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).
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
@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.
Sounds like the Eurosceptics! Who eventually won, for now....
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.
The strategic objective of HMG is to try and increase the EU level of fear of the UK leaving without a deal, in order to maximise the chances of achieving the best quality UK-EU framework possible prior to leaving, without antagonising them too much in the process.
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).
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
I don't think we are that dependent on EU intelligence gathering...
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
@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.
What Richard says below and what a lot of people were saying earlier on today are very different. Richard observes that without a deal some security-related issues that are a part of our EU membership will be left undealt with and that will be a problem for both sides. What was being said earlier - and being talked about in the press - was the UK threatening to withdraw unilaterally from non-EU related security obligations if we do not get what we consider to be a fair deal. As I pointed out, that is ridiculous: the UK government would not deliberately and avoidably imperil the security of British citizens at home and abroad. David Davis seems to have confirmed that now.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic 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.
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.
But the remain campaign used security as a reason to stay, saying it would be under risk of compromise. May is being consistent.
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.
A study by European researchers Bruegel found that when Britain’s rebate on EU contributions was taken into consideration the final ‘divorce bill’ was likely to be far less than the €60bn mooted by eurocrats.
After modelling 12 different scenarios for the final sum, the thinktank said it was most likely to end up in the region of €35.7bn.
Just one of the models came to a final figure of more than €60bn, but Zsolt Darvas, one of the report’s authors, said a figure anywhere close to that would only be possible if the UK’s rebate were removed from the calculations.
And he said it could be as low as €25.4bn if the UK were to successfully argue it should not contribute to any of the projects it has already signed up to once it leaves.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
I think the mistake a lot of Eurosceptics make is treating the EU as if it were an agenda rather than simply a geopolitical fact.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
@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.
What Richard says below and what a lot of people were saying earlier on today are very different. Richard observes that without a deal some security-related issues that are a part of our EU membership will be left undealt with and that will be a problem for both sides. What was being said earlier - and being talked about in the press - was the UK threatening to withdraw unilaterally from non-EU related security obligations if we do not get what we consider to be a fair deal. As I pointed out, that is ridiculous: the UK government would not deliberately and avoidably imperil the security of British citizens at home and abroad. David Davis seems to have confirmed that now.
I don't think I read anything specifically about the UK pulling out of non-EU related obligations. Which were the ones being talked about?
@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.
What Richard says below and what a lot of people were saying earlier on today are very different. Richard observes that without a deal some security-related issues that are a part of our EU membership will be left undealt with and that will be a problem for both sides. What was being said earlier - and being talked about in the press - was the UK threatening to withdraw unilaterally from non-EU related security obligations if we do not get what we consider to be a fair deal. As I pointed out, that is ridiculous: the UK government would not deliberately and avoidably imperil the security of British citizens at home and abroad. David Davis seems to have confirmed that now.
The press talk a lot of bollocks - universally.
The subtleties were lost this morning because we were all getting wound up by each other, to which I responded. Your second last sentence is unarguable.
Lesson 1: ignore the press. Lesson 2: don't get wound up by simplifications, exaggerations and hyperbole, nor respond equally in kind.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
And .... ???
Of course we should share our security and intelligence with our friends and allies. We are offering friendship and alliance to our neighbours. It's up to them if they want to be friends and allies or not.
@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.
Like many others, perhaps most of us, Gina Miller oscillates between being highly emotional and rational and realistic.
But, I will give her the benefit of the doubt if she has now said that.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
May cannot threaten to unilaterally and voluntarily make the EU less secure than it is now, because if she were to do it she would be making the UK less secure. And that will not happen. What she can do is point out that unless the security aspects of Brexit are dealt with, both the UK and the EU will end up the losers. That is a reasonable point. But it is not a point that needed to be made in yesterday's letter. I suspect it was put there because if it had not been it would have been very difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that the government is preparing to let down a lot of Leave voters.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
May cannot threaten to unilaterally and voluntarily make the EU less secure than it is now, because if she were to do it she would be making the UK less secure. And that will not happen. What she can do is point out that unless the security aspects of Brexit are dealt with, both the UK and the EU will end up the losers. That is a reasonable point. But it is not a point that needed to be made in yesterday's letter. I suspect it was put there because if it had not been it would have been very difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that the government is preparing to let down a lot of Leave voters.
I'm not sure I follow - why would excluding some mention of security/intelligence lead to that conclusion?
@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.
What Richard says below and what a lot of people were saying earlier on today are very different. Richard observes that without a deal some security-related issues that are a part of our EU membership will be left undealt with and that will be a problem for both sides. What was being said earlier - and being talked about in the press - was the UK threatening to withdraw unilaterally from non-EU related security obligations if we do not get what we consider to be a fair deal. As I pointed out, that is ridiculous: the UK government would not deliberately and avoidably imperil the security of British citizens at home and abroad. David Davis seems to have confirmed that now.
The press talk a lot of bollocks - universally.
The subtleties were lost this morning because we were all getting wound up by each other, to which I responded. Your second last sentence is unarguable.
Lesson 1: ignore the press. Lesson 2: don't get wound up by simplifications, exaggerations and hyperbole, nor respond equally in kind.
Those apply equally to me.
Fair enough. I am as guilty. We all are. As I said yesterday, I think the letter was largely conciliatory and realistic - and for that reason hopeful. It is a shame that the security issue has overshadowed that.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
I think the mistake a lot of Eurosceptics make is treating the EU as if it were an agenda rather than simply a geopolitical fact.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
I think the mistake a lot of Eurosceptics make is treating the EU as if it were an agenda rather than simply a geopolitical fact.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
I'm not sure what your point is?
"the EU is a geopolitical fact". I wonder if they said the same about the Roman Empire.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement or reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I think his point is it is the logical outcome of a hard Brexit, since by definition we won't have a deal on things that replace Europol, for instance.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
I think the mistake a lot of Eurosceptics make is treating the EU as if it were an agenda rather than simply a geopolitical fact.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
I'm not sure what your point is?
"the EU is a geopolitical fact". I wonder if they said the same about the Roman Empire.
Hmm, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
We should only cooperate on security if it is in our interests to do so. We have no moral obligation to defend another countries citizens in my view.
But it can be in our interests because the defence would be mutual, i.e. NATO, or to maintain stability in ways that are advantageous to us.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
I think the mistake a lot of Eurosceptics make is treating the EU as if it were an agenda rather than simply a geopolitical fact.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
I'm not sure what your point is?
"the EU is a geopolitical fact". I wonder if they said the same about the Roman Empire.
Hmm, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
I think the mistake a lot of Eurosceptics make is treating the EU as if it were an agenda rather than simply a geopolitical fact.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
I'm not sure what your point is?
If you set democracy against reality, reality always wins in the end. Whether that denial comes in the form of continually spending money you don't have, or thinking that the EU can be bent to our will by making threats, the outcome will be the same.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
And .... ???
Of course we should share our security and intelligence with our friends and allies. We are offering friendship and alliance to our neighbours. It's up to them if they want to be friends and allies or not.
Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. - W. S. Churchill, Zurich Speech, 1946.
Heh, I was just making that point that I am sure people viewed it as a "geopolitical fact" back then.
Everything must end, but Brexit has probably ensured the survival of the EU for all of our lifetimes at least. There is a renewed vigour amongst the 27.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
I find that deplorable.
What specifically about that is deplorable? The part about having no agreement at the end of two years, or seeking a comprehensive deal on economic and security issues?
"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..."
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
It is simply not going to happen. The UK government will not deliberately and unilaterally expose British citizens to increased levels of threat.
Heh, I was just making that point that I am sure people viewed it as a "geopolitical fact" back then.
Everything must end, but Brexit has probably ensured the survival of the EU for all of our lifetimes at least. There is a renewed vigour amongst the 27.
Incidentally I find it hilarious that Verhofstadt and the Remoaners are insisting that trade and security are "two separate pillars" not to be discussed together when it has been the EU's dogmatic insistence that the issues like trade, migration etc are "indivisible" that has caused a lot of this mess.
Which is it, is trade a unique issue to be sorted on its own or is it indivisible from other issues?
A study by European researchers Bruegel found that when Britain’s rebate on EU contributions was taken into consideration the final ‘divorce bill’ was likely to be far less than the €60bn mooted by eurocrats.
After modelling 12 different scenarios for the final sum, the thinktank said it was most likely to end up in the region of €35.7bn.
Just one of the models came to a final figure of more than €60bn, but Zsolt Darvas, one of the report’s authors, said a figure anywhere close to that would only be possible if the UK’s rebate were removed from the calculations.
And he said it could be as low as €25.4bn if the UK were to successfully argue it should not contribute to any of the projects it has already signed up to once it leaves.
One things for certain, if the EU were the ones with the upper hand security wise, and were saying they might not be to work as closely with us post brexit, the people criticising our govt today would still be criticising our govt and the Brexit vote rather than the EU
Very interesting stuff on the ECJ from David Davis in the Commons. It is not going away post-Brexit, that is for sure.
Sounds like it will be frozen in time though, only case law in existence up until leave date will be referred to in cases relating to those EU laws.
Yep - so no escape from its wicked grasp; and, of course, there will be nothing to stop Supreme Court judges taking guidance from ECJ decisions from that point either - it's just that they will not be obliged to. My guess is that the ECJ will continue to be very persuasive. And in many areas it will de facto retain the ultimate say - especially in cases relating to areas where the EU and UK continue to cooperate.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
I find that deplorable.
I find your happiness to sacrifice the (Economic) Security of our citizens deplorable.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
I find that deplorable.
What specifically about that is deplorable? The part about having no agreement at the end of two years, or seeking a comprehensive deal on economic and security issues?
The bit that suggests that agreement on mutual security is contingent on reaching agreement on economics.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
It is simply not going to happen. The UK government will not deliberately and unilaterally expose British citizens to increased levels of threat.
I think you're going to be in for a shock come 2019 if a deal isn't reached. As Richard has said, our cooperation is part of our EU membership which will cease as part of hard Brexit.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
I find that deplorable.
What specifically about that is deplorable? The part about having no agreement at the end of two years, or seeking a comprehensive deal on economic and security issues?
The bit that suggests that agreement on mutual security is contingent on reaching agreement on economics.
I don't think they are contingent, I believe we are seeking a separate deal on EU citizen's rights, for example. Where they are linked is if we drop out without any deal, then cooperation on both will be damaged.
One things for certain, if the EU were the ones with the upper hand security wise, and were saying they might not be to work as closely with us post brexit, the people criticising our govt today would still be criticising our govt and the Brexit vote rather than the EU
Indeed. It's funny because a narrative has built up that the UK is some minor little back-water with no clout and the EU has all the cards to play...
Now it's turning out that's not the case and the UK actually has a lot of clout and a lot of cards of their own.
No, I expected her to say that it is unthinkable that working arrangements will not be secured on this as the highest priority. Not make it a nice-to-have from negotiations.
That's what she is saying. What needs to be done for it to take effect is to start - as early as possible - negotiations on the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit, otherwise it won't happen. That seems to be more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than a threat.
It is not what she is saying. She puts this on the same level as an economic partnership.
It is on the same level. It's one of the important sets of issues which, in the interests of both sides, need to be negotiated. Much of it is about institutional arrangements to replace the existing structures.
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
I would suggest that if no agreement is reached then cooperation on security would end, which would be regrettable so we should seek to start work immediately on a comprehensive deal that ensures mutual co-operation on both economic security and other types of security.
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
I find that deplorable.
What specifically about that is deplorable? The part about having no agreement at the end of two years, or seeking a comprehensive deal on economic and security issues?
The bit that suggests that agreement on mutual security is contingent on reaching agreement on economics.
Yet it's acceptable to have an agreement on mutual (economic) security being contingent on an agreement on migration?
One things for certain, if the EU were the ones with the upper hand security wise, and were saying they might not be to work as closely with us post brexit, the people criticising our govt today would still be criticising our govt and the Brexit vote rather than the EU
Indeed. It's funny because a narrative has built up that the UK is some minor little back-water with no clout and the EU has all the cards to play...
Now it's turning out that's not the case and the UK actually has a lot of clout and a lot of cards of their own.
But we are utterly forbidden from using them, of course.
Are you suggesting that if no agreement is reached on economics, Britain should withhold cooperation on security?
It isn't a question of witholding cooperation. It's about agreeing a deal on a whole range of issues.
I'm beginning to perceive why it is that some people believe the UK's hand to be so very weak. It's because every strong card in our hand is apparently unplayable.
Very interesting stuff on the ECJ from David Davis in the Commons. It is not going away post-Brexit, that is for sure.
This is the key bit - UK courts will refer to CJEU case law as it applies to the EU treaties from which the retained legislation is derived:
"2.13 The Great Repeal Bill will not provide any role for the CJEU in the interpretation of that new law, and the Bill will not require the domestic courts to consider the CJEU’s jurisprudence. In that way, the Bill allows the UK to take control of its own laws. We will, of course, continue to honour our international commitments and follow international law. 2.14 However, for as long as EU-derived law remains on the UK statute book, it is essential that there is a common understanding of what that law means. The Government believes that this is best achieved by providing for continuity in how that law is interpreted before and after exit day. To maximise certainty, therefore, the Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU-derived law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the CJEU’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the EU."
So the EU wants to cherry pick it's favourite parts of the UK-EU relationship (defence and security) but wants to stop the UK cherry picking it's favourite parts of the EU-UK relationship (free trade). It's a view, I guess.
Heh, I was just making that point that I am sure people viewed it as a "geopolitical fact" back then.
Everything must end, but Brexit has probably ensured the survival of the EU for all of our lifetimes at least. There is a renewed vigour amongst the 27.
I don't think you can make that assertion, even though you just have.
The EU has many problems and challenges, and we don't know how it will evolve.
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.
That's true. And you can tell Tusk is exhausted and exasperated by it.
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
I think the mistake a lot of Eurosceptics make is treating the EU as if it were an agenda rather than simply a geopolitical fact.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
I'm not sure what your point is?
If you set democracy against reality, reality always wins in the end. Whether that denial comes in the form of continually spending money you don't have, or thinking that the EU can be bent to our will by making threats, the outcome will be the same.
Heh, I was just making that point that I am sure people viewed it as a "geopolitical fact" back then.
Everything must end, but Brexit has probably ensured the survival of the EU for all of our lifetimes at least. There is a renewed vigour amongst the 27.
I don't think you can make that assertion, even though you just have.
The EU has many problems and challenges, and we don't know how it will evolve.
The Greece show will start again soon, this time possibly with Trump doing his best to keep the IMF out of it.
I was stuck by the way Greece is about the only country to refuse to set out a position on Brexit so far. Perhaps they intend to use it as ammunition... if they still have any fight left in them.
Heh, I was just making that point that I am sure people viewed it as a "geopolitical fact" back then.
Everything must end, but Brexit has probably ensured the survival of the EU for all of our lifetimes at least. There is a renewed vigour amongst the 27.
The EU has just lost one of it's most important members. It is weakened.
The Italians loathe the Euro; Macron wants to 'pool budgets'; the eastern europeans object to cultural erosion; the Scandis do not want to fund Club Med; the non EZ members have lost their blocking majority within the EU.
Very interesting stuff on the ECJ from David Davis in the Commons. It is not going away post-Brexit, that is for sure.
Sounds like it will be frozen in time though, only case law in existence up until leave date will be referred to in cases relating to those EU laws.
Yep - so no escape from its wicked grasp; and, of course, there will be nothing to stop Supreme Court judges taking guidance from ECJ decisions from that point either - it's just that they will not be obliged to. My guess is that the ECJ will continue to be very persuasive. And in many areas it will de facto retain the ultimate say - especially in cases relating to areas where the EU and UK continue to cooperate.
You are trolling, and as you admit you are also guessing, but this is about stability and continuity. Note:
"Our proposed approach is that, where a conflict arises between EU-derived law and new primary legislation passed by Parliament after our exit from the EU, then newer legislation will take precedence over the EU-derived law we have preserved. In this way, the Great Repeal Bill will end the general supremacy of EU law."
Very interesting stuff on the ECJ from David Davis in the Commons. It is not going away post-Brexit, that is for sure.
Sounds like it will be frozen in time though, only case law in existence up until leave date will be referred to in cases relating to those EU laws.
Yep - so no escape from its wicked grasp; and, of course, there will be nothing to stop Supreme Court judges taking guidance from ECJ decisions from that point either - it's just that they will not be obliged to. My guess is that the ECJ will continue to be very persuasive. And in many areas it will de facto retain the ultimate say - especially in cases relating to areas where the EU and UK continue to cooperate.
You are trolling, and as you admit you are also guessing, but this is about stability and continuity. Note:
"Our proposed approach is that, where a conflict arises between EU-derived law and new primary legislation passed by Parliament after our exit from the EU, then newer legislation will take precedence over the EU-derived law we have preserved. In this way, the Great Repeal Bill will end the general supremacy of EU law."
This is key:
"We will, of course, continue to honour our international commitments and follow international law."
Once we have left the EU, any agreements between the UK and the EU will be subject to international law. But in cases of dispute or uncertainty those agreements will need to be interpreted. I wonder who will do that.
Just catching up with PB after a days away, and I have just read Mike's article 'I’d feel a lot more comfortable about the Brexit negotiations if Osborne was playing a key role'
@MikeSmithson, agreed. Theresa May's first major mistake in the early days of her Premiership was to sack George Osborne in such a harsh and unnecessary manner. That decison said more about her and the overly powerful influence of her unelected team of advisers. To give David Cameron his due, his closest and most loyal advisers and friends at Westminster were also elected politicians like George Osborne and Michael Gove. And what a contrast to the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown years.
But May not only sacked George Osborne, she also sacked some of the most effective Ministers and media operators in Cameron's Cabinet because of their closeness to Cameron and Osborne. May and her team missed a vital point, these Ministers, both senior and junior were actually there on merit as well as being supportive of both No 10 and No11. Again, another complete contrast with the Blair/Brown era. And the vacuum they left was clear to see if anyone wants to go back to the early days of May's premiership and their media operation. Its a poor show when you regularly leave a BBC QuestionTime panel to be filled with the Ministers you sacked still doing a better and more visable job of defending your Government than the Ministers you appointed.
What was Theresa May thinking when she appointed Boris Johnson to the FO and David Davis to be put in charge of Brexit? I have been pointing out for ages that Osborne would have been a far more formidable and effective Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during the Brexit negociations just as Michael Gove would have been an equally formidable Minister for Brexit both behind the scenes and as a media operator. Osborne has developed a working relationship with other EU Finance Ministers which would certainly have proved very helpful during Brexit negociations.
Over a decade ago on PB.com, Osborne only had about three posters across the political spectrum who kept pointing out just how politically astute he was in the face of intense criticism from all sides. Mike and I were two of them. Looking back to the EU Referendum campaign, Gove was a far better and more informative Brexit campaigner than his colleagues like Boris Johnson or David Davis.
This macho posturing by Max and co is frankly embarrassing. It is little different to the headlines in The Sun when the English football team plays. It shows why the UK is such an ugly partner for our ex Euro allies to deal with.
To appeal to this raw meat tabloid culture even semi sane people are pumping out their chests advising our ex allies 'don't mess with us'.
And all this despite the uncomfortable fact that nearly all our terrorist outrages are home grown. It's the continent who ought to want to quarantine themselves from us.
BAU for the frothers on here Roger, armchair Generals. The country has gone to the dogs.
Time to honour your word. Bavaria beckons. Hurry up.
Comments
https://twitter.com/dmccaffreysky/status/847397255380221952
Unlike some on here.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15183346.Scots_shell_companies_used_to_launder___4_billion_out_of_Russia/
But, as I've said before, being beastly to the UK isn't going to save the European Union.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/847395983411396608
After modelling 12 different scenarios for the final sum, the thinktank said it was most likely to end up in the region of €35.7bn.
Just one of the models came to a final figure of more than €60bn, but Zsolt Darvas, one of the report’s authors, said a figure anywhere close to that would only be possible if the UK’s rebate were removed from the calculations.
And he said it could be as low as €25.4bn if the UK were to successfully argue it should not contribute to any of the projects it has already signed up to once it leaves.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/84694/brexit-divorce-bill-could-be-just-€254bn-thinktank
It's also tied up with the other issues. For example, we're presumably going to propose some kind of associate membership of Europol. As part of that we'd pay something towards the Europol budget. How much, and how that impacts any financial settelement on leaving, will have to be negotiated.
You see it in all the talk of how they should have just offered Cameron a bit more, and now the same error is being repeated as we approach Brexit negotiations.
The subtleties were lost this morning because we were all getting wound up by each other, to which I responded. Your second last sentence is unarguable.
Lesson 1: ignore the press. Lesson 2: don't get wound up by simplifications, exaggerations and hyperbole, nor respond equally in kind.
Those apply equally to me.
Of course we should share our security and intelligence with our friends and allies. We are offering friendship and alliance to our neighbours. It's up to them if they want to be friends and allies or not.
But, I will give her the benefit of the doubt if she has now said that.
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/847401059609755648
Do you find that to be unreasonable?
But it can be in our interests because the defence would be mutual, i.e. NATO, or to maintain stability in ways that are advantageous to us.
Comparing the EU to the Roman Empire, indeed.
- W. S. Churchill, Zurich Speech, 1946.
Which is it, is trade a unique issue to be sorted on its own or is it indivisible from other issues?
Now it's turning out that's not the case and the UK actually has a lot of clout and a lot of cards of their own.
Why the hypocrisy?
Good afternoon, everyone.
"2.13
The Great Repeal Bill will not provide any role for the CJEU in the interpretation of that new law, and the Bill will not require the domestic courts to consider the CJEU’s jurisprudence. In that way, the Bill allows the UK to take control of its own laws. We will, of course, continue to honour our international commitments and follow international law.
2.14
However, for as long as EU-derived law remains on the UK statute book, it is essential that there is a common understanding of what that law means. The Government believes that this is best achieved by providing for continuity in how that law is interpreted before and after exit day. To maximise certainty, therefore, the Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU-derived law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the CJEU’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the EU."
The EU has many problems and challenges, and we don't know how it will evolve.
Got it.
I was stuck by the way Greece is about the only country to refuse to set out a position on Brexit so far. Perhaps they intend to use it as ammunition... if they still have any fight left in them.
And quite.
NOUVELLE THREAD
The Italians loathe the Euro; Macron wants to 'pool budgets'; the eastern europeans object to cultural erosion; the Scandis do not want to fund Club Med; the non EZ members have lost their blocking majority within the EU.
Threats are emerging all over.
"Our proposed approach is that, where a conflict arises between EU-derived law and new primary legislation passed by Parliament after our exit from the EU, then newer legislation will take precedence over the EU-derived law we have preserved. In this way, the Great Repeal Bill will end the general supremacy of EU law."
"We will, of course, continue to honour our international commitments and follow international law."
Once we have left the EU, any agreements between the UK and the EU will be subject to international law. But in cases of dispute or uncertainty those agreements will need to be interpreted. I wonder who will do that.
@MikeSmithson, agreed. Theresa May's first major mistake in the early days of her Premiership was to sack George Osborne in such a harsh and unnecessary manner. That decison said more about her and the overly powerful influence of her unelected team of advisers. To give David Cameron his due, his closest and most loyal advisers and friends at Westminster were also elected politicians like George Osborne and Michael Gove. And what a contrast to the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown years.
But May not only sacked George Osborne, she also sacked some of the most effective Ministers and media operators in Cameron's Cabinet because of their closeness to Cameron and Osborne. May and her team missed a vital point, these Ministers, both senior and junior were actually there on merit as well as being supportive of both No 10 and No11. Again, another complete contrast with the Blair/Brown era. And the vacuum they left was clear to see if anyone wants to go back to the early days of May's premiership and their media operation. Its a poor show when you regularly leave a BBC QuestionTime panel to be filled with the Ministers you sacked still doing a better and more visable job of defending your Government than the Ministers you appointed.
What was Theresa May thinking when she appointed Boris Johnson to the FO and David Davis to be put in charge of Brexit? I have been pointing out for ages that Osborne would have been a far more formidable and effective Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during the Brexit negociations just as Michael Gove would have been an equally formidable Minister for Brexit both behind the scenes and as a media operator. Osborne has developed a working relationship with other EU Finance Ministers which would certainly have proved very helpful during Brexit negociations.
Over a decade ago on PB.com, Osborne only had about three posters across the political spectrum who kept pointing out just how politically astute he was in the face of intense criticism from all sides. Mike and I were two of them. Looking back to the EU Referendum campaign, Gove was a far better and more informative Brexit campaigner than his colleagues like Boris Johnson or David Davis.