assume. A50 by March, not a huge amount to negotiate over, and potentially both sides trying to make nice - it might all be over by the summer!
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others.
Some wiggle room here :
"There may be some specific European programs in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution."
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
Read the view of her speech in the Staggers which is that she has folded on much of what she could have retained of our EU membership benefits if she had been prepared to negotiate. Her skill is that she can spin this weakness as a triumph because so much of the Tory party wants hard Brexit anyway.
no Richard that was what the industry did by itself, the turnround in fortunes was despite HMG not because of it. In between we had a serial shutdown of UK capacity in the period 1997-2007 to the yells of it doesnt really matter.
I can't speak for 1997-2010, but 2010-2017 is pretty damned impressive.
It should be much higher
15 years ago we had 3 van manufacturers today we have one. It;s a structural deficit.
UK car manufacturing peaked in the 1970s at 2 million, really we should be producing 2.5 million cars today.
Slovakia beats the UK.
Pay UK workers Slovak wages and it's a done deal? No? Thought not. Next.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others.
Some wiggle room here :
"There may be some specific European programs in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution."
Good. I really like the positive approach of the speech as well as the determination not to be held to ransom but it would be silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It does make you wonder just how voters throughout Europe would feel after hearing Theresa May's vision for an Independant UK making her own laws and not subject to diktat from Brussels.
It could be very popular and Theresa delivered the speech in such a positive and competent way that will inspire some, maybe many
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think its a stronger position to take than 'can we be partial members of your club?'
It's 'We're no longer members' - what deal would you like with your largest market and most important security partner?
May has experience with this in her time of Home Secretary - opting out of Criminal Justice, then opting back in to the bits we wanted....
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
Read the view of her speech in the Staggers which is that she has folded on much of what she could have retained of our EU membership benefits if she had been prepared to negotiate. Her skill is that she can spin this weakness as a triumph because so much of the Tory party wants hard Brexit anyway.
I think that's nonsense, frankly - per Merrick's rather thin article for CNNI. The Four Freedoms are the Four Freedoms. It's a clear EU27 red line that Merkel has signalled time and time again. There's no point in trying to negotiate given that stance. The EU27 are defending the rights of EU citizens.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think the trouble with this is that once the strategy of treating it as a negotiation from scratch breaks down it will be impossible to characterise it as anything other than wanting to 'keep bits of membership' in that way that May asserts she is not doing.
She only gets one chance to pull off the gambit of conceding hard Brexit and then negotiating from zero back up to the relationship she wants.
I don't agree with that. Our relationship with the EU will continue post Brexit. It is entirely possible that we might leave some of these common programs on departure but come back later if there is a common interest in us doing so. The EU has a number of such relationships with non members.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think its a stronger position to take than 'can we be partial members of your club?'
It's 'We're no longer members' - what deal would you like with your largest market and most important security partner?
May has experience with this in her time of Home Secretary - opting out of Criminal Justice, then opting back in to the bits we wanted....
Using that approach from within the EU while subject to the treaties is very different from doing it from outside.
The reality is that we are not yet no longer members, and May does not want get to that position for real without having agreed a deal. At the moment it still looks like she wants to have her cake and eat it. What in concrete terms is she proposing to give up in terms of operating within the single market?
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
Read the view of her speech in the Staggers which is that she has folded on much of what she could have retained of our EU membership benefits if she had been prepared to negotiate. Her skill is that she can spin this weakness as a triumph because so much of the Tory party wants hard Brexit anyway.
I think that's nonsense, frankly - per Merrick's rather thin article for CNNI. The Four Freedoms are the Four Freedoms. It's a clear EU27 red line that Merkel has signalled time and time again. There's no point in trying to negotiate given that stance. The EU27 are defending the rights of EU citizens.
But what do the Four Freedoms entail? Do they entail what people thought they did in 1973, or 1992, or 2004 (under 2004/38/EC) - or 2017?
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think its a stronger position to take than 'can we be partial members of your club?'
It's 'We're no longer members' - what deal would you like with your largest market and most important security partner?
May has experience with this in her time of Home Secretary - opting out of Criminal Justice, then opting back in to the bits we wanted....
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
Read the view of her speech in the Staggers which is that she has folded on much of what she could have retained of our EU membership benefits if she had been prepared to negotiate. Her skill is that she can spin this weakness as a triumph because so much of the Tory party wants hard Brexit anyway.
I think that's nonsense, frankly - per Merrick's rather thin article for CNNI. The Four Freedoms are the Four Freedoms. It's a clear EU27 red line that Merkel has signalled time and time again. There's no point in trying to negotiate given that stance. The EU27 are defending the rights of EU citizens.
But what do the Four Freedoms entail? Do they entail what people thought they did in 1973, or 1992, or 2004 (under 2004/38/EC) - or 2017?
I would have thought Maastricht, with the restrictions applied under the A8 directive you mentioned.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think its a stronger position to take than 'can we be partial members of your club?'
It's 'We're no longer members' - what deal would you like with your largest market and most important security partner?
May has experience with this in her time of Home Secretary - opting out of Criminal Justice, then opting back in to the bits we wanted....
Yes, its good tactics. But the strategy still needs to have a clear view of what is in our interests post brexit with our largest trading market (taking them as a block).
Now Nicola's big moment, Tezza has called her bluff. Will she call Indyref2?
Eh, no...
You cannot be as thick as you make out you are.
How do you think Theresa May's speech will have been received by the Scottish fishing community
I'm sure they loved hearing her show concern for the interests of Spanish fishermen.
When did she refer to Spanish Fishermen
And I thought you hung on her every word? C-, must do better.
'And I do not believe that the EU’s leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young unemployed of the Eurozone, and millions of others, that they want to make them poorer, just to punish Britain and make a political point.'
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others.
Some wiggle room here :
"There may be some specific European programs in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution."
Good. I really like the positive approach of the speech as well as the determination not to be held to ransom but it would be silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The whole approach is to throw out the bathwater and then scrabble around the wet patch looking for any babies.
@KennyFarq: Sturgeon edging towards indyref2 reminds me of that old trick question:
@KennyFarq: / "If I travel halfway to X, then half of the remaining distance, then half the remaining difference, and so on, how long before I reach X?"
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others.
Some wiggle room here :
"There may be some specific European programs in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution."
Good. I really like the positive approach of the speech as well as the determination not to be held to ransom but it would be silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The whole approach is to throw out the bathwater and then scrabble around the wet patch looking for any babies.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think its a stronger position to take than 'can we be partial members of your club?'
It's 'We're no longer members' - what deal would you like with your largest market and most important security partner?
May has experience with this in her time of Home Secretary - opting out of Criminal Justice, then opting back in to the bits we wanted....
Yes, its good tactics. But the strategy still needs to have a clear view of what is in our interests post brexit with our largest trading market (taking them as a block).
What will May do if the EU27 take her at her word and present her with a one-page instant Brexit agreement and say, "See you on the other side to talk about the new relationship?"
Now Nicola's big moment, Tezza has called her bluff. Will she call Indyref2?
Eh, no...
You cannot be as thick as you make out you are.
How do you think Theresa May's speech will have been received by the Scottish fishing community
If they take much from it they are stupid, some hot air does not mean anything. Will not be so much crowing when they get to negotiations and find that they get a pasting and that their big talk disapopears like snow off a dyke. The starting gun has not even been fired yet. Westminster sold our fishing rights away and will want to hold onto them or sell them again to suit London. There are not that many fishermen left unfortunately to really care much.
@KennyFarq: Sturgeon edging towards indyref2 reminds me of that old trick question:
@KennyFarq: / "If I travel halfway to X, then half of the remaining distance, then half the remaining difference, and so on, how long before I reach X?"
LOL, I see you select your pundits by their union jacks
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others.
Some wiggle room here :
"There may be some specific European programs in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution."
Good. I really like the positive approach of the speech as well as the determination not to be held to ransom but it would be silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The whole approach is to throw out the bathwater and then scrabble around the wet patch looking for any babies.
You'd have thought Tories would have worked harder on guaranteeing a supply of babies.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
Read the view of her speech in the Staggers which is that she has folded on much of what she could have retained of our EU membership benefits if she had been prepared to negotiate. Her skill is that she can spin this weakness as a triumph because so much of the Tory party wants hard Brexit anyway.
I think that's nonsense, frankly - per Merrick's rather thin article for CNNI. The Four Freedoms are the Four Freedoms. It's a clear EU27 red line that Merkel has signalled time and time again. There's no point in trying to negotiate given that stance. The EU27 are defending the rights of EU citizens.
But what do the Four Freedoms entail? Do they entail what people thought they did in 1973, or 1992, or 2004 (under 2004/38/EC) - or 2017?
It's a good point. For all the philosophy or evocation of an ideal that are tied up in the Four Freedoms, the statement that "they are non-negotiable" elides over the point that they have, indeed, been negotiated.
Freedom of Movement/Labour is far from a full freedom - it is circumscribed by loads of rules. For example, you have 3 months to register in Norway and 3 more months to find a job, or sling your hook and get out of the country, buster. Or if you're coming in for study, you have to prove you can support yourself. If bringing in a spouse, prove you can support him/her. Or it's a "No, there's the door."
"Freedom of Movement is an absolute principle and non-negotiable." Except for the various bits we've negotiated around saying what we want to call "Freedom of Movement", I suppose...
Like it is if you are in EEA/EFTA and exercise Article 127.
"Freedom of Movement is an absolute principle and non-negotiable." Except for some circumstances, but we don't talk about them...
Like it was when the A8 countries acceded to the EU for countries like (for example) Germany - who negotiated limitations for several years.
"Freedom of Movement is an absolute principle and non-negotiable." Except for when it's not, I suppose...
Now Nicola's big moment, Tezza has called her bluff. Will she call Indyref2?
Eh, no...
You cannot be as thick as you make out you are.
How do you think Theresa May's speech will have been received by the Scottish fishing community
If they take much from it they are stupid, some hot air does not mean anything. Will not be so much crowing when they get to negotiations and find that they get a pasting and that their big talk disapopears like snow off a dyke. The starting gun has not even been fired yet. Westminster sold our fishing rights away and will want to hold onto them or sell them again to suit London. There are not that many fishermen left unfortunately to really care much.
I think you might find there are plenty in the North East fishing communities who want Brexit and a fair number of them are SNP members
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
That seems quite perceptive. My niggle with May's position is that there are bits of the EU we might want to hold onto. Eg the EAW, mutual enforcement of civil decrees, the EU patents court, Erasmus (not technically EU but still) and no doubt others. I think her starting position is sound and it is fine to say we don't care but there are plenty of areas where it will be in the interests of an independent UK to have close working relationships with the EU. It will be in their interests too once they get over the irritation of us leaving.
I think its a stronger position to take than 'can we be partial members of your club?'
It's 'We're no longer members' - what deal would you like with your largest market and most important security partner?
May has experience with this in her time of Home Secretary - opting out of Criminal Justice, then opting back in to the bits we wanted....
Yes, its good tactics. But the strategy still needs to have a clear view of what is in our interests post brexit with our largest trading market (taking them as a block).
What will May do if the EU27 take her at her word and present her with a one-page instant Brexit agreement and say, "See you on the other side to talk about the new relationship?"
When did the EU ever say anything in less than 100 pages? But taking your hypothetical if that involved a customs agreement allowing tariff free trade with the EU and the right to make our own deals with the rest of the world I think she might say "thank you very much and good luck to you too".
Now Nicola's big moment, Tezza has called her bluff. Will she call Indyref2?
Eh, no...
You cannot be as thick as you make out you are.
How do you think Theresa May's speech will have been received by the Scottish fishing community
If they take much from it they are stupid, some hot air does not mean anything. Will not be so much crowing when they get to negotiations and find that they get a pasting and that their big talk disapopears like snow off a dyke. The starting gun has not even been fired yet. Westminster sold our fishing rights away and will want to hold onto them or sell them again to suit London. There are not that many fishermen left unfortunately to really care much.
I think you might find there are plenty in the North East fishing communities who want Brexit and a fair number of them are SNP members
I doubt there are much more than 500 boats max left, that is not huge. May be more people in former fishing communities I grant you.
"Turkey has a customs deal in goods with the EU, but has to open its markets to any country with an EU trade deal, without having much say"
Doesn't sound like much of a problem.
It's the UK's inability to make additional deals May is concerned with.
Yes, we are much more likely to want lower tariffs with the rest of the world than the EU rather than higher ones. We will no longer be looking to protect the vested interests of Mediterranean farmers. Quite the opposite in fact.
Comments
@alexmassie: Quite so. "We repudiated you; now let's be adults and make sure you give us everything we want." twitter.com/davidtorrance/…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38581861
15 years ago we had 3 van manufacturers today we have one. It;s a structural deficit.
UK car manufacturing peaked in the 1970s at 2 million, really we should be producing 2.5 million cars today.
Theresa May’s speech today was striking for how much it took off the negotiating table. Britain is, she said, leaving the single market. She isn’t going to spend anytime seeing if free movement – but only for those with a job – might be somehow compatible with single-market membership. She was also clear that the UK is quitting the EU’s common external tariff and commercial policy.
Why is May doing this? Well, staying in the single market with no say over the rules is, obviously, not a sustainable position.....
But I think there is another reason for May choosing this path. She can deliver the UK’s exit from the single market and the common external tariff herself; she doesn’t need the agreement of any other EU leader to do this. By limiting how much of her strategy needs agreement from the EU, she puts herself more in control of the negotiation.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/mays-aim-take-back-control-brexit-negotiation/
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/821389168534241285
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004#Obama_vs._Ryan
Of course, I agree it's not the government as such which should take the credit for the recent UK resurgence in the industry. A lot of it is due to German investment
Also he just seemed at a loss to make any sensible comments. Labour are in deep trouble over this and have been completely outflanked by Theresa May
When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.[30]
On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files.[31] The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request and reversed the decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years earlier, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public,[32] and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris.[30][33] Jeri described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips, and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[34] Jack denied these allegations. Although Jeri only made a brief statement,[35] and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack to withdraw his candidacy;[36][37] his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.[38]
A bad day for GO shills all round.
https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/821390722754613248
She only gets one chance to pull off the gambit of conceding hard Brexit and then negotiating from zero back up to the relationship she wants.
£100 on each?
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/currency/11/12/intraday.stm
As a consequence UK shares with big dollar earnings have fallen and the FTSE is down 1.2%.
Anti-semitic Labour rules ok?
"There may be some specific European programs in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution."
It could be very popular and Theresa delivered the speech in such a positive and competent way that will inspire some, maybe many
It's 'We're no longer members' - what deal would you like with your largest market and most important security partner?
May has experience with this in her time of Home Secretary - opting out of Criminal Justice, then opting back in to the bits we wanted....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_6491
The reality is that we are not yet no longer members, and May does not want get to that position for real without having agreed a deal. At the moment it still looks like she wants to have her cake and eat it. What in concrete terms is she proposing to give up in terms of operating within the single market?
C-, must do better.
'And I do not believe that the EU’s leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young unemployed of the Eurozone, and millions of others, that they want to make them poorer, just to punish Britain and make a political point.'
@KennyFarq: / "If I travel halfway to X, then half of the remaining distance, then half the remaining difference, and so on, how long before I reach X?"
And it was not a bad speech. You could not have reasonably asked for any more detail at this stage of the process.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-speech-means-the-brexit-phony-war-may-be-ending/?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product
The starting gun has not even been fired yet. Westminster sold our fishing rights away and will want to hold onto them or sell them again to suit London.
There are not that many fishermen left unfortunately to really care much.
Tories 12.5 looks value too, or does someone know they're not even going to try?
Freedom of Movement/Labour is far from a full freedom - it is circumscribed by loads of rules. For example, you have 3 months to register in Norway and 3 more months to find a job, or sling your hook and get out of the country, buster. Or if you're coming in for study, you have to prove you can support yourself. If bringing in a spouse, prove you can support him/her. Or it's a "No, there's the door."
"Freedom of Movement is an absolute principle and non-negotiable." Except for the various bits we've negotiated around saying what we want to call "Freedom of Movement", I suppose...
Like it is if you are in EEA/EFTA and exercise Article 127.
"Freedom of Movement is an absolute principle and non-negotiable." Except for some circumstances, but we don't talk about them...
Like it was when the A8 countries acceded to the EU for countries like (for example) Germany - who negotiated limitations for several years.
"Freedom of Movement is an absolute principle and non-negotiable." Except for when it's not, I suppose...
Doesn't sound like much of a problem.
It's the UK's inability to make additional deals May is concerned with.
Having said two days ago the PM should rule out hard brexit and commit to single market... He now says she has!?
Feels like he just hasn't been paying attention? Surely other labour MPs won't be keen on this?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/15/brexit-theresa-may-speech-single-market-labour-keir-starmer