I spoke to an MEP the other day, they are basically marking time and doing very little work, just claiming as much as they can for themselves and their support staff. What a disgraceful waste of money this all is.
I would have thought that's pretty well the only thing MEP's do.
Bollocks. For example, here's an oveview of 8 pages of committee meetings this month:
If there is a transitional deal, whereby we won't have left, who wins "The Bet"?
If the transitional deal really does mean that we haven't left (i.e. the date of entry into force of the leaving agreement is postponed) then I would win. If there's a fudge that means we leave officially but only on paper then I lose, although I can't see how that could work.
Surely we leave in March 2019 and any transitional deal will be a mechanism for normalising trade between the UK and the EU
We will not be able to negotiate, or at least implement any third party trade deal during the transitional period. Hence it will to all intents and purposes be us not having left.
No doubt preliminary discussions are already underway, no matter what the EU rules are.
[...]the lazy and inaccurate metaphor of "bargaining chip" (one gambles with chips, but why would anyone bargain with them?
Hold the front page: security is one of the issues in international relations.
What annoys me is the use of US English. The term in British English should be "bargaining counter".
Imagine if one has blue counters for security and green counters for other assets. I'll give you three of my blue for four of your blue and two of your mid-sized greens. The metaphor is fine. The lexicon isn't.
Another thing that annoys me is the Sun trying to stir things up, presumably with government backing.
Dupont-Aignan's book on his first 100 days as president is currently the top bestseller at FNAC, the French bookseller, as reported for example here. I mean the absolute top bestselling book, not just the top selling political book. And he's at 500 at Betfair.
[...]the lazy and inaccurate metaphor of "bargaining chip" (one gambles with chips, but why would anyone bargain with them?
Hold the front page: security is one of the issues in international relations.
What annoys me is the use of US English. The term in British English should be "bargaining counter".
Imagine if one has blue counters for security and green counters for other assets. I'll give you three of my blue for four of your blue and two of your mid-sized greens. The metaphor is fine. The lexicon isn't.
Another thing that annoys me is the Sun trying to stir things up, presumably with government backing.
The government controls the Sun's editorial stance?
I have to say in this country I've experienced more prejudice for being a former public schoolboy than I have been for a Pakistani heritage chap or Muslim.
Dupont-Aignan's book on his first 100 days as president is currently the top bestseller at FNAC, the French bookseller, as reported for example here. I mean the absolute top bestselling book, not just the top selling political book. And he's at 500 at Betfair.
[...]the lazy and inaccurate metaphor of "bargaining chip" (one gambles with chips, but why would anyone bargain with them?
Hold the front page: security is one of the issues in international relations.
What annoys me is the use of US English. The term in British English should be "bargaining counter".
Imagine if one has blue counters for security and green counters for other assets. I'll give you three of my blue for four of your blue and two of your mid-sized greens. The metaphor is fine. The lexicon isn't.
Another thing that annoys me is the Sun trying to stir things up, presumably with government backing.
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to."
I used to like Heseltine - his conference speeches used to be barn-stormers - until he came along to "help" the volunteers in an ultra-marginal seat I was working in '87 - and basically said that all the effort in delivering leaflets and knocking on doors made not a blind bit of difference to the overall result. What a way to gee up the troops. Wazzock.
He and Ken Clarke have always loathed their own Party and had a general disdain for the membership that makes up the Party (in the same way Blair and his ilk are ashamed of working class Labour supporters)
In 1987 he was probably hankering for Maggie to lose (a lot of people thought the Parliament would be Hung in '87) so he could knife her and take over...
The good thing about Ken and Hezza is that their time is nearly up and there is no succession plan for the dept of Tory wets. Sourby is the only real candidate.
One slice of good fortune for us was that Trump was elected and not Clinton. Our position would have been weaker still with Clinton in the White House.
I wonder if there is a secret hope in Downing Street that MLP does win the election rather than Macron. A potential frexit would change the game entirely, with 2 powerful states looking to negotiate a new looser settlement with the EU. On the other hand it could destroy the EU entirely, which is not in the UK's interests. I think on balance the negative effects for the UK of an FN France in global terms outweigh the potential gains of a simultaneous frexibrexi negotiation - but as you point out, Trump has probably strengthened our hand somewhat, MLP would too.
Macron wants a stronger Franco-German axis. That is not in the British interest and never has been.
"Wah wah - please give us free and frictionless access to your security information which is much better than hours as we don't pony up cash for security and defence..."
Scottish local elections all nominations now in , number of candidates by party
SNP 623 - 2013 613 Lab 453 - 2013 497 Con 379 - 2013 362 LDem 247 - 2013 247 Green 217 - 2013 86 UKIP 43 - 2013 ??? Libertarian 22 - 2013 ??? Ind/Others 568 - 2013 633 ( will include UKIP/Libertarian )
Apart from big increase in Greens similar figures to last time , slightly fewer seats overall than last time due to boundary changes . Unopposed returns
Shetland 1 ward - Ind 2 SNP 1 Argyll/Bute 1 ward - Con 1 SNP 1 LDem 1
General impression is that the main parties have been super cautious in not over nominating candidates in marginal wards ensuring 1 councillor elected rather than the chance of 0 or 2 etc
Mr. Cyan, how big's that bookseller? I'm wondering if it indicates depth of support more than breadth. The polls are rather less promising than the book sales.
Verhofstadt's point could just as easily be turned around. If the UK is shafted on trade, the EU can hardly expect us to give them a great security/intelligence deal (and, in military terms, us and France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe).
It's almost as if a good deal is in everybody's interest.
Mr. Cyan, how big's that bookseller? I'm wondering if it indicates depth of support more than breadth. The polls are rather less promising than the book sales.
"Wah wah - please give us free and frictionless access to your security information which is much better than hours as we don't pony up cash for security and defence..."
English council by elections to be held On May 4th same day as the CC elections . There will be 105 or 106 English council by elections on this date ( South Derbyshire DC Woodville ward is unclear )
Con 59 or 60 Lab 29 LDem 10 UKIP 2 Green 1 Ratepayers 1 Ind 3
"Wah wah - please give us free and frictionless access to your security information which is much better than hours as we don't pony up cash for security and defence..."
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
I am certain by the reaction of Donald Tusk to the A50 letter yesterday and the demeanor of other EU leaders including Juncker’s that they were shell shocked and must have been in denial that it would actually happen, desperately hoping remainer’s would have managed to derail the process.
It must also have hit Tusk hard as he will forever be recorded as the Council President who received the biggest body blow to the EU project since its inception. It is not too much of a stretch of imagination that Tusk, Juncker’s, Merkel and Hollande will go down as those responsible for the most serious rejection of their project with the ramification this will have on the EU going forward. David Cameron may or may not be recorded as a contributor to the fracture but from a UK perspective time alone will tell whether the result of the referendum was good or not for the UK.
Listening to reports from ordinary citizens in Europe there does seem to be a genuine sadness as, indeed there is in the UK, but also there is recognition that for the first time the democratic will of the people has been respected by their government with quite widespread admiration for the UK’s stance.
I do think Macron will win in France and probably Merkel in Germany but if Le Pen achieves anywhere near 40% of the French vote she is not going away. Also the Visegrad group are on collision course with Brussels in outright defiance and this before this summer’s migration crisis ramps up. Add in Trump’s dislike of the EU and Putin’s sabre rattling who would want to be leading the EU.
Life changes and you either lead change to success, ignore change and muddle through, or resist change and fail
I do think Macron will win in France and probably Merkel in Germany but if Le Pen achieves anywhere near 40% of the French vote she is not going away. Also the Visegrad group are on collision course with Brussels in outright defiance and this before this summer’s migration crisis ramps up. Add in Trump’s dislike of the EU and Putin’s sabre rattling who would want to be leading the EU.
Life changes and you either lead change to success, ignore change and muddle through, or resist change and fail
When the going gets tough you either take responsibility, or abdicate responsibility. The UK yesterday chose to abdicate.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
The British forces aren't exactly outlandishly furnished. During Iraq 2 I had to buy my own gloves and maps but we did get a 40' container full of printer toner cartridges delivered under mortar fire.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
Thank goodness our aircraftless aircraft carriers and missileless destroyers are keeping global Britain safe.
I do think Macron will win in France and probably Merkel in Germany but if Le Pen achieves anywhere near 40% of the French vote she is not going away. Also the Visegrad group are on collision course with Brussels in outright defiance and this before this summer’s migration crisis ramps up. Add in Trump’s dislike of the EU and Putin’s sabre rattling who would want to be leading the EU.
Life changes and you either lead change to success, ignore change and muddle through, or resist change and fail
When the going gets tough you either take responsibility, or abdicate responsibility. The UK yesterday chose to abdicate.
We are on opposite sides but are both entitled to our view. We took back control yesterday
I do think Macron will win in France and probably Merkel in Germany but if Le Pen achieves anywhere near 40% of the French vote she is not going away. Also the Visegrad group are on collision course with Brussels in outright defiance and this before this summer’s migration crisis ramps up. Add in Trump’s dislike of the EU and Putin’s sabre rattling who would want to be leading the EU.
Life changes and you either lead change to success, ignore change and muddle through, or resist change and fail
When the going gets tough you either take responsibility, or abdicate responsibility. The UK yesterday chose to abdicate.
In what way is implementing the democratic will of the British people 'abdication'?
It was the Remoaners who argued the government should abdicate responsibility for a referendum they said they would implement.
It was the Lib Dems who argued the government i) shouldn't hold then ii) ignore the result of a referendum they themselves had promised in the past.
The British Government has taken responsibility - for good or ill - for executing the will of the British people.
"Wah wah - please give us free and frictionless access to your security information which is much better than hours as we don't pony up cash for security and defence..."
Cold hard reality biting into the EU.
Meanwhile cognitive dissonance biting ever harder over the water.
I do think Macron will win in France and probably Merkel in Germany but if Le Pen achieves anywhere near 40% of the French vote she is not going away. Also the Visegrad group are on collision course with Brussels in outright defiance and this before this summer’s migration crisis ramps up. Add in Trump’s dislike of the EU and Putin’s sabre rattling who would want to be leading the EU.
Life changes and you either lead change to success, ignore change and muddle through, or resist change and fail
When the going gets tough you either take responsibility, or abdicate responsibility. The UK yesterday chose to abdicate.
What we did yesterday was the ultimate act of taking responsibility. We are now fully responsible for ourselves rather than advocating responsibility to a continental transnational entity.
I do think Macron will win in France and probably Merkel in Germany but if Le Pen achieves anywhere near 40% of the French vote she is not going away. Also the Visegrad group are on collision course with Brussels in outright defiance and this before this summer’s migration crisis ramps up.
And the net contributors do not want to make up the UK's contribution to EU funds.
Listening to fully paid up euro-lackeys like Weber and Verhofstadt reminds me very much of listening to the Heseltine's of this world.
Their whole purpose has been thrown into doubt and the emotional challenge is presently too much to carry, hence risible notions of a completely one-sided relationship and 'all or nothing' rhetoric.
There are many saner voices who are appreciative of the practicalities and neccessity for striking a sensible accord, whether in the Dutch, Irish, Swedish, Spanish governments or in the business world among continental exporters.
English council by elections to be held On May 4th same day as the CC elections . There will be 105 or 106 English council by elections on this date ( South Derbyshire DC Woodville ward is unclear )
Con 59 or 60 Lab 29 LDem 10 UKIP 2 Green 1 Ratepayers 1 Ind 3
In Buckinghamshire we are awaiting a Sec of State decision on unitary authority proposals. We need an answer before May 4th as electors need to know if county councillors are to be elected for 4 years or only 2 years if a unitary authority is to be formed.
The Conservative district council want the unitary to be the district whilst the Conservative county council want the unitary to be the county.
I've seen quoting of polling that the Scots want the same brexit deal as the rest of the UK, being interpreted as a rebuke to Sturgeon's efforts. Yet it seems the polling detail is basically saying ~60% of Scots and ~55% of rUK want to keep free movement in exchange for better trade deals. Given that free movement is almost sure to end, and hence a 'worse' trade deal negotiated - this idea that suddenly the Scots are backing TMay over Sturgeon is wrong. They are saying that all of the UK should have a soft brexit, not that they are united behind TMay's version of brexit.
He's hardly the best person to front any criticism of us for being punitive and inflexible - he seems very likely to favour the sort of punitive approach which encourages the willy wavers to make silly or empty threats.
I spoke to an MEP the other day, they are basically marking time and doing very little work, just claiming as much as they can for themselves and their support staff. What a disgraceful waste of money this all is.
I would have thought that's pretty well the only thing MEP's do.
Bollocks. For example, here's an oveview of 8 pages of committee meetings this month:
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
English council by elections to be held On May 4th same day as the CC elections . There will be 105 or 106 English council by elections on this date ( South Derbyshire DC Woodville ward is unclear )
Con 59 or 60 Lab 29 LDem 10 UKIP 2 Green 1 Ratepayers 1 Ind 3
In Buckinghamshire we are awaiting a Sec of State decision on unitary authority proposals. We need an answer before May 4th as electors need to know if county councillors are to be elected for 4 years or only 2 years if a unitary authority is to be formed.
The Conservative district council want the unitary to be the district whilst the Conservative county council want the unitary to be the county.
No sign of any decision by the Sec of State yet.
Interesting, here in Shropshire we went down the County level unitary route and my take is that it has resulted in decisions that take little account of the needs and aspirations of the individual communities. In my view District is a much better scale for local decision making, but really it requires a regional tier across several counties to take ownership of big picture economy of scale type stuff.
The scale we are doing things provides the worst of all worlds.
He's hardly the best person to front any criticism of us for being punitive and inflexible - he seems very likely to favour the sort of punitive approach which encourages the willy wavers to make silly or empty threats.
He was knowns as (whatever the Flemish is for) "Baby Thatcher" during his early political career in Belgium. He does love a confrontation and he wins more than he loses.
Well, Day 1 of Brexit and May hasn't exactly covered herself in glory - the perceived threat of withdrawing security cooperation was at best clumsy, as worst vindictive and underhand. The Leave attitude is rapidly turning into 'We may be going down but we're sure as hell taking you with us'. Leave's initial dabblings in cheery optimism have evaporated to be replaced with bitterness and vengeance. Disappointing. I hoped we'd be better than that.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want the cherry-pick to bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
Thank you Richard. I just explained to a friend that the UK government has just pointed out the logical end of hard Brexit.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped.
"Das war ein Befehl! Der Angriff Steiners war ein Befehl!"
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
I agree, the EU needs to realise that no deal means everything is disrupted, not just trade.
I have to say in this country I've experienced more prejudice for being a former public schoolboy than I have been for a Pakistani heritage chap or Muslim.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
The British forces aren't exactly outlandishly furnished. During Iraq 2 I had to buy my own gloves and maps but we did get a 40' container full of printer toner cartridges delivered under mortar fire.
That perpetuates a fine British tradition. The men of Scott's last expedition received no instruction whatever in the use of skis but were intensively trained in typesetting so that they could japishly print the South Polar Times. Such larks.
I have to say in this country I've experienced more prejudice for being a former public schoolboy than I have been for a Pakistani heritage chap or Muslim.
The UK sin is class, not race.
Maybe. Despite all the pejorative we still seem to like electing the 'ruling classes' to make our decisions for us.
Well, Day 1 of Brexit and May hasn't exactly covered herself in glory - the perceived threat of withdrawing security cooperation was at best clumsy, as worst vindictive and underhand. The Leave attitude is rapidly turning into 'We may be going down but we're sure as hell taking you with us'. Leave's initial dabblings in cheery optimism have evaporated to be replaced with bitterness and vengeance. Disappointing. I hoped we'd be better than that.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
They don't even have the funniest joke in the world!
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
Very well put, Richard. As so often you are the voice of rationality.
To be honest, we probably shouldn't set too much store by the reactions of the first 24 hours. Much of it will have been for public consumption, and for effect.
We should ignore the wilder sides of the tabloid press - on both sides - over the next few years, as well as the ultra-federalist MEPs: they are there to play a role (as necessary pressure release values for the most dogmatic on both sides) but aren't central to the renegotiation.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
That seems a fair assessment. The government needs to make this clear. For some reason, several right wing newspapers - as well as a number of posters on here - seem to believe that we are contemplating tearing up current security and military commitments we have that are not related to our EU membership. I agree with you that the British government will do nothing that imperils the security of British citizens at home or abroad.
I have to say in this country I've experienced more prejudice for being a former public schoolboy than I have been for a Pakistani heritage chap or Muslim.
The UK sin is class, not race.
Very true.
As is said of the difference between the US vs the UK:
In the US, race trumps class In the UK, class trumps race
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
I agree, the EU needs to realise that no deal means everything is disrupted, not just trade.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
They don't even have the funniest joke in the world!
Is the funniest joke in the world the one that only Spike Milligan knows because all others have died when it has beeen told?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
I agree, the EU needs to realise that no deal means everything is disrupted, not just trade.
Anyone would think they want to 'cherrypick'.....
No that would be wrong, and the EU wouldn't do that.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
Well, the EU was always going to play hard ball. We've no option now but to take it on the chin. You have to laugh though - before the vote, some simple souls in Leave were telling us that pressure from the German car industry would force the EU to bow to our every whim.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
They don't even have the funniest joke in the world!
Is the funniest joke in the world the one that only Spike Milligan knows because all others have died when it has beeen told?
Monty Python actually but otherwise, yes. I'd post the sketch but I have no idea how to embed video here.
From Mr Glenn's favourite singing teacher game theorist:
On May's mention of 'security':
However, it seems to be a response to an open invitation. The EU has yet to reveal its negotiating position officially, but it has already expressed its intentions in the press. In an op-ed in the Financial Times, the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, ruled out negotiating a new trade agreement until three issues had been resolved:......
But he then went on to describe what negotiating a “future partnership” might involve:
That partnership could be based on an ambitious free-trade agreement, provided that it ensures fair competition and guarantees high environmental, social and consumer protection standards. It could also include co-operation in several fields, especially in security and defence. The attacks in London last week tragically remind us of our common interest in the fight against terrorism.
May’s linking of trade and security cooperation could therefore be more an acknowledgement of Barnier’s position than a threat.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
The British forces aren't exactly outlandishly furnished. During Iraq 2 I had to buy my own gloves and maps but we did get a 40' container full of printer toner cartridges delivered under mortar fire.
That perpetuates a fine British tradition. The men of Scott's last expedition received no instruction whatever in the use of skis but were intensively trained in typesetting so that they could japishly print the South Polar Times. Such larks.
Yeah, nobody was in any mood to start knocking out copies of the 'Shatt al Arab Advertiser' that's for fucking sure.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
They don't even have the funniest joke in the world!
Is the funniest joke in the world the one that only Spike Milligan knows because all others have died when it has beeen told?
Monty Python actually but otherwise, yes. I'd post the sketch but I have no idea how to embed video here.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
Well we have been told there is "no cherry picking" by the EU itself - May is simply taking them at their word.
France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe.
Italy and Germany have bigger militaries than the UK. Spain isn't far behind. The UK spends alot in relative terms but don't confuse activity with progress as a large part of that expenditure is spunked away. (Source: RN FAA officer for 18 years)
...misleading. The German armed forces are woefully under-equipped. Many of their planes are grounded for lack of parts/maintenance. During recent exercises the army was forced to issue infantrymen with broom handles painted black because of a shortage of machine guns.
They don't even have the funniest joke in the world!
Is the funniest joke in the world the one that only Spike Milligan knows because all others have died when it has beeen told?
Monty Python actually but otherwise, yes. I'd post the sketch but I have no idea how to embed video here.
Youtube is usually the easiest way. Click on 'share' button & copy and paste link.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
In the FT Barnier said:
That partnership could be based on an ambitious free-trade agreement, provided that it ensures fair competition and guarantees high environmental, social and consumer protection standards. It could also include co-operation in several fields, especially in security and defence.
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
Well we have been told there is "no cherry picking" by the EU itself - May is simply taking them at their word.
By suggesting that the shared security needs to be negotiated. "Your money or your lives" indeed.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
Well, the EU was always going to play hard ball. We've no option now but to take it on the chin.
To be honest, we probably shouldn't set too much store by the reactions of the first 24 hours. Much of it will have been for public consumption, and for effect. ...
I'm sure that's true, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think that many officials and politicians in the EU27 really haven't thought through the logic of their own position, which seems almost wilfully intended to lead to a damaging cliff-edge disaster for both sides.
To be fair to them, I can sort-of see why. From their point of view, the UK decision to leave is irrational, and it's also a massive pain in the neck for them, at a time when they've got a lot else on their plates. So they haven't really engaged with the process which their own treaties have defined. It's time they got real, but there's a non-negligible risk that they won't.
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
Well we have been told there is "no cherry picking" by the EU itself - May is simply taking them at their word.
By suggesting that the shared security needs to be negotiated. "Your money or your lives" indeed.
It does need to be negotiated, since we'll be out of Europol.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. ...
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
Well we have been told there is "no cherry picking" by the EU itself - May is simply taking them at their word.
By suggesting that the shared security needs to be negotiated. "Your money or your lives" indeed.
Is current security cooperation within the scope of EU membership? Ans: Yes
Are we leaving the EU? Ans: Yes
What then is the logical conclusion of hard Brexit?
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
Well we have been told there is "no cherry picking" by the EU itself - May is simply taking them at their word.
By suggesting that the shared security needs to be negotiated. "Your money or your lives" indeed.
Compared to their stance of "your money or your livelihood" ?
If you see the bad in Britain in everything then I guess chasing this offence ambulance is par for the course.
We need a deal more than the EU (particularly as they may be more willing to absorb any painful consequences in order to stop contagion), although a deal would still be better for them. We therefore need to be more open about what we want, show our bellies a bit. Whether the EU merely plays its hand well or is downright punitive toward us if they have a stronger hand, will in part show whether they are as noble a force as they claim.
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
Of course arrangements for security cooperation post-Brexit have to be discussed. Would you prefer her to say 'We absolutely refuse to discuss extradition and security cooperation as part of the talks' (which is what the EU seems to be saying)?
@Pulpstar - the point is there are still too many Remainers (not all) who are more interested in socking it to the Leavers - and being vindicated that Brexit is a disaster - than they are in achieving the best post-Brexit deal for the UK possible, which is in all our interests.
Now, there might be a perverse logic to that: if the chances of Brexit being a disaster are maximised then perhaps public opinion will turn, and we will re-join, if not now, but eventually, but it's a pretty self-destructive course of action to take. Which is why I was getting so frustrated this morning at those who were outraged that the UK should use any of its negotiating strengths.
I suspect there is a deeper emotional thing going on here - that any form of working with/supporting HMG in negotiating Brexit - is some sort of collaboration with the enemy. And that's taboo.
But I think it's nuts. As is all the talk of Kristellnacht/Belsen/North Korea/ISIS. No hyperbole can go too far.
I'm afraid you're far too charitable to the government. Theresa May's letter over and over again emphasises her desire for an economic and security partnership. For example, she describes her comprehensive agreement thus:
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
Of course arrangements for security cooperation post-Brexit have to be discussed. Would you prefer her to say 'We absolutely refuse to discuss extradition and security cooperation as part of the talks?' (which is what the EU seems to be saying).
What the EU seems to be saying is, "your continued support of our dismal security operation is not under consideration, it will continue undiminished". Alastair agrees with this stance, clearly.
@Pulpstar - the point is there are still too many Remainers (not all) who are more interested in socking it to the Leavers - and being vindicated that Brexit being a disaster - than they are achieving the best post-Brexit deal for the UK possible, which should be in all our interests.
Now, there might be a perverse logic to that: if the chances of Brexit being a disaster are maximised (ably assisted by those here who hate it) then perhaps public opinion will turn, and we will re-join, if not now, but eventually, but it's a pretty self-destructive course of action to take. Which is why I was getting so frustrated this morning at those who were outraged that the UK should play to any of its negotiating strengths.
I suspect there is a deeper emotional thing going on here - that any form of working with/supporting HMG in negotiating Brexit - is some sort of collaboration with the enemy.
I think it's nuts. As is all the talk of Kristellnacht/Belsen/North Korea/ISIS. No hyperbole can go too far.
Even Gina Miller was on the news last night saying it's time to move on and get the best deal for Britain.
Suspect a few on here will be like the Japanese soldiers found still fighting WWII 30 years later.
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
snip
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
Well, the EU was always going to play hard ball. We've no option now but to take it on the chin.
We're not allowed to play hardball back?
Okay.....
We can play hardball back, Carlotta. But unfortunately they have a much bigger bat than plucky little (and quite likely soon to be littler) blighty.
@Pulpstar - the point is there are still too many Remainers (not all) who are more interested in socking it to the Leavers - and being vindicated that Brexit being a disaster - than they are achieving the best post-Brexit deal for the UK possible, which should be in all our interests.
Now, there might be a perverse logic to that: if the chances of Brexit being a disaster are maximised (ably assisted by those here who hate it) then perhaps public opinion will turn, and we will re-join, if not now, but eventually, but it's a pretty self-destructive course of action to take. Which is why I was getting so frustrated this morning at those who were outraged that the UK should play to any of its negotiating strengths.
I suspect there is a deeper emotional thing going on here - that any form of working with/supporting HMG in negotiating Brexit - is some sort of collaboration with the enemy.
I think it's nuts. As is all the talk of Kristellnacht/Belsen/North Korea/ISIS. No hyperbole can go too far.
These people are used to hoping governments fail so their side will take over, and can't shift out of this mode even though the rules are different (ie there won't be another vote)
Comments
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/draft-agendas.html
and here are 722 proposals currently under consideration:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/work-in-progress.html
Your particular MEP may be lazy, of course.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/847371270396104704
What annoys me is the use of US English. The term in British English should be "bargaining counter".
Imagine if one has blue counters for security and green counters for other assets. I'll give you three of my blue for four of your blue and two of your mid-sized greens. The metaphor is fine. The lexicon isn't.
Another thing that annoys me is the Sun trying to stir things up, presumably with government backing.
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to."
The new Chancel Tax.
Cold hard reality biting into the EU.
SNP 623 - 2013 613
Lab 453 - 2013 497
Con 379 - 2013 362
LDem 247 - 2013 247
Green 217 - 2013 86
UKIP 43 - 2013 ???
Libertarian 22 - 2013 ???
Ind/Others 568 - 2013 633 ( will include UKIP/Libertarian )
Apart from big increase in Greens similar figures to last time , slightly fewer seats overall than last time due to boundary changes .
Unopposed returns
Shetland 1 ward - Ind 2 SNP 1
Argyll/Bute 1 ward - Con 1 SNP 1 LDem 1
General impression is that the main parties have been super cautious in not over nominating candidates in marginal wards ensuring 1 councillor elected rather than the chance of 0 or 2 etc
Verhofstadt's point could just as easily be turned around. If the UK is shafted on trade, the EU can hardly expect us to give them a great security/intelligence deal (and, in military terms, us and France are the only remotely big hitters in Europe).
It's almost as if a good deal is in everybody's interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38810162
There will be 105 or 106 English council by elections on this date ( South Derbyshire DC Woodville ward is unclear )
Con 59 or 60
Lab 29
LDem 10
UKIP 2
Green 1
Ratepayers 1
Ind 3
It must also have hit Tusk hard as he will forever be recorded as the Council President who received the biggest body blow to the EU project since its inception. It is not too much of a stretch of imagination that Tusk, Juncker’s, Merkel and Hollande will go down as those responsible for the most serious rejection of their project with the ramification this will have on the EU going forward. David Cameron may or may not be recorded as a contributor to the fracture but from a UK perspective time alone will tell whether the result of the referendum was good or not for the UK.
Listening to reports from ordinary citizens in Europe there does seem to be a genuine sadness as, indeed there is in the UK, but also there is recognition that for the first time the democratic will of the people has been respected by their government with quite widespread admiration for the UK’s stance.
I do think Macron will win in France and probably Merkel in Germany but if Le Pen achieves anywhere near 40% of the French vote she is not going away. Also the Visegrad group are on collision course with Brussels in outright defiance and this before this summer’s migration crisis ramps up. Add in Trump’s dislike of the EU and Putin’s sabre rattling who would want to be leading the EU.
Life changes and you either lead change to success, ignore change and muddle through, or resist change and fail
They admit to not being able to tell me anything useful :-).
It was the Remoaners who argued the government should abdicate responsibility for a referendum they said they would implement.
It was the Lib Dems who argued the government i) shouldn't hold then ii) ignore the result of a referendum they themselves had promised in the past.
The British Government has taken responsibility - for good or ill - for executing the will of the British people.
You would have had it otherwise?
Listening to fully paid up euro-lackeys like Weber and Verhofstadt reminds me very much of listening to the Heseltine's of this world.
Their whole purpose has been thrown into doubt and the emotional challenge is presently too much to carry, hence risible notions of a completely one-sided relationship and 'all or nothing' rhetoric.
There are many saner voices who are appreciative of the practicalities and neccessity for striking a sensible accord, whether in the Dutch, Irish, Swedish, Spanish governments or in the business world among continental exporters.
The Conservative district council want the unitary to be the district whilst the Conservative county council want the unitary to be the county.
No sign of any decision by the Sec of State yet.
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-releases/2017/march/i’ll-have-what-she’s-having-scots-share-pm’s-vision-for-brexit-deal/
What does Boycott think about Brexit?
Corridor of uncertainty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2a6l6wM2k
It seems to me that almost all commentators on the furore about security cooperation post-Brexit have entirely missed the point. It's not the UK which is 'threatening' to withdraw cooperation, it's the EU. Here's why:
Our EU friends are telling us that we have to agree exit terms before we can even start discussing the post-Brexit relationship (and incidentally waving a bonkers £60bn bill in our faces). Some of the more extreme of them, including some very influential figures, are even going do far as to say that we cannot even start discussing the post-Brexit deal until we've actually left. All of them are saying that, if there's no deal, we'd simply be a third-party country and that would harm the UK greatly.
Let's follow their own logic. Are they saying that they won't even begin to discuss security cooperation until after we've signed up to £60bn, or possibly not until after we've left? At the moment, one of the main routes by which we cooperate with them is via our membership of Europol. As things stand, we won't be members of Europol on 29th March 2019. We won't have any extradition arrangements in place. We won't have any institutional mechanism for joint investigations of international crime. Nor can we replace these with bilateral deals - they have said they won't do bilateral deals.
Their position is, quite frankly, stark raving bonkers. As @chestnut pointed out upthread, they seem to want to cherry-pick the bits they like of the relationship with the UK, but they are deliberately making it institutionally impossible even for us to agree with them that they can continue cooperation on crime and security. That cooperation - by the logic of their own negotiating position - will fall away on the 29th March 2019. Have they really thought this through?
The UK government, in contrast, wants to come to a comprehensive deal with them before we leave, so that there is no cliff-edge disaster (damaging to both sides) in security as well as in trade. And somehow, it's the UK that's making threats???
The scale we are doing things provides the worst of all worlds.
That will not be a happy occurrence for McLaren.
https://twitter.com/amolrajanbbc/status/847360575151538176
To be honest, we probably shouldn't set too much store by the reactions of the first 24 hours. Much of it will have been for public consumption, and for effect.
We should ignore the wilder sides of the tabloid press - on both sides - over the next few years, as well as the ultra-federalist MEPs: they are there to play a role (as necessary pressure release values for the most dogmatic on both sides) but aren't central to the renegotiation.
As is said of the difference between the US vs the UK:
In the US, race trumps class
In the UK, class trumps race
Anyone would think they want to 'cherrypick'.....
"We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation."
The question of shared security, previously undiscussed, has been put on the table by the UK government as something to be negotiated. The linkage is explicit and repeated.
On May's mention of 'security':
However, it seems to be a response to an open invitation. The EU has yet to reveal its negotiating position officially, but it has already expressed its intentions in the press. In an op-ed in the Financial Times, the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, ruled out negotiating a new trade agreement until three issues had been resolved:......
But he then went on to describe what negotiating a “future partnership” might involve:
That partnership could be based on an ambitious free-trade agreement, provided that it ensures fair competition and guarantees high environmental, social and consumer protection standards. It could also include co-operation in several fields, especially in security and defence. The attacks in London last week tragically remind us of our common interest in the fight against terrorism.
May’s linking of trade and security cooperation could therefore be more an acknowledgement of Barnier’s position than a threat.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/03/29/brexit-has-officially-started-but-there-is-an-awfully-long-way-to-go/#2ce197411bda
Of course the OUTRAGE!!! bus has well and truly left the station...
Click on 'share' button & copy and paste link.
https://youtu.be/ienp4J3pW7U
Verhofstadt, to coin a phrase, wants to cherry-pick.
The EU wants to secure all the stuff it wants, then negotiate on a trade deal.
That partnership could be based on an ambitious free-trade agreement, provided that it ensures fair competition and guarantees high environmental, social and consumer protection standards. It could also include co-operation in several fields, especially in security and defence.
Funny how the OUTRAGE!!! Bus missed that one....
Okay.....
To be fair to them, I can sort-of see why. From their point of view, the UK decision to leave is irrational, and it's also a massive pain in the neck for them, at a time when they've got a lot else on their plates. So they haven't really engaged with the process which their own treaties have defined. It's time they got real, but there's a non-negligible risk that they won't.
Are we leaving the EU? Ans: Yes
What then is the logical conclusion of hard Brexit?
If you see the bad in Britain in everything then I guess chasing this offence ambulance is par for the course.
Now, there might be a perverse logic to that: if the chances of Brexit being a disaster are maximised then perhaps public opinion will turn, and we will re-join, if not now, but eventually, but it's a pretty self-destructive course of action to take. Which is why I was getting so frustrated this morning at those who were outraged that the UK should use any of its negotiating strengths.
I suspect there is a deeper emotional thing going on here - that any form of working with/supporting HMG in negotiating Brexit - is some sort of collaboration with the enemy. And that's taboo.
But I think it's nuts. As is all the talk of Kristellnacht/Belsen/North Korea/ISIS. No hyperbole can go too far.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/847380863184654336
Suspect a few on here will be like the Japanese soldiers found still fighting WWII 30 years later.