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?
Commissioned by the SNP, the Survation poll questioned 1,104 people over 16 by telephone on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.
Asked who “should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence”, 53 per cent said Holyrood, 35 per cent Westminster and 12 per cent didn’t know.
Excluding don’t knows, the preference for Holyrood over Westminster was 61 to 39.
However the response was closer when the question was who should decide the timing of such a vote, with 56 per cent saying Holyrood and 44 per cent, after excluding don’t knows.
Asked if Westminster “should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament”, 58 per cent said No and 42 per cent said Yes, after excluding don’t knows.
There is no choice between 'Brexit and Independence'!
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.
The text clearly talks about after leaving the EU, I take that as to mean the agreements refer to ones negotiated after Brexit.
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.
A50 - 29 March 2017 A50 Expiry - 29 March 2019 A50 Transition End - c. 29 March 2020 Dissolution of Parliament - 12 April 2020 Election Day - 7 May 2020
That quite neatly captures the notion of the public getting a vote on the deal with the government being able to cite completion.
Has the prospect of being awkward, but my understanding was that unlike the Falklands, where the actual detail of the competing claims are a little murky in international law terms, Spain has no legal claim to Gibraltar unless they argue we are in violation of the granting treaty*. In practical terms one has to wonder how far the EU would go to be obstructive on what is a political desire of single member, but not, as I understood it, an actual dispute on the legal holders of the territory, to the point of punishing us and the the Gibraltarians for it.
I may be wrong in some of the details there, but short of the Gibraltarians asking to go Indy or rejoin Spain it is not going anywhere, so it comes down to how pissy the EU and Spain want to be about it, and would, in one area at least, be them being unreasonable if they took it too far.
*That is, my understanding was that Spain 'wants' Gibraltar, but Argentina claims Las Malvinas is already there's but is occupied.
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.
Currently a red line.
Any reason to suggest that will change, or any hint of it changing?
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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
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
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
The future isn't written yet.
The idea that the EU would take us back immediately after we left is laughable.
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
I don't think anyone thinks that. The relevance is to a) "The Bet" and b) the fact that such a timeframe would extend beyond GE2020.
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.
Richard what is your view should we get a transition deal for a year or three?
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.
That ignores the likely effect that two years of UK-EU arguing is likely to have on the electorate. On the one hand, the prospects of the economic harm that will come from Brexit will be brought into sharp focus; on the other, the sight of an undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body seeking to impose damaging terms (or even more damaging non-terms) on the UK is unlikely to leave British citizens enamoured towards Brussels. If there is a 'sod it' moment, it's much more likely to be Britain upping sticks and walking away altogether.
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
The future isn't written yet.
The idea that the EU would take us back immediately after we left is laughable.
Well, quite. We were a disruptive member (albeit useful for scapegoat purposes sometimes) in any case, and having left (or changing our mind and seeking to end the process before we leave), they'd not be inclined to have us back given we might change our minds again. If we ever do seek to rejoin, I would think they would insist, and be right to insist, upon total committment to everything, eg the Euro, and even then it would be a couple of decades at least, and someone, probably France, would veto us a few times.
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.
Currently a red line.
Any reason to suggest that will change, or any hint of it changing?
I agree there is currently no hint of it changing.
But the reasons to suggest that it may change in the next few years are a) changing UK demographics, b) more understanding of the benefits of immigration c) more understanding of the need for a "Court" in any Free Trade Deal.
Watch out for the reaction in the UK to the US insisting on a US dominated ICS to underpin the ISDS in any US/UK free trade agreement. People will see the benefit of a Court like the ECJ that is not dominated by a single powerful country.
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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
As of now, if the UK can't come up with a workable solution for Northern Ireland, there will be no trade talks. The financial incentive may come in the form of a bribe from the British government to subsidise NI even after reunification as per the Fianna Fáil plan.
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.
Mr. kle4, my understanding is that Spain has first refusal if Gibraltar were to cease to be British.
Yep -
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
As of now, if the UK can't come up with a workable solution for Northern Ireland, there will be no trade talks. The financial incentive may come in the form of a bribe from the British government to subsidise NI even after reunification as per the Fianna Fáil plan.
@Barnesian What is the source for your optimism on the UK not leaving the EU ? A warm tone from Tusk this morning doesn't change the fundamentals.
The warm tone is essential. The EU will very calmly and nicely expose all the contradictions in the Brexit case until the whole thing becomes such torture for the Brexiteers that they lose the will to go through with 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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
As of now, if the UK can't come up with a workable solution for Northern Ireland, there will be no trade talks. The financial incentive may come in the form of a bribe from the British government to subsidise NI even after reunification as per the Fianna Fáil plan.
The opening letter from Tusk looks promising on this front.
@Barnesian What is the source for your optimism on the UK not leaving the EU ? A warm tone from Tusk this morning doesn't change the fundamentals.
The warm tone is essential. The EU will very calmly and nicely expose all the contradictions in the Brexit case until the whole thing becomes such torture for the Brexiteers that they lose the will to go through with it.
If the worm tone continues we might just reach a amicable deal and leave without too much incident!
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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
The probability of a hard border in Ireland must be very low.
Migration to NI is a mere 7 people a day from the EU, while any trade deal that falls between Norway/Canada will make trade in goods 99%-100% tariff exempt.
The advances in online pre-clearance, CCTV, vehicle number plate recognition (even drone monitoring) etc make the actual practicalities of running any border different to the past.
Mr. kle4, my understanding is that Spain has first refusal if Gibraltar were to cease to be British.
Yep -
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Not sure how that has that much impact on any future agreements that do not involve the relinquishment of the territory though. We're not proposing a sale, currently Gibraltar is not requesting Independence, so does Spain have any other rights to insist it must agree any understanding around the territory with those other than the UK? The EU will back them up to some degree I am sure, but I find it hard to believe they would push very far and punish Gibraltar at the behest of a single member state which has no legal claim to the place outside of right of first refusal should its position change.
I think the reality is that we will always have transitional arrangements with the EU. Our relationship with them will change over time for as long as the EU exists, just as their relationship with Switzerland does now.
What I have been saying for months is key to the discussions is that we focus on the key parts of the overall structure: trade, customs, security and areas of co-operation.
The detail of how those areas of co-operation are going to work is much too complex and we will simply get bogged down if we look to resolve them now. Having an agreement that in so far as possible our current arrangements remain in place may look suspiciously like cherry picking to the EU but I think they will come around if they can be persuaded it is in their interests too, particularly if we make it clear we have no problem with picking up our share of the tab in those areas.
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
The probability of a hard border in Ireland must be very low.
Migration to NI is a mere 7 people a day from the EU, while any trade deal that falls between Norway/Canada will make trade in goods 99%-100% tariff exempt.
The advances in online pre-clearance, CCTV, vehicle number plate recognition (even drone monitoring) etc make the actual practicalities of running any border different to the past.
I do wonder, though, whether it will become a passage for EU nationals to the UK. No hard border (no idea what the current documentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
Mr. kle4, my understanding is that Spain has first refusal if Gibraltar were to cease to be British.
Yep -
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Not sure how that has that much impact on any future agreements that do not involve the relinquishment of the territory though. We're not proposing a sale, currently Gibraltar is not requesting Independence, so does Spain have any other rights to insist it must agree any understanding around the territory with those other than the UK? The EU will back them up to some degree I am sure, but I find it hard to believe they would push very far and punish Gibraltar at the behest of a single member state which has no legal claim to the place outside of right of first refusal should its position change.
The British could simply ask the Gibraltarians to hold a referendum to gauge support for the current constitutional settlement. Spain won't take the message, but the EU just might.
Mr. D, interesting, as, if Spain became a republic, it would presumably therefore lose first refusal (in the same way the UK monarch no longer claims the French throne)?
@gordaeu 1 The UK is leaving EU 2 Blah blah 3 UK leaving is a bit shit 4 EU will negotiate as a whole, not as member states 5 Blah blah 6 UK won't be in single market. It's good they finally realized this 7 We state 4 again since we're worried the Brits don't listen 8 We would rather not have a mess when UK leaves 9 First we need to figure out disentangling stuff. Citizen rights / financial obligations 10 Once 9 is done we can figure out a trade deal. This can be done while UK is still in EU (some had said this couldn't happen) 11 There will be a transitional deal after UK leaves. This will have to be limited in time 12 Blah blah 13 29 March 2019 is has to be done 14 sorting citizen right will be priority. UK can't make a deal regarding Swedes and not Poles 15 blah blah 16 UK and EU will both have exit bills (maybe this opens up for mutual reduction) 17 EU can be flexible on Irish border (big deal?) 18 EU doesn't care about UK bases on Cyprus 19 blah blah 20 blah blah 21 Pending court cases have to be sorted 22 blah blah 23 A close relationship can be fixed 24 We're happy Brits realized they won't be in single market UK will have to abide by state aid/environmental rules 25 Defense, security cooperation important 26 Some sort of dispute settling court must exist after Brexit 27 Spain wanted us to mention Gibraltar. Spain and UK have to sort it 28 UK is member until it leaves 29 blah blah 30 blah blah
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll. I'm sure the majority of Scots who want Westminster to honour the sovereignty of the Scottish people as expressed through the Scottish parliament won't be at all annoyed by Westminster denying the sovereign will of the Scottish people.
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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
As of now, if the UK can't come up with a workable solution for Northern Ireland, there will be no trade talks. The financial incentive may come in the form of a bribe from the British government to subsidise NI even after reunification as per the Fianna Fáil plan.
I do wonder, though, whether it will become a passage for EU nationals to the UK. No hard border (no idea what the current documentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
That can be dealt with in other ways though, such as ID verification when renting or getting a job. EU nationals can already skip the border, but I don't think it is currently a huge issue, and don't see why it would become one.
@Barnesian What is the source for your optimism on the UK not leaving the EU ? A warm tone from Tusk this morning doesn't change the fundamentals.
The warm tone is essential. The EU will very calmly and nicely expose all the contradictions in the Brexit case until the whole thing becomes such torture for the Brexiteers that they lose the will to go through with it.
That might work on a few in ideal circumstances, the problem is human nature is such that once on a course people will do a great deal of torturous justification to remain on it even when problems are obvious (the EU itself is a great example of this), and when the ram has touched the wall many who were reluctant will push ahead, since the alternative is too dire to contemplate.
I'm one who is willing to change my mind on things if warranted, I think us being asked again could be justified, though it has not yet to date and seems unlikely to be in the future. Not least, in your scenario assuming things go catastrophically for us, which is what it would take, the EU has no incentive to allow us to change our minds. They will miss our money, but even if sadness we are leaving is genuine, that is not the same as wanting us to stay if we could, so the UK losing the will to go through with this, which is politically improbable to say the lease, hardly matters.
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
Most serious economists are worried by the extent to which GDP growth is fuelled by consumer spending.
Whilst this is undoubtedly true there has been a significant improvement in our overall borrowing situation (private +public) in recent years with the government deficit down £100bn a year from peak. If that trend continues our consumption should fall more in line with our income.
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.
That ignores the likely effect that two years of UK-EU arguing is likely to have on the electorate. On the one hand, the prospects of the economic harm that will come from Brexit will be brought into sharp focus; on the other, the sight of an undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body seeking to impose damaging terms (or even more damaging non-terms) on the UK is unlikely to leave British citizens enamoured towards Brussels. If there is a 'sod it' moment, it's much more likely to be Britain upping sticks and walking away altogether.
I'm more optimistic than you. I think there will be a genuine desire on both sides to do what both sides have declared as their objectives and process. That will result in a situation where we will get most of the benefits of being in the single market plus cross border cooperation on many matters in return for a sizable annual payment. It'll not be much different from remaining. Hence the sod it, why bother.
The ultra Brexiteers won't like it but following the landslide Tory victory in 2020, TMay will no longer have to worry about her Brexiteers or the threat from UKIP.
Mr. D, interesting, as, if Spain became a republic, it would presumably therefore lose first refusal (in the same way the UK monarch no longer claims the French throne)?
I suspect any republic would be viewed as the successor state in such a situation.
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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
As of now, if the UK can't come up with a workable solution for Northern Ireland, there will be no trade talks. The financial incentive may come in the form of a bribe from the British government to subsidise NI even after reunification as per the Fianna Fáil plan.
Who pays you to write this stuff day after day?
Enthusiastic amateurs are much better and passionate about this sort of thing than the paid.
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.
That ignores the likely effect that two years of UK-EU arguing is likely to have on the electorate. On the one hand, the prospects of the economic harm that will come from Brexit will be brought into sharp focus; on the other, the sight of an undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body seeking to impose damaging terms (or even more damaging non-terms) on the UK is unlikely to leave British citizens enamoured towards Brussels. If there is a 'sod it' moment, it's much more likely to be Britain upping sticks and walking away altogether.
I'm more optimistic than you. I think there will be a genuine desire on both sides to do what both sides have declared as their objectives and process. That will result in a situation where we will get most of the benefits of being in the single market plus cross border cooperation on many matters in return for a sizable annual payment. It'll not be much different from remaining. Hence the sod it, why bother.
The ultra Brexiteers won't like it but following the landslide Tory victory in 2020, TMay will no longer have to worry about her Brexiteers or the threat from UKIP.
Staying in means continuation of the four freedoms. I fail to see May agreeing to that. If we manage to get most of the benefits of being in the single market without the four freedoms, that would be a pretty good deal for May to sign.
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
The probability of a hard border in Ireland must be very low.
Migration to NI is a mere 7 people a day from the EU, while any trade deal that falls between Norway/Canada will make trade in goods 99%-100% tariff exempt.
The advances in online pre-clearance, CCTV, vehicle number plate recognition (even drone monitoring) etc make the actual practicalities of running any border different to the past.
I do wonder, though, whether it will become a passage for EU nationals to the UK. No hard border (no idea what the current documentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
Unless we plan to introduce visas for EU citizens to visit, what's the problem? For all practical purposes you currently have to show photo-id when travelling within the CTA - at least to the airline/ferry personnel - and in my recent crossing of the Irish Sea - to border guards too.
The 'issue' with freedom of movement is 'settlement' and access to benefits/health care.
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?
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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard border across Ulster would be disastrous and for practical purposes it will have to be the Irish Sea. If the north of Ireland remains in the EU customs union but GB is not, the possibility of a different long-term administrative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
As of now, if the UK can't come up with a workable solution for Northern Ireland, there will be no trade talks. The financial incentive may come in the form of a bribe from the British government to subsidise NI even after reunification as per the Fianna Fáil plan.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
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.
That ignores the likely effect that two years of UK-EU arguing is likely to have on the electorate. On the one hand, the prospects of the economic harm that will come from Brexit will be brought into sharp focus; on the other, the sight of an undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body seeking to impose damaging terms (or even more damaging non-terms) on the UK is unlikely to leave British citizens enamoured towards Brussels. If there is a 'sod it' moment, it's much more likely to be Britain upping sticks and walking away altogether.
I think that is what many want walking away altogether .I am sure it will be popular in the short term for the conservative party not so sure if it is good long term prospect for the UK.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
Mr. D, interesting, as, if Spain became a republic, it would presumably therefore lose first refusal (in the same way the UK monarch no longer claims the French throne)?
I suspect any republic would be viewed as the successor state in such a situation.
I thought that the Spanish Republic was still the legitimate state? After all, it was violently overthrown by fascists backed by Nazis, and the monarchy was then imposed by the fascists.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
We were in the EU which was a pretty big block on getting a trade deal with those countries.
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
Because a hard ative arrangement from the current one is more likely. It won't happen overnight and "a few years" is an elastic term.
The probability of a hard border in Ireland must be very low.
Migration to NI is a mere 7 people a day from the EU, while any trade deal that falls between Norway/Canada will make trade in goods 99%-100% tariff exempt.
The advances in online pre-clearance, CCTV, vehicle number plate recognition (even drone monitoring) etc make the actual practicalities of running any border different to the past.
I do wonder, though, whether it will become a passage for EU nationals to the UK. No hard border (no idea what the current documentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
Unless we plan to introduce visas for EU citizens to visit, what's the problem? For all practical purposes you currently have to show photo-id when travelling within the CTA - at least to the airline/ferry personnel - and in my recent crossing of the Irish Sea - to border guards too.
The 'issue' with freedom of movement is 'settlement' and access to benefits/health care.
Seems some posts have disappeared.
The key issue surely is EU Citizen A arrived on 22nd June 2016 and EU Citizen B arrived 30 June 2019.
Unless there are visas and stamps then who is to tell the difference?
Mr. D, interesting, as, if Spain became a republic, it would presumably therefore lose first refusal (in the same way the UK monarch no longer claims the French throne)?
I suspect any republic would be viewed as the successor state in such a situation.
I thought that the Spanish Republic was still the legitimate state? After all, it was violently overthrown by fascists backed by Nazis, and the monarchy was then imposed by the fascists.
Hm, without a government in exile I don't see how countries could view it as the legitimate state.
I do wonder, though, whether it will become a passage for EU nationals to the UK. No hard border (no idea what the current documentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
I imagine they could try but suspect they will just do what many others do and travel direct, use a tourist visa and overstay before trying to blend into the black market.
The immigration border effectively exists at every point where someone seeks a job or a property due to identity and residence checks providing they are law abiding employers and landlords.
Mr. kle4, my understanding is that Spain has first refusal if Gibraltar were to cease to be British.
Yep -
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
When that was agreed I don't think we were as heavily into national self-determination as we are now - doctrine which I think started with Marx and then got a massive shot in the arm from Thatcher, unusually.
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
The probability of a hard border in Ireland must be very low.
Migration to NI is a mere 7 people a day from the EU, while any trade deal that falls between Norway/Canada will make trade in goods 99%-100% tariff exempt.
The advances in online pre-clearance, CCTV, vehicle number plate recognition (even drone monitoring) etc make the actual practicalities of running any border different to the past.
I do wonder, though, whether it will become a passage for EU nationals to the UK. No hard border (no idea what the current documentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
Unless we plan to introduce visas for EU citizens to visit, what's the problem? For all practical purposes you currently have to show photo-id when travelling within the CTA - at least to the airline/ferry personnel - and in my recent crossing of the Irish Sea - to border guards too.
The 'issue' with freedom of movement is 'settlement' and access to benefits/health care.
Too many people (a lot of whom should know better) seem to get mixed up between:
- Freedom of movement - Visiting for a holiday - Coming to live and work
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
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.
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.
That ignores the likely effect that two years of UK-EU arguing is likely to have on the electorate. On the one hand, the prospects of the economic harm that will come from Brexit will be brought into sharp focus; on the other, the sight of an undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body seeking to impose damaging terms (or even more damaging non-terms) on the UK is unlikely to leave British citizens enamoured towards Brussels. If there is a 'sod it' moment, it's much more likely to be Britain upping sticks and walking away altogether.
I'm more optimistic than you. I think there will be a genuine desire on both sides to do what both sides have declared as their objectives and process. That will result in a situation where we will get most of the benefits of being in the single market plus cross border cooperation on many matters in return for a sizable annual payment. It'll not be much different from remaining. Hence the sod it, why bother.
The ultra Brexiteers won't like it but following the landslide Tory victory in 2020, TMay will no longer have to worry about her Brexiteers or the threat from UKIP.
Staying in means continuation of the four freedoms. I fail to see May agreeing to that. If we manage to get most of the benefits of being in the single market without the four freedoms, that would be a pretty good deal for May to sign.
I think that is the most likely outcome. But the people freedom, which started as a trade freedom i.e. jobs and became a political freedom i.e. citizens of the EU, may come under pressure from the citizens of the EU27 for the same reasons they have in the UK.
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Such twisted duplicitous wording designed to get the correct response!
Joseph Muscat: Our view is that if there is a transition, you're still a member.
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.
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.
That ignores the likely effect that two years of UK-EU arguing is likely to have on the electorate. On the one hand, the prospects of the economic harm that will come from Brexit will be brought into sharp focus; on the other, the sight of an undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body seeking to impose damaging terms (or even more damaging non-terms) on the UK is unlikely to leave British citizens enamoured towards Brussels. If there is a 'sod it' moment, it's much more likely to be Britain upping sticks and walking away altogether.
I'm more optimistic than you. I think there will be a genuine desire on both sides to do what both sides have declared as their objectives and process. That will result in a situation where we will get most of the benefits of being in the single market plus cross border cooperation on many matters in return for a sizable annual payment. It'll not be much different from remaining. Hence the sod it, why bother.
The ultra Brexiteers won't like it but following the landslide Tory victory in 2020, TMay will no longer have to worry about her Brexiteers or the threat from UKIP.
Staying in means continuation of the four freedoms. I fail to see May agreeing to that. If we manage to get most of the benefits of being in the single market without the four freedoms, that would be a pretty good deal for May to sign.
I think that is the most likely outcome. But the people freedom, which started as a trade freedom i.e. jobs and became a political freedom i.e. citizens of the EU, may come under pressure from the citizens of the EU27 for the same reasons they have in the UK.
I agree with you there. Freedom of movement of labour is much more attractive than freedom of movement of people.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Import substitution is a mirage. For many of the higher end components used in UK manufacturing, there will simply not be a UK based supplier who can produce at the same quality and price. Scale is important and the UK single market simply does not have as much scale as the EU single market.
It might be that we end up buying more from the US or Japan but the additional transport and time costs involved there may well make it preferable to keep buying from EU based companies or that the companies will relocated to the continent.
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
The p to the past.
I do wonder, though, whentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
Unless we plan to introduce visas for EU citizens to visit, what's the problem? For all practical purposes you currently have to show photo-id when travelling within the CTA - at least to the airline/ferry personnel - and in my recent crossing of the Irish Sea - to border guards too.
The 'issue' with freedom of movement is 'settlement' and access to benefits/health care.
Too many people (a lot of whom should know better) seem to get mixed up between:
- Freedom of movement - Visiting for a holiday - Coming to live and work
Sometimes the confusion is deliberate.
So today, an EU citizen can get a job/receive benefits/come on holiday without any special permit or authority. Just ticks the box saying "I am an EU citizen" for the employer. What is the mechanism for policing an EU citizen from getting a job once we have left? There is no record of when that EU citizen will have arrived in the country short of either a visa or a passport stamp.
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
FWIW I think these figures will only move one way as the Brexit negotiations stumble along and the "Unionist" parties keep up their blocking of IndyRef2 stance. I sense the MSM are going to be increasingly conflicted in all of this - which'll further drive folks into the lets have IndyRef2 camp !!
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
.
The probability of a hard border in Ireland must be very low.
ning any border different to the past.
I do wonder, though, whether it will become a passage for EU nationals to the UK. No hard border (no idea what the current documentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
Unless we plan to introduce visas for EU citizens to visit, what's the problem? For all practical purposes you currently have to show photo-id when travelling within the CTA - at least to the airline/ferry personnel - and in my recent crossing of the Irish Sea - to border guards too.
The 'issue' with freedom of movement is 'settlement' and access to benefits/health care.
Seems some posts have disappeared.
The key issue surely is EU Citizen A arrived on 22nd June 2016 and EU Citizen B arrived 30 June 2019.
Unless there are visas and stamps then who is to tell the difference?
Yes, something will have to be done to manage access to health & welfare - but it needn't be at a border....
Almost 48 hours after A50 and the lights are still on...
As I recall, the eastern end of the A50 was a DBFO scheme. Therefore if the lights are still on, then it's down to the private sector.
Oh, you don't mean the road ...
Fairings "recovered" last night too apparently...
No-one seems to know what 'recovered' means: whether it means that they just got them in the sea safely, or whether they've got them on the deck of a ship. At least that seems to be the position earlier this morning.
It was brilliant to watch it last night. I criticise Musk for some of the stuff he does, but SpaceX has been superb. I only hope Blue Origin can do the same: cheap, reliable access to space requires at least two providers, not least for when things go boom and a rocket type gets grounded.
SpaceX are also aiming for one-day refurbishment of a landed rocket: last night's took three months. He also talked about recovery of the second stage.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
We were in the EU which was a pretty big block on getting a trade deal with those countries.
You don't need a country trade deal to export to outside the EU. That's a bloody excuse ! Germany is in the EU and it is the largest exporter in the world.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
We were in the EU which was a pretty big block on getting a trade deal with those countries.
You don't need a country trade deal to export to outside the EU. That's a bloody excuse ! Germany is in the EU and it is the largest exporter in the world.
Roger said "nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past".
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
FWIW I think these figures will only move one way as the Brexit negotiations stumble along and the "Unionist" parties keep up their blocking of IndyRef2 stance. I sense the MSM are going to be increasingly conflicted in all of this - which'll further drive folks into the lets have IndyRef2 camp !!
Political journos like Kenny Farquharson and Andrew Neil, people who are committed unionist who (in Kenny's case) actively hate the SNP, get pretty testy when people start questioning the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament.
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
The p to the past.
I do wonder, though, whentation situation is now - @Alanbrooke?).
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
Unless we plan to introduce visas for EU citizens to visit, what's the problem? For all practical purposes you currently have to show photo-id when travelling within the CTA - at least to the airline/ferry personnel - and in my recent crossing of the Irish Sea - to border guards too.
The 'issue' with freedom of movement is 'settlement' and access to benefits/health care.
Too many people (a lot of whom should know better) seem to get mixed up between:
- Freedom of movement - Visiting for a holiday - Coming to live and work
Sometimes the confusion is deliberate.
So today, an EU citizen can get a job/receive benefits/come on holiday without any special permit or authority. Just ticks the box saying "I am an EU citizen" for the employer. What is the mechanism for policing an EU citizen from getting a job once we have left? There is no record of when that EU citizen will have arrived in the country short of either a visa or a passport stamp.
We simply get them to wear an EU flag on their clothing to distinguish them from British citizens.
Seriously, a registration process for all EU citizens already here by the cutoff date (who want to stay) giving them whatever rights are agreed (if any).
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
FWIW I think these figures will only move one way as the Brexit negotiations stumble along and the "Unionist" parties keep up their blocking of IndyRef2 stance. I sense the MSM are going to be increasingly conflicted in all of this - which'll further drive folks into the lets have IndyRef2 camp !!
Political journos like Kenny Farquharson and Andrew Neil, people who are committed unionist who (in Kenny's case) actively hate the SNP, get pretty testy when people start questioning the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament.
By definition the Scottish Parliament is not sovereign in this matter, or have I missed something?
Almost 48 hours after A50 and the lights are still on...
As I recall, the eastern end of the A50 was a DBFO scheme. Therefore if the lights are still on, then it's down to the private sector.
Oh, you don't mean the road ...
Fairings "recovered" last night too apparently...
No-one seems to know what 'recovered' means: whether it means that they just got them in the sea safely, or whether they've got them on the deck of a ship. At least that seems to be the position earlier this morning.
It was brilliant to watch it last night. I criticise Musk for some of the stuff he does, but SpaceX has been superb. I only hope Blue Origin can do the same: cheap, reliable access to space requires at least two providers, not least for when things go boom and a rocket type gets grounded.
SpaceX are also aiming for one-day refurbishment of a landed rocket: last night's took three months. He also talked about recovery of the second stage.
As Bezos said, his battle is not with Musk but with gravity
Tosh. Microsoft and Apple operate within the Single Market. They simply have no say on its rules and neither will we, just as the EU will have no say on our rules.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Such twisted duplicitous wording designed to get the correct response!
Since it would appear:
Asked who “should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence”
Was asked first (no tables up yet) the response to the question you cite may have been tainted by the ridiculous 'Brexit and Independence' beforehand.
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Such twisted duplicitous wording designed to get the correct response!
Since it would appear:
Asked who “should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence”
Was asked first (no tables up yet) the response to the question you cite may have been tainted by the ridiculous 'Brexit and Independence' beforehand.
THE SNP have previous on this......
I don't see the problem, they didn't call it "evil tory Brexit"....
NICOLA Sturgeon has dramatically threatened to derail the legislation needed to put Brexit into effect, saying it appeared to be a “power grab” that would strip Holyrood of its authority.
The First Minister said the Great Repeal Bill would see powers which should be repatriated from Brussels to Edinburgh being intercepted and hoarded by Westminster.
In the latest constitutional clash between the Scottish and UK governments, Ms Sturgeon warned MSPs might withhold consent for the Bill, disrupting and delaying the process, and potentially forcing Westminster to overrule Holyrood for the first time since devolution.
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
The p to the past.
I do wase...
U to benefits/health care.
Too many people (a lot of whom should know better) seem to get mixed up between:
- Freedom of movement - Visiting for a holiday - Coming to live and work
Sometimes the confusion is deliberate.
So today, an EU citizen can get a job/receive benefits/come on holiday without any special permit or authority. Just ticks the box saying "I am an EU citizen" for the employer. What is the mechanism for policing an EU citizen from getting a job once we have left? There is no record of when that EU citizen will have arrived in the country short of either a visa or a passport stamp.
We simply get them to wear an EU flag on their clothing to distinguish them from British citizens.
Seriously, a registration process for all EU citizens already here by the cutoff date (who want to stay) giving them whatever rights are agreed (if any).
Optics not especially brilliant for that but yes, I don't see how else it can be done.
Plus what about previous visitors "I only left to pop home to see my parents" and any number of variants on that. Oh what larks we are in for.
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
FWIW I think these figures will only move one way as the Brexit negotiations stumble along and the "Unionist" parties keep up their blocking of IndyRef2 stance. I sense the MSM are going to be increasingly conflicted in all of this - which'll further drive folks into the lets have IndyRef2 camp !!
Political journos like Kenny Farquharson and Andrew Neil, people who are committed unionist who (in Kenny's case) actively hate the SNP, get pretty testy when people start questioning the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament.
By definition the Scottish Parliament is not sovereign in this matter, or have I missed something?
These are the start and end tweets of a Kenny Farquharson twitter stream on IndyRef2
The general gist is that while Holyrood might technically not have 'the power' to deny the will of the Scottish people on this issue as expressed through the Scottish Parliament attacks foundations of democracy
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Yes, like the failed Soviet bloc economies. Import substitution becomes the mantra when a country cannot earn enough foreign exchange from exports to finance imports. The Law of Comparative Advantage says if it is cheaper to import than making it yourself [ all things considered ] then you should import and use resources in more productive areas.
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Such twisted duplicitous wording designed to get the correct response!
Since it would appear:
Asked who “should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence”
Was asked first (no tables up yet) the response to the question you cite may have been tainted by the ridiculous 'Brexit and Independence' beforehand.
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Such twisted duplicitous wording designed to get the correct response!
Since it would appear:
Asked who “should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence”
Was asked first (no tables up yet) the response to the question you cite may have been tainted by the ridiculous 'Brexit and Independence' beforehand.
THE SNP have previous on this......
I don't see the problem, they didn't call it "evil tory Brexit"....
Well the two options for answers was "The noble parliament of Scotland" and "The despicable liars and villains of Westminster"
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?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
FWIW I think these figures will only move one way as the Brexit negotiations stumble along and the "Unionist" parties keep up their blocking of IndyRef2 stance. I sense the MSM are going to be increasingly conflicted in all of this - which'll further drive folks into the lets have IndyRef2 camp !!
Political journos like Kenny Farquharson and Andrew Neil, people who are committed unionist who (in Kenny's case) actively hate the SNP, get pretty testy when people start questioning the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament.
By definition the Scottish Parliament is not sovereign in this matter, or have I missed something?
These are the start and end tweets of a Kenny Farquharson twitter stream on IndyRef2
The general gist is that while Holyrood might technically not have 'the power' to deny the will of the Scottish people on this issue as expressed through the Scottish Parliament attacks foundations of democracy
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 thence, 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.
You said 'in a few years'
The p to the past.
I do wase...
U to benefits/health care.
Too many people (a lot of whom should know better) seem to get mixed up between:
- Freedom of movement - Visiting for a holiday - Coming to live and work
Sometimes the confusion is deliberate.
So today, an EU citizen can get a job/receive benefits/come on holiday without any special permit or authority. Just ticks the box saying "I am an EU citizen" for the employer. What is the mechanism for policing an EU citizen from getting a job once we have left? There is no record of when that EU citizen will have arrived in the country short of either a visa or a passport stamp.
We simply get them to wear an EU flag on their clothing to distinguish them from British citizens.
Seriously, a registration process for all EU citizens already here by the cutoff date (who want to stay) giving them whatever rights are agreed (if any).
Optics not especially brilliant for that but yes, I don't see how else it can be done.
Plus what about previous visitors "I only left to pop home to see my parents" and any number of variants on that. Oh what larks we are in for.
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.
Although pragmatists of all colours may ultimately come to see that a United Ireland is the better outcome for the island as a whole. Much depends on how Brexit plays out, but I know you're in denial of any negatives there.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Yes, like the failed Soviet bloc economies. Import substitution becomes the mantra when a country cannot earn enough foreign exchange from exports to finance imports. The Law of Comparative Advantage says if it is cheaper to import than making it yourself [ all things considered ] then you should import and use resources in more productive areas.
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
I agree. But the UK is an efficient car producer. The current expansion will bring further economies of scale. Half our EU trade deficit is with Germany alone and half that is for cars.
Comments
Asked who “should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence”, 53 per cent said Holyrood, 35 per cent Westminster and 12 per cent didn’t know.
Excluding don’t knows, the preference for Holyrood over Westminster was 61 to 39.
However the response was closer when the question was who should decide the timing of such a vote, with 56 per cent saying Holyrood and 44 per cent, after excluding don’t knows.
Asked if Westminster “should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament”, 58 per cent said No and 42 per cent said Yes, after excluding don’t knows.
There is no choice between 'Brexit and Independence'!
A50 - 29 March 2017
A50 Expiry - 29 March 2019
A50 Transition End - c. 29 March 2020
Dissolution of Parliament - 12 April 2020
Election Day - 7 May 2020
That quite neatly captures the notion of the public getting a vote on the deal with the government being able to cite completion.
I may be wrong in some of the details there, but short of the Gibraltarians asking to go Indy or rejoin Spain it is not going anywhere, so it comes down to how pissy the EU and Spain want to be about it, and would, in one area at least, be them being unreasonable if they took it too far.
*That is, my understanding was that Spain 'wants' Gibraltar, but Argentina claims Las Malvinas is already there's but is occupied.
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
But the reasons to suggest that it may change in the next few years are
a) changing UK demographics,
b) more understanding of the benefits of immigration
c) more understanding of the need for a "Court" in any Free Trade Deal.
Watch out for the reaction in the UK to the US insisting on a US dominated ICS to underpin the ISDS in any US/UK free trade agreement. People will see the benefit of a Court like the ECJ that is not dominated by a single powerful country.
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Migration to NI is a mere 7 people a day from the EU, while any trade deal that falls between Norway/Canada will make trade in goods 99%-100% tariff exempt.
The advances in online pre-clearance, CCTV, vehicle number plate recognition (even drone monitoring) etc make the actual practicalities of running any border different to the past.
What I have been saying for months is key to the discussions is that we focus on the key parts of the overall structure: trade, customs, security and areas of co-operation.
The detail of how those areas of co-operation are going to work is much too complex and we will simply get bogged down if we look to resolve them now. Having an agreement that in so far as possible our current arrangements remain in place may look suspiciously like cherry picking to the EU but I think they will come around if they can be persuaded it is in their interests too, particularly if we make it clear we have no problem with picking up our share of the tab in those areas.
https://order-order.com/2017/03/31/cchq-tell-mps-say-labour-revolutionary-trots-soft-isis/
Are they mad? Do they want him to be replaced?
It seems circular.
Is there currently and will there be in future a mechanism to stop an EU national coming to Ireland and then skipping into the UK, given that there will be no date of entry on his passport unless we have a hard border, in which case...
@gordaeu
1 The UK is leaving EU
2 Blah blah
3 UK leaving is a bit shit
4 EU will negotiate as a whole, not as member states
5 Blah blah
6 UK won't be in single market. It's good they finally realized this
7 We state 4 again since we're worried the Brits don't listen
8 We would rather not have a mess when UK leaves
9 First we need to figure out disentangling stuff. Citizen rights / financial obligations
10 Once 9 is done we can figure out a trade deal. This can be done while UK is still in EU (some had said this couldn't happen)
11 There will be a transitional deal after UK leaves. This will have to be limited in time
12 Blah blah
13 29 March 2019 is has to be done
14 sorting citizen right will be priority. UK can't make a deal regarding Swedes and not Poles
15 blah blah
16 UK and EU will both have exit bills (maybe this opens up for mutual reduction)
17 EU can be flexible on Irish border (big deal?)
18 EU doesn't care about UK bases on Cyprus
19 blah blah
20 blah blah
21 Pending court cases have to be sorted
22 blah blah
23 A close relationship can be fixed
24 We're happy Brits realized they won't be in single market UK will have to abide by state aid/environmental rules
25 Defense, security cooperation important
26 Some sort of dispute settling court must exist after Brexit
27 Spain wanted us to mention Gibraltar. Spain and UK have to sort it
28 UK is member until it leaves
29 blah blah
30 blah blah
I'm one who is willing to change my mind on things if warranted, I think us being asked again could be justified, though it has not yet to date and seems unlikely to be in the future. Not least, in your scenario assuming things go catastrophically for us, which is what it would take, the EU has no incentive to allow us to change our minds. They will miss our money, but even if sadness we are leaving is genuine, that is not the same as wanting us to stay if we could, so the UK losing the will to go through with this, which is politically improbable to say the lease, hardly matters.
The ultra Brexiteers won't like it but following the landslide Tory victory in 2020, TMay will no longer have to worry about her Brexiteers or the threat from UKIP.
The 'issue' with freedom of movement is 'settlement' and access to benefits/health care.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
Oh, you don't mean the road ...
The key issue surely is EU Citizen A arrived on 22nd June 2016 and EU Citizen B arrived 30 June 2019.
Unless there are visas and stamps then who is to tell the difference?
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/847737619337289729
The immigration border effectively exists at every point where someone seeks a job or a property due to identity and residence checks providing they are law abiding employers and landlords.
- Freedom of movement
- Visiting for a holiday
- Coming to live and work
Sometimes the confusion is deliberate.
Such twisted duplicitous wording designed to get the correct response!
It might be that we end up buying more from the US or Japan but the additional transport and time costs involved there may well make it preferable to keep buying from EU based companies or that the companies will relocated to the continent.
It was brilliant to watch it last night. I criticise Musk for some of the stuff he does, but SpaceX has been superb. I only hope Blue Origin can do the same: cheap, reliable access to space requires at least two providers, not least for when things go boom and a rocket type gets grounded.
SpaceX are also aiming for one-day refurbishment of a landed rocket: last night's took three months. He also talked about recovery of the second stage.
Seriously, a registration process for all EU citizens already here by the cutoff date (who want to stay) giving them whatever rights are agreed (if any).
Asked who “should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence”
Was asked first (no tables up yet) the response to the question you cite may have been tainted by the ridiculous 'Brexit and Independence' beforehand.
THE SNP have previous on this......
Spain can piss off.
The First Minister said the Great Repeal Bill would see powers which should be repatriated from Brussels to Edinburgh being intercepted and hoarded by Westminster.
In the latest constitutional clash between the Scottish and UK governments, Ms Sturgeon warned MSPs might withhold consent for the Bill, disrupting and delaying the process, and potentially forcing Westminster to overrule Holyrood for the first time since devolution.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15194056.Sturgeon_threatens_to_torpedo_Brexit_legislation_to_avert_Westminster__quot_power_grab_quot_/
Plus what about previous visitors "I only left to pop home to see my parents" and any number of variants on that. Oh what larks we are in for.
The general gist is that while Holyrood might technically not have 'the power' to deny the will of the Scottish people on this issue as expressed through the Scottish Parliament attacks foundations of democracy
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/846758048450433024
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/846777301811507201
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Brexit-Indy-Debate-Tables-1c0d1h4.pdf
Why should 32,000 people be allowed to deny 60 odd million Brits a good deal?