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 - only political anoraks would be interested in such machinations. Labour could simply say ' You introduced the FTPA. We simply insist that you abide by it!'
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 - only political anoraks would be interested in such machinations. Labour could simply say ' You introduced the FTPA. We simply insist that you abide by it!'
Joe Public is sick of votes/elections. Corbyn vetoing an election would be of the few popular acts of his leadership!
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.
Why would the EU agree to a worse deal than they are guaranteed under WTO rules?
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.
A divided EU is a mixed blessing. It seems like a recipe for compromise because they won't want to damage members of their own club.
Most of the problems that potentially exist, exist both ways.
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.
Why would the EU agree to a worse deal than they are guaranteed under WTO rules?
How long would Australia etc remain on WTO terms with the UK once we are out and free trading? The EU, especially places like Ireland, will not want to drop to WTO in the knowledge that we have substitute suppliers and partners lined up.
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.
Hmm, that doesn't make any sense. If the EU wants to crystallise future liabilities for a net contributor into structural programmes that it will not be a part of then it would also have to do the same for recipients that decide to leave. Remember we are being asked to pay up for years after we cease being a member, not the years until 2020 which we have agreed to pay into as part of the previous budget negotiation.
In your scenario the EU could put net contributor la on the hook for an unlimited amount of money for an indefinite period of time. I find it hard to believe that any sane judge would rule in favour of such a one way agreement which forces net contributors to stay on the hook for programmes which they are no longer going to be part of but allows for recipients to be kicks out before receiving their full dues.
You may want this to be true as a die hard EUphile, but it looks like Richard is on the mark here. As always you walk the line between wanting to see the EU hurt the UK for voting to leave and pretending that you are just concerned about tla negative outcome. You're fake worry isn't fooling anyone.
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.
Do we hand over EUR30bn in aid? Or are you talking about our gross contributions to the EU budget?
Aid at 0.7% of GDP is likely to be £13bn while the gross EU contribution (excluding rebate) is similar. At today's exchange rate that's €30bn ballpark.
I was also just reminded of the fact that the UK's rebate earns other contributors a rebate. Once we depart that ceases for Germany, Holland etc
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.
Richard, thanks for doing the work on this.
My guess is that this was always put in to be 'given to the UK' as a concession, so that we'll wail less about being asked to pay our full contribution for 2020 even after we've left. However, if there's a transitional period of 3 years, say, even that amount will be reduced effectively, assuming that there will be some quasi-memebership arrangement for the transitional period. And we should, in any case, pay for those EU programmes we decide to continue in, such as Erasmus.
What the EU and Hollande are trying to say is that they want the negotiations to be staged in such a way that all the UK's strong cards will be disallowed during the divorce settlement.
Have you, since Merkel certainly didn't say it had to be agreed.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how skilful Merkel is.
Not really. The fact you are arguing about it shows how gullible you are. Things will resolve.
The status of EU/UK nationals - which should not have been on the table in the first place for which both sides are at fault - will be resolved first and very quickly.
Wishful thinking. The linkage between this question and the status of Northern Ireland and Scotland will be one of the first things to blindside the government.
Genuine question: do you, and will you, feel any loyalty to this country when it Leaves the EU?
To the country and the people, yes absolutely, but I think the UK as a state has run its course. The 'precious' union to me is now the EU and I would hope that the nations of the UK individually chose to take up their rightful place in it.
Doesn't sound like a yes.
If you're applying loyalty tests on A Day+1, that's unhealthy. Loyalty has to be earned not demanded. If Leavers are alienating British citizens, instead of branding those dissidents unfit to breathe the air of the country, they would do well to ask why they themselves are so repellent.
It's a conversation between me and william, thank you.
I've learnt that conversation with you on this subject is entirely non productive. You are the Peter Hitchens of Remain.
No offence.
You would do well to reflect on what I wrote though. If British citizenship is to be reserved only for those who wear Union Jack socks and who are looking forward to the abolition of decimalisation, the country is going to go to the dogs fast.
No offence.
We'd need the Greyhound Stadiums back for that first.
Leavers' epic post-referendum failure is any attempt to develop an idea of Britishness that can include the views of those who disagreed with them.
Leavers have inverted Socrates' aphorism that it's better to suffer evil than to do it.
Aid at 0.7% of GDP is likely to be £13bn while the gross EU contribution (excluding rebate) is similar. At today's exchange rate that's €30bn ballpark.
I was also just reminded of the fact that the UK's rebate earns other contributors a rebate. Once we depart that ceases for Germany, Holland etc
I'm not sure why you're combining the two. Sure, we (foolishly) outsource some of our international development to the EU, but that money is spent outside the EU.
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.
A leading Canadian journalist argued the same point at dinner on tuesday.
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.
A leading Canadian journalist argued the same point at dinner on tuesday.
Lower tariffs on food from outside the EU (and wine from the US and Australia in particular) is one of the big wins from Brexit. (Albeit one that the fall in the price of Sterling has probably made moot for now.)
these findings raise severe doubts about the wisdom of the Scottish government’s decision to turn a disagreement about what Brexit should mean into the crux of an argument as to why Scotland should have a second opportunity to back leaving the UK
Comments
Most of the problems that potentially exist, exist both ways.
'Sayyz' rather than 'sez'
In your scenario the EU could put net contributor la on the hook for an unlimited amount of money for an indefinite period of time. I find it hard to believe that any sane judge would rule in favour of such a one way agreement which forces net contributors to stay on the hook for programmes which they are no longer going to be part of but allows for recipients to be kicks out before receiving their full dues.
You may want this to be true as a die hard EUphile, but it looks like Richard is on the mark here. As always you walk the line between wanting to see the EU hurt the UK for voting to leave and pretending that you are just concerned about tla negative outcome. You're fake worry isn't fooling anyone.
Night all.
Or is this separate DFiD money?
Aid at 0.7% of GDP is likely to be £13bn while the gross EU contribution (excluding rebate) is similar. At today's exchange rate that's €30bn ballpark.
I was also just reminded of the fact that the UK's rebate earns other contributors a rebate. Once we depart that ceases for Germany, Holland etc
Owlselocution lessons for all...Or perhaps they will be known as Owlocution lessons by many...
My guess is that this was always put in to be 'given to the UK' as a concession, so that we'll wail less about being asked to pay our full contribution for 2020 even after we've left. However, if there's a transitional period of 3 years, say, even that amount will be reduced effectively, assuming that there will be some quasi-memebership arrangement for the transitional period. And we should, in any case, pay for those EU programmes we decide to continue in, such as Erasmus.
What the EU and Hollande are trying to say is that they want the negotiations to be staged in such a way that all the UK's strong cards will be disallowed during the divorce settlement.
More here:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/michael-flynn-immunity-testify-russia-trump-investigators-236734
This is quite a good summary of where UK aid goes: http://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/how-is-the-12bn-foreign-aid-budget-spent
these findings raise severe doubts about the wisdom of the Scottish government’s decision to turn a disagreement about what Brexit should mean into the crux of an argument as to why Scotland should have a second opportunity to back leaving the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/scots-back-sturgeon-brexit-polls