Yep Junker is a bit of an embarrasment. Personally I quite like Donald Tusk, I think he's excellent for Europe.
He was absolutely out of his tree today, banging on about heading a campaign for Ohio to leave the USA.
What?
And Texas.
Actually I think he said specifically Austin Texas. Not sure why he feels the rest of the State is unworthy of his attention.
Well Austin is the capital, and I guess if your're from Luxembourg you conflate the capital with the whole state easily enough. Well after a glass or two at least
I think you'd have to down a couple of bottles to confuse SoCo with rural Texas. More in common with Luxembourg in fact.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Someone asked for a seat change tally, in those councils where the boundaries have not been changed, the changes come out as follows: Con +36, Lab -118, Lib Dem +127, Ind unchanged, Local Independents +8, Liberals unchanged, UKIP -63, Green +11, Mebynon Kernow +1, Ratepayers -3, NHA unchanged. In terms of councils Con +1 (GAIN Derbyshire and Norfolk, lose Surrey), Lab -2 (lose Derbyshire and Durham), NOC +1 (Con GAIN Norfolk to NOC, Lab lose Durham to NOC, Con lose Surrey to NOC)
In most cases the boundary changes are relatively minor and gains/losses can still be calculated . For example in Hants New Forest loses a Conservative councillor and Eastleigh gains a Lib Dem councillor and Dorset gains 1 councillor compared to 2013 a Conservative . The Cambs and Lincolnshire changes are rather more complex losing 8 and 7 councillors respectively
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
Word is that now that Macron, Fillon and Mélenchon have pulled out of the 20 April TV debate, and Le Pen has suggested that she too may withdraw, France Télévisions - operator of the France 2 channel - may call it off.
Hamon and Dupont-Aignan have said they will take part.
France Télévisions will announce their decision tomorrow morning (Friday).
They announced it this evening. They say they suggested other dates, but since none achieved a consensus they will hold the debate as originally planned on 20 April.
Indeed: unkind though it may be ( I'm sure he's lovely to his pets and family) but his "optics" ( no pun intended) for an English speaking audience are ( in my view) just shocking. He's straight out of central casting for "EU bureaucrat from a tinpot Ruritanian country with a tin ear for the Brits". Schulz even is way more human. A worse choice than Juncker couldn't have been devised to be at the helm in the run up to the referendum.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
Indeed: unkind though it may be ( I'm sure he's lovely to his pets and family) but his "optics" ( no pun intended) for an English speaking audience are ( in my view) just shocking. He's straight out of central casting for "EU bureaucrat from a tinpot Ruritanian country with a tin ear for the Brits". Schulz even is way more human. A worse choice than Juncker's couldn't have been devised to be at the helm in the run up to the referendum.
I was bitterly disappointed that Juncker never came to Britain to campaign for Remain.
Indeed: unkind though it may be ( I'm sure he's lovely to his pets and family) but his "optics" ( no pun intended) for an English speaking audience are ( in my view) just shocking. He's straight out of central casting for "EU bureaucrat from a tinpot Ruritanian country with a tin ear for the Brits". Schulz even is way more human. A worse choice than Juncker's couldn't have been devised to be at the helm in the run up to the referendum.
I was bitterly disappointed that Juncker never came to Britain to campaign for Remain.
Indeed: unkind though it may be ( I'm sure he's lovely to his pets and family) but his "optics" ( no pun intended) for an English speaking audience are ( in my view) just shocking. He's straight out of central casting for "EU bureaucrat from a tinpot Ruritanian country with a tin ear for the Brits". Schulz even is way more human. A worse choice than Juncker's couldn't have been devised to be at the helm in the run up to the referendum.
I was bitterly disappointed that Juncker never came to Britain to campaign for Remain.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
UK imports 30% of it's beef, 70% of imports come from Ireland
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
As someone working on the fringe of agriculture I'm seeing some buyers remorse with farmers already.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
My greatest friend , a farmer in Herefordshire has pulled out of food production completely . He has raised lambs and cattle for many years but partly because of age and partly the uncertain future , he now raises a small number of Rare Breed Cattle and rents out grazing rights to other farmers . Last year he made his biggest profit ever .
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
UK imports 30% of it's beef, 70% of imports come from Ireland
And the Europeans currently enjoy privileged access to UK food markets.
No deal, no privilege.
That could translate into inferior terms for EU producers compared to new dealers (Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc) too in due course.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
We already have cheap Chilean wine. It aint getting any cheaper.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
You think we can import everything and produce nothing . How will it be paid for ? , will the exporters want our ever more devalued pounds ?
Lol at Newsnight again saying there "might be a snap general election next year".
READ. THE. FIXED. TERM. PARLIAMENTS. ACT.
It doesn't say there can't be one....
I completely disagree with Mike and Danny.
I think the political case could be made very clearly and Labour support for an election could be tested in such a way as it's a win/win for Theresa: hold the election or increase have the electorate punish Corbyn in the polls.
The legal challenges of bringing about an election inside or outside the FTPA are much less significant.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
You think we can import everything and produce nothing . How will it be paid for ? , will the exporters want our ever more devalued pounds ?
In 1972 it was British trade barriers protecting British manufacturing that were threatened by our entry.
Would you have come out fighting for British industry then?
She seems like a nice lady, but I'm yet to see any evidence she's a very talented politician. Again I can't understand why people are tipping her as a potential leader (though she'd be a bit better than God-awful Keir Starmer).
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
UK imports 30% of it's beef, 70% of imports come from Ireland
40% of UK families risk food poverty
whats more important ?
scottish farmers on Indyref are doubly fucked
It's a fair question.
That 30% import figure will almost certainly rise as we do trade deals with the US and other countries. We have to offer them something they don't already have and the EU being relatively protectionist on agricultural products is the obvious trade-off that we can make. OTOH, British farmers may be locked out of the European market for exports because of the way tariff quotas work under WTO rules. The EU would probably want to do a deal with us because they export more agricultural products to us than we do to them, but they may not have a choice. If they discriminate in our favour, another country, probably the US, would raise a trade dispute at the WTO. In any case if we fully open our market it becomes less interesting to the EU, so they may not want to do a deal with us.
Edit: Ireland is EU in this context and no different from other countries, except the degree of exposure.
OK, I now understand the EU's opening €60bn demand, and it is (as I expected) utter bilge. My expectation of bilge-likeness was based on the simple observation that, if it costs €9bn or so a year so remain as a full member of an organisation, in what conceivable world could it cost €60bn to settle your bar bill on leaving?
The world in which that's conceivable is the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the EU. The key to it is something called the reste à liquider . This is sum of some €250bn or so which represents stuff which the EU has sort-of promised to pay out in structural funds and other programmes, but hasn't actually got any budget to cover or which hasn't even been applied for. Normally they can't pay these 'liabilities' because the annual budget of real money which they have is capped, by us, the Germans, the French, and other net contributors. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the reste à liquider keeps mounting. They are proposing to crystallise this notional figure and charge us some percentage (probably around 15% of it, but the exact proportion is disputed) as a real bill. This accounts for around half of the €60bn. The logic is that this is money which the EU has committed to, so it's a genuine liability, and we owe our share of it.
Savour that logic. It's a real goody.
Let's imagine that an EU country which is a big recipient of EU money, such as Poland, were to invoke Article 50. Apply the same logic. The theoretical reste à liquider - which in this case relates to future programmes which they've vaguely promised Poland but haven't actually got any budget for, immediately become due, non? So Poland gets a big fat payment to leave the EU. For the second time today, I have to ask: have they really thought this through?
What makes it even more interesting is Article 50(3). "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
If we crash out, the Treaties cease to apply. They can no longer rely on any provision of the Treaties to claim we owe them a centime. The whole legal structure collapses.
Aha, you might say, but what about the Treaty of Vienna? No dice - the Treaty of Vienna says that, if the treaty has a termination clause, it wins. The Lisbon Treaty does have a termination clause - Article 50.
So, could they pursue a claim in the International Court of Justice? Nope. The EU treaties say that EU laws can only be decided in the ECJ. The ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction on us once we're out.
They are 100% stuffed on their budget demands if we crash out.
No wonder they are desperate to pretend that we have to settle all this before discussing substantive issues.
Lol at Newsnight again saying there "might be a snap general election next year".
READ. THE. FIXED. TERM. PARLIAMENTS. ACT.
It doesn't say there can't be one....
I completely disagree with Mike and Danny.
I think the political case could be made very clearly and Labour support for an election could be tested in such a way as it's a win/win for Theresa: hold the election or increase have the electorate punish Corbyn in the polls.
Regardless of whether a political case could theoretically be made, it's still impossible to get an early election in practice. It could only happen if Labour MPs voted for it, and why exactly would they, when they'd be potentially voting themselves into unemployment?
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
You think we can import everything and produce nothing . How will it be paid for ? , will the exporters want our ever more devalued pounds ?
I did not say that. There will be a period of adjustment. But why should we pay over the odds for food (food ffs!) to keep 0.1% happy? The CAP has been an outrage for four decades. Surely in 1957 it was just a way of the Germans paying war reparations without actually calling them that?
Either way we're paying too much for food and Brexit is an opportunity.
She seems like a nice lady, but I'm yet to see any evidence she's a very talented politician. Again I can't understand why people are tipping her as a potential leader (though she'd be a bit better than God-awful Keir Starmer).
She's getting mullered on twitter. Not my timeline, I don't really follow many people that would comment on QT, but if you type Nandy into twitter it's quite negative
OK, I now understand the EU's opening €60bn demand, and it is (as ( expected) utter bilge. My expectation of bilge-likeness was based on the simple observation that, if it costs €9bn or so a year so remain as a full member of an organisation, in what conceivable world could it cost €60bn to settle your bar bill on leaving?
The world in which that's conceivable is the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the EU. The key to it is something called the reste à liquider . This is sum of some €250bn or so which represents stuff which the EU has sort-of promised to pay out in structural funds and other programmes, but hasn't actually got any budget to cover or which hasn't even been applied for. Normally they can't pay these 'liabilities' because the annual budget of real money which they have is capped, by us, the Germans, the French, and other net contributors. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the reste à liquider keeps mounting. They are proposing to crystallise this notional figure and charge us some percentage (probably around 15% of it, but the exact proportion is disputed) as a real bill. This accounts for around half of the €60bn. The logic is that this is money which the EU has committed to, so it's a genuine liability, and we owe our share of it.
Savour that logic. It's a real goody. [...]desperate to pretend that we have to settle all this before discussing substantive issues.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
You think we can import everything and produce nothing . How will it be paid for ? , will the exporters want our ever more devalued pounds ?
I did not say that. There will be a period of adjustment. But why should we pay over the odds for food (food ffs!) to keep 0.1% happy? The CAP has been an outrage for four decades. Surely in 1957 it was just a way of the Germans paying war reparations without actually calling them that?
Either way we're paying too much for food and Brexit is an opportunity.
Do you understand the first thing about the cost of food production in the UK? It appears not. We've had a cheap food policy in the UK since 1945 and it's been disastrous for the environment, disastrous for farmers and good to a point for supermarkets.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
You think we can import everything and produce nothing . How will it be paid for ? , will the exporters want our ever more devalued pounds ?
In 1972 it was British trade barriers protecting British manufacturing that were threatened by our entry.
Would you have come out fighting for British industry then?
I worked in British manufacturing back then and for another 35 odd years after that despite Mrs Thatcher deciding we did not need a manufacturing industry and pretty much achieving that aim .
Lol at Newsnight again saying there "might be a snap general election next year".
READ. THE. FIXED. TERM. PARLIAMENTS. ACT.
It doesn't say there can't be one....
I completely disagree with Mike and Danny.
I think the political case could be made very clearly and Labour support for an election could be tested in such a way as it's a win/win for Theresa: hold the election or increase have the electorate punish Corbyn in the polls.
Regardless of whether a political case could theoretically be made, it's still impossible to get an early election in practice. It could only happen if Labour MPs voted for it, and why exactly would they, when they'd be potentially voting themselves into unemployment?
OK... so Labour will vote that they have confidence in the government they purport to hate in order to keep the Tories in power... and avoid having to place any confidence/respect in the hands of the electorate.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
My guess is that if we don't agree to do the exit the EU way, they will stall. That's what they usually do, recently with Greece on debt rescheduling and with Switzerland on immigration. Sort of Wellington to Napoleon, ironically. We'll say, can we talk about whether we can fly our planes, raise finance and trade in two years, one year and then six months time? And they will say, sure, once we have got the exit stuff out the way.
It's better not to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes, it would be best to avoid.
I can't imagine that the Irish in particular fancy the EU offering them up as a human sacrifice in the name of the EU stalling strategy.
Probably not. They'll get special treatment for the island of Ireland. That's on Barnier's requirements list. They may have some influence over the general negotiations, but I doubt they will drive them. OTOH they will get a Brexit dividend in the form of services companies moving operations and investment away from the UK towards them.
Irelands agricultural sector on the other hand could implode
So could Britain's. If I were a farmer, I would be pretty scared right now. Rightly or wrongly, the EU is the only thing keeping a flood of cheap food imports at bay. Also they run a very high risk of losing their main market.
And so the 99.9% who aren't farmers but buy food benefit. Yay! Bring on the cheap Aussie meat, the cheap S African fruit, the excellent Chilean vino etc etc.
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
You think we can import everything and produce nothing . How will it be paid for ? , will the exporters want our ever more devalued pounds ?
In 1972 it was British trade barriers protecting British manufacturing that were threatened by our entry.
Would you have come out fighting for British industry then?
I worked in British manufacturing back then and for another 35 odd years after that despite Mrs Thatcher deciding we did not need a manufacturing industry and pretty much achieving that aim .
So was the EEC wrong to demolish British trade barriers then or are you wrong to oppose their abolition now?
Lol at Newsnight again saying there "might be a snap general election next year".
READ. THE. FIXED. TERM. PARLIAMENTS. ACT.
It doesn't say there can't be one....
I completely disagree with Mike and Danny.
I think the political case could be made very clearly and Labour support for an election could be tested in such a way as it's a win/win for Theresa: hold the election or increase have the electorate punish Corbyn in the polls.
Regardless of whether a political case could theoretically be made, it's still impossible to get an early election in practice. It could only happen if Labour MPs voted for it, and why exactly would they, when they'd be potentially voting themselves into unemployment?
OK... so Labour will vote that they have confidence in the government they purport to hate in order to keep the Tories in power... and avoid having to place any confidence/respect in the hands of the electorate.
Yes, of course they will.
I genuinely don't get the logic of some PBers when they insist Labour would have to vote for an early election just to "avoid embarrassment". Do people really think Labour MPs would rather lose their jobs with an early election, rather than just get called chicken for dodging an election?!!? It makes no sense.
Nandy slapped down by Davidson on QT. When your leaders fellate the IRA, I don't think you accuse you opponents of siding w terrorists
Nandy permanently looks like she's going to blub
It's boring how every time a Labour politican appears some people think all they have to do is yell 'IRA' then rub themselves vigorously.
But it's precisely what Corbyn and McDonnell enable. Labour has no credibility on security with them in charge.
I don't really give a monkeys as I'm not a Labour supporter but I'm afraid the whole Irish question has no relevance whatsoever to the very real problem of Islamic Terrorism. Different era, different issues, different solutions needed.
Lol at Newsnight again saying there "might be a snap general election next year".
READ. THE. FIXED. TERM. PARLIAMENTS. ACT.
It doesn't say there can't be one....
I completely disagree with Mike and Danny.
I think the political case could be made very clearly and Labour support for an election could be tested in such a way as it's a win/win for Theresa: hold the election or increase have the electorate punish Corbyn in the polls.
Regardless of whether a political case could theoretically be made, it's still impossible to get an early election in practice. It could only happen if Labour MPs voted for it, and why exactly would they, when they'd be potentially voting themselves into unemployment?
OK... so Labour will vote that they have confidence in the government they purport to hate in order to keep the Tories in power... and avoid having to place any confidence/respect in the hands of the electorate.
Labour could get to 19%-20% I think...
No Labour would vote no confidence in a Conservative government and Prime Minister Corbyn would have probably only a few weeks in power but go into the GE as PM
If he is, I just want to thank him for his recommendation. He's right. Oscietra caviar is the best.
I just had a nice jar over an evening. Turns out it goes really well with a 21 year old. The 21 year old is best served undressed.
You expressed an opinion on the pulchritude of Ms Kuensberg last night (I agree). I assume you think the new MD of John Lewis represents an enhancement on the last?
Nandy slapped down by Davidson on QT. When your leaders fellate the IRA, I don't think you accuse you opponents of siding w terrorists
Nandy permanently looks like she's going to blub
It's boring how every time a Labour politican appears some people think all they have to do is yell 'IRA' then rub themselves vigorously.
But it's precisely what Corbyn and McDonnell enable. Labour has no credibility on security with them in charge.
I don't really give a monkeys as I'm not a Labour supporter but I'm afraid the whole Irish question has no relevance whatsoever to the very real problem of Islamic Terrorism. Different era, different issues, different solutions needed.
Let's just fucking get over it.
There's always Hamas if Jeremy's support for the IRA bores you.
Interesting that all the panelists on tonight's Question Time have very different accents from each other. Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, RP, American — and whatever McCluskey's is.
No Labour would vote no confidence in a Conservative government and Prime Minister Corbyn would have probably only a few weeks in power but go into the GE as PM
Why would Corbyn become PM? He almost certainly wouldn't be invited by Her Maj to form a government, and if he were he would surely (being an honourable man) advise her that he was not in a position to do so. You only become PM if there is at least a reasonable chance of commanding a majority.
The key to it is something called the reste à liquider . This is sum of some €250bn or so which represents stuff which the EU has sort-of promised to pay out in structural funds and other programmes, but hasn't actually got any budget to cover or which hasn't even been applied for. Normally they can't pay these 'liabilities' because the annual budget of real money which they have is capped, by us, the Germans, the French, and other net contributors. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the reste à liquider keeps mounting. They are proposing to crystallise this notional figure and charge us some percentage (probably around 15% of it, but the exact proportion is disputed) as a real bill. This accounts for around half of the €60bn. The logic is that this is money which the EU has committed to, so it's a genuine liability, and we owe our share of it.
[...]
What makes it even more interesting is Article 50(3). "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
If we crash out, the Treaties cease to apply. They can no longer rely on any provision of the Treaties to claim we owe them a centime. The whole legal structure collapses.
Aha, you might say, but what about the Treaty of Vienna? No dice - the Treaty of Vienna says that, if the treaty has a termination clause, it wins. The Lisbon Treaty does have a termination clause - Article 50.
So, could they pursue a claim in the International Court of Justice? Nope. The EU treaties say that EU laws can only be decided in the ECJ. The ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction on us once we're out.
They are 100% stuffed on their budget demands if we crash out.
No wonder they are desperate to pretend that we have to settle all this before discussing substantive issues.
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague. That was based on, according to them, the UK explicitly requesting a delay in payment in exchange for agreeing the budget. I don't know. I suspect it's legally open to question. Sir Tim Barrow, the new EU ambassador referred to legal opinions that his EU counterparties had sought, that said the UK was on the hook. He didn't dismiss those opinions.
In a way it doesn't matter because it's a cost of exit and it's all part of the negotiations. I detect a small degree of flexibility in the EU position. Maybe the amount could be negotiated down a bit (but would still be of the tens of billions of euros) or it could be offset against other payments for the transition.
No Labour would vote no confidence in a Conservative government and Prime Minister Corbyn would have probably only a few weeks in power but go into the GE as PM
Why would Corbyn become PM? He almost certainly wouldn't be invited by Her Maj to form a government, and if he were he would surely (being an honourable man) advise her that he was not in a position to do so. You only become PM if there is a reasonable chance of commanding a majority.
The consensus earlier in the thread was that Her Maj would certainly call in Corbyn and ask if he could form a government . If I were him I would say yes and have a go , going into a GE as PM even if only for a few weeks has advantages .
No Labour would vote no confidence in a Conservative government and Prime Minister Corbyn would have probably only a few weeks in power but go into the GE as PM
Why would Corbyn become PM? He almost certainly wouldn't be invited by Her Maj to form a government, and if he were he would surely (being an honourable man) advise her that he was not in a position to do so. You only become PM if there is a reasonable chance of commanding a majority.
The consensus earlier in the thread was that Her Maj would certainly call in Corbyn and ask if he could form a government . If I were him I would say yes and have a go , going into a GE as PM even if only for a few weeks has advantages .
I worked in British manufacturing back then and for another 35 odd years after that despite Mrs Thatcher deciding we did not need a manufacturing industry and pretty much achieving that aim .
I am afraid Fullfact (with the usual caveats of course) would suggest you are talking utter garbage.
Nandy slapped down by Davidson on QT. When your leaders fellate the IRA, I don't think you accuse you opponents of siding w terrorists
Nandy permanently looks like she's going to blub
It's boring how every time a Labour politican appears some people think all they have to do is yell 'IRA' then rub themselves vigorously.
But it's precisely what Corbyn and McDonnell enable. Labour has no credibility on security with them in charge.
I don't really give a monkeys as I'm not a Labour supporter but I'm afraid the whole Irish question has no relevance whatsoever to the very real problem of Islamic Terrorism. Different era, different issues, different solutions needed.
Let's just fucking get over it.
There's always Hamas if Jeremy's support for the IRA bores you.
Jesus, it's not like British Governments of all persuasions haven't pursued dubious agendas such as support for Pinochet, the Suez landings, lashing up Dodgy Dossiers to pursue dodgy wars, murdering Aborigines in Tasmania, backing Apartheid South Africa etc, etc, etc.
But somehow Corbyn & co are the only people who this shit gets flung at, continually. Now don't get me wrong. I want an opposition that functions as much as you do, but focus on his inept leadership. It'll get you further.
The key to it is something called the reste à liquider . This is sum of some €250bn or so which represents stuff which the EU has sort-of promised to pay out in structural funds and other programmes, but hasn't actually got any budget to cover or which hasn't even been applied for. Normally they can't pay these 'liabilities' because the annual budget of real money which they have is capped, by us, the Germans, the French, and other net contributors. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the reste à liquider keeps mounting. They are proposing to crystallise this notional figure and charge us some percentage (probably around 15% of it, but the exact proportion is disputed) as a real bill. This accounts for around half of the €60bn. The logic is that this is money which the EU has committed to, so it's a genuine liability, and we owe our share of it.
[...]
What makes it even more interesting is Article 50(3). "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
If we crash out, the Treaties cease to apply. They can no longer rely on any provision of the Treaties to claim we owe them a centime. The whole legal structure collapses.
Aha, you might say, but what about the Treaty of Vienna? No dice - the Treaty of Vienna says that, if the treaty has a termination clause, it wins. The Lisbon Treaty does have a termination clause - Article 50.
So, could they pursue a claim in the International Court of Justice? Nope. The EU treaties say that EU laws can only be decided in the ECJ. The ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction on us once we're out.
They are 100% stuffed on their budget demands if we crash out.
No wonder they are desperate to pretend that we have to settle all this before discussing substantive issues.
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague..
Officials are always sure of such things, until they are wrong. But if things get to that point both sides will have f*cked up. At present we seem more willing to bend than them, but the satisfaction of not bending at all would not be worth it for them, so I'm sure we'll pay more than we'd like but not as much as they are threatening us with.
No Labour would vote no confidence in a Conservative government and Prime Minister Corbyn would have probably only a few weeks in power but go into the GE as PM
Why would Corbyn become PM? He almost certainly wouldn't be invited by Her Maj to form a government, and if he were he would surely (being an honourable man) advise her that he was not in a position to do so. You only become PM if there is at least a reasonable chance of commanding a majority.
Ha, ha - I know you are trolling, but if anyone believes Corbyn is an honourable man I have some magic beans I can let them have for a small consideration.
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague. That was based on, according to them, the UK explicitly requesting a delay in payment in exchange for agreeing the budget. I don't know. I suspect it's legally open to question. Sir Tim Barrow, the new EU ambassador referred to legal opinions that his EU counterparties had sought, that said the UK was on the hook. He didn't dismiss those opinions.
In a way it doesn't matter because it's a cost of exit and it's all part of the negotiations. I detect a small degree of flexibility in the EU position. Maybe the amount could be negotiated down a bit (but would still be of the tens of billions of euros) or it could be offset against other payments for the transition.
They can't possibly be sure of their legal grounds, although I accept that they could find arguments to support it.
However, I think my example of a net recipient leaving is pretty conclusive.
Furthermore, there are other precedents. When Austria (a net contributor to the budget) joined, the EU didn't give them a reduced bill because of the pre-existing commitments which existing members had signed up to. That rather destroys their case.
Even if we suppose that they might have a good case in the Hague, in practice it would be at best highly uncertain, and we could stall it for years. Meanwhile they've got a stonking hole in their budget, no mechanism for cooperating on security and crime, and their trade with an important export market is damaged.
In other words, crashing out is disastrous for us - but also for them.
What worries me is that they don't seem to have quite grasped this.
The key to it is something called the reste à liquider . This is sum of some €250bn or so which represents stuff which the EU has sort-of promised to pay out in structural funds and other programmes, but hasn't actually got any budget to cover or which hasn't even been applied for. Normally they can't pay these 'liabilities' because the annual budget of real money which they have is capped, by us, the Germans, the French, and other net contributors. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the reste à liquider keeps mounting. They are proposing to crystallise this notional figure and charge us some percentage (probably around 15% of it, but the exact proportion is disputed) as a real bill. This accounts for around half of the €60bn. The logic is that this is money which the EU has committed to, so it's a genuine liability, and we owe our share of it.
[...]
What makes it even more interesting is Article 50(3). "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
If we crash out, the Treaties cease to apply. They can no longer rely on any provision of the Treaties to claim we owe them a centime. The whole legal structure collapses.
Aha, you might say, but what about the Treaty of Vienna? No dice - the Treaty of Vienna says that, if the treaty has a termination clause, it wins. The Lisbon Treaty does have a termination clause - Article 50.
So, could they pursue a claim in the International Court of Justice? Nope. The EU treaties say that EU laws can only be decided in the ECJ. The ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction on us once we're out.
They are 100% stuffed on their budget demands if we crash out.
No wonder they are desperate to pretend that we have to settle all this before discussing substantive issues.
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague..
Officials are always sure of such things, until they are wrong. But if things get to that point both sides will have f*cked up. At present we seem more willing to bend than them, but the satisfaction of not bending at all would not be worth it for them, so I'm sure we'll pay more than we'd like but not as much as they are threatening us with.
I don't disagree. It's in our very firm interest to get this payment issue out the way. Brexit will in any case be a very expensive exercise for Britain in the form of on-going patronage. We might as well get used to it.
There's a large photo of her in the Union Bar ... with a load of other people who seem to be from the wonderful world of light entertainment. Having heard Chris Patten (Chancellor of the University) on the radio about the damage Brexit was going to do to his institution, I am not surprised if someone there wants to punish her for it! More prosaically, however, I think the list of sitters was drawn up over a year ago (these things take a long time in academia), back in the days when the idea of her being PM was quite ridiculous.
No Labour would vote no confidence in a Conservative government and Prime Minister Corbyn would have probably only a few weeks in power but go into the GE as PM
Why would Corbyn become PM? He almost certainly wouldn't be invited by Her Maj to form a government, and if he were he would surely (being an honourable man) advise her that he was not in a position to do so. You only become PM if there is at least a reasonable chance of commanding a majority.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
The consensus earlier in the thread was that Her Maj would certainly call in Corbyn and ask if he could form a government . If I were him I would say yes and have a go , going into a GE as PM even if only for a few weeks has advantages .
No doubt soundings would be taken, and he would be asked (probably indirectly) if he could form a government which would command a majority. Since the Conservatives have a majority, he'd be honour-bound to admit that he didn't have a snowflake's chance in hell. So I don't think he would become PM - Theresa May would remain PM for the 14 days specified in the Act, and then an election would be called in which she'd still be PM.
There's a large photo of her in the Union Bar ... with a load of other people who seem to be from the wonderful world of light entertainment. Having heard Chris Patten (Chancellor of the University) on the radio about the damage Brexit was going to do to his institution, I am not surprised if someone there wants to punish her for it! More prosaically, however, I think the list of sitters was drawn up over a year ago (these things take a long time in academia), back in the days when the idea of her being PM was quite ridiculous.
Apparently nominations closed July 8th, 3 days before becoming Tory leader, and 5 before becoming PM. So similar to Obama and the Nobel Prize!
No Labour would vote no confidence in a Conservative government and Prime Minister Corbyn would have probably only a few weeks in power but go into the GE as PM
Why would Corbyn become PM? He almost certainly wouldn't be invited by Her Maj to form a government, and if he were he would surely (being an honourable man) advise her that he was not in a position to do so. You only become PM if there is at least a reasonable chance of commanding a majority.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
I strongly doubt HM would appoint a peer as the PM.
It is possible the Tories will not do quite as well as expected in some areas of Kent such as Maidstone despite May and Brexit being apparently popular. The reason for that is anger at the huge spurt of new planning (and its adverse knock-on effects) as pushed through by Greg Clark while communities secretary overriding local opposition. Lib Dems may be the beneficiaries of this. I'd be a little cautious about the extent Leave/Remain votes in last year's ref are a pointer to local results. Local factors may be more in play than usual (not just planning which isn't a county council responsibility) but council tax, potholes/crap roads, elderly services etc.
And education, don't forget education. OK, more and more education services are being hived off to Academies, multi-Academy Trusts an the like, but the Local Education authorities (usually county councils) still have the statutory responsibility for providing an appropriate number of school places. The cutbacks in funding (disguised via a change in calculating the funding formula) is going to have some very odd effects in some places. The Unions and other educational shroud wavers will be out in force, but that's only because there really is a problem looming....
Yes indeed - I meant to include of course. There's a school in this area who only today has received publicity because it is apparently asking parents to supply toilet rolls, post-it notes and stationery etc because of their funding problems.
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague. That was based on, according to them, the UK explicitly requesting a delay in payment in exchange for agreeing the budget. I don't know. I suspect it's legally open to question. Sir Tim Barrow, the new EU ambassador referred to legal opinions that his EU counterparties had sought, that said the UK was on the hook. He didn't dismiss those opinions.
In a way it doesn't matter because it's a cost of exit and it's all part of the negotiations. I detect a small degree of flexibility in the EU position. Maybe the amount could be negotiated down a bit (but would still be of the tens of billions of euros) or it could be offset against other payments for the transition.
They can't possibly be sure of their legal grounds, although I accept that they could find arguments to support it.
However, I think my example of a net recipient leaving is pretty conclusive.
Furthermore, there are other precedents. When Austria (a net contributor to the budget) joined, the EU didn't give them a reduced bill because of the pre-existing commitments which existing members had signed up to. That rather destroys their case.
Even if we suppose that they might have a good case in the Hague, in practice it would be at best highly uncertain, and we could stall it for years. Meanwhile they've got a stonking hole in their budget, no mechanism for cooperating on security and crime, and their trade with an important export market is damaged.
In other words, crashing out is disastrous for us - but also for them.
What worries me is that they don't seem to have quite grasped this.
It's a negotiation. We're at the start. Positions will change.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Why would there be meltdown? Mrs May would remain PM, and everyone would know that an election was about to happen in which she'd be expected to get a good majority.
The consensus earlier in the thread was that Her Maj would certainly call in Corbyn and ask if he could form a government . If I were him I would say yes and have a go , going into a GE as PM even if only for a few weeks has advantages .
No doubt soundings would be taken, and he would be asked (probably indirectly) if he could form a government which would command a majority. Since the Conservatives have a majority, he'd be honour-bound to admit that he didn't have a snowflake's chance in hell. So I don't think he would become PM - Theresa May would remain PM for the 14 days specified in the Act, and then an election would be called in which she'd still be PM.
The consensus earlier in the thread was that Her Maj would certainly call in Corbyn and ask if he could form a government . If I were him I would say yes and have a go , going into a GE as PM even if only for a few weeks has advantages .
No doubt soundings would be taken, and he would be asked (probably indirectly) if he could form a government which would command a majority. Since the Conservatives have a majority, he'd be honour-bound to admit that he didn't have a snowflake's chance in hell. So I don't think he would become PM - Theresa May would remain PM for the 14 days specified in the Act, and then an election would be called in which she'd still be PM.
Corbyn did not resign despite 80% of Labour MPs expressing no confidence in him. Honour-bound is not a concept he understands, let alone acknowledges.
It's a negotiation. We're at the start. Positions will change.
True, but I think they are hugely over-playing their hand. I expect that they think €60bn is a good opening gambit and that they expect to settle for maybe half that. If so, it's a big miscalculation. Miscalculations like that can lead to very serious damage.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Why would there be meltdown? Mrs May would remain PM, and everyone would know that an election was about to happen in which she'd be expected to get a good majority.
Are you really forgetting the 5 days after the 2010 election, when there wasn't a functioning government, when the markets, media and civil servants were acting like the whole world was caving in?
Do you really think it won't be even worse for a period of time which lasts doubly as long as that?
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague. That was based on, according to them, the UK explicitly requesting a delay in payment in exchange for agreeing the budget. I don't know. I suspect it's legally open to question. Sir Tim Barrow, the new EU ambassador referred to legal opinions that his EU counterparties had sought, that said the UK was on the hook. He didn't dismiss those opinions.
In a way it doesn't matter because it's a cost of exit and it's all part of the negotiations. I detect a small degree of flexibility in the EU position. Maybe the amount could be negotiated down a bit (but would still be of the tens of billions of euros) or it could be offset against other payments for the transition.
They can't possibly be sure of their legal grounds, although I accept that they could find arguments to support it.
However, I think my example of a net recipient leaving is pretty conclusive.
Furthermore, there are other precedents. When Austria (a net contributor to the budget) joined, the EU didn't give them a reduced bill because of the pre-existing commitments which existing members had signed up to. That rather destroys their case.
Even if we suppose that they might have a good case in the Hague, in practice it would be at best highly uncertain, and we could stall it for years. Meanwhile they've got a stonking hole in their budget, no mechanism for cooperating on security and crime, and their trade with an important export market is damaged.
In other words, crashing out is disastrous for us - but also for them.
What worries me is that they don't seem to have quite grasped this.
I disagree with you that a net-recipient country would be owed future payments if they left the EU, as they would also leave the programme that pays out. It might affect countries with liabilities (such as Britain) if Poland were to leave at the same time as it could reduce those liabilities. The other legal stuff I have absolutely no idea about.
Ultimately they will want to settle, for the reasons you give. However, the EU can tolerate a longer stall than we can. If we want a successful Brexit, or at least a damage-limited one, we should aim to settle early.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Why would there be meltdown? Mrs May would remain PM, and everyone would know that an election was about to happen in which she'd be expected to get a good majority.
Are you really forgetting the 5 days after the 2010 election, when there wasn't a functioning government, when the markets, media and civil servants were acting like the whole world was caving in?
Do you really think it won't be even worse for a period of time which lasts doubly as long as that?
May would surely make her intentions clear, rather than randomly calling a no confidence vote in her own government.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Why would there be meltdown? Mrs May would remain PM, and everyone would know that an election was about to happen in which she'd be expected to get a good majority.
Are you really forgetting the 5 days after the 2010 election, when there wasn't a functioning government, when the markets, media and civil servants were acting like the whole world was caving in?
Do you really think it won't be even worse for a period of time which lasts doubly as long as that?
May would surely make her intentions clear, rather than randomly calling a no confidence vote in her own government.
But the effect will still be the same. There will be no functioning government for the 2-week period of limbo between the vote of no confidence and an election being formally triggered (which, again, was one of the main "safeguards" in the FTPA: to try and avoid an election unless absolutely possible by giving so much time).
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Why would there be meltdown? Mrs May would remain PM, and everyone would know that an election was about to happen in which she'd be expected to get a good majority.
Are you really forgetting the 5 days after the 2010 election, when there wasn't a functioning government, when the markets, media and civil servants were acting like the whole world was caving in?
Do you really think it won't be even worse for a period of time which lasts doubly as long as that?
May would surely make her intentions clear, rather than randomly calling a no confidence vote in her own government.
But the effect will still be the same. There will be no functioning government for the 2-week period of limbo between the vote of no confidence and an election being formally triggered (which, again, was one of the main "safeguards" in the FTPA: to try and avoid an election unless absolutely possible by giving so much time).
Oh no, no government for two weeks! The whole deal with the uncertainty after 2010 was no one knew what the government after was going to be. It wasn't because there was no government at the time.
It's important to remember that we hand over €30bn a year to the EU and in Aid anyway, so it's not quite the financial problem it may seem. Classify EU cohesion money etc as Aid?
The reste a liquider arrangements do indeed look both daft and contentious. Commitments on the never never. If the EU is the entity that is liable, then we may well just say sort it out yourselves. Cut your cloth or dip into your wallets.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Why would there be meltdown? Mrs May would remain PM, and everyone would know that an election was about to happen in which she'd be expected to get a good majority.
Are you really forgetting the 5 days after the 2010 election, when there wasn't a functioning government, when the markets, media and civil servants were acting like the whole world was caving in?
Do you really think it won't be even worse for a period of time which lasts doubly as long as that?
May would surely make her intentions clear, rather than randomly calling a no confidence vote in her own government.
But the effect will still be the same. There will be no functioning government for the 2-week period of limbo between the vote of no confidence and an election being formally triggered (which, again, was one of the main "safeguards" in the FTPA: to try and avoid an election unless absolutely possible by giving so much time).
Oh no, no government for two weeks! The whole deal with the uncertainty after 2010 was no one knew what the government after was going to be. It wasn't because there was no government at the time.
Maybe one day the lure of a big majority will be too much to resist and the opposition so poor that they would not be punished for it, but I for one would not vote for a party that voted against itself in partisan posturing in order to get around the intention of the law, in fact I would probably actively vote against them.
You're overlooking that, in the event of a no confidence vote, there'd be a total meltdown in the markets over the "uncertainty", the media would be banging on day after day about there being no functioning government, and the civil servants would be pulling all sorts of strings, quite possibly to install someone like Gus O'Donnell like David Herdson suggests.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Why would there be meltdown? Mrs May would remain PM, and everyone would know that an election was about to happen in which she'd be expected to get a good majority.
Are you really forgetting the 5 days after the 2010 election, when there wasn't a functioning government, when the markets, media and civil servants were acting like the whole world was caving in?
Do you really think it won't be even worse for a period of time which lasts doubly as long as that?
May would surely make her intentions clear, rather than randomly calling a no confidence vote in her own government.
But the effect will still be the same. There will be no functioning government for the 2-week period of limbo between the vote of no confidence and an election being formally triggered (which, again, was one of the main "safeguards" in the FTPA: to try and avoid an election unless absolutely possible by giving so much time).
Oh no, no government for two weeks! The whole deal with the uncertainty after 2010 was no one knew what the government after was going to be. It wasn't because there was no government at the time.
Maybe one day the lure of a big majority will be too much to resist and the opposition so poor that they would not be punished for it, but I for one would not vote for a party that voted against itself in partisan posturing in order to get around the intention of the law, in fact I would probably actively vote against them.
It's moot because there won't be one unless something gets blocked in parliament.
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague. That was based on, according to them, the UK explicitly requesting a delay in payment in exchange for agreeing the budget. I don't know. I suspect it's legally open to question. Sir Tim Barrow, the new EU ambassador referred to legal opinions that his EU counterparties had sought, that said the UK was on the hook. He didn't dismiss those opinions.
In a way it doesn't matter because it's a cost of exit and it's all part of the negotiations. I detect a small degree of flexibility in the EU position. Maybe the amount could be negotiated down a bit (but would still be of the tens of billions of euros) or it could be offset against other payments for the transition.
They can't possibly be sure of their legal grounds, although I accept that they could find arguments to support it.
However, I think my example of a net recipient leaving is pretty conclusive.
Furthermore, there are other precedents. When Austria (a net contributor to the budget) joined, the EU didn't give them a reduced bill because of the pre-existing commitments which existing members had signed up to. That rather destroys their case.
Even if we suppose that they might have a good case in the Hague, in practice it would be at best highly uncertain, and we could stall it for years. Meanwhile they've got a stonking hole in their budget, no mechanism for cooperating on security and crime, and their trade with an important export market is damaged.
In other words, crashing out is disastrous for us - but also for them.
What worries me is that they don't seem to have quite grasped this.
I disagree with you that a net-recipient country would be owed future payments if they left the EU, as they would also leave the programme that pays out. It might affect countries with liabilities (such as Britain) if Poland were to leave at the same time as it could reduce those liabilities. The other legal stuff I have absolutely no idea about.
Ultimately they will want to settle, for the reasons you give. However, the EU can tolerate a longer stall than we can. If we want a successful Brexit, or at least a damage-limited one, we should aim to settle early.
Some parts of the EU could hang on until the twelfth of never. Some are as keen as us.
They aren't really a single entity.
Their negotiation with each other is likely to be as fraught as anything involving us.
There was a piece in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant where EU officials claimed to be sure of their legal grounds and ability to pursue the case at the Hague. That was based on, according to them, the UK explicitly requesting a delay in payment in exchange for agreeing the budget. I don't know. I suspect it's legally open to question. Sir Tim Barrow, the new EU ambassador referred to legal opinions that his EU counterparties had sought, that said the UK was on the hook. He didn't dismiss those opinions.
In a way it doesn't matter because it's a cost of exit and it's all part of the negotiations. I detect a small degree of flexibility in the EU position. Maybe the amount could be negotiated down a bit (but would still be of the tens of billions of euros) or it could be offset against other payments for the transition.
They can't possibly be sure of their legal grounds, although I accept that they could find arguments to support it.
However, I think my example of a net recipient leaving is pretty conclusive.
Furthermore, there are other precedents. When Austria (a net contributor to the budget) joined, the EU didn't give them a reduced bill because of the pre-existing commitments which existing members had signed up to. That rather destroys their case.
Even if we suppose that they might have a good case in the Hague, in practice it would be at best highly uncertain, and we could stall it for years. Meanwhile they've got a stonking hole in their budget, no mechanism for cooperating on security and crime, and their trade with an important export market is damaged.
In other words, crashing out is disastrous for us - but also for them.
What worries me is that they don't seem to have quite grasped this.
I disagree with you that a net-recipient country would be owed future payments if they left the EU, as they would also leave the programme that pays out. It might affect countries with liabilities (such as Britain) if Poland were to leave at the same time as it could reduce those liabilities. The other legal stuff I have absolutely no idea about.
Ultimately they will want to settle, for the reasons you give. However, the EU can tolerate a longer stall than we can. If we want a successful Brexit, or at least a damage-limited one, we should aim to settle early.
Some parts of the EU could hang on until the twelfth of never. Some are as keen as us.
They aren't really a single entity.
Their negotiation with each other is likely to be as fraught as anything involving us.
Lol at Newsnight again saying there "might be a snap general election next year".
READ. THE. FIXED. TERM. PARLIAMENTS. ACT.
It doesn't say there can't be one....
I completely disagree with Mike and Danny.
I think the political case could be made very clearly and Labour support for an election could be tested in such a way as it's a win/win for Theresa: hold the election or increase have the electorate punish Corbyn in the polls.
The legal challenges of bringing about an election inside or outside the FTPA are much less significant.
Some parts of the EU could hang on until the twelfth of never. Some are as keen as us.
They aren't really a single entity.
Their negotiation with each other is likely to be as fraught as anything involving us.
As Michel Barnier neatly pointed out, a divided EU is a problem for us, as we want a deal. (That was in the context of Britain's supposed Divide and Rule policy). So far they have been pretty coherent. More than we have, actually.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Engines
I loved it but in retrospect it has more than a hint of the nativist/Brexit endgame about it
The Cambs and Lincolnshire changes are rather more complex losing 8 and 7 councillors respectively
READ. THE. FIXED. TERM. PARLIAMENTS. ACT.
40% of UK families risk food poverty
whats more important ?
scottish farmers on Indyref are doubly fucked
Of course it won't be that simple and we'll have to support farmers with similar support for a while but but but, cheaper food from being free of the French racket called the CAP. Great.
No deal, no privilege.
That could translate into inferior terms for EU producers compared to new dealers (Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc) too in due course.
Nandy permanently looks like she's going to blub
I think the political case could be made very clearly and Labour support for an election could be tested in such a way as it's a win/win for Theresa: hold the election or increase have the electorate punish Corbyn in the polls.
The legal challenges of bringing about an election inside or outside the FTPA are much less significant.
Would you have come out fighting for British industry then?
That 30% import figure will almost certainly rise as we do trade deals with the US and other countries. We have to offer them something they don't already have and the EU being relatively protectionist on agricultural products is the obvious trade-off that we can make. OTOH, British farmers may be locked out of the European market for exports because of the way tariff quotas work under WTO rules. The EU would probably want to do a deal with us because they export more agricultural products to us than we do to them, but they may not have a choice. If they discriminate in our favour, another country, probably the US, would raise a trade dispute at the WTO. In any case if we fully open our market it becomes less interesting to the EU, so they may not want to do a deal with us.
Edit: Ireland is EU in this context and no different from other countries, except the degree of exposure.
The world in which that's conceivable is the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the EU. The key to it is something called the reste à liquider . This is sum of some €250bn or so which represents stuff which the EU has sort-of promised to pay out in structural funds and other programmes, but hasn't actually got any budget to cover or which hasn't even been applied for. Normally they can't pay these 'liabilities' because the annual budget of real money which they have is capped, by us, the Germans, the French, and other net contributors. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the reste à liquider keeps mounting. They are proposing to crystallise this notional figure and charge us some percentage (probably around 15% of it, but the exact proportion is disputed) as a real bill. This accounts for around half of the €60bn. The logic is that this is money which the EU has committed to, so it's a genuine liability, and we owe our share of it.
Savour that logic. It's a real goody.
Let's imagine that an EU country which is a big recipient of EU money, such as Poland, were to invoke Article 50. Apply the same logic. The theoretical reste à liquider - which in this case relates to future programmes which they've vaguely promised Poland but haven't actually got any budget for, immediately become due, non? So Poland gets a big fat payment to leave the EU. For the second time today, I have to ask: have they really thought this through?
What makes it even more interesting is Article 50(3). "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
If we crash out, the Treaties cease to apply. They can no longer rely on any provision of the Treaties to claim we owe them a centime. The whole legal structure collapses.
Aha, you might say, but what about the Treaty of Vienna? No dice - the Treaty of Vienna says that, if the treaty has a termination clause, it wins. The Lisbon Treaty does have a termination clause - Article 50.
So, could they pursue a claim in the International Court of Justice? Nope. The EU treaties say that EU laws can only be decided in the ECJ. The ECJ no longer has any jurisdiction on us once we're out.
They are 100% stuffed on their budget demands if we crash out.
No wonder they are desperate to pretend that we have to settle all this before discussing substantive issues.
Either way we're paying too much for food and Brexit is an opportunity.
For instance
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/847568354726469633
Labour could get to 19%-20% I think...
I genuinely don't get the logic of some PBers when they insist Labour would have to vote for an early election just to "avoid embarrassment". Do people really think Labour MPs would rather lose their jobs with an early election, rather than just get called chicken for dodging an election?!!? It makes no sense.
Let's just fucking get over it.
This is an excellent concise summary of the (likely) calculation which the EU are making:
http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/pb_barker_brexit_bill_3feb17.pdf
And this is the Lords' Select Committee Report which (I think rightly) concluded that legally we wouldn't owe a bean:
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf
In any case, even if the Lords eventually backed down, it would still take ages.
In a way it doesn't matter because it's a cost of exit and it's all part of the negotiations. I detect a small degree of flexibility in the EU position. Maybe the amount could be negotiated down a bit (but would still be of the tens of billions of euros) or it could be offset against other payments for the transition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/oxford-university-accused-snubbing-theresa-may-row-portraits/
https://fullfact.org/economy/did-labour-decimate-manufacturing/
The largest declines in manufacturing were under Blair and Brown. In GVA terms manufacturing actually increased under Thatcher.
But somehow Corbyn & co are the only people who this shit gets flung at, continually. Now don't get me wrong. I want an opposition that functions as much as you do, but focus on his inept leadership. It'll get you further.
However, I think my example of a net recipient leaving is pretty conclusive.
Furthermore, there are other precedents. When Austria (a net contributor to the budget) joined, the EU didn't give them a reduced bill because of the pre-existing commitments which existing members had signed up to. That rather destroys their case.
Even if we suppose that they might have a good case in the Hague, in practice it would be at best highly uncertain, and we could stall it for years. Meanwhile they've got a stonking hole in their budget, no mechanism for cooperating on security and crime, and their trade with an important export market is damaged.
In other words, crashing out is disastrous for us - but also for them.
What worries me is that they don't seem to have quite grasped this.
My guess is that, even if the Tories did get a vote of no confidence through (not at all certain since it would only take a handful of Tory rebels, from people who would fear the LibDems in their seats), all the resulting chaos would mean May would end up having to go back with her tail between her legs by essentially cancelling the whole thing (by voting that Parliament does have confidence in May's govt after all before the 2-week deadline).
Anyway, I'm off to bed. G'night all.
Do you really think it won't be even worse for a period of time which lasts doubly as long as that?
Ultimately they will want to settle, for the reasons you give. However, the EU can tolerate a longer stall than we can. If we want a successful Brexit, or at least a damage-limited one, we should aim to settle early.
https://twitter.com/wsj/status/847576806307897348
The reste a liquider arrangements do indeed look both daft and contentious. Commitments on the never never. If the EU is the entity that is liable, then we may well just say sort it out yourselves. Cut your cloth or dip into your wallets.
They aren't really a single entity.
Their negotiation with each other is likely to be as fraught as anything involving us.
Nervous Breakdown incoming