Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.
I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.
Why? (Genuinely interested)
Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.
were negotiating with a committee
it will make us look organised and professional by comparison
wishful thinking Alan, UK lot could not run a bath
were negotiating with Jean Claude Drunker, Michel Barmier, and 27 back seat drivers
I think we'll probably be the morte rational party
Another classic tactic of putin defenders of course is to paint all sins as equal. To my mind, the business of government even in democratic liberal states will involve some grubby decisions, and outright shameful actions will occur, but that does not mean some are not more egregious offenders than others.
Exactly right, Russia is unfortunately run by what is in effect the largest organised crime syndicate in the world. Have other countries done bad things? For sure, but no other "Western Christian" Democracy has a government like Russia, even Mafia involvement in Italian politics was never as bad.
The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.
As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.
But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.
If all they want is a commitment that we will meet our legal obligations and make payments that we are already committed to without trying to specify what each and every one of these legal commitments is or look to quantify them at this stage we can simply give that assurance and move on. It sounds hopeful.
Surely they'd insist on us committing to a broad figure of some kind otherwise they'd still have uncertainty over future budget implications, which seems a key sticking point?
"As tenants in common, could we specify that our children inherit our property?"
"fallenonion" took some time out from his day to advise;
"If one of your daughters is the lady second from left in cool pilots jacket, knitted headwear l tartan scarf and funky colored jeans, I'd make sure her marriage is secure first before leaving her any money. Because if that's her husband on the left, sorry but he's punching above his weight and I'd expect her to be on the lookout for something better pretty soon. Look at how his jeans sag, and the shapeless cut of his...is that an anorak? Trust me, she is a hottie and he is...notty...wait until she settles down until splashing the cash, or he'll end up benefitting."
Government response to petition against a second Indyref:
"The UK Government is clear that now is not the time for a second independence referendum.
The UK needs to work together, putting all our energies into ensuring we get the right deal for the UK and for Scotland in our negotiations with the EU.
In 2014, the Scottish people decided in a legal, fair and decisive referendum to remain a strong part of the UK. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 committed both the UK and Scottish Governments to respecting the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Calling for a second referendum is creating damaging uncertainty for the economy, and most people in Scotland do not want the country to be plunged into another divisive campaign. All our focus should be on our negotiations with the EU and working together to get the right deal for Scotland and the right deal for the UK. It would be unfair to the people of Scotland to ask them to make a crucial decision without knowing what our future partnership with the EU will be or what the alternative for an independent Scotland would look like.
As the Prime Minister has set out, we will strengthen the Union of the four nations that comprise our United Kingdom. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK. When it comes to the powers that we will take back from Europe, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be passed on to the Devolved Administrations.
This will be an opportunity to determine the level best placed to take decisions on these issues, ensuring power sits closer to the people of the UK than ever before. It is the expectation of the Government that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see a significant increase in their decision-making power as a result of this process."
In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.
Utterly OT, but I'm wondering how much information others use/collect when making their assessments. I'm a firm believer it's possible to have too much info (a lot is just statistical noise) which is why I don't always bother with practice sessions in F1 (and F1 is a different kettle of monkeys to politics).
It's the first time I've remembered, but I'm going to start putting together race-by-race points tallies for teams and drivers. It might not any use, but, if nothing else, it could be interesting for the future (looking at a season-long development race, for example).
Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.
I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.
Why? (Genuinely interested)
Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.
This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.
It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.
That's nonsense even in its own terms. The Germans really wanted Greece to drop out the Euro, for example. Probably rightly in that particular case.
the German treatment of Greece is a blot on the country's reputation
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.
I'm essentially pooling both budgets into a generic pot called 'money given to other countries' because that is the post Brexit scenario.
We are effectively giving away 1.4% of GDP in foreign aid - double the 0.7 % expectation - because that's what most of the EU money really is.
I feel that DFID will end up having to curtail what it funds so that Leave's £350m a week is available for presentational and political purposes by 2019/2020.
£25bn/€30bn a year will need to revert to much less. It's merely a question of who gets their aid cut - the EU or the remainder.
I would also fully expect a 'trade is better than aid' initiative at some point.
"As tenants in common, could we specify that our children inherit our property?"
"fallenonion" took some time out from his day to advise;
"If one of your daughters is the lady second from left in cool pilots jacket, knitted headwear l tartan scarf and funky colored jeans, I'd make sure her marriage is secure first before leaving her any money. Because if that's her husband on the left, sorry but he's punching above his weight and I'd expect her to be on the lookout for something better pretty soon. Look at how his jeans sag, and the shapeless cut of his...is that an anorak? Trust me, she is a hottie and he is...notty...wait until she settles down until splashing the cash, or he'll end up benefitting."
The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.
As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.
But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.
If all they want is a commitment that we will meet our legal obligations and make payments that we are already committed to without trying to specify what each and every one of these legal commitments is or look to quantify them at this stage we can simply give that assurance and move on. It sounds hopeful.
Surely they'd insist on us committing to a broad figure of some kind otherwise they'd still have uncertainty over future budget implications, which seems a key sticking point?
Don't know. We can confirm in general terms that we will meet the budget commitments that we have already signed up to, that is up to 2020. They are on their own after that.
I turned on Sky after your comment and instead Tusk there was Liz Kershaw saying we don't need a trade agreement with the EU because she didn't marry her partner and Cliff Richard didn't believe in contracts...
The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.
As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.
But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.
If all they want is a commitment that we will meet our legal obligations and make payments that we are already committed to without trying to specify what each and every one of these legal commitments is or look to quantify them at this stage we can simply give that assurance and move on. It sounds hopeful.
Surely they'd insist on us committing to a broad figure of some kind otherwise they'd still have uncertainty over future budget implications, which seems a key sticking point?
Don't know. We can confirm in general terms that we will meet the budget commitments that we have already signed up to, that is up to 2020. They are on their own after that.
My pessimistic soul sees them as unlikely to leave it at that and thus resolve it quickly, since there's clear disagreement about how much our commitment is, and particularly the nations who are worried about receiving less will swing behind a tough stance even if they are open to a softer approach, if they fear we might argue the figure down too far later.
The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.
As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.
But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.
If all they want is a commitment that we will meet our legal obligations and make payments that we are already committed to without trying to specify what each and every one of these legal commitments is or look to quantify them at this stage we can simply give that assurance and move on. It sounds hopeful.
Surely they'd insist on us committing to a broad figure of some kind otherwise they'd still have uncertainty over future budget implications, which seems a key sticking point?
Don't know. We can confirm in general terms that we will meet the budget commitments that we have already signed up to, that is up to 2020. They are on their own after that.
The analysis in yesterday's Times suggested that the membership contributions for the two-year A50 period are included within the figures being banded about for the cost of the divorce settlement. I wasn't aware that is the case and assumed the ongoing contributions until leaving day were a given, with the divorce payment being for longer term commitments we were party to (or a political payment, according to view).
Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.
This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.
I agree with Alastair about the lack of thinking at the EU about the long term relationship with the UK. It's more complicated for them than us because it is about how the EU wants to deal with all nearby non-members and not just the UK. To make things worse for them it is happening in the context of a major member pulling out and they have to think about how to shore up their internal cohesion.
I think they are on stronger ground on the short and medium term however. The UK side is woefully underestimating the complexity of disengagement. The Article 50 talks are specifically about exit terms and it is reasonable from the EU point of view to keep them focused. In the medium term, they are suggesting a transition arrangement with the implication that these would operate on current terms (payments in, ECJ oversight etc). Again this is a reasonable approach, even though it probably isn't what the UK side wants. They want an appearance of finality.
It would be unfair to the people of Scotland to ask them to make a crucial decision without knowing what our future partnership with the EU will be or what the alternative for an independent Scotland would look like.
Like, oh I dunno, currency? EU membership?
Expect howls of outrage - if the Scottish Government want to sell the Scottish people a pig in a poke, that's entirely their concern and none of the business of the UK government....
And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.
Important to look down. If you look closely, the nuts are ours. No doubt the govt will tighten the screw regardless. If it isn't hurting, it isn't working.
Tbf flabby, nostalgia consumed, post imperial role seekers probably haven't seen their own nuts for a while. Out of sight, out of mind.
The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.
As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.
But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.
If all they want is a commitment that we will meet our legal obligations and make payments that we are already committed to without trying to specify what each and every one of these legal commitments is or look to quantify them at this stage we can simply give that assurance and move on. It sounds hopeful.
Indeed. I would expect our government to honour all its legal obligations to the EU. But, agreeing to cough up € 60 bn Euros is not part of any legal obligation.
In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.
Why would they not when polls show trust ratings for Holyrood 2-3 times higher than those for Westminster.? Don't worry, someone will be along shortly to say why these figs are wrong.
The British government did not order the murder of Pat Finucane. They colluded with the paramilitaries responsible and did nothing to stop it. That was shameful but very different to Putin's murder of journalists and political opponents alike.
I would vigorously defend Britain from comparisons with Putin's Russia, but what you describe there in relation to the murder of Pat Finucane is the normal way Putin does things.
And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.
Bollocks.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe. "UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.
Well said. Brexit has set in motion the break up of the UK and accelerated the progress towards an independent Scotland and a united Ireland. It will be a much diminished financially impoverished rUK in a few years, with minimal international influence, smaller armed forces and loss of the "precious" UN security council seat.
I am from Northern Ireland. A United Ireland is happening no time soon, not a chance. No way in hell.
The Nationalist vote did not even reach 40% for crying out loud.
The Unionists (DUP/UUP + 1 independent) won 39 seats in the last Assembly elections in the 6 counties; the Nationalists (SF/SDLP) won 39 seats. The other 12 were won by non-sectarian parties; voters for these parties are presumably non-sectarian and would not necessarily oppose a united Ireland if it was in their financial interest as a consequence of the probable hard Brexit. I didn't state that a united Ireland would happen overnight, merely that Brexit has accelerated progress towards it.
BBC: The EU confirm that an exit deal does not need to be signed off before trade talks. 'Sufficient progress' is the yardstick.
As Merkel said yesterday, the process of separation needs to be clarified before trade talks start "hopefully soon". This isn't the big barrier it has been made out to be.
Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.
I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.
Why? (Genuinely interested)
Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.
This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.
That's not quite accurate - there's quite a lot of fudge room in 'sufficient progress':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39453338 The EU has outlined its strategy for Brexit negotiations, suggesting talks on a trade deal could begin once "sufficient progress" is made on a separation settlement with the UK…
Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.
I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.
Why? (Genuinely interested)
Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.
were negotiating with a committee
it will make us look organised and professional by comparison
wishful thinking Alan, UK lot could not run a bath
I think we'll probably be the morte rational party
Morte - i.e. dead in the water; the EU will run rings round the UK with their long experience of negotiations.
European Council plans to publish on its website guidelines as to how it would negotiate with the UK had to be pulled after two member states objected http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39451048
And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.
Bollocks.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe. "UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.
Well said. Brexit has set in motion the break up of the UK and accelerated the progress towards an independent Scotland and a united Ireland. It will be a much diminished financially impoverished rUK in a few years, with minimal international influence, smaller armed forces and loss of the "precious" UN security council seat.
I am from Northern Ireland. A United Ireland is happening no time soon, not a chance. No way in hell.
The Nationalist vote did not even reach 40% for crying out loud.
The Unionists (DUP/UUP + 1 independent) won 39 seats in the last Assembly elections in the 6 counties; the Nationalists (SF/SDLP) won 39 seats. The other 12 were won by non-sectarian parties; voters for these parties are presumably non-sectarian and would not necessarily oppose a united Ireland if it was in their financial interest as a consequence of the probable hard Brexit. I didn't state that a united Ireland would happen overnight, merely that Brexit has accelerated progress towards it.
Some UUP voters preferences the SDLP on Nesbitt's orders, the UUP have now replaced him with a more traditional Unionist
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
European Council plans to publish on its website guidelines as to how it would negotiate with the UK had to be pulled after two member states objected http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39451048
Together we stand ! Divided we fall !
Oh.
= bad for us.
If we're going to negotiate I would rather a united EU with no wildcats or renegades.
In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.
So what, most polls also show Scots want no referendum before Brexit talks are concluded (and would vote No anyway) and as legally and constitutionally Westminster is sovereign May will refuse a referendum until then
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
That doesn't really sound like a transition period, more of an extension of the two year time frame.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
The clue is in the word 'transistion' and as we are importing all the EU regs, a period under the ECJ, mutually agreed, should not be a problem
And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.
Bollocks.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe. "UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.
Well said. Brexit has set in motion the break up of the UK and accelerated the progress towards an independent Scotland and a united Ireland. It will be a much diminished financially impoverished rUK in a few years, with minimal international influence, smaller armed forces and loss of the "precious" UN security council seat.
I am from Northern Ireland. A United Ireland is happening no time soon, not a chance. No way in hell.
The Nationalist vote did not even reach 40% for crying out loud.
The Unionists (DUP/UUP + 1 independent) won 39 seats in the last Assembly elections in the 6 counties; the Nationalists (SF/SDLP) won 39 seats. The other 12 were won by non-sectarian parties; voters for these parties are presumably non-sectarian and would not necessarily oppose a united Ireland if it was in their financial interest as a consequence of the probable hard Brexit. I didn't state that a united Ireland would happen overnight, merely that Brexit has accelerated progress towards it.
And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.
Bollocks.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe. "UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.
Well said. Brexit has set in motion the break up of the UK and accelerated the progress towards an independent Scotland and a united Ireland. It will be a much diminished financially impoverished rUK in a few years, with minimal international influence, smaller armed forces and loss of the "precious" UN security council seat.
I am from Northern Ireland. A United Ireland is happening no time soon, not a chance. No way in hell.
The Nationalist vote did not even reach 40% for crying out loud.
The Unionists (DUP/UUP + 1 independent) won 39 seats in the last Assembly elections in the 6 counties; the Nationalists (SF/SDLP) won 39 seats. The other 12 were won by non-sectarian parties; voters for these parties are presumably non-sectarian and would not necessarily oppose a united Ireland if it was in their financial interest as a consequence of the probable hard Brexit. I didn't state that a united Ireland would happen overnight, merely that Brexit has accelerated progress towards it.
In a referendum, it's votes that matter, not seats. 40% is the absolute ceiling in favour of a united Ireland, and since a significant minority of nationalist voters don't favour it, the percentage in favour would be less.
The non-aligned parties draw most of their support from middle class parts of East Belfast, North Down, East Antrim etc. which aren't exactly hotbeds of nationalist sentiment.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
That doesn't really sound like a transition period, more of an extension of the two year time frame.
during which we would to all intents and purposes, remain a member.
Tusk seems very cautious and to be honest this is a very good start. Realism is on display
As I've said previously I think he is a credit to the European Union hierarchy.
For the first time I think May and Tusk will be the stars in this process.
Tusk has always seemed rather more reality based than most of the Euro-heirarchs.
Think he was grateful to Theresa May when she resisted pressure from Poland to vote against him in his recent re-election to President of the Council
I think he's just doing his job - Brexit is already a tragedy - (for the EU, and possibly for the UK if mis-handled) he's just trying to stop it becoming a catastrophe.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
The clue is in the word 'transistion' and as we are importing all the EU regs, a period under the ECJ, mutually agreed, should not be a problem
budgetary, regulatory, supervisory and enforcement methinks goes beyond just the ECJ opining on bananas.
Tusk seems very cautious and to be honest this is a very good start. Realism is on display
As I've said previously I think he is a credit to the European Union hierarchy.
For the first time I think May and Tusk will be the stars in this process.
Tusk has always seemed rather more reality based than most of the Euro-heirarchs.
Think he was grateful to Theresa May when she resisted pressure from Poland to vote against him in his recent re-election to President of the Council
I think he's just doing his job - Brexit is already a tragedy - (for the EU, and possibly for the UK if mis-handled) he's just trying to stop it becoming a catastrophe.
Agreed but he is going to be dealing direct with Theresa May and they already have a good relationship
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
So according to several estimates, if it takes a year to get to sufficient progress, that leaves a year to negotiate the trade deal. Sounds optimistic.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
If a binding agreement is signed before 2020 then that will be the end of the matter.
Tusk seems very cautious and to be honest this is a very good start. Realism is on display
As I've said previously I think he is a credit to the European Union hierarchy.
For the first time I think May and Tusk will be the stars in this process.
Tusk has always seemed rather more reality based than most of the Euro-heirarchs.
Think he was grateful to Theresa May when she resisted pressure from Poland to vote against him in his recent re-election to President of the Council
I think he's just doing his job - Brexit is already a tragedy - (for the EU, and possibly for the UK if mis-handled) he's just trying to stop it becoming a catastrophe.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
If a binding agreement is signed before 2020 then that will be the end of the matter.
No. A50 is a binding agreement and was signed whenever it was signed. It is a process document. Likewise, signing a document saying "there will be a transitional period for two years" would be a process document and we would remain members for those two years, as we are members now.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
So according to several estimates, if it takes a year to get to sufficient progress, that leaves a year to negotiate the trade deal. Sounds optimistic.
Impossible. Perhaps the principles can be agreed but the detail will continue during the "time-limited prolongation of Union acquis" which will probably last three years until 2022 when we finally leave (depending on the result of the 2020 General Election.)
There may be a widespread feeling of "Sod it. The agreement is as near as dammit continued membership. So why not just remain." More oldies will have died and youngsters will have come onto the register.
The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.
As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.
But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.
If all they want is a commitment that we will meet our legal obligations and make payments that we are already committed to without trying to specify what each and every one of these legal commitments is or look to quantify them at this stage we can simply give that assurance and move on. It sounds hopeful.
Surely they'd insist on us committing to a broad figure of some kind otherwise they'd still have uncertainty over future budget implications, which seems a key sticking point?
Don't know. We can confirm in general terms that we will meet the budget commitments that we have already signed up to, that is up to 2020. They are on their own after that.
The analysis in yesterday's Times suggested that the membership contributions for the two-year A50 period are included within the figures being banded about for the cost of the divorce settlement. I wasn't aware that is the case and assumed the ongoing contributions until leaving day were a given, with the divorce payment being for longer term commitments we were party to (or a political payment, according to view).
Strip out £20bn that way and the figures become a lot more realistic.
Tusk seems very cautious and to be honest this is a very good start. Realism is on display
As I've said previously I think he is a credit to the European Union hierarchy.
For the first time I think May and Tusk will be the stars in this process.
Tusk has always seemed rather more reality based than most of the Euro-heirarchs.
Think he was grateful to Theresa May when she resisted pressure from Poland to vote against him in his recent re-election to President of the Council
I think he's just doing his job - Brexit is already a tragedy - (for the EU, and possibly for the UK if mis-handled) he's just trying to stop it becoming a catastrophe.
Agreed but he is going to be dealing direct with Theresa May and they already have a good relationship
That will certainly help - I imagine some of the UK interlocutors (May, Davis) will be a relief from his EU ones....
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
So according to several estimates, if it takes a year to get to sufficient progress, that leaves a year to negotiate the trade deal. Sounds optimistic.
It will be an agreed direction, not a trade deal. There will need to be a transition arrangement before any comprehensive trade agreement, which is where the gears are going to crunch. The EU's apparent intention is something rather like EEA/ EU membership but without British input.
Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.
I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.
Why? (Genuinely interested)
Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.
This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.
That's not quite accurate - there's quite a lot of fudge room in 'sufficient progress':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39453338 The EU has outlined its strategy for Brexit negotiations, suggesting talks on a trade deal could begin once "sufficient progress" is made on a separation settlement with the UK…
BBC: The EU confirm that an exit deal does not need to be signed off before trade talks. 'Sufficient progress' is the yardstick.
As Merkel said yesterday, the process of separation needs to be clarified before trade talks start "hopefully soon". This isn't the big barrier it has been made out to be.
It may not be, but equally you can define 'sufficient progress' however you want, so it may be even more obstructive as well.
European Council plans to publish on its website guidelines as to how it would negotiate with the UK had to be pulled after two member states objected http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39451048
Together we stand ! Divided we fall !
Oh.
= bad for us.
If we're going to negotiate I would rather a united EU with no wildcats or renegades.
That depends who the renegades are and what direction they are pushing in.
Lol He could at least have identified "California or Portland, Oregon" correctly. Ohio is about as likely to seceede the USA as Runnymede is England
California would have been better than Oregon yes and already has a secessionist movement. Austin though has a bigger population than Luxembourg and voted over 60% for Hillary while Texas went for Trump
In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.
So what, most polls also show Scots want no referendum before Brexit talks are concluded (and would vote No anyway) and as legally and constitutionally Westminster is sovereign May will refuse a referendum until then
So you don't think it relevant that the majority of Scots think Westminster should acquiesce to Holyrood's request?
Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.
I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.
Why? (Genuinely interested)
Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.
This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.
That's not quite accurate - there's quite a lot of fudge room in 'sufficient progress':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39453338 The EU has outlined its strategy for Brexit negotiations, suggesting talks on a trade deal could begin once "sufficient progress" is made on a separation settlement with the UK…
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
If a binding agreement is signed before 2020 then that will be the end of the matter.
No. A50 is a binding agreement and was signed whenever it was signed. It is a process document. Likewise, signing a document saying "there will be a transitional period for two years" would be a process document and we would remain members for those two years, as we are members now.
Yes but we would leave at the end of transistion - the idea we could suddenly decide to rejoin or whatever is fiction
Off topic - The Settle-Carlisle line reopens today. Flying Scotsman is on its way to Carlisle to mark the occasion. I'll be popping out this evening to see the return service.
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
Yes, as discussed yesterday:
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
Yes. I think we'll still be in at the next General Election. I'm not sure what the political consequences will be.
So according to several estimates, if it takes a year to get to sufficient progress, that leaves a year to negotiate the trade deal. Sounds optimistic.
Impossible. Perhaps the principles can be agreed but the detail will continue during the "time-limited prolongation of Union acquis" which will probably last three years until 2022 when we finally leave (depending on the result of the 2020 General Election.)
There may be a widespread feeling of "Sod it. The agreement is as near as dammit continued membership. So why not just remain." More oldies will have died and youngsters will have come onto the register.
I don't see that happening as that implies continued single market access which seems to be a red line in terms of immigration control and ECJ.
Surely that is a given, since all treaties have to be agreed by all members?
In theory a pure divorce deal would be QMV.
All aspects of this are QMV. The whole Article 50 process is decided by QMV with the exception of any decision on an extension which has to be unanimous. In addition any trade talks outside of Article 50 are also by QMV under the current EU rules.
Surely that is a given, since all treaties have to be agreed by all members?
Which is why the inclusion in the framework of a Spanish veto over anything to do with Gibraltar is significant. Britain will have to negotiate with Spain over Gibraltar to get the EU deal it wants.
In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.
So what, most polls also show Scots want no referendum before Brexit talks are concluded (and would vote No anyway) and as legally and constitutionally Westminster is sovereign May will refuse a referendum until then
So you don't think it relevant that the majority of Scots think Westminster should acquiesce to Holyrood's request?
Comments
I think we'll probably be the morte rational party
Off topic. Guardian comments.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/30/as-tenants-in-common-could-we-specify-that-our-children-inherit-our-property
Question:
"As tenants in common, could we specify that our children inherit our property?"
"fallenonion" took some time out from his day to advise;
"If one of your daughters is the lady second from left in cool pilots jacket, knitted headwear l tartan scarf and funky colored jeans, I'd make sure her marriage is secure first before leaving her any money. Because if that's her husband on the left, sorry but he's punching above his weight and I'd expect her to be on the lookout for something better pretty soon. Look at how his jeans sag, and the shapeless cut of his...is that an anorak? Trust me, she is a hottie and he is...notty...wait until she settles down until splashing the cash, or he'll end up benefitting."
Ain't the internet wonderful?
"The UK Government is clear that now is not the time for a second independence referendum.
The UK needs to work together, putting all our energies into ensuring we get the right deal for the UK and for Scotland in our negotiations with the EU.
In 2014, the Scottish people decided in a legal, fair and decisive referendum to remain a strong part of the UK. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 committed both the UK and Scottish Governments to respecting the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Calling for a second referendum is creating damaging uncertainty for the economy, and most people in Scotland do not want the country to be plunged into another divisive campaign. All our focus should be on our negotiations with the EU and working together to get the right deal for Scotland and the right deal for the UK. It would be unfair to the people of Scotland to ask them to make a crucial decision without knowing what our future partnership with the EU will be or what the alternative for an independent Scotland would look like.
As the Prime Minister has set out, we will strengthen the Union of the four nations that comprise our United Kingdom. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK. When it comes to the powers that we will take back from Europe, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be passed on to the Devolved Administrations.
This will be an opportunity to determine the level best placed to take decisions on these issues, ensuring power sits closer to the people of the UK than ever before. It is the expectation of the Government that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see a significant increase in their decision-making power as a result of this process."
It's the first time I've remembered, but I'm going to start putting together race-by-race points tallies for teams and drivers. It might not any use, but, if nothing else, it could be interesting for the future (looking at a season-long development race, for example).
We are effectively giving away 1.4% of GDP in foreign aid - double the 0.7 % expectation - because that's what most of the EU money really is.
I feel that DFID will end up having to curtail what it funds so that Leave's £350m a week is available for presentational and political purposes by 2019/2020.
£25bn/€30bn a year will need to revert to much less. It's merely a question of who gets their aid cut - the EU or the remainder.
I would also fully expect a 'trade is better than aid' initiative at some point.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/847716487267721216
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/847716680532762625
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/847708918495166464
I think they are on stronger ground on the short and medium term however. The UK side is woefully underestimating the complexity of disengagement. The Article 50 talks are specifically about exit terms and it is reasonable from the EU point of view to keep them focused. In the medium term, they are suggesting a transition arrangement with the implication that these would operate on current terms (payments in, ECJ oversight etc). Again this is a reasonable approach, even though it probably isn't what the UK side wants. They want an appearance of finality.
Expect howls of outrage - if the Scottish Government want to sell the Scottish people a pig in a poke, that's entirely their concern and none of the business of the UK government....
Don't worry, someone will be along shortly to say why these figs are wrong.
'Disaster for May as Tusk rules out parallel divorce/trade talks'
and
'Progress for May as Tusk says Trade Talks can start once sufficient progress on divorce'
Its certainly better than the threatened 'No trade talks until divorce finalised'
The guidelines seem quite reasonable - certainly not all we'd want, but not obstructive 'take it or leave it' either.
It turns out these jobs are a mixture of new hires and people from Lloyd's various European offices, who might not even need to relocate!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-31/eu-draft-guidelines-following-u-k-s-brexit-trigger-text
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39453338
The EU has outlined its strategy for Brexit negotiations, suggesting talks on a trade deal could begin once "sufficient progress" is made on a separation settlement with the UK…
Oh.
We are moving back to the idea as an associate partnership for a finite period.
Micky Flanagan Brexit
In - to 2019
Out - 2019 - 2020
Out Out - 2020
"Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
Sounds very much like not having left.
If we're going to negotiate I would rather a united EU with no wildcats or renegades.
The non-aligned parties draw most of their support from middle class parts of East Belfast, North Down, East Antrim etc. which aren't exactly hotbeds of nationalist sentiment.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/30/world/juncker-warns-trump-brexit/index.html
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/847723321189842944
Anyone who harboured any doubts about Camilla Long being a ****, doubt no longer.
https://twitter.com/camillalong/status/847726509078990848
There may be a widespread feeling of "Sod it. The agreement is as near as dammit continued membership. So why not just remain." More oldies will have died and youngsters will have come onto the register.
As I type I can hear it in the distance...
http://www.kirkintilloch-herald.co.uk/news/scottish-news/majority-of-scots-oppose-independence-vote-before-brexit-talks-complete-poll-1-4390652/amp
Chris Williamson
@WilliamsonChris
UK consumer spending outlook looking worrying: savings ratio down to record low of 3.3% in Q4. Real household disposable income fell 0.4%.
Chris Williamson
@WilliamsonChris
ONS UK services growth slowed to +0.6% 3m/3m in Jan after 0.1% fall in Jan: bodes ill for Q1 GDP after manufacturing & constrction also fell