Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
Anyone would think some EU politicians wanted to "cherry pick" the relationship......
While I agree with Mr Meeks that MLP remains too short, I do see a credible path for her to get the French Presidency.
Le me start by dismiss any idea that the Russians have some (genuine) dirt on Macron and are just waiting for the run-off to release it. That simply makes no sense: from a Russian point of view, your preferred candidate might be Marine Le Pen, but Francois Fillon, who has called repeatedly for better links with Russia, would be a clear number two. So, you might want a Le Pen-Melanchon second round (because Le Pen would likely win it), or a Le Pen-Fillon (as both candidates would look kindly on Russia), but Le Pen-Macron still carries with it a very high chance that a pro-EU (and therefore anti-Russian) candidate gets in.
But, I do think Mr Meeks dismisses Melanchon too easily. There's a lot of Hamon support that could leak his way, especially if Hamon voters see Melanchon as the only way of getting a true left winger in the final two. Imagine if Macron's vote is actually overstated by a couple of percent (quite possible given he has no ground game, evaluating the support of insurgent candidates is hard, and it is always possible Macron has a late dip). Could we end up with Macron, Melanchon and Fillon all just sub 20%? Absolutely. Is it likely? No. But I reckon that there's probably a 7.5-12.5% chance that Melanchon slips by Macron.
That is the route to an MLP Presidency - Melanchon slipping through to face MLP in the second round. It's not likely, but it's by no means an impossibility.
I see our local zoomer was wetting himself on the previous thread over an old story that Jersey might "declare itself independent of the UK".
One problem, Jersey is not part of the UK...
Possibly the worst point ever made on pb. Jersey is a dependency of the UK. A declaration that that would cease to be the case would therefore constitute Jersey declaring itself independent of the UK.
While I agree with Mr Meeks that MLP remains too short, I do see a credible path for her to get the French Presidency.
Le me start by dismiss any idea that the Russians have some (genuine) dirt on Macron and are just waiting for the run-off to release it. That simply makes no sense: from a Russian point of view, your preferred candidate might be Marine Le Pen, but Francois Fillon, who has called repeatedly for better links with Russia, would be a clear number two. So, you might want a Le Pen-Melanchon second round (because Le Pen would likely win it), or a Le Pen-Fillon (as both candidates would look kindly on Russia), but Le Pen-Macron still carries with it a very high chance that a pro-EU (and therefore anti-Russian) candidate gets in.
But, I do think Mr Meeks dismisses Melanchon too easily. There's a lot of Hamon support that could leak his way, especially if Hamon voters see Melanchon as the only way of getting a true left winger in the final two. Imagine if Macron's vote is actually overstated by a couple of percent (quite possible given he has no ground game, evaluating the support of insurgent candidates is hard, and it is always possible Macron has a late dip). Could we end up with Macron, Melanchon and Fillon all just sub 20%? Absolutely. Is it likely? No. But I reckon that there's probably a 7.5-12.5% chance that Melanchon slips by Macron.
That is the route to an MLP Presidency - Melanchon slipping through to face MLP in the second round. It's not likely, but it's by no means an impossibility.
Yes, I agree with that. It's a function of using Fillon as a proxy for 'the rest' and then noting that he's really only about two-thirds of the rest. That's fine if it doesn't affect the chances of a non-Fillon 'other' against Le Pen or Macron but it does. On both counts, a Melanchon (or Hamon or whoever else), would almost certainly poll a good deal worse than Fillon against either Le Pen or Macron. That won't matter vs Macron but it does against Le Pen. While we're talking about a sub-set of a sub-set, the difference in the relative probabilities is sufficient to increase her chances by 2-3%, which has an appreciable impact on her overall odds.
I see our local zoomer was wetting himself on the previous thread over an old story that Jersey might "declare itself independent of the UK".
One problem, Jersey is not part of the UK...
Possibly the worst point ever made on pb. Jersey is a dependency of the UK. A declaration that that would cease to be the case would therefore constitute Jersey declaring itself independent of the UK.
What is a zoomer?
It's what Unionists call Indy supporters. I'd imagine the silly old trout that's appointed herself my stalker is unaware of its origins.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
"There is no way on God's earth that the British government is deliberately going to do anything that increases the security threat faced by British citizens at home or abroad. Hard Brexiteers who hope otherwise are going to be bitterly disappointed."
Are you seriously suggesting some Leavers hope that UK citizens security is threatened?
"There is no way on God's earth that the British government is deliberately going to do anything that increases the security threat faced by British citizens at home or abroad. Hard Brexiteers who hope otherwise are going to be bitterly disappointed."
Are you seriously suggesting some Leavers hope that UK citizens security is threatened?
Nope - I am merely noting that less security cooperation in Europe increases the threat to British citizens, so will never be used as a bargaining chip.
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I can't really see the case against Trump succeeding (although the one against his supporters might), but if it did, even if he just got a slap on the wrist, I suspect that some of the hardcore breitbart types would start to campaign to rein in the "biased" judiciary. If the idea that Trump is a good guy being unfairly reined in by the checks and balances in the US system, we could see future populist campaigns aimed at eroding them.
"On my assessment of the probabilities, if she finds herself facing Emmanuel Macron in the last two, her chances have actually got worse."
If you win a semi final your price never lengthens regardless of your opponent in the final.
Not so: it depends on the nature of the contest and the opponent/s.
A Le Pen vs Macron contest is practically unwinnable for her. Alastair gives her a 5% shot in that line-up. I think that's generous. A bland but seemingly capable centrist is the perfect candidate to take on the radical right (or the radical left, for that matter), as he or she would be extremely transfer-friendly.
But to get to that stage, Macron has to finish in the top two, which isn't guaranteed. The first round remains a very split field with no candidate consistently taking more than a quarter of the vote. It's possible that 20-21% might be enough to scrape through, though it'll probably be slightly higher. In 2002, Jospin 'should' have won in that he outpolled all other candidates in head-to-heads but he failed to secure enough positive support in the first round to make it through, and therein lies the risk for Macron. Against the other candidates, Le Pen stands a better chance.
I think the error in your logic is assuming that advancing from the semi-final to the final reduces the number of opponents; it doesn't necessarily: the opponents she is fighting are the anti-FN voters.
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I am pretty comfortable on this election, following Chris from Paris's early tip on Macron.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I am pretty comfortable on this election, following Chris from Paris's early tip on Macron.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
I pretty much agree. The only potential fly in the ointment is that certainty to vote figures (last I saw) were just under 50% for Macron and over 70% for Le Pen and Fillon. Could point to a surprise, although that was prior to Fillon's vote share polling falling quite a bit.
For those who read Spanish, a very interesting interview with the country's foreign minister on Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. He is confident of a good deal, sees no security threats from the UK and confirms Spain would not block an independent Scotland's application to join the EU, noting the Scottish and Catalonian situations are very different (there is no legal route for Caralonian secession under the current Spanish constitution, he says). Anyway, worth a read. “España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando” http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I am pretty comfortable on this election, following Chris from Paris's early tip on Macron.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
A final line for the ages ;-)
Macron does have a certain pragmatic vagueness about him, but is surefooted. He seemed to perform well in the first debate.
I think that his reforms will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the New Labour style, but with the important difference of fiscal sanity.
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I am pretty comfortable on this election, following Chris from Paris's early tip on Macron.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
A final line for the ages ;-)
Macron does have a certain pragmatic vagueness about him, but is surefooted. He seemed to perform well in the first debate.
I think that his reforms will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the New Labour style, but with the important difference of fiscal sanity.
I would love to see him win. I think he is very impressive. That's why I cannot get too excited by it. My side always loses ;-)
For those who read Spanish, a very interesting interview with the country's foreign minister on Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. He is confident of a good deal, sees no security threats from the UK and confirms Spain would not block an independent Scotland's application to join the EU, noting the Scottish and Catalonian situations are very different (there is no legal route for Caralonian secession under the current Spanish constitution, he says). Anyway, worth a read. “España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando” http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
It is an interesting piece (via Google translate). Rather more intelligent than the sort of thing we read in our own papers.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
For those who read Spanish, a very interesting interview with the country's foreign minister on Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. He is confident of a good deal, sees no security threats from the UK and confirms Spain would not block an independent Scotland's application to join the EU, noting the Scottish and Catalonian situations are very different (there is no legal route for Caralonian secession under the current Spanish constitution, he says). Anyway, worth a read. “España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando” http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
It is an interesting piece (via Google translate). Rather more intelligent than the sort of thing we read in our own papers.
Yep - a bit of perspective from outside the UK is always very helpful. Unfortunately, I don't speak any German and my French is O level standard, but if the Spanish Brexit coverage is anything to go by things are a lot less hysterical in the European media than they are in the UK.
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I am pretty comfortable on this election, following Chris from Paris's early tip on Macron.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
A final line for the ages ;-)
Macron does have a certain pragmatic vagueness about him, but is surefooted. He seemed to perform well in the first debate.
I think that his reforms will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the New Labour style, but with the important difference of fiscal sanity.
I would love to see him win. I think he is very impressive. That's why I cannot get too excited by it. My side always loses ;-)
Pragmatic vagueness=LOL bigtime.. vacuous more like, say anything to please
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Northern Ireland would become an immediate member state if it were to join the Republic. Scotland would undoubtedly leapfrog a number of current applicants; but I agree that EEA membership does make a lot more sense as it leaves a way open to do a tailored trade deal with England.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
"There is no way on God's earth that the British government is deliberately going to do anything that increases the security threat faced by British citizens at home or abroad. Hard Brexiteers who hope otherwise are going to be bitterly disappointed."
Are you seriously suggesting some Leavers hope that UK citizens security is threatened?
Nope - I am merely noting that less security cooperation in Europe increases the threat to British citizens, so will never be used as a bargaining chip.
First, negotiating over something is not "using it as a bargaining chip", it's negotiating about it. Secondly you are just wrong - goverment is forever making trade offs which recognise that sacrificing some degree of the safety of British citizens can be worth it even if only on financial grounds. Otherwise we'd never decrease the defence budget, for starters.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
If only we could identify who has had fiscal, monetary and general economic stewardship over Scotland to reduce us to this precarious state. Once this bit of detective work has been done, I'm sure things can be turned around.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
If only we could identify who has had fiscal, monetary and general economic stewardship over Scotland to reduce us to this precarious state. Once this bit of detective work has been done, I'm sure things can be turned around.
Are they responsible for spending too much money, or not raising enough taxes?
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
If only we could identify who has had fiscal, monetary and general economic stewardship over Scotland to reduce us to this precarious state. Once this bit of detective work has been done, I'm sure things can be turned around.
Scandinavia with a huge side order of chips and a lack of taking responsibility too, it seems.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Northern Ireland would become an immediate member state if it were to join the Republic. Scotland would undoubtedly leapfrog a number of current applicants; but I agree that EEA membership does make a lot more sense as it leaves a way open to do a tailored trade deal with England.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
I could see Northern Ireland working as a devolved region of the Republic. A million Protestants represented in the Dail may be a little too much for Irish politics to take.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
The UK/EU deal sets some precedents.
There is no automatic inheritance of any deal for a place outside of the UK or EU (Gibraltar); future access on the back of an existing deal needs joint authorisation from the UK and EU, plus whichever bit of the EU feels like it; the broad deal is sequenced with exit obligations and debts settled firstly. Furthermore, the overall EU will stand aside in a bi-lateral issue.
The content of the EU 'claim' on our obligations shows their state of thinking and would undoubtedly inform any similar discussion relating to independence movements within the UK or elsewhere in the EU.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
If only we could identify who has had fiscal, monetary and general economic stewardship over Scotland to reduce us to this precarious state. Once this bit of detective work has been done, I'm sure things can be turned around.
If the implication that it's all England's fault is indeed the case and would be cured by Scotland having control of its own fiscal policy, why has Scotland never actually chosen to use its very extensive tax-raising powers?
Maybe if the SNP are serious about independence they should demonstrate that they can maximise such autonomy as they already have to good effect. That they have failed to do so is one of the many reasons to think Sturgeon's recent posturing is just so much anti-English hot air, a la George Canning's anti-French speeches of the 1820s after he had decided not to interevene to help the Spanish.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Northern Ireland would become an immediate member state if it were to join the Republic. Scotland would undoubtedly leapfrog a number of current applicants; but I agree that EEA membership does make a lot more sense as it leaves a way open to do a tailored trade deal with England.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
I could see Northern Ireland working as a devolved region of the Republic. A million Protestants represented in the Dail may be a little too much for Irish politics to take.
the South would be bricking itself
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
We are talking about a country who thought Hollande was a good idea last time out, almost anything is possible. But I tend to agree that there are more lefties than the current polling indicates which should give Melenchon a better chance. I also agree that Melenchon gives Le Pen a better chance, but not much. She loses on pretty much every scenario, it is just a question of by how much.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Northern Ireland would become an immediate member state if it were to join the Republic. Scotland would undoubtedly leapfrog a number of current applicants; but I agree that EEA membership does make a lot more sense as it leaves a way open to do a tailored trade deal with England.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
I could see Northern Ireland working as a devolved region of the Republic. A million Protestants represented in the Dail may be a little too much for Irish politics to take.
the South would be bricking itself
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Northern Ireland would become an immediate member state if it were to join the Republic. Scotland would undoubtedly leapfrog a number of current applicants; but I agree that EEA membership does make a lot more sense as it leaves a way open to do a tailored trade deal with England.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
I could see Northern Ireland working as a devolved region of the Republic. A million Protestants represented in the Dail may be a little too much for Irish politics to take.
the South would be bricking itself
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
Do you think a Devo-max NI is viable as part of RoI? My presbyterian ancestors left a bit too long ago.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Northern Ireland would become an immediate member state if it were to join the Republic. Scotland would undoubtedly leapfrog a number of current applicants; but I agree that EEA membership does make a lot more sense as it leaves a way open to do a tailored trade deal with England.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
I could see Northern Ireland working as a devolved region of the Republic. A million Protestants represented in the Dail may be a little too much for Irish politics to take.
the South would be bricking itself
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
Using the EU/UK negotiating precedent - Ireland would have to pick up Northern Ireland's deficit and debt obligations to the UK.
We are talking about a country who thought Hollande was a good idea last time out, almost anything is possible. But I tend to agree that there are more lefties than the current polling indicates which should give Melenchon a better chance. I also agree that Melenchon gives Le Pen a better chance, but not much. She loses on pretty much every scenario, it is just a question of by how much.
hmm
if melenchon doesnt make the second round I dont think it's a slam dunk that all his leftie votes will go left. From my joyful times working with the french trade unions some of them see the FN as better for the little people than yet another enarque pretending theyve had it tough.
We are talking about a country who thought Hollande was a good idea last time out, almost anything is possible. But I tend to agree that there are more lefties than the current polling indicates which should give Melenchon a better chance. I also agree that Melenchon gives Le Pen a better chance, but not much. She loses on pretty much every scenario, it is just a question of by how much.
I wonder whether Melenchon takes voters off LePen. Leftist populists do seem to be polling well on the Continent.
The death of the French Socialist party is a salutary lesson for Labour here. It shows how the tectonic plates of politics can move.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Northern Ireland would become an immediate member state if it were to join the Republic. Scotland would undoubtedly leapfrog a number of current applicants; but I agree that EEA membership does make a lot more sense as it leaves a way open to do a tailored trade deal with England.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
I could see Northern Ireland working as a devolved region of the Republic. A million Protestants represented in the Dail may be a little too much for Irish politics to take.
the South would be bricking itself
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
Do you think a Devo-max NI is viable as part of RoI? My presbyterian ancestors left a bit too long ago.
Not until NI has an economy that isnt based on hand outs. Only the UK is big enough to pay the bills. Even if the RoI wanted to, the Germans wouldnt let them until theyd paid back their debts.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
the UK has routinely placed national interests of the day before the security of its citizens this is not a rubicon HMG has to cross.
We are talking about a country who thought Hollande was a good idea last time out, almost anything is possible. But I tend to agree that there are more lefties than the current polling indicates which should give Melenchon a better chance. I also agree that Melenchon gives Le Pen a better chance, but not much. She loses on pretty much every scenario, it is just a question of by how much.
I wonder whether Melenchon takes voters off LePen. Leftist populists do seem to be polling well on the Continent.
The death of the French Socialist party is a salutary lesson for Labour here. It shows how the tectonic plates of politics can move.
It is increasingly clear that there is very little which separates the populist left and right in Europe. Perhaps it is really just the flag: one is national, the other is red. That said, if the populist right won power anywhere it would probably turn out to be corporatist.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You are assuming that partnership with EU ex France is a positive.
I can see, for instance, a scenario where the increased risk to our operatives (through sharing information with leaky organisations in Europe) is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
For those who read Spanish, a very interesting interview with the country's foreign minister on Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. He is confident of a good deal, sees no security threats from the UK and confirms Spain would not block an independent Scotland's application to join the EU, noting the Scottish and Catalonian situations are very different (there is no legal route for Caralonian secession under the current Spanish constitution, he says). Anyway, worth a read. “España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando” http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
It is an interesting piece (via Google translate). Rather more intelligent than the sort of thing we read in our own papers.
I think this new Spanish clarification on Scotland (while not a big change in policy, a big change in tone) may be a sort of pre-emptive getting in the excuses to discourage Catalan independence. If they think Scotland has a decent chance of going independent in the coming years, better to separate that from Catalonia now, rather than continuously fight it and link it to Catalan independence.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
the UK has routinely placed national interests of the day before the security of its citizens this is not a rubicon HMG has to cross.
Hmmm - our plan is to increase the risk of you facing terror attacks in order to reduce the tariffs cheese makers will have to pay to access the Bulgarian market does not look like a compelling sell to me.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
the UK has routinely placed national interests of the day before the security of its citizens this is not a rubicon HMG has to cross.
Hmmm - our plan is to increase the risk of you facing terror attacks in order to reduce the tariffs cheese makers will have to pay to access the Bulgarian market does not look like a compelling sell to me.
Although that risk is absolutely tiny. The risk of there being a terrorist attack on the UK is much higher in the general sense.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You keep saying this (a lot) but you haven't answered Charles's point.
To what extent does formally leaving Europol et al and returning to purely a NATO relationship, and the bilateral relationship with France, unilaterally increase our security threat?
I agree with Charles: we are on the credit side.
Let's say, we're in security credit by 70-30 (rather than assuming a 50-50 balance) - if we withdraw we lose 30% "extra" security value, but the EU loses 70%.
So, although you could make a case we'd lose *something* it isn't equitable, as you imply it is.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You are assuming that partnership with EU ex France is a positive.
I can see, for instance, a scenario where the increased risk to our operatives (through sharing information with leaky organisations in Europe) is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
Tens of millions of Brits travel to the European Union each year. The UK government will continue to need to cooperate with governments across the EU to minimise the security threat they face. You cannot make Greeks, Italians, Cypriots, Spaniards, Pirtuguese etc more vulnerable to attack without doing the same to Brits.
Is the continent less politically correct than the UK/US? It's almost as if Brexit/Trump create shy supporters whereas Wilders/Le Pen(?) have the opposite - people who make public threats before backing down. It's not usually the analogy I'd use but someone recently quoted the Yorkshire(?) expression 'all fart and no follow through'. Perhaps the English speaking world could do with more of an early warning system?
Still the voters appeared to have learned from the terrorists that the best way to unsettle the elite is through surprise. If obedient Brits support Brexit, Donald Trump wins in the US on an anti-immigrant/free trade platform then surely it's only appropriate for the French to elect an investment banker. We can all sleep easy in our beds at the thought of enough bewildered faces to convene a special Davos summit.
The drift on Macron - 1.5 to 1.7 - is starting to assume "someone knows something" proportions. However, precisely because it is a well-traded market which has attracted ordinary punters, I'm happy to put it down to animal spirits. For now.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaoms union.
the UK has routinely placed national interests of the day before the security of its citizens this is not a rubicon HMG has to cross.
Hmmm - our plan is to increase the risk of you facing terror attacks in order to reduce the tariffs cheese makers will have to pay to access the Bulgarian market does not look like a compelling sell to me.
it's not the call theyre making.
you routinely tell me your FiL condems the UK govt and Churchill for the Coventry bombing where the govt put protection of Ultra before the lives of its citizens. Ultra wasnt even working properly in 1940.
NI is littered with reports of security forces letting people die rather than warn them, it's the same in the Cold war and the war against islamic terrorism.
So while you try to convince us of the moral stance, imo HMG has crossed that bridge several times and will continue to do so without any qualms.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You keep saying this (a lot) but you haven't answered Charles's point.
To what extent doesthreat?
I agree with Charles: we are on the credit side.
Let's say, we're in security credit by 70-30 (rather than assuming a 50-50 balance) - if we withdraw we lose 30% "extra" security value, but the EU loses 70%.
So, although you could make a case we'd lose *something* it isn't equitable, as you imply it is.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You are assuming that partnership with EU ex France is a positive.
I can see, for instance, a scenario where the increased risk to our operatives (through sharing information with leaky organisations in Europe) is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
Tens of millions of Brits travel to the European Union each year. The UK government will continue to need to cooperate with governments across the EU to minimise the security threat they face. You cannot make Greeks, Italians, Cypriots, Spaniards, Pirtuguese etc more vulnerable to attack without doing the same to Brits.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostilebly colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaoms union.
the UK has routinely placed national interests of the day before the security of its citizens this is not a rubicon HMG has to cross.
Hmmm - our plan is to increase the risk of you facing terror attacks in order to reduce the tariffs cheese makers will have to pay to access the Bulgarian market does not look like a compelling sell to me.
it's not the call theyre making.
you routinely tell me your FiL condems the UK govt and Churchill for the Coventry bombing where the govt put protection of Ultra before the lives of its citizens. Ultra wasnt even working properly in 1940.
NI is littered with reports of security forces letting people die rather than warn them, it's the same in the Cold war and the war against islamic terrorism.
So while you try to convince us of the moral stance, imo HMG has crossed that bridge several times and will continue to do so without any qualms.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostilebly colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaoms union.
the UK has routinely placed national interests of the day before the security of its citizens this is not a rubicon HMG has to cross.
Hmmm - our plan is to increase the risk of you facing terror attacks in order to reduce the tariffs cheese makers will have to pay to access the Bulgarian market does not look like a compelling sell to me.
it's not the call theyre making.
you routinely tell me your FiL condems the UK govt and Churchill for the Coventry bombing where the govt put protection of Ultra before the lives of its citizens. Ultra wasnt even working properly in 1940.
NI is littered with reports of security forces letting people die rather than warn them, it's the same in the Cold war and the war against islamic terrorism.
So while you try to convince us of the moral stance, imo HMG has crossed that bridge several times and will continue to do so without any qualms.
We are talking about a country who thought Hollande was a good idea last time out, almost anything is possible. But I tend to agree that there are more lefties than the current polling indicates which should give Melenchon a better chance. I also agree that Melenchon gives Le Pen a better chance, but not much. She loses on pretty much every scenario, it is just a question of by how much.
I wonder whether Melenchon takes voters off LePen. Leftist populists do seem to be polling well on the Continent.
The death of the French Socialist party is a salutary lesson for Labour here. It shows how the tectonic plates of politics can move.
It is increasingly clear that there is very little which separates the populist left and right in Europe. Perhaps it is really just the flag: one is national, the other is red. That said, if the populist right won power anywhere it would probably turn out to be corporatist.
Corporatism has long been part of the ppopulist right, and we see it very clearly in Trumpland. A bit of red meat thrown on cultural issues, a bit of flagwaving and a lot of corporate giveaways.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You are assuming that partnership with EU ex France is a positive.
I can see, for instance, a scenario where the increased risk to our operatives (through sharing information with leaky organisations in Europe) is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
Tens of millions of Brits travel to the European Union each year. The, Spaniards, Pirtuguese etc more vulnerable to attack without doing the same to Brits.
Go to Florida instead
See, that's where your argument just falls to pieces.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security becomes a bargaining chip is if the British government is unilaterally prepared to increase the security threat faced by UK citizens in order to secure better trading terms with the EU. I just can't see it being prepared to do that. As Theresa May acknowledged in her A50 trigger letter last week, the UK recognises there is an economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You keep saying this (a lot) but you haven't answered Charles's point.
To what extent doesthreat?
I agree with Charles: we are on the credit side.
Let's say, we're in security credit by 70-30 (rather than assuming a 50-50 balance) - if we withdraw we lose 30% "extra" security value, but the EU loses 70%.
So, although you could make a case we'd lose *something* it isn't equitable, as you imply it is.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
For those who read Spanish, a very interesting interview with the country's foreign minister on Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. He is confident of a good deal, sees no security threats from the UK and confirms Spain would not block an independent Scotland's application to join the EU, noting the Scottish and Catalonian situations are very different (there is no legal route for Caralonian secession under the current Spanish constitution, he says). Anyway, worth a read. “España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando” http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
It is an interesting piece (via Google translate). Rather more intelligent than the sort of thing we read in our own papers.
I think this new Spanish clarification on Scotland (while not a big change in policy, a big change in tone) may be a sort of pre-emptive getting in the excuses to discourage Catalan independence. If they think Scotland has a decent chance of going independent in the coming years, better to separate that from Catalonia now, rather than continuously fight it and link it to Catalan independence.
The Spanish case is that Scotland can only leave the UK through a legal process. If that happens Spain will regret it, but will recognise it has happened and as Scotland is in Europe it has every right to apply to join the EU. It already sees the Catalonian situation as distinct, because Catalonia cannot legally secede without Madrid's say-so. The Catalonian government, though, is currently preparing to declare independence unilaterally.
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
How awful that Britons care about fellow British citizens.
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
Indeed. One of the reasons that the Good Friday Agreement was an easy sell in the South is because most of the population in the RoI is quite content for the North to exist separately. Surveys show that while people talk about uniting the island of Ireland not many actually wanted to happen.
you cannot have a fully devolved government in Northern Ireland as long as the choice is between the Mob and a theocracy. Neither will work.
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
It appears to be the only card we have so it's not surprising some want to go there...
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
It appears to be the only card we have so it's not surprising some want to go there...
The drift on Macron - 1.5 to 1.7 - is starting to assume "someone knows something" proportions. However, precisely because it is a well-traded market which has attracted ordinary punters, I'm happy to put it down to animal spirits. For now.
Last week Mr Herdson started a thread stating that at 1/2 Macron was value. I advised caution, backing odds on in politics right now is a mugs game, as recent events confirm.
He's likely to win, that's obvious, backing odds on weeks before the election is crazy.
Eddie Mair's (on Marr) interview with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who had speciallly flown in, was embarrassing with him continually trying to get the Minster to say the A50 letter omitting Gibraltar was a mistake, despite the Minister's explanation and then saying that Gibraltar would not lose sovereignty if it was shared between UK and Spain
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
Actually, virtually nobody gives a shit about Gibralter, its barrel scraping
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
It appears to be the only card we have so it's not surprising some want to go there...
For those who read Spanish, a very interesting interview with the country's foreign minister on Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. He is confident of a good deal, sees no security threats from the UK and confirms Spain would not block an independent Scotland's application to join the EU, noting the Scottish and Catalonian situations are very different (there is no legal route for Caralonian secession under the current Spanish constitution, he says). Anyway, worth a read. “España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando” http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
It is an interesting piece (via Google translate). Rather more intelligent than the sort of thing we read in our own papers.
I think this new Spanish clarification on Scotland (while not a big change in policy, a big change in tone) may be a sort of pre-emptive getting in the excuses to discourage Catalan independence. If they think Scotland has a decent chance of going independent in the coming years, better to separate that from Catalonia now, rather than continuously fight it and link it to Catalan independence.
The Spanish case is that Scotland can only leave the UK through a legal process. If that happens Spain will regret it, but will recognise it has happened and as Scotland is in Europe it has every right to apply to join the EU. It already sees the Catalonian situation as distinct, because Catalonia cannot legally secede without Madrid's say-so. The Catalonian government, though, is currently preparing to declare independence unilaterally.
How can Scotland legally secede without Westminster's say-so?
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
If only we could identify who has had fiscal, monetary and general economic stewardship over Scotland to reduce us to this precarious state. Once this bit of detective work has been done, I'm sure things can be turned around.
If the implication that it's all England's fault is indeed the case and would be cured by Scotland having control of its own fiscal policy, why has Scotland never actually chosen to use its very extensive tax-raising powers?
Maybe if the SNP are serious about independence they should demonstrate that they can maximise such autonomy as they already have to good effect. That they have failed to do so is one of the many reasons to think Sturgeon's recent posturing is just so much anti-English hot air, a la George Canning's anti-French speeches of the 1820s after he had decided not to interevene to help the Spanish.
Are you serious, I once thought you were an intelligent poster, you seem to have morphed into the Little Englanders club on here. The only power they have is income tax. What do you think would be the result of only hiking income tax in Scotland, inward investment gone , jobs gone , huge cut in pocket money. There is absolutely nothing anti English about wanting a say in how your country is run, Scotland wanted to stay in EU and voted for that in 2014 and 2016 yet Westminster decide what will happen and do not even give Scotland one person to be involved. Lots of hot air coming but it is all blowing north.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security union.
You are assuming that partnership with EU ex France is a positive.
I can see, for instance, a scenario where the increased risk to our operatives (through sharing information with leaky organisations in Europe) is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
Tens of millions of Brits travel to the European Union each year. The, Spaniards, Pirtuguese etc more vulnerable to attack without doing the same to Brits.
Go to Florida instead
See, that's where your argument just falls to pieces.
Not at all it's to say that if "security" is your biggest concern, dont go anywhere dangerous
you seem to ignore the fact that millions of brits routinely go to places like Egypt, Morrocco, Turkey where there is an ongoing level of violence. It's a choice, nobody makes you go. We travel to lots of dangerous places irrespective of what HMG thinks.
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
It appears to be the only card we have so it's not surprising some want to go there...
Gibraltar, our only card? Righto...
We have many cards. The objection that some seem to have (funnily enough, all from the Remain side) is that they object to them being played.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/revealed-cabinet-plotted-exploit-eus-defence-fears/
One problem, Jersey is not part of the UK...
Le me start by dismiss any idea that the Russians have some (genuine) dirt on Macron and are just waiting for the run-off to release it. That simply makes no sense: from a Russian point of view, your preferred candidate might be Marine Le Pen, but Francois Fillon, who has called repeatedly for better links with Russia, would be a clear number two. So, you might want a Le Pen-Melanchon second round (because Le Pen would likely win it), or a Le Pen-Fillon (as both candidates would look kindly on Russia), but Le Pen-Macron still carries with it a very high chance that a pro-EU (and therefore anti-Russian) candidate gets in.
But, I do think Mr Meeks dismisses Melanchon too easily. There's a lot of Hamon support that could leak his way, especially if Hamon voters see Melanchon as the only way of getting a true left winger in the final two. Imagine if Macron's vote is actually overstated by a couple of percent (quite possible given he has no ground game, evaluating the support of insurgent candidates is hard, and it is always possible Macron has a late dip). Could we end up with Macron, Melanchon and Fillon all just sub 20%? Absolutely. Is it likely? No. But I reckon that there's probably a 7.5-12.5% chance that Melanchon slips by Macron.
That is the route to an MLP Presidency - Melanchon slipping through to face MLP in the second round. It's not likely, but it's by no means an impossibility.
What is a zoomer?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-article-50-negotiations-security-threat-latest-leave-eu-european-union-a7659466.html?amp
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/01/brexit-negotiations-theresa-may-rawnsley
"On my assessment of the probabilities, if she finds herself facing Emmanuel Macron in the last two, her chances have actually got worse."
If you win a semi final your price never lengthens regardless of your opponent in the final.
Are you seriously suggesting some Leavers hope that UK citizens security is threatened?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/spain-drops-plan-to-impose-veto-if-scotland-tries-to-join-eu
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/01/judge-rejects-trump-defense-claim-incited-violence-protesters
I can't really see the case against Trump succeeding (although the one against his supporters might), but if it did, even if he just got a slap on the wrist, I suspect that some of the hardcore breitbart types would start to campaign to rein in the "biased" judiciary. If the idea that Trump is a good guy being unfairly reined in by the checks and balances in the US system, we could see future populist campaigns aimed at eroding them.
A Le Pen vs Macron contest is practically unwinnable for her. Alastair gives her a 5% shot in that line-up. I think that's generous. A bland but seemingly capable centrist is the perfect candidate to take on the radical right (or the radical left, for that matter), as he or she would be extremely transfer-friendly.
But to get to that stage, Macron has to finish in the top two, which isn't guaranteed. The first round remains a very split field with no candidate consistently taking more than a quarter of the vote. It's possible that 20-21% might be enough to scrape through, though it'll probably be slightly higher. In 2002, Jospin 'should' have won in that he outpolled all other candidates in head-to-heads but he failed to secure enough positive support in the first round to make it through, and therein lies the risk for Macron. Against the other candidates, Le Pen stands a better chance.
I think the error in your logic is assuming that advancing from the semi-final to the final reduces the number of opponents; it doesn't necessarily: the opponents she is fighting are the anti-FN voters.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
I pretty much agree. The only potential fly in the ointment is that certainty to vote figures (last I saw) were just under 50% for Macron and over 70% for Le Pen and Fillon. Could point to a surprise, although that was prior to Fillon's vote share polling falling quite a bit.
“España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando”
http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
I think that his reforms will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the New Labour style, but with the important difference of fiscal sanity.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Not sure about the Scandinavian bit. I met some Seedes while I was in Hong Kong and they were very surprised to hear of the Scottish idea of being closer to Scandinavia than England. It was not something many Scandinavians see, they said; though they did say that the Norwegians feel a strong link with the British generally as a result of WW2.
is an anagram of Cameron
flouncy bouncy wibbly wobbly France
There is no automatic inheritance of any deal for a place outside of the UK or EU (Gibraltar); future access on the back of an existing deal needs joint authorisation from the UK and EU, plus whichever bit of the EU feels like it; the broad deal is sequenced with exit obligations and debts settled firstly. Furthermore, the overall EU will stand aside in a bi-lateral issue.
The content of the EU 'claim' on our obligations shows their state of thinking and would undoubtedly inform any similar discussion relating to independence movements within the UK or elsewhere in the EU.
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the EU takes an aggressive/hostile approach to a negotiation with the UK, even though this is expected to damage us economically, then they have demonstrated that they are not good partners with us. That will inevitably colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
Maybe if the SNP are serious about independence they should demonstrate that they can maximise such autonomy as they already have to good effect. That they have failed to do so is one of the many reasons to think Sturgeon's recent posturing is just so much anti-English hot air, a la George Canning's anti-French speeches of the 1820s after he had decided not to interevene to help the Spanish.
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
About €70bn in added euro debt.
The ongoing deficit is around €12bn p.a.
if melenchon doesnt make the second round I dont think it's a slam dunk that all his leftie votes will go left. From my joyful times working with the french trade unions some of them see the FN as better for the little people than yet another enarque pretending theyve had it tough.
The death of the French Socialist party is a salutary lesson for Labour here. It shows how the tectonic plates of politics can move.
This "Le Fucked" scenario.
I can see, for instance, a scenario where the increased risk to our operatives (through sharing information with leaky organisations in Europe) is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
To what extent does formally leaving Europol et al and returning to purely a NATO relationship, and the bilateral relationship with France, unilaterally increase our security threat?
I agree with Charles: we are on the credit side.
Let's say, we're in security credit by 70-30 (rather than assuming a 50-50 balance) - if we withdraw we lose 30% "extra" security value, but the EU loses 70%.
So, although you could make a case we'd lose *something* it isn't equitable, as you imply it is.
Still the voters appeared to have learned from the terrorists that the best way to unsettle the elite is through surprise. If obedient Brits support Brexit, Donald Trump wins in the US on an anti-immigrant/free trade platform then surely it's only appropriate for the French to elect an investment banker. We can all sleep easy in our beds at the thought of enough bewildered faces to convene a special Davos summit.
I don't want any surprises.
you routinely tell me your FiL condems the UK govt and Churchill for the Coventry bombing
where the govt put protection of Ultra before the lives of its citizens. Ultra wasnt even working properly in 1940.
NI is littered with reports of security forces letting people die rather than warn them, it's the same in the Cold war and the war against islamic terrorism.
So while you try to convince us of the moral stance, imo HMG has crossed that bridge several times and will continue to do so without any qualms.
By the photos, it doesn't look like a BNP friendly pub.
Whoever was responsible, it'll be included in the Brexit hate crime figures quoted by the Contimentalists.
The reaction will make the Brexit and Trump wailing look irrelevant. The poor darlings simply won't cope.
Stop being silly.
you cannot have a fully devolved government in Northern Ireland as long as the choice is between the Mob and a theocracy. Neither will work.
He's likely to win, that's obvious, backing odds on weeks before the election is crazy.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
Lots of hot air coming but it is all blowing north.
you seem to ignore the fact that millions of brits routinely go to places like Egypt, Morrocco, Turkey where there is an ongoing level of violence. It's a choice, nobody makes you go. We travel to lots of dangerous places irrespective of what HMG thinks.