Sadiq Khan giving a good live interview just now on Sky.
While I did not see him on Sky yesterday despite watching it all day I do accept that circumstances may have curtailed his access to some of the media and therefore concede I may have misjudged him yesterday
You're full of bigotry and prejudice. I read your comments on Khan yesterday and rarely have I read anything less appropriate.
Roger.. look in your own eye.. you are just as prejudiced as the next person, just in a different way.
I might say that what I find offensive is that no one who knows me, or has ever known me, would identify me as the adjectives used by Roger. My only critism of Khan yesterday was that he had not been seen on tv, a critism that was being made by commentators reporting on the tragic events
A maniac drove past the House of Commons mowing down anyone he could get close to maiming disfiguring and killing as many as possible and all you could find to deplore was the length of time Khan had been seen on the media. Are you serious?
Roger - lets put this behind us - I was only reflecting various media commentators but have accepted this morning that Khan had good reasons not to be on the media
Our relationship with the other EU States was always transactional, which is probably why Brexit eventually happened. We weren't signed up to the same end goals.
True enough. Next time we will have to sign up on a different basis
Given that the "original" EU was to promote integration and stop European countries fighting damaging wars and also given that the UK had a very different war experience and view of Europe (we seem to have been fending them off since Napolean's time), then it is not all that surprising that the goals and objectives of Britain and the Continent are so divergent.
This is the view Europeans have of the British. It's pretty broad brush stuff but why should it be otherwise? It's the same way most on here look at comments from nonentities in the EU though few of them are as ignorant or vulgar.
"Leavers saw themselves like Captain Onedin, majestically standing on the prow surveying the horizons of the open seas, independent, adventurous and enterprising. Meanwhile, the outside world saw posters implying that Turkey was joining the EU and Nigel Farage smugly standing in front of the Breaking Point poster, exactly echoing Nazi propaganda about Jewish immigrants".
Leavers have made zero effort since then to improve the outside world's image of them.
Victor Orban has not gone out of his way to improve Hungary's image.
In fact, the position of Hungary is so completely hypocritical it makes Farage look like the small-time crook on the make that he is.
We extended the hand of friendship. Merkel refused to shake it.
That's simply untrue. Theresa May studiously avoided making the immediate commitment that even Andrea Leadsom thought appropriate to make. Then, after thought, she thought she saw a way to use EU immigrants to undermine the EU's negotiating approach. It was a Trojan horse and dealt with accordingly.
I'm curious, does anybody believe the EU will expel UK citizens?
Ignore the fact it could happen, does anybody seriously believe it will?
Cards on the table time
There will be a change in circumstances which will compel some to leave. eg UK retirees in Spain may no longer be eligible for healthcare as a result of having their EU citizenship ripped from them so some people don't have to look at Romanians on the leaf dappled byways of England.
"Mr. Choose, then why didn't they simply agree to May's offer to make a simple reciprocal agreement and take the issue off the table?"
I've no idea but it hardened my view that the EU is something I don't want to be part of and I suspect I'm not alone.
Its all silly posturing, expelling Brits from Provence and Marbella simply isn't going to happen and the Remainers know it. It discredits their stance with such puerile arguments.
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
We extended the hand of friendship. Merkel refused to shake it.
Then it will cost us nothing to extend the hand of friendship again. Every time Merkel refuses it her reputation is undermined and ours is strengthened.
(Err. exactly when did we extend the hand of friendship? I thought the govt refused to do it?)
I wonder whether we would be seeing these bar charts churned out again and again and again, had Remain rather than Leave secured a narrow victory last June? I think not somehow.
Change is more exciting than no change.
I think had REMAIN won, there would have been plenty of change and the world might be as interesting a place as it is in reality.
A few thoughts - politically, Cameron remains Prime Minister with Osborne CoE - the pro-LEAVE dissidents such as Gove and Johnson are removed from Cabinet in a mini-reshuffle.
The question would turn to Cameron's future and whether he will serve out the full term or, as suggested in the 2015 campaign, he would leave in 2018 or 2019 handing over perhaps to Osborne.
One thing that would be constant is Labour's misery so no need to embellish that as the party struggles in the face of a resurgent UKIP - the last poll had the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 25% and UKIP on 20% with the LDs becalmed on 7%.. Many on PB think UKIP will soon be second as Farage and others continue to call for a second referendum.
The first meeting between Trump and Cameron went fairly well though there's little warmth between the two men.
I think your view is too benign. If remain had won, the first thing would have been the reversal of the ;deal' by the ECJ. We would then have come under hugely increased pressure to sign up to further integration with Brussels pointing out the the will of the British people was in favour of the EU. I think Cameron would have found that difficult to resist.
Cameron stands down in 2019 and Osborne is installed as a more EUrophilic PM.
Our relationship with the other EU States was always transactional, which is probably why Brexit eventually happened. We weren't signed up to the same end goals.
True enough. Next time we will have to sign up on a different basis
Given that the "original" EU was to promote integration and stop European countries fighting damaging wars and also given that the UK had a very different war experience and view of Europe (we seem to have been fending them off since Napolean's time), then it is not all that surprising that the goals and objectives of Britain and the Continent are so divergent.
Which shows why we were not a good fit for most of the rest of the EU. Our political institutions were vindicated by the events of the 1930's and 1940's, rather than being discredited. We never experienced dictatorship. They want to create something new. We saw no need to create something new.
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
While the UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union, the opposite is not necessarily. Given the comments of key figures in the EU, I expect the EU to try to try to wring the UK's neck like a chicken and impose a hard Brexit pour encourager les autres.
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It's true that one doesn't hear so much about the EUSSR as one used to (possibly a benign side-effect of Russia's support and encouragement for Brexit, who knows?). But one still gets nitwits that compare membership of the EU to slavery. Leavers regularly hope for the demise of the EU. The animus goes beyond a wish to get out of the organisation.
I agree that tone is a two-way street. So far neither side has covered itself with glory on that front. So let's start by sorting Britain's crass errors out, because that's the side that you and I get to influence most.
The loonballs, deep in their nostalgic spasm, have reverted to the more traditional approach, punishment beatings, EU Grossgermanisches Reich, Führer Merkel etc.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
I can't help thinking this might be a significantly better investment that Hinckley.
With a solar farm there as well
I think that would be of relatively minor significance; 100GW of wind capacity at a cost likely well below current rates, and a system of DC interconnectors, would be quite the opposite.
Mr. Divvie, football fans are not necessarily a good indicator of a nation's civility. I recall the Scottish fans booing Liechtenstein's national anthem (which has the same music as God Save the Queen).
I have a direct interest in this from the other end of the telescope. My recommendation is not based on piety.
You're confusing realpolitik with machtpolitik. The world we live in is one where we can each choose whether to have transactional relationships or deeper relationships. Britain at present is choosing at every stage to aim for a transactional relationship. It should be trying for precisely the opposite if it wants to get better terms.
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
It really isn't quite that simple. Whether a relationship is transactional or "deeper" is dictated by the subject-matter of the relationship, not by the unilateral desires of one party; and the one doesn't preclude the other anyway. Your relationships with your partners and clients are I am sure characterised by mutual esteem, respect, and lovely things like that, but that shouldn't prevent you from paying moderately close attention to whether you are getting your fair share of the profits and your bills are being paid on time. Negotiations are difficult largely because you are looking for a common denominator between unlike things - money vs goods, money vs services. If we don't stand our ground in the easy case where the things are exactly reciprocal, we are making ourselves look silly. It is stupid to look for the behaviour of a benign and rational agent from an idiot like Juncker with his boasts of presenting us with a facture tres salee. It is like being asked for your wallet by a conman and saying "no, that is not enough, you must have my Rolex as well".
I can't help thinking this might be a significantly better investment that Hinckley.
With a solar farm there as well
I think that would be of relatively minor significance; 100GW of wind capacity at a cost likely well below current rates, and a system of DC interconnectors, would be quite the opposite.
The power loss over the transmission lines would be significant. Typically it is about 1000V per mile IIRC and Dogger Bank is a good distance off.
Mr. Divvie, football fans are not necessarily a good indicator of a nation's civility. I recall the Scottish fans booing Liechtenstein's national anthem (which has the same music as God Save the Queen).
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It's true that one doesn't hear so much about the EUSSR as one used to (possibly a benign side-effect of Russia's support and encouragement for Brexit, who knows?). But one still gets nitwits that compare membership of the EU to slavery. Leavers regularly hope for the demise of the EU. The animus goes beyond a wish to get out of the organisation.
I agree that tone is a two-way street. So far neither side has covered itself with glory on that front. So let's start by sorting Britain's crass errors out, because that's the side that you and I get to influence most.
The loonballs, deep in their nostalgic spasm, have reverted to the more traditional approach, punishment beatings, EU Grossgermanisches Reich, Führer Merkel etc.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
What is the Zoomer line today?
Suspension of Holyrood Article 30 debate:
I) Craven capitulation to Toreeee unionists (Wings et al) II) Appropriate reaction to attack on fellow parliament (Dugdale, Davidson and Sturgeon)
I have a direct interest in this from the other end of the telescope. My recommendation is not based on piety.
You're confusing realpolitik with machtpolitik. The world we live in is one where we can each choose whether to have transactional relationships or deeper relationships. Britain at present is choosing at every stage to aim for a transactional relationship. It should be trying for precisely the opposite if it wants to get better terms.
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
It really isn't quite that simple. Whether a relationship is transactional or "deeper" is dictated by the subject-matter of the relationship, not by the unilateral desires of one party; and the one doesn't preclude the other anyway. Your relationships with your partners and clients are I am sure characterised by mutual esteem, respect, and lovely things like that, but that shouldn't prevent you from paying moderately close attention to whether you are getting your fair share of the profits and your bills are being paid on time. Negotiations are difficult largely because you are looking for a common denominator between unlike things - money vs goods, money vs services. If we don't stand our ground in the easy case where the things are exactly reciprocal, we are making ourselves look silly. It is stupid to look for the behaviour of a benign and rational agent from an idiot like Juncker with his boasts of presenting us with a facture tres salee. It is like being asked for your wallet by a conman and saying "no, that is not enough, you must have my Rolex as well".
Where you say "things are exactly reciprocal", the "things" in question are people with real lives and real fears. Those "things" are entitled not to be treated as "things" to be bartered over but as people to be treated with basic decency.
As it happens, I agree with @freetochoose that the chances of either side starting mass deportations is fanciful. So giving the confirmation to these "things" unilaterally that their right to remain is secure is pretty much cost-free.
Mr. Divvie, football fans are not necessarily a good indicator of a nation's civility. I recall the Scottish fans booing Liechtenstein's national anthem (which has the same music as God Save the Queen).
This is the view Europeans have of the British. It's pretty broad brush stuff but why should it be otherwise? It's the same way most on here look at comments from nonentities in the EU though few of them are as ignorant or vulgar.
"Leavers saw themselves like Captain Onedin, majestically standing on the prow surveying the horizons of the open seas, independent, adventurous and enterprising. Meanwhile, the outside world saw posters implying that Turkey was joining the EU and Nigel Farage smugly standing in front of the Breaking Point poster, exactly echoing Nazi propaganda about Jewish immigrants".
Leavers have made zero effort since then to improve the outside world's image of them.
That's rather good. It is ironic that a country so adept at self parody should have an iinability to see ourselves as others see us.
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It's true that one doesn't hear so much about the EUSSR as one used to (possibly a benign side-effect of Russia's support and encouragement for Brexit, who knows?). But one still gets nitwits that compare membership of the EU to slavery. Leavers regularly hope for the demise of the EU. The animus goes beyond a wish to get out of the organisation.
I agree that tone is a two-way street. So far neither side has covered itself with glory on that front. So let's start by sorting Britain's crass errors out, because that's the side that you and I get to influence most.
The loonballs, deep in their nostalgic spasm, have reverted to the more traditional approach, punishment beatings, EU Grossgermanisches Reich, Führer Merkel etc.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
Give the Anglo phobia a break. We've got the message.
Um, can we get back to discussing politics and betting instead of each other?
What are everyone's thoughts on the West of England mayoralty ?
Ladbrokes go 11-10 Tories, Lib Dems the pair with Labour a live outsider at 6 or 7 to 1.
My first question is - Should we rule out Labour, given that Bristol is a not insignificant part of the mayoralty... or is it a two horse race ?
In normal circumstances, Labour would have a good chance. But, not now. 6/7 to 1 seems right. I'd give the Tories 15/8. The Lib Dems are certainly in with a shout.
Mr. Divvie, football fans are not necessarily a good indicator of a nation's civility. I recall the Scottish fans booing Liechtenstein's national anthem (which has the same music as God Save the Queen).
Oh I agree. Personally I would start the negotiations with a unilateral declaration that all EU citizens resident on 23rd June last year have the right to remain in the UK indefinitely. It is an inevitable result of the negotiations anyway and would be a very positive note on which to start.
Barnier has said that an agreement on the status of EU/UK citizens is his first objective from negotiations. Just a shame he didn't take the deal that was offered 6 months ago and release a lot of EU citizens from unnecessary worry
You are quick to criticise others for their negotiating strategy yet expect Barnier to accept a point before negotiations have even begun.
I don't see this as a negotiating point, but more (as @DavidL) described it an early win to build mutual goodwill on both sides. It's an obvious initial deal to do. I don't think it would have been a concession / "accepting a point" by the EU before negotiations began. Equally, I can understand that it may have been too early - they were still feeling bitter and rejected and not willing to react positively at that stage. Which is why I said it was a "shame" as opposed to condemning them for not accepting it.
As for @AlastairMeeks@SouthamObserver@freetochoose - that path may have made you feel morally superior, but it would have resulted in either (i) British citizens living the EU vulnerable (even if only theoretically) to having their rights restricted, or (ii) the UK having to concede something of value to protect those rights and hence, by definition, ending up with a sub-optimal deal. It would have precisely zero impact on how the EU is perceived by other states. You may not like the world of realpolitik, but that's the world we live in
I have a direct interest in this from the other end of the telescope. My recommendation is not based on piety.
You're confusing realpolitik with machtpolitik. The world we live in is one where we can each choose whether to have transactional relationships or deeper relationships. Britain at present is choosing at every stage to aim for a transactional relationship. It should be trying for precisely the opposite if it wants to get better terms.
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
It really isn't quite that simple. Whether a relationship is transactional or "deeper" is dictated by the subject-matter of the relationship, not by the unilateral desires of one party; and the one doesn't preclude the other anyway. Your relationships with your partners and clients are I am sure characterised by mutual esteem, respect, and lovely things like that, but that shouldn't prevent you from paying moderately close attention to whether you are getting your fair share of the profits and your bills are being paid on time. Negotiations are difficult largely because you are looking for a common denominator between unlike things - money vs goods, money vs services. If we don't stand our ground in the easy case where the things are exactly reciprocal, we are making ourselves look silly. It is stupid to look for the behaviour of a benign and rational agent from an idiot like Juncker with his boasts of presenting us with a facture tres salee. It is like being asked for your wallet by a conman and saying "no, that is not enough, you must have my Rolex as well".
Where you say "things are exactly reciprocal", the "things" in question are people with real lives and real fears. Those "things" are entitled not to be treated as "things" to be bartered over but as people to be treated with basic decency.
As it happens, I agree with @freetochoose that the chances of either side starting mass deportations is fanciful. So giving the confirmation to these "things" unilaterally that their right to remain is secure is pretty much cost-free.
A strikingly weak riposte. "Things" is shorthand for the rights of people, and every negotiation there has ever been has been about the rights of people, one way or another.
You are happy to spend your leisure time in a country whose PM wants to put refugees in shipping containers *and charge them rent for the containers*, and every forint you pay him in indirect taxes helps him on his way, so don't talk to me about dehumanising people, or basic decency.
Oh I agree. Personally I would start the negotiations with a unilateral declaration that all EU citizens resident on 23rd June last year have the right to remain in the UK indefinitely. It is an inevitable result of the negotiations anyway and would be a very positive note on which to start.
Barnier has said that an agreement on the status of EU/UK citizens is his first objective from negotiations. Just a shame he didn't take the deal that was offered 6 months ago and release a lot of EU citizens from unnecessary worry
You are quick to criticise others for their negotiating strategy yet expect Barnier to accept a point before negotiations have even begun.
I don't see this as a negotiating point, but more (as @DavidL) described it an early win to build mutual goodwill on both sides. It's an obvious initial deal to do. I don't think it would have been a concession / "accepting a point" by the EU before negotiations began. Equally, I can understand that it may have been too early - they were still feeling bitter and rejected and not willing to react positively at that stage. Which is why I said it was a "shame" as opposed to condemning them for not accepting it.
As for @AlastairMeeks@SouthamObserver@freetochoose - that path may have made you feel morally superior, but it would have resulted in either (i) Britishalpolitik, but that's the world we live in
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
Our relationship with the other EU States was always transactional, which is probably why Brexit eventually happened. We weren't signed up to the same end goals.
Our bond with other European countries is more than transactional. We share a whole lot more than trade links.
True but you could also say that about USA, Canada etc. It doesn't presume political integration. Now if you want to argue about preserving what we share in the modern world fine. But UK Europhiles never made that kind of argument.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
I have a direct interest in this from the other end of the telescope. My recommendation is not based on piety.
You're confusing realpolitik with machtpolitik. The world we live in is one where we can each choose whether to have transactional relationships or deeper relationships. Britain at present is choosing at every stage to aim for a transactional relationship. It should be trying for precisely the opposite if it wants to get better terms.
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
It really isn't quite that simple. Whether a relationship is transactional or "deeper" is dictated by the subject-matter of the relationship, not by the unilateral desires of one party; and the one doesn't preclude the other anyway. Your relationships with your partners and clients are I am sure characterised by mutual esteem, respect, and lovely things like that, but that shouldn't prevent you from paying moderately close attention to whether you are getting your fair share of the profits and your bills are being paid on time. Negotiations are difficult largely because you are looking for a common denominator between unlike things - money vs goods, money vs services. If we don't stand our ground in the easy case where the things are exactly reciprocal, we are making ourselves look silly. It is stupid to look for the behaviour of a benign and rational agent from an idiot like Juncker with his boasts of presenting us with a facture tres salee. It is like being asked for your wallet by a conman and saying "no, that is not enough, you must have my Rolex as well".
Where you say "things are exactly reciprocal", the "things" in question are people with real lives and real fears. Those "things" are entitled not to be treated as "things" to be bartered over but as people to be treated with basic decency.
As it happens, I agree with @freetochoose that the chances of either side starting mass deportations is fanciful. So giving the confirmation to these "things" unilaterally that their right to remain is secure is pretty much cost-free.
I know we don't agree on much but on this matter you are absolutely right.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
That doesn't necessarily make it true, of course. F1 teams and drivers are well-versed in the art of expectations management and plain, old-fashioned bullshitting, but it does indicate that Ferrari and Mercedes may well be at a comparable level.
It is not true. Anyone who believes Hamilton is right that Ferrari *should be favourites* even though as a matter of objective fact they are not, can obtain 7/2 or 100/30 against Ferrari for the constructors' title, and 7/2 against Vettel being top driver.
A strikingly weak riposte. "Things" is shorthand for the rights of people, and every negotiation there has ever been has been about the rights of people, one way or another.
You are happy to spend your leisure time in a country whose PM wants to put refugees in shipping containers *and charge them rent for the containers*, and every forint you pay him in indirect taxes helps him on his way, so don't talk to me about dehumanising people, or basic decency.
A fine piece of whataboutery, allowing you to engage your longterm, unhealthy and baffling interest in my private life once more.
But let's assume your point for the moment, because I really don't think my private life has anything to do with the wider position. Two wrongs do not make a right. Which is precisely the point I have been making all morning about the equally wrong positions of the EU and the UK not giving their reciprocal immigrants the comfort that they will in all probability eventually and inevitably give, regardless of the actions of the other.
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It's true that one doesn't hear so much about the EUSSR as one used to (possibly a benign side-effect of Russia's support and encouragement for Brexit, who knows?). But one still gets nitwits that compare membership of the EU to slavery. Leavers regularly hope for the demise of the EU. The animus goes beyond a wish to get out of the organisation.
I agree that tone is a two-way street. So far neither side has covered itself with glory on that front. So let's start by sorting Britain's crass errors out, because that's the side that you and I get to influence most.
The loonballs, deep in their nostalgic spasm, have reverted to the more traditional approach, punishment beatings, EU Grossgermanisches Reich, Führer Merkel etc.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
What is the Zoomer line today?
Suspension of Holyrood Article 30 debate:
I) Craven capitulation to Toreeee unionists (Wings et al) II) Appropriate reaction to attack on fellow parliament (Dugdale, Davidson and Sturgeon)
FWIW the Zoomer brigade's line was capitulation to terrorists. - SCON were taking to twitter while their own business manager was meeting with the Presiding Officer et al discussing suspension. A day for reflection all round before we return to BAU tomorrow
"... any North Korean man caught without Kim's hairdo — fittingly known as an "ambitious" style within the Hermit Kingdom — will be seized upon by scissor-wielding loyalists"
It is interesting and slightly odd that there has been so little movement on this. I wonder if there is any underlying churn. The explanation is probably that so little has happened to date. Whilst the claims of immediate disaster have been proven false the response of remainers has been to say, well, we haven't left yet. .
@Big_G_NorthWales has moved to leave, @John_M who also lives in Wales has moved to remain. Those are the only shifters so far as I can remember here. I expect the general population is similarly entrenched.
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It's true that one doesn't hear so much about the EUSSR as one used to (possibly a benign side-effect of Russia's support and encouragement for Brexit, who knows?). But one still gets nitwits that compare membership of the EU to slavery. Leavers regularly hope for the demise of the EU. The animus goes beyond a wish to get out of the organisation.
I agree that tone is a two-way street. So far neither side has covered itself with glory on that front. So let's start by sorting Britain's crass errors out, because that's the side that you and I get to influence most.
The loonballs, deep in their nostalgic spasm, have reverted to the more traditional approach, punishment beatings, EU Grossgermanisches Reich, Führer Merkel etc.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
What is the Zoomer line today?
Suspension of Holyrood Article 30 debate:
I) Craven capitulation to Toreeee unionists (Wings et al) II) Appropriate reaction to attack on fellow parliament (Dugdale, Davidson and Sturgeon)
FWIW the Zoomer brigade's line was capitulation to terrorists. - SCON were taking to twitter while their own business manager was meeting with the Presiding Officer et al discussing suspension. A day for reflection all round before we return to BAU tomorrow
Now if you want to argue about preserving what we share in the modern world fine. But UK Europhiles never made that kind of argument.
That reads rather oddly to me. It's as if you're aggrieved that all the good arguments for staying in the EU weren't laid out to you properly before it was too late.
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It's true that one doesn't hear so much about the EUSSR as one used to (possibly a benign side-effect of Russia's support and encouragement for Brexit, who knows?). But one still gets nitwits that compare membership of the EU to slavery. Leavers regularly hope for the demise of the EU. The animus goes beyond a wish to get out of the organisation.
I agree that tone is a two-way street. So far neither side has covered itself with glory on that front. So let's start by sorting Britain's crass errors out, because that's the side that you and I get to influence most.
The loonballs, deep in their nostalgic spasm, have reverted to the more traditional approach, punishment beatings, EU Grossgermanisches Reich, Führer Merkel etc.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
What is the Zoomer line today?
Suspension of Holyrood Article 30 debate:
I) Craven capitulation to Toreeee unionists (Wings et al) II) Appropriate reaction to attack on fellow parliament (Dugdale, Davidson and Sturgeon)
FWIW the Zoomer brigade's line was capitulation to terrorists. - SCON were taking to twitter while their own business manager was meeting with the Presiding Officer et al discussing suspension. A day for reflection all round before we return to BAU tomorrow
They could be right. What really was the point in suspending proceedings in Cardiff and Edinburgh, apart from letting MSPs and AMs watch the news?
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
Mr. Meeks, I think you're exaggerating a shade. The UK does not view the EU as it did the Soviet Union.
As for tone of the relationship, that will be revealed during the negotiations, and it's a two way street.
Mr. Choose, no, but it may well be a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It's true that one doesn't hear so much about the EUSSR as one used to (possibly a benign side-effect of Russia's support and encouragement for Brexit, who knows?). But one still gets nitwits that compare membership of the EU to slavery. Leavers regularly hope for the demise of the EU. The animus goes beyond a wish to get out of the organisation.
I agree that tone is a two-way street. So far neither side has covered itself with glory on that front. So let's start by sorting Britain's crass errors out, because that's the side that you and I get to influence most.
The loonballs, deep in their nostalgic spasm, have reverted to the more traditional approach, punishment beatings, EU Grossgermanisches Reich, Führer Merkel etc.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
What is the Zoomer line today?
Suspension of Holyrood Article 30 debate:
I) Craven capitulation to Toreeee unionists (Wings et al) II) Appropriate reaction to attack on fellow parliament (Dugdale, Davidson and Sturgeon)
Wings seems to be disliked by many other nationalists (and I've seen a bunch of other twitter accounts criticizing him for his ridiculous reactions yesterday). Don't think he can be considered representative of anything other than a small but vocal cybernat group on twitter.
You have missed out option 3 though - thinking that stopping debate was the kind of reaction the terrorists were seeking from us, so we shouldn't go along with it. Not my personal position, but I think the vast majority of suspension dissenters in Holyrood were opposed for this reason.
We extended the hand of friendship. Merkel refused to shake it.
That's simply untrue. Theresa May studiously avoided making the immediate commitment that even Andrea Leadsom thought appropriate to make. Then, after thought, she thought she saw a way to use EU immigrants to undermine the EU's negotiating approach. It was a Trojan horse and dealt with accordingly.
You believe it was a Trojan horse.
I believe it was with the genuine intention of removing from the table an issue that should not be a matter of negotiation and as a gesture to show that we truly desire a friendly partnership in future.
But enjoy wallowing in your self-perceived moral superiority
Bloody hell! My first full day back at work (in Coventry) for seven weeks and this incident happens. Condolences to victims/injured and their families. Could easily have been me and my mum, we were walking on Westminster Bridge only on Sunday...
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
We extended the hand of friendship. Merkel refused to shake it.
Then it will cost us nothing to extend the hand of friendship again. Every time Merkel refuses it her reputation is undermined and ours is strengthened.
(Err. exactly when did we extend the hand of friendship? I thought the govt refused to do it?)
Subject to all the normal caveats as to whether the journalist has actually been told the complete truth, this is what I am basing my vie on
Angela Merkel has reportedly blocked a request by Theresa May to guarantee the rights of EU citizens before Brexit negotiations begin next year.
The Prime Minister's informal approach to the German leader over EU migrants' status – in a state of limbo since the referendum in June – was made earlier this month when the pair held a joint conference in Germany, according to Politico.
But Ms May's attempt at a “reciprocity deal”, which would have guaranteed the existing rights of around 1.2 million British people on the continent and millions of EU migrants in the UK, was blocked by the German Chancellor.
Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future
I disagree. There could be a vote for Frexit. Then Britain might find itself living next door to France and quite close to the deutschmark zone. Not a political union but a reformed Europe could be coming.
Agreed about the importance of relationships and the undesirability of thoughts of autarky, though. Britain staying out of talks to reform Europe would be crazy - and a clear example of ideology, a similar kind of beast to religion, getting far too much say.
I can't help thinking this might be a significantly better investment that Hinckley.
With a solar farm there as well
I think that would be of relatively minor significance; 100GW of wind capacity at a cost likely well below current rates, and a system of DC interconnectors, would be quite the opposite.
The power loss over the transmission lines would be significant. Typically it is about 1000V per mile IIRC and Dogger Bank is a good distance off.
That doesn't necessarily make it true, of course. F1 teams and drivers are well-versed in the art of expectations management and plain, old-fashioned bullshitting, but it does indicate that Ferrari and Mercedes may well be at a comparable level.
It is not true. Anyone who believes Hamilton is right that Ferrari *should be favourites* even though as a matter of objective fact they are not, can obtain 7/2 or 100/30 against Ferrari for the constructors' title, and 7/2 against Vettel being top driver.
Hamilton was talking about Australia only, and in this case he might well be right.
We extended the hand of friendship. Merkel refused to shake it.
That's simply untrue. Theresa May studiously avoided making the immediate commitment that even Andrea Leadsom thought appropriate to make. Then, after thought, she thought she saw a way to use EU immigrants to undermine the EU's negotiating approach. It was a Trojan horse and dealt with accordingly.
You believe it was a Trojan horse.
I believe it was with the genuine intention of removing from the table an issue that should not be a matter of negotiation and as a gesture to show that we truly desire a friendly partnership in future.
But enjoy wallowing in your self-perceived moral superiority
I think the problem with your position Charles is that if she had been genuine about this then she would simply have made the commitment unilaterally and challenged the EU to do the same. Perception and atmosphere will play a crucial role in the coming negotiations which will be as much about PR as they will be about fact and action. The EU has already made this clear with their statements about 'punishment'.
Were May to make a unilateral move to protect all existing EU citizens in the UK prior to the activation of article 50 it would send a signal that we really do want good relations but at the same time are not going to be drawn by the nose. We will make the decisions that we believe are in the best interests of both our country and the wider community. We would start negotiations from a much stronger position and would, in the end, have done the right thing because it was the right thing to do.
This is the view Europeans have of the British. It's pretty broad brush stuff but why should it be otherwise? It's the same way most on here look at comments from nonentities in the EU though few of them are as ignorant or vulgar.
htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY
I wrote in December that:
"Leavers saw themselves like Captain Onedin, majestically standing on the prow surveying the horizons of the open seas, independent, adventurous and enterprising. Meanwhile, the outside world saw posters implying that Turkey was joining the EU and Nigel Farage smugly standing in front of the Breaking Point poster, exactly echoing Nazi propaganda about Jewish immigrants".
Leavers have made zero effort since then to improve the outside world's image of them.
The Turkey point very neatly encapsulates why Remain lost (and there is no doubt the ref was lost by Remain, not won by Leave). Turkey was halfway through accession talks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union These are now on hold for reasons not foreseeable last June. The only answer I have seen to this point is that the talks were being conducted in an ironic kind of way, and that the accession talks would in no circumstances lead to accession. This answer is, I am afraid, just too difficult for the little people to understand, and until they can be deprived of the vote as many Remainers seem to wish, it appears that honesty about this would have been the better policy.
And there is nothing racist, or little Englander, about not wanting to get any closer to Turkey than we have to, just as there is nothing wrong with rejoicing at the fact that brexit distances us from a country led by that pig Orban - a figure who has the rare distinction that he can be compared to Hitler not out of an excess of high spirits and Godwinism but because he is actually like Hitler. I am sure he makes the trains run on time, though.
I have a direct interest in this from the other end of the telescope. My recommendation is not based on piety.
You're confusing realpolitik with machtpolitik. The world we live in is one where we can each choose whether to have transactional relationships or deeper relationships. Britain at present is choosing at every stage to aim for a transactional relationship. It should be trying for precisely the opposite if it wants to get better terms.
This is not a clean break divorce where the parties are arguing over the CD collection. Britain is still going to be living next door to the EU for the foreseeable future (until the ultra-Brexiters have solved the problem of tectonics). Relationships matter.
It really isn't quite that simple. Whether a relationship is transactional or "deeper" is dictated by the subject-matter of the relationship, not by the unilateral desires of one party; and the one doesn't preclude the other anyway. Your relationships with your partners and clients are I am sure characterised by mutual esteem, respect, and lovely things like that, but that shouldn't prevent you from paying moderately close attention to whether you are getting your fair share of the profits and your bills are being paid on time. Negotiations are difficult largely because you are looking for a common denominator between unlike things - money vs goods, money vs services. If we don't stand our ground in the easy case where the things are exactly reciprocal, we are making ourselves look silly. It is stupid to look for the behaviour of a benign and rational agent from an idiot like Juncker with his boasts of presenting us with a facture tres salee. It is like being asked for your wallet by a conman and saying "no, that is not enough, you must have my Rolex as well".
Where you say "things are exactly reciprocal", the "things" in question are people with real lives and real fears. Those "things" are entitled not to be treated as "things" to be bartered over but as people to be treated with basic decency.
As it happens, I agree with @freetochoose that the chances of either side starting mass deportations is fanciful. So giving the confirmation to these "things" unilaterally that their right to remain is secure is pretty much cost-free.
It's not. You either condemn our citizens in the EU to prolonged uncertainty (beyond a Brexit deal) or you have to give something up to secure their rights. Of course mass deportations are very unlikely - but a country could (quite reasonably in the event of no deal) require them all to apply for the equivalent of permanent leave to remain.
Oh I agree. Personally I would start the negotiations with a unilateral declaration that all EU citizens resident on 23rd June last year have the right to remain in the UK indefinitely. It is an inevitable result of the negotiations anyway and would be a very positive note on which to start.
Barnier has said that an agreement on the status of EU/UK citizens is his first objective from negotiations. Just a shame he didn't take the deal that was offered 6 months ago and release a lot of EU citizens from unnecessary worry
You are quick to criticise others for their negotiating strategy yet expect Barnier to accept a point before negotiations have even begun.
I don't see this as a negotiating point, but more (as @DavidL) described it an early win to build mutual goodwill on both sides. It's an obvious initial deal to do. I don't think it would have been a concession / "accepting a point" by the EU before negotiations began. Equally, I can understand that it may have been too early - they were still feeling bitter and rejected and not willing to react positively at that stage. Which is why I said it was a "shame" as opposed to condemning them for not accepting it.
As for @AlastairMeeks@SouthamObserver@freetochoose - that path may have made you feel morally superior, but it would have resulted in either (i) British citizens living the EU vulnerable (even if only theoretically) to having their rights restricted, or (ii) the UK having to concede something of value to protect those rights and hence, by definition, ending up with a sub-optimal deal. It would have precisely zero impact on how the EU is perceived by other states. You may not like the world of realpolitik, but that's the world we live in
ie the issue is part of the negotiations.
It's only a negotiation if you make it part of negotiations. Offering to take it off the table as a side deal prevents that. Refusing to take it off the table makes it part of negotiations
People like @Richard_Nabavi have moved from opposition to we need to do this. It may be that the Yougov polling is not picking up on this because of the question they are asking. I think Richard remains of the view that it would have been better to stay so he would answer the question that way (I think). It would be interesting to see polling on how widely that view, which is essentially May's view, was shared. Quite widely I suspect.
Yes, that's a pretty fair assessment of my position. There's no point trying to re-run the referendum campaign, the decision has been taken. I haven't changed my view that the risks of voting to leave outweighed (past tense) the benefits, but, given that we are leaving, that's an academic discussion now. So we need to turn our attention to making it work as well as possible.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
We extended the hand of friendship. Merkel refused to shake it.
That's simply untrue. Theresa May studiously avoided making the immediate commitment that even Andrea Leadsom thought appropriate to make. Then, after thought, she thought she saw a way to use EU immigrants to undermine the EU's negotiating approach. It was a Trojan horse and dealt with accordingly.
You believe it was a Trojan horse.
I believe it was with the genuine intention of removing from the table an issue that should not be a matter of negotiation and as a gesture to show that we truly desire a friendly partnership in future.
But enjoy wallowing in your self-perceived moral superiority
I think the problem with your position Charles is that if she had been genuine about this then she would simply have made the commitment unilaterally and challenged the EU to do the same. Perception and atmosphere will play a crucial role in the coming negotiations which will be as much about PR as they will be about fact and action. The EU has already made this clear with their statements about 'punishment'.
Were May to make a unilateral move to protect all existing EU citizens in the UK prior to the activation of article 50 it would send a signal that we really do want good relations but at the same time are not going to be drawn by the nose. We will make the decisions that we believe are in the best interests of both our country and the wider community. We would start negotiations from a much stronger position and would, in the end, have done the right thing because it was the right thing to do.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I can't help thinking this might be a significantly better investment that Hinckley.
With a solar farm there as well
I think that would be of relatively minor significance; 100GW of wind capacity at a cost likely well below current rates, and a system of DC interconnectors, would be quite the opposite.
The power loss over the transmission lines would be significant. Typically it is about 1000V per mile IIRC and Dogger Bank is a good distance off.
Oh I agree. Personally I would start the negotiations with a unilateral declaration that all EU citizens resident on 23rd June last year have the right to remain in the UK indefinitely. It is an inevitable result of the negotiations anyway and would be a very positive note on which to start.
Barnier has said that an agreement on the status of EU/UK citizens is his first objective from negotiations. Just a shame he didn't take the deal that was offered 6 months ago and release a lot of EU citizens from unnecessary worry
You are quick to criticise others for their negotiating strategy yet expect Barnier to accept a point before negotiations have even begun.
I don't see this as a negotiating point, but more (as @DavidL) described it an early win to build mutual goodwill on both sides. It's an obvious initial deal to do. I don't think it would have been a concession / "accepting a point" by the EU before negotiations began. Equally, I can understand that it may have been too early - they were still feeling bitter and rejected and not willing to react positively at that stage. Which is why I said it was a "shame" as opposed to condemning them for not accepting it.
As for @AlastairMeeks@SouthamObserver@freetochoose - that path may have made you feel morally superior, but it would have resulted in either (i) British citizens living the EU vulnerable (even if only theoretically) to having their rights restricted, or (ii) the UK having to concede something of value to protect those rights and hence, by definition, ending up with a sub-optimal deal. It would have precisely zero impact on how the EU is perceived by other states. You may not like the world of realpolitik, but that's the world we live in
ie the issue is part of the negotiations.
It's only a negotiation if you make it part of negotiations. Offering to take it off the table as a side deal prevents that. Refusing to take it off the table makes it part of negotiations
The extent to which freedom of movement will continue is a core part of the negotiations. It makes no sense for the EU to do a side deal that presupposes that freedom of movement will end.
I have a direct interest in this from the other end of the telescope. My recommendation is not based on piety.
You're terms.
This ison time. Negotiations are difficult largely because you are looking for a common denominator between unlike things - money vs goods, money vs services. If we don't stand our ground in the easy case where the things are Rolex as well".
Where you say "things are exactly reciprocal", the "things" in question are people with real lives and real fears. Those "things" are entitled not to be treated as "things" to be bartered over but as people to be treated with basic decency.
As it happens, I agree with @freetochoose that the chances of either side starting mass deportations is fanciful. So giving the confirmation to these "things" unilaterally that their right to remain is secure is pretty much cost-free.
It's not. You either condemn our citizens in the EU to prolonged uncertainty (beyond a Brexit deal) or you have to give something up to secure their rights. Of course mass deportations are very unlikely - but a country could (quite reasonably in the event of no deal) require them all to apply for the equivalent of permanent leave to remain.
We created the uncertainty by voting to Leave. We do not have to inflict it on those who have come here perfectly legally and in good faith. There are plenty of ways for us to protect British citizens abroad without having to threaten the interests of foreign citizens in the UK. Indeed, voters in foreign countries seeing the UK behaving honourably and generously might well pressure their own politicians to display their own leaders to display a similar attitude in the wider negotiations. Imaginative, successful negotiation often involves moving beyond the binary.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
aye
Thanks Gents - I've just asked for the reservation, will confirm as soon as I've heard back.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
aye
Thanks Gents - I've just asked for the reservation, will confirm as soon as I've heard back.
Mrs C, I used to watch a few video series at the Escapist, one of which was called Reel Physics. Overdone with cheesy one-liners, but it was interesting as it considered the practicality (or lack thereof) of multiple film stunts. One was that particularly scene.
Very counter-intuitively, over a short distance a horse has better acceleration than a motor cycle. I think the stunt was actually (rarely) found to be realistic.
We extended the hand of friendship. Merkel refused to shake it.
That's simply untrue. Theresa May studiously avoided making the immediate commitment that even Andrea Leadsom thought appropriate to make. Then, after thought, she thought she saw a way to use EU immigrants to undermine the EU's negotiating approach. It was a Trojan horse and dealt with accordingly.
You believe it was a Trojan horse.
I believe it was with the genuine intention of removing from the table an issue that should not be a matter of negotiation and as a gesture to show that we truly desire a friendly partnership in future.
But enjoy wallowing in your self-perceived moral superiority
I think the problem with your position Charles is that if she had been genuine about this then she would simply have made the commitment unilaterally and challenged the EU to do the same. Perception and atmosphere will play a crucial role in the coming negotiations which will be as much about PR as they will be about fact and action. The EU has already made this clear with their statements about 'punishment'.
Were May to make a unilateral move to protect all existing EU citizens in the UK prior to the activation of article 50 it would send a signal that we really do want good relations but at the same time are not going to be drawn by the nose. We will make the decisions that we believe are in the best interests of both our country and the wider community. We would start negotiations from a much stronger position and would, in the end, have done the right thing because it was the right thing to do.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
The point which many people miss here is that the question isn't simply whether EU citizens can stay here (and Brits stay in EU27 countries), it's the terms under which they can stay. Putting it at its crudest, who pays, and how much? If Theresa May gave a unilateral and unconditional guarantee, what would prevent our EU friends saying 'Thank you very much, we don't think we should continue any contributions to their healthcare costs, but we will be asking you to continue contributing to the costs of Brits in our countries.'
That is why a unliateral guarantee is a non-starter. As with all negotiations, the devil in in the detail.
The point which many people miss here is that the question isn't simply whether EU citizens can stay here (and Brits stay in EU27 countries), it's the terms under which they can stay. Putting it at its crudest, who pays, and how much? If Theresa May gave a unilateral and unconditional guarantee, what would prevent our EU friends saying 'Thank you very much, we don't think we should continue any contributions to their healthcare costs, but we will be asking for you to continue contributing to the costs of Brits in our countries.'
That is why a unliateral guarantee is a non-starter. As with all negotiations, the devil in in the detail.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, May's Lancaster House speech is merely a negotiating position, and the aim of the EU will be to maintain the integrity of the single market, ideally with the UK inside it, whether Theresa May likes it or not.
The only purpose of the attempted side-deal on this was to frame the negotiations in such as way as to concede that freedom of movement would end.
Research has shown that between half and two-thirds of lone attackers signal their intent to relatives or friends before executing a violent act. Most have links to broader networks or active Islamist groups, some non-violent. Associates of the Nice and Berlin attackers have been detained.
edit: you may be thinking of the government's refusal to unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens.
Possibly.
And C4's little faux-pas yesterday reminds us all of the dangers of relying on journalists to get things right.
I'm sure that the Independent is faithfully and accurately reporting what they have been told.
As will all leaks, you need to ask cui bono. But there's no factual basis for saying what they have reported is untrue - although you don't have to believe it.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
Comments
Given that the "original" EU was to promote integration and stop European countries fighting damaging wars and also given that the UK had a very different war experience and view of Europe (we seem to have been fending them off since Napolean's time), then it is not all that surprising that the goals and objectives of Britain and the Continent are so divergent.
In fact, the position of Hungary is so completely hypocritical it makes Farage look like the small-time crook on the make that he is.
I've no idea but it hardened my view that the EU is something I don't want to be part of and I suspect I'm not alone.
Its all silly posturing, expelling Brits from Provence and Marbella simply isn't going to happen and the Remainers know it. It discredits their stance with such puerile arguments.
(Err. exactly when did we extend the hand of friendship? I thought the govt refused to do it?)
Cameron stands down in 2019 and Osborne is installed as a more EUrophilic PM.
Steady decline in the power of Westminster.
On an entirely unconnected note, I saw someone tweet that at last night's friendly, the German fans applauded the England national anthem while the England fans booed Germany's.
May for El Presidente?
That's it! I am off to political-infighting.com
This place has gone to the dogs!
Ladbrokes go 11-10 Tories, Lib Dems the pair with Labour a live outsider at 6 or 7 to 1.
My first question is - Should we rule out Labour, given that Bristol is a not insignificant part of the mayoralty... or is it a two horse race ?
Particularly in periods like 1979-90 and 1997 onwards, the H of L functioned as the only official opposition.
Suspension of Holyrood Article 30 debate:
I) Craven capitulation to Toreeee unionists (Wings et al)
II) Appropriate reaction to attack on fellow parliament (Dugdale, Davidson and Sturgeon)
As it happens, I agree with @freetochoose that the chances of either side starting mass deportations is fanciful. So giving the confirmation to these "things" unilaterally that their right to remain is secure is pretty much cost-free.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/brexitland-owen-jones-war-on-council-housing-right-to-buy-dagenham?CMP=twt_gu
I know. Booing their own national anthem. Daft.
You are happy to spend your leisure time in a country whose PM wants to put refugees in shipping containers *and charge them rent for the containers*, and every forint you pay him in indirect taxes helps him on his way, so don't talk to me about dehumanising people, or basic decency.
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
But let's assume your point for the moment, because I really don't think my private life has anything to do with the wider position. Two wrongs do not make a right. Which is precisely the point I have been making all morning about the equally wrong positions of the EU and the UK not giving their reciprocal immigrants the comfort that they will in all probability eventually and inevitably give, regardless of the actions of the other.
http://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/kim-jong-un-haircut-law-2015-12
"... any North Korean man caught without Kim's hairdo — fittingly known as an "ambitious" style within the Hermit Kingdom — will be seized upon by scissor-wielding loyalists"
You have missed out option 3 though - thinking that stopping debate was the kind of reaction the terrorists were seeking from us, so we shouldn't go along with it. Not my personal position, but I think the vast majority of suspension dissenters in Holyrood were opposed for this reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Milo!
I believe it was with the genuine intention of removing from the table an issue that should not be a matter of negotiation and as a gesture to show that we truly desire a friendly partnership in future.
But enjoy wallowing in your self-perceived moral superiority
Subject to all the normal caveats as to whether the journalist has actually been told the complete truth, this is what I am basing my vie on
Angela Merkel has reportedly blocked a request by Theresa May to guarantee the rights of EU citizens before Brexit negotiations begin next year.
The Prime Minister's informal approach to the German leader over EU migrants' status – in a state of limbo since the referendum in June – was made earlier this month when the pair held a joint conference in Germany, according to Politico.
But Ms May's attempt at a “reciprocity deal”, which would have guaranteed the existing rights of around 1.2 million British people on the continent and millions of EU migrants in the UK, was blocked by the German Chancellor.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-angela-merkel-eu-migrants-deal-a7445261.html
edit: you may be thinking of the government's refusal to unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens.
Agreed about the importance of relationships and the undesirability of thoughts of autarky, though. Britain staying out of talks to reform Europe would be crazy - and a clear example of ideology, a similar kind of beast to religion, getting far too much say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
(edit) And the interconnects are also intended to serve the turbine arrays themselves.
Were May to make a unilateral move to protect all existing EU citizens in the UK prior to the activation of article 50 it would send a signal that we really do want good relations but at the same time are not going to be drawn by the nose. We will make the decisions that we believe are in the best interests of both our country and the wider community. We would start negotiations from a much stronger position and would, in the end, have done the right thing because it was the right thing to do.
Pre-qualifying article will be up tomorrow.
These are now on hold for reasons not foreseeable last June. The only answer I have seen to this point is that the talks were being conducted in an ironic kind of way, and that the accession talks would in no circumstances lead to accession. This answer is, I am afraid, just too difficult for the little people to understand, and until they can be deprived of the vote as many Remainers seem to wish, it appears that honesty about this would have been the better policy.
And there is nothing racist, or little Englander, about not wanting to get any closer to Turkey than we have to, just as there is nothing wrong with rejoicing at the fact that brexit distances us from a country led by that pig Orban - a figure who has the rare distinction that he can be compared to Hitler not out of an excess of high spirits and Godwinism but because he is actually like Hitler. I am sure he makes the trains run on time, though.
Milo was Jim Carey's dog in The Mask
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
And C4's little faux-pas yesterday reminds us all of the dangers of relying on journalists to get things right.
I prefer the Jack Russell in the movie. I saw that in the cinema and nearly wet myself laughing when the dog put the mask on.
Sadly, it is one of those scenes that only work once, rather like Arnie trying to make the horse jump from one high-rise to the next.
Do they sell beer there, can't see anything on their website to say they do?
Le Pen 25.5%
Mélenchon 13.5%
Dupont-Aignan 5.5%
Asselineau 0.5%
Total: 45%
Then there's George Soros.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/128594/mercedesred-bull-had-to-alter-suspension
Very counter-intuitively, over a short distance a horse has better acceleration than a motor cycle. I think the stunt was actually (rarely) found to be realistic.
Ferrari, oddly, seem to have that sort of thing pretty much sorted.
Wasn't he on Pompey's side? Would've thought he'd be more comfortable sitting alongside the Queen of Bithynia.
That is why a unliateral guarantee is a non-starter. As with all negotiations, the devil in in the detail.
So that explains the 8 arrests then?
The only purpose of the attempted side-deal on this was to frame the negotiations in such as way as to concede that freedom of movement would end.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/crude-nature-of-attack-suggests-lack-of-isis-network-in-britain
Research has shown that between half and two-thirds of lone attackers signal their intent to relatives or friends before executing a violent act. Most have links to broader networks or active Islamist groups, some non-violent. Associates of the Nice and Berlin attackers have been detained.
As will all leaks, you need to ask cui bono. But there's no factual basis for saying what they have reported is untrue - although you don't have to believe it.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.