Unfortunately it comes as little surprise this attack took place in croydon....A few year old but I doubt things have improved much...
The Croydon postcode CR0 was found to have the highest number of crimes reported last year, with 5,000 more than any other postal area.
The south London suburb was the scene of some of the most severe rioting last summer. During 2011, 2,081 burglaries, 3,258 violent crimes and 8,316 instances of anti-social behaviour were reported in the CR0 postcode district.
Someone I know from Croydon says the crime happened in the chavvviest white part of Croydon, so was likely a bunch of drunken white thugs. I bow to that superior wisdom.
It is nonetheless curious that the names or IDs of the assailants have not been released, in any way shape or form, despite arrests. Perhaps the cops are just trying to calm things.
Not sure if this got mentioned one here at the time, but I see the CP6 didn't prosecute the killing in Harlow as a hate crime:
I've no real observation on the gang attack thing until I hear the full story but Croydon and Thornton Heath really are very grim and rough places in parts.
Chunks of what used to be fairly nice London suburbia are very grim these days as the rougher elements in the centre get displaced by high prices, hipsters and housing benefit changes.
I've no real observation on the gang attack thing until I hear the full story but Croydon and Thornton Heath really are very grim and rough places in parts.
Chunks of what used to be fairly nice London suburbia are very grim these days as the rougher elements in the centre get displaced by high prices and hipsters.
Exhibit A M'Lud....SeanT spends sunny afternoon's in Camden Town's Gordon Ramsey Gastro Pub....
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
Given the level headedness of the opening letters, could the press perhaps lay off the sensationalism for at least a week, if we promised to still buy their shit?
That's a possibility. It depends on how successful the Madrid rucksack- and car-bombing campaign has been by that stage. Capturing the southern ports will be a priority.
Assuming Portugal can be kept neutral, the possibility of french reinforcements across the Pyrenees has to be a concern, a quick march and raid may be necessary before pulling back, that'll give time for the Channel Island naval units to land on the Basque Coast to keep them off guard.
Portugal already hosts the"home" games for Gib in UEFA. We've spent decades cementing that relationship. They'll stay officially neutral but in a Chile type of way.
Madrid is too much a Road To Moscow scenario. The Royal Gibraltar Regiment takes Seville. Andalusia falls. All of the Costas are full of expats who will welcome liberation anyway so there's no need to secure the east flank in any numbers. In fact in places like Duquesa they won't even notice any difference except a dark blue passort next time they renew.
North of Seville the fighting will get harder, which is why a simultaneous coup in Andorra is necessary to disrupt the mountain crossing and open another front.
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
Yes but it was the Nazis doing the massacre, as seen in Captain Correlli's Mandolin. Of the major EU nations it is now the Italians who are most Eurosceptic, hence Renzi lost his referendum and 5* now lead the polls
Unfortunately it comes as little surprise this attack took place in croydon....A few year old but I doubt things have improved much...
The Croydon postcode CR0 was found to have the highest number of crimes reported last year, with 5,000 more than any other postal area.
The south London suburb was the scene of some of the most severe rioting last summer. During 2011, 2,081 burglaries, 3,258 violent crimes and 8,316 instances of anti-social behaviour were reported in the CR0 postcode district.
Someone I know from Croydon says the crime happened in the chavvviest white part of Croydon, so was likely a bunch of drunken white thugs. I bow to that superior wisdom.
It is nonetheless curious that the names or IDs of the assailants have not been released, in any way shape or form, despite arrests. Perhaps the cops are just trying to calm things.
Not sure if this got mentioned one here at the time, but I see the CP6 didn't prosecute the killing in Harlow as a hate crime:
Incidentally, whoever perpetrated this vile crime in Croydon should be banged up for good.
There are some very odd features to the Croydon case. Dozens of bystanders, who eventually said "enough is enough". It doesn't sound to me like a bunch of racist skinheads targetting an asylum seeker just BECAUSE.
I dunno. Most odd. Clearly the culprits deserve loooooong sentences. But I am sure the full story has yet to emerge.
I am reminded of the similar lefty outrage over the brutal murder of that poor imam in Rochdale, presumably by thuggish UKIPers with sledgehammers, the killers turned out to be radical Islamic supporters of ISIS
It's interesting how some of those who cautioning against leaping to conclusions over the Westminster terrorist attack are happy to do so over Croydon.
Evening all. Just catching up. I haven't yet got to the imminent outbreak of war, I'm still struggling to understand Donald Tusk's draft negotiating guidelines. I realise this might have been covered already, so did we work out how:
(a) It can be the case that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately" and yet we're not supposed to discuss the post-Brexit deal until we've agreed the so-called exit deal (by which I think they mean €50bn)?
and
(b) "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union", yet apparently we're supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar?.
I think we came very close to special ops on the Argentine mainland: blowing up their planes on the runway and stuff
The more I think about it, the readier I am for WAR.
WAR. Come on, Jonny Spaniard. Let's be 'avin ya.
You going to lead the line then Sean?
Or just stay back in Blighty and write about it on an Internet forum?
He will go to the front line and quote his famous passage about the Sony Walkman at the Spaniards until they run for their very lives, not stopping until their feet are actually in the Bay of Biscay.
In reserve will be Harriet Harman waving her latest gender studies training manual. The third line will be Nick Clegg defending tuition fees.
I'm already feeling sorry for the Spanish.
I suspect Clegg of being a foreign agent. His wife is one of them. Keep it all from him.
Of course, the Spanish did invent guerilla warfare (hence the name) and Old Boney lost 200 000 men there. It could prove intractable.
The only way to be sure is nuke the planet from orbit.
You can't make that kind of decision. You're just a grunt.
Evening all. Just catching up. I haven't yet got to the imminent outbreak of war, I'm still struggling to understand Donald Tusk's draft negotiating guidelines. I realise this might have been covered already, so did we work out how:
(a) It can be the case that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately" and yet we're not supposed to discuss the post-Brexit deal until we've agreed the so-called exit deal (by which I think they mean €50bn)?
and
(b) "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union", yet apparently we're supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar?.
We're not supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar until its all done and dusted - but the mentioning of Gibraltar was part of game playing by Spain to work us up, since we know they would like to bring it up later. We know that and they know that, so some people have overreacted (remainers by pretending the EU would try to help Spain force is to hand over the Rock, Leavers in acting like Spain is poised to demand to take it back) and thus we arrive at Peninsula War II -GeoffM fighting in the front rank, colour commentary by S K Tremayne.
Tusk and May seem the most sensible figures so far.
The easiest way to beat Spain is not with a navy, or a bombardment, or even 300,000 pensioner fifth columnists.
No. We just offer a Free Trade deal to Catalonia.
Naughty!
I propose: any agreement which results in financial loss to Gibraltar that we raise extra taxes from Spanish businesses eg: Santander and extra duties on Spanish cars eg: SEAT. These extra funds to be given to Gibraltar.
Evening all. Just catching up. I haven't yet got to the imminent outbreak of war, I'm still struggling to understand Donald Tusk's draft negotiating guidelines. I realise this might have been covered already, so did we work out how:
(a) It can be the case that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately" and yet we're not supposed to discuss the post-Brexit deal until we've agreed the so-called exit deal (by which I think they mean €50bn)?
and
(b) "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union", yet apparently we're supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar?.
I think the idea from the EU's perspective is that they want us and Spain to "sort out" Gib AFTER Brexit (not that's there's anything to sort out unless Gib themselves have a referendum and decide they want to leave the UK)
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
Yes but it was the Nazis doing the massacre, as seen in Captain Correlli's Mandolin. Of the major EU nations it is now the Italians who are most Eurosceptic, hence Renzi lost his referendum and 5* now lead the polls
We did bump off a fair number of Frenchies at more or less the same time. Changing sides is always a bit dangerous mid war. read all about it here:
Given the level headedness of the opening letters, could the press perhaps lay off the sensationalism for at least a week, if we promised to still buy their shit?
I did say yesterday the biggest enemy to a sensible Brexit was the British media (which is far more influential than the European media, partly cause of language, also ours is just better (cleverer, more innovative)
Europeans watch/read the Mail, Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, Sun, Brits don't read Spiegel, Le Monde, terrible Euro versions of the BBC
So Remoaner and Brexiteer rags and shrieks could fuck this up.
Both sides should ignore the shriller sides of their media.
But, that same media does provide a role: it allows the more emotive on both sides to vent and take out their frustrations the serious talking is done behind closed doors.
The easiest way to beat Spain is not with a navy, or a bombardment, or even 300,000 pensioner fifth columnists.
No. We just offer a Free Trade deal to Catalonia.
Naughty!
I propose: any agreement which results in financial loss to Gibraltar that we raise extra taxes from Spanish businesses eg: Santander and extra duties on Spanish cars eg: SEAT. These extra funds to be given to Gibraltar.
Not until I've closed my Santander account though...
(b) "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union", yet apparently we're supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar?.
Seeming from downthread we won't be content with simply nuking Spain, we're going to invade France, the Netherlands and Germany as well. Does it count as "no separate negotiations" if we are war with all EU members? (I'm not sure what Latvia ever did to us, but never mind)
We're not supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar until its all done and dusted - but the mentioning of Gibraltar was part of game playing by Spain to work us up, since we know they would like to bring it up later. We know that and they know that, so some people have overreacted (remainers by pretending the EU would try to help Spain force is to hand over the Rock, Leavers in acting like Spain is poised to demand to take it back) and thus we arrive at Peninsula War II -GeoffM fighting in the front rank, colour commentary by S K Tremayne.
Tusk and May seem the most sensible figures so far.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
Evening all. Just catching up. I haven't yet got to the imminent outbreak of war, I'm still struggling to understand Donald Tusk's draft negotiating guidelines. I realise this might have been covered already, so did we work out how:
(a) It can be the case that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately" and yet we're not supposed to discuss the post-Brexit deal until we've agreed the so-called exit deal (by which I think they mean €50bn)?
and
(b) "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union", yet apparently we're supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar?.
I think the idea from the EU's perspective is that they want us and Spain to "sort out" Gib AFTER Brexit (not that's there's anything to sort out unless Gib themselves have a referendum and decide they want to leave the UK)
Putting aside the hyperbole, the issue here is the EU explicitly proposing to carve out Gibraltar from the UK-EU trade negotiation - which has taken HMG by surprise - rather than consider it as part of the UK, with specific bilateral arrangements between Spain and the UK added on, as the Lords Committee recommended.
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
Yes but it was the Nazis doing the massacre, as seen in Captain Correlli's Mandolin. Of the major EU nations it is now the Italians who are most Eurosceptic, hence Renzi lost his referendum and 5* now lead the polls
We did bump off a fair number of Frenchies at more or less the same time. Changing sides is always a bit dangerous mid war. read all about it here:
We're not supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar until its all done and dusted - but the mentioning of Gibraltar was part of game playing by Spain to work us up, since we know they would like to bring it up later. We know that and they know that, so some people have overreacted (remainers by pretending the EU would try to help Spain force is to hand over the Rock, Leavers in acting like Spain is poised to demand to take it back) and thus we arrive at Peninsula War II -GeoffM fighting in the front rank, colour commentary by S K Tremayne.
Tusk and May seem the most sensible figures so far.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
Who knows, they may take that one clause out of the final version!
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
Yes but it was the Nazis doing the massacre, as seen in Captain Correlli's Mandolin. Of the major EU nations it is now the Italians who are most Eurosceptic, hence Renzi lost his referendum and 5* now lead the polls
We did bump off a fair number of Frenchies at more or less the same time. Changing sides is always a bit dangerous mid war. read all about it here:
We're not supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar until its all done and dusted - but the mentioning of Gibraltar was part of game playing by Spain to work us up, since we know they would like to bring it up later. We know that and they know that, so some people have overreacted (remainers by pretending the EU would try to help Spain force is to hand over the Rock, Leavers in acting like Spain is poised to demand to take it back) and thus we arrive at Peninsula War II -GeoffM fighting in the front rank, colour commentary by S K Tremayne.
Tusk and May seem the most sensible figures so far.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
I think when Theresa May didn't mention Gib in her letter the EU and Spain couldn't help themselves...
But TM was quite right not to mention Gib as it's non-negotiable so there will be nothing to talk about until and unless Gib themselves want to leave the UK or change their constitutional arrangements.
The easiest way to beat Spain is not with a navy, or a bombardment, or even 300,000 pensioner fifth columnists.
No. We just offer a Free Trade deal to Catalonia.
Naughty!
I propose: any agreement which results in financial loss to Gibraltar that we raise extra taxes from Spanish businesses eg: Santander and extra duties on Spanish cars eg: SEAT. These extra funds to be given to Gibraltar.
Not until I've closed my Santander account though...
Santander UK operations are ringfenced and are the old Abbey, National Provincial, and Alliance and Leicester. Lots of UK staff to be punished. That is the folly of tariffs in a nutshell.
The easiest way to beat Spain is not with a navy, or a bombardment, or even 300,000 pensioner fifth columnists.
No. We just offer a Free Trade deal to Catalonia.
Naughty!
I propose: any agreement which results in financial loss to Gibraltar that we raise extra taxes from Spanish businesses eg: Santander and extra duties on Spanish cars eg: SEAT. These extra funds to be given to Gibraltar.
Not until I've closed my Santander account though...
Santander UK operations are ringfenced and are the old Abbey, National Provincial, and Alliance and Leicester. Lots of UK staff to be punished. That is the folly of tariffs in a nutshell.
Well FoxyOxy I still prefer the option of offering Catalonia a free trade deal.
The easiest way to beat Spain is not with a navy, or a bombardment, or even 300,000 pensioner fifth columnists.
No. We just offer a Free Trade deal to Catalonia.
Naughty!
I propose: any agreement which results in financial loss to Gibraltar that we raise extra taxes from Spanish businesses eg: Santander and extra duties on Spanish cars eg: SEAT. These extra funds to be given to Gibraltar.
Not until I've closed my Santander account though...
Santander UK operations are ringfenced and are the old Abbey, National Provincial, and Alliance and Leicester. Lots of UK staff to be punished. That is the folly of tariffs in a nutshell.
Indeed, my late grandfather was chairman of Alliance and Leicester in the 1980s and the head of Santander UK sent a message at his funeral. They very much took over the UK brands and accounts and made them their own
I've no real observation on the gang attack thing until I hear the full story but Croydon and Thornton Heath really are very grim and rough places in parts.
Chunks of what used to be fairly nice London suburbia are very grim these days as the rougher elements in the centre get displaced by high prices, hipsters and housing benefit changes.
Croydon has been on the slide for a very long time. Vast amounts are being sunk into Westfield and various high rises in the town centre, but I'm not sure will be enough. It will end up like Lewisham; well-connected but not attractive for the long term.
Evening all. Just catching up. I haven't yet got to the imminent outbreak of war, I'm still struggling to understand Donald Tusk's draft negotiating guidelines. I realise this might have been covered already, so did we work out how:
(a) It can be the case that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately" and yet we're not supposed to discuss the post-Brexit deal until we've agreed the so-called exit deal (by which I think they mean €50bn)?
and
(b) "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union", yet apparently we're supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar?.
a) They want 'principles agreed' and 'sufficient progress'. A bit vague and woolly, but not unreasonable or harsh. I imagine we'd want the same agreed with Scotland in a Sindy comparison.
b) We've got them, and they know it. Too many easily identifiable, vested and acute interests on their side. We can press their individual buttons whenever the mood takes us. Let's hope they are sensible enough that we feel no need to create disharmony and that we can reach an early and amicable deal.
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
Yes but it was the Nazis doing the massacre, as seen in Captain Correlli's Mandolin. Of the major EU nations it is now the Italians who are most Eurosceptic, hence Renzi lost his referendum and 5* now lead the polls
We did bump off a fair number of Frenchies at more or less the same time. Changing sides is always a bit dangerous mid war. read all about it here:
We're not supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar until its all done and dusted - but the mentioning of Gibraltar was part of game playing by Spain to work us up, since we know they would like to bring it up later. We know that and they know that, so some people have overreacted (remainers by pretending the EU would try to help Spain force is to hand over the Rock, Leavers in acting like Spain is poised to demand to take it back) and thus we arrive at Peninsula War II -GeoffM fighting in the front rank, colour commentary by S K Tremayne.
Tusk and May seem the most sensible figures so far.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
Sensible, I think. The rest of Europe can get on with the Brexit deal without risk of Spain and/or Gibraltar throwing spanners into the works. Talk about task forces are theatrics. May will be quietly thankful to Tusk for removing her responsibility for doing anything for Gibraltar. The Gibraltar thing will be sorted out eventually with a Southern Iberian Council or somesuch oversight body and if the tax haven, which is what this is really about, continues, Spain will get a cut.
My suspicion is that Britain would win (with American and Commonwealth help) just because we are still, deep down, a mean-arsed bunch of warrior state island thugs, and they are effete continental aperol-sippers, and the ones that aren't (some Germans, some French, Eastern Europeans like Mr Meeks' Hungary) will be the most sympathetic to our cause.
Yes, but be honest. All we have to do is wait a few minutes and then you'll want biscuits.
I'm ready, man, check it out. I am the ultimate Brexiteer! State of the Brexiteer art! You do not wanna f*ck with me! Check it out! Hey, Viewcode, don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate Brexiteers will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks...
II think that polling says more about who we are confident of beating. The French? - in the end we always win. The Spanish, basically a walkover, they'll take a siesta then we nuke them.
The Dutch, hmmm, quite wily, very tall, haven't played them in years, something of a dark horse, not entirely confident, maybe yes, maybe no.
Germany? Er, cough, *shuffling of feet*, uhm, we've beaten them twice. That's enough for now. Stay friends with them.
It also largely reflects the number of wars fought against foreign powers (albeit France is first and Spain second), if you look only at England rather than the UK then Scotland would be third ahead of the Netherlands and Germany, possibly even second
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
Yes but it was the Nazis doing the massacre, as seen in Captain Correlli's Mandolin. Of the major EU nations it is now the Italians who are most Eurosceptic, hence Renzi lost his referendum and 5* now lead the polls
We did bump off a fair number of Frenchies at more or less the same time. Changing sides is always a bit dangerous mid war. read all about it here:
It did involve the sinking of the French fleet on Churchill's orders
Only the old battleship <<Bretagne>> was actually sunk outright - the other ships were able to make it across the Med to Toulon, where they were scuttled in 1942 to keep them out of German hands.
So what do we think The Don's going to do about North Korea?
Spanish collaborators?
Surely we will be negotiating a North Korea trade deal now that we are free to do so?
Interestingly, Kim Jong Un was the only international leader apart from our ubiquitous friend Vlad who supported independence for Scotland and the last referendum. There was talk of setting up some kind of North Korean trade deal.
...It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation...
Perhaps a sense of proportion may be indicated here, yes? It's day 4 of negotiations that will go on for two years for the decree absolute and another three years for the alimony and visitation rights thereafter.
I'm kind of serous. I want a fucking war with Europe.
Fuck these wankers. Daring to boss us around.
DON'T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE???
It's the one great experience I have never had: a massive global war, with my country existentially threatened, bombs falling on the fountains of Regent's Park, dogs carrying human parts down Tottenham Court Road.
My suspicion is that Britain would win (with American and Commonwealth help) just because we are still, deep down, a mean-arsed bunch of warrior state island thugs, and they are effete continental aperol-sippers, and the ones that aren't (some Germans, some French, Eastern Europeans like Mr Meeks' Hungary) will be the most sympathetic to our cause.
I'm kind of serous. I want a fucking war with Europe.
Fuck these wankers. Daring to boss us around.
DON'T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE???
It's the one great experience I have never had: a massive global war, with my country existentially threatened, bombs falling on the fountains of Regent's Park, dogs carrying human parts down Tottenham Court Road.
My suspicion is that Britain would win (with American and Commonwealth help) just because we are still, deep down, a mean-arsed bunch of warrior state island thugs, and they are effete continental aperol-sippers, and the ones that aren't (some Germans, some French, Eastern Europeans like Mr Meeks' Hungary) will be the most sympathetic to our cause.
We would win. A tremendous victory.
WAR.
Mrs May has noted your concern and will reply after she has finished reading Vogue and giving Philip his cocoa
So what do we think The Don's going to do about North Korea?
Spanish collaborators?
Surely we will be negotiating a North Korea trade deal now that we are free to do so?
Interestingly, Kim Jong Un was the only international leader apart from our ubiquitous friend Vlad who supported independence for Scotland and the last referendum. There was talk of setting up some kind of North Korean trade deal.
They have some things on the Clyde that he's probably interested in.
I'm kind of serous. I want a fucking war with Europe.
Fuck these wankers. Daring to boss us around.
DON'T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE???
It's the one great experience I have never had: a massive global war, with my country existentially threatened, bombs falling on the fountains of Regent's Park, dogs carrying human parts down Tottenham Court Road.
My suspicion is that Britain would win (with American and Commonwealth help) just because we are still, deep down, a mean-arsed bunch of warrior state island thugs, and they are effete continental aperol-sippers, and the ones that aren't (some Germans, some French, Eastern Europeans like Mr Meeks' Hungary) will be the most sympathetic to our cause.
We would win. A tremendous victory.
WAR.
Are you pissed again?
"Again" implies a previous state of sobriety. The word you are looking for is "still".
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
I'm kind of serous. I want a fucking war with Europe.
Fuck these wankers. Daring to boss us around.
DON'T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE???
It's the one great experience I have never had: a massive global war, with my country existentially threatened, bombs falling on the fountains of Regent's Park, dogs carrying human parts down Tottenham Court Road.
My suspicion is that Britain would win (with American and Commonwealth help) just because we are still, deep down, a mean-arsed bunch of warrior state island thugs, and they are effete continental aperol-sippers, and the ones that aren't (some Germans, some French, Eastern Europeans like Mr Meeks' Hungary) will be the most sympathetic to our cause.
We would win. A tremendous victory.
WAR.
Are you pissed again?
Rarely been more sober. I've had some vile virus for the last few days, and have drunk barely a drop (recovering now, with my first flute of Moet vintage 2008)
I am only SEMI-serious.
But I wouldn't mind a war. I'm 53. The end of my active life approaches. One final glorious experience. I WANT TO BE D'ANNUNZIO, dropping bombs on Vienna, then spend my dotage having sex in my 70s with lesbians followed by a breakfast of tiny marmalade cakes
Plenty of wars on the go for those who want to get involved.
My grandfather went off to war in 1916, but didn't like it much, each to their own.
I'm kind of serous. I want a fucking war with Europe.
Fuck these wankers. Daring to boss us around.
DON'T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE???
It's the one great experience I have never had: a massive global war, with my country existentially threatened, bombs falling on the fountains of Regent's Park, dogs carrying human parts down Tottenham Court Road.
My suspicion is that Britain would win (with American and Commonwealth help) just because we are still, deep down, a mean-arsed bunch of warrior state island thugs, and they are effete continental aperol-sippers, and the ones that aren't (some Germans, some French, Eastern Europeans like Mr Meeks' Hungary) will be the most sympathetic to our cause.
We would win. A tremendous victory.
WAR.
Are you pissed again?
"Again" implies a previous state of sobriety. The word you are looking for is "still".
It's amazing how much money I can make (annual salary higher than the UK prime minister for the the last decade) for someone who is permanently drunk.
It reminds me of a quote, written by, er, um, ME, in The Deceit (my final Tom Knox thriller) - "the British managed to conquer a third of the world and create history's greatest empire, while perpetually half-cut on gin and porter, imagine what they might have done sober. They'd probably have invaded Mars".
Charles Kennedy, a chaotic drunk who could barely hold down his job, was fervently against Gulf War II. Tony Blair, a supremely skilled politician at the height of his powers, sober and controlled, almost singlehandedly charmed the entire UK into a war it didn't want or need.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
Or they utterly miscalculate, and under-estimate our willingness to say Fuck off, and walk away, with no deal at all. No money changes hands. Nowt.
This sentiment grows daily on the British side. So we'd take a 5-10% cut in GDP? So fucking what. Life goes on. No one dies. We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
I think you are wrong. The Continentals fully understand how stupid we are. Nearly as stupid as the Trumpsters.
also note, there were approx 500 000 extra cancer deaths due to the GFC of 2008:
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
It's not clever at all, it's extremely stupid, based on a series of political miscalculations, for multiple reasons:
1. If this is going to work out to both sides' benefit, both sides need to get on with discussing the real issue, which is the post-Brexit deal. Time is of the essence, for both sides - not just for the UK, as they seem to think.
2. The EU27 think that a chaotic crash-out would hurt the UK more than them. That is true, but that will be of little consolation to them if it happens, because they will still be badly hit. They seem to be in la-la land about this (much like the Brexiteers were when they were telling us we could leave without much damage).
3. They are manoeuvring themselves into a position where it may be impossible for them to agree a reasonable deal, most notably with their completely bonkers exit payment demand.
4. Bringing Gibraltar into the equation is highly provocative and completely unnecessary. What on earth were they thinking?
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
They have an amicable settlement. The only question is how much they are prepared to self harm in tossing pieces of it away.
They simply do not have Britain's flexibility to respond to the future.
They - 19 of them - do not own their own currency. They - all of them - have no unilateral authority to adjust their tariff regimes/quotas etc.
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
Or they utterly miscalculate, and under-estimate our willingness to say Fuck off, and walk away, with no deal at all. No money changes hands. Nowt.
This sentiment grows daily on the British side. So we'd take a 5-10% cut in GDP? So fucking what. Life goes on. No one dies. We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
I think you are wrong. The Continentals fully understand how stupid we are. Nearly as stupid as the Trumpsters.
Yet it was the UK and US wot saved them from Hitler (western EU) and Communism (eastern EU).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
It's not clever at all, it's extremely stupid, based on a series of political miscalculations, for multiple reasons:
1. If this is going to work out to both sides' benefit, both sides need to get on with discussing the real issue, which is the post-Brexit deal. Time is of the essence, for both sides - not just for the UK, as they seem to think.
2. The EU27 think that a chaotic crash-out would hurt the UK more than them. That is true, but that will be of little consolation to them if it happens, because they will still be badly hit. They seem to be in la-la land about this (much like the Brexiteers were when they were telling us we could leave without much damage).
3. They are manoeuvring themselves into a position where it may be impossible for them to agree a reasonable deal, most notably with their completely bonkers exit payment demand.
4. Bringing Gibraltar into the equation is highly provocative and completely unnecessary. What on earth were they thinking?
Wow, you really must be pessimistic - no mentions at all of "our EU friends"
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
Or they utterly miscalculate, and under-estimate our willingness to say Fuck off, and walk away, with no deal at all. No money changes hands. Nowt.
This sentiment grows daily on the British side. So we'd take a 5-10% cut in GDP? So fucking what. Life goes on. No one dies. We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
I think you are wrong. The Continentals fully understand how stupid we are. Nearly as stupid as the Trumpsters.
Yet it was the UK and US wot saved them from Hitler (western EU) and Communism (eastern EU).
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
What many who were concerned at the apparent threat of veto by other WTO members may have missed was the rather narrow basis on which one country can in practice object to the new WTO schedules of another.
As Cambridge trade law academic Dr Lorand Bartels explains (in the fascinating comments under that post by Mr Braithwaite – some of the best “below the line” comments I have seen on any post):
The other 163 WTO Members (actually, 27 of these are EU Member States, so there are fewer voices than that) do not have a veto over the UK’s scheduled commitments.
They do have a veto over the certification of these schedules. But certification has merely evidentiary weight. It is like coronation. The UK’s scheduled commitments exist even if they are not certified, just as a monarch is a monarch prior to coronation. Indeed, the EU itself has not traded under certified schedules since 1974. The sky has not fallen.
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
*cough*
Apart from the WTO terms we need to negotiate.
That can be vetoed by other members.
Like Argentina
Oh, Fu...
Remind us who won in 1982
Do you think Scotty wanted Mrs T to "negotiate" with Argentina in '82?
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
What many who were concerned at the apparent threat of veto by other WTO members may have missed was the rather narrow basis on which one country can in practice object to the new WTO schedules of another.
As Cambridge trade law academic Dr Lorand Bartels explains (in the fascinating comments under that post by Mr Braithwaite – some of the best “below the line” comments I have seen on any post):
The other 163 WTO Members (actually, 27 of these are EU Member States, so there are fewer voices than that) do not have a veto over the UK’s scheduled commitments.
They do have a veto over the certification of these schedules. But certification has merely evidentiary weight. It is like coronation. The UK’s scheduled commitments exist even if they are not certified, just as a monarch is a monarch prior to coronation. Indeed, the EU itself has not traded under certified schedules since 1974. The sky has not fallen.
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
Or they utterly miscalculate, and under-estimate our willingness to say Fuck off, and walk away, with no deal at all. No money changes hands. Nowt.
This sentiment grows daily on the British side. So we'd take a 5-10% cut in GDP? So fucking what. Life goes on. No one dies. We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
I think you are wrong. The Continentals fully understand how stupid we are. Nearly as stupid as the Trumpsters.
Yet it was the UK and US wot saved them from Hitler (western EU) and Communism (eastern EU).
That was when our voters were still smart.
Who says our voters weren't smart to vote for Brexit?
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
What many who were concerned at the apparent threat of veto by other WTO members may have missed was the rather narrow basis on which one country can in practice object to the new WTO schedules of another.
As Cambridge trade law academic Dr Lorand Bartels explains (in the fascinating comments under that post by Mr Braithwaite – some of the best “below the line” comments I have seen on any post):
The other 163 WTO Members (actually, 27 of these are EU Member States, so there are fewer voices than that) do not have a veto over the UK’s scheduled commitments.
They do have a veto over the certification of these schedules. But certification has merely evidentiary weight. It is like coronation. The UK’s scheduled commitments exist even if they are not certified, just as a monarch is a monarch prior to coronation. Indeed, the EU itself has not traded under certified schedules since 1974. The sky has not fallen.
Hmmmmmmm....
Of course, it could be some randomer claiming to be Dr Lorand Bartels
Hmm, not sure that Tusk has been sensible on this point. It was a miscalculation of quite spectacular proportions to bring Gibraltar into the equation. They've probably just torpedoed the chance of an amicable settlement (not that that was very high, given the rest of their negotiating position).
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep th a bitem on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
Or they utterly miscalculate, and under-estimate our willingness to say Fuck off, and walk away, with no deal at all. No money changes hands. Nowt.
This sentiment grows daily on the British side. So we'd take a 5-10% cut in GDP? So fucking what. Life goes on. No one dies. We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
It's possible. The UK's only real interest is a comprehensive trade-only deal with the EU (Canada Plus). But if the EU side says (stage 2 of the negotiations after the payment stuff has been substantially dealt with) you can have your Canada Plus and we are working on it (slowly), how likely is it that the UK would choose to go over the cliff edge AND pass up the only thing it really wants?. And by the time you get to Year 10 (bearing in mind Canada-not-plus has taken fourteen years so far and counting) it will think we have waited so long, we might as well keep going a bit longer.
Mind you, the thing you said last night about the transition deal being limited to three years would fuck everything up if it happened. The important thing is for the EU NOT to punish us. As the affable Mr Tusk pointed out, the EU doesn't need to.
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
What many who were concerned at the apparent threat of veto by other WTO members may have missed was the rather narrow basis on which one country can in practice object to the new WTO schedules of another.
As Cambridge trade law academic Dr Lorand Bartels explains (in the fascinating comments under that post by Mr Braithwaite – some of the best “below the line” comments I have seen on any post):
The other 163 WTO Members (actually, 27 of these are EU Member States, so there are fewer voices than that) do not have a veto over the UK’s scheduled commitments.
They do have a veto over the certification of these schedules. But certification has merely evidentiary weight. It is like coronation. The UK’s scheduled commitments exist even if they are not certified, just as a monarch is a monarch prior to coronation. Indeed, the EU itself has not traded under certified schedules since 1974. The sky has not fallen.
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
It's not clever at all, it's extremely stupid, based on a series of political miscalculations, for multiple reasons:
1. If this is going to work out to both sides' benefit, both sides need to get on with discussing the real issue, which is the post-Brexit deal. Time is of the essence, for both sides - not just for the UK, as they seem to think.
2. The EU27 think that a chaotic crash-out would hurt the UK more than them. That is true, but that will be of little consolation to them if it happens, because they will still be badly hit. They seem to be in la-la land about this (much like the Brexiteers were when they were telling us we could leave without much damage).
3. They are manoeuvring themselves into a position where it may be impossible for them to agree a reasonable deal, most notably with their completely bonkers exit payment demand.
4. Bringing Gibraltar into the equation is highly provocative and completely unnecessary. What on earth were they thinking?
This is casinoroyale's thesis. And I come to see its merits. The EU has a strong hand which they are about to overplay. They think we won't accept crashing out. Of course we will. We are Britain. We'll take it. We have a self image of stoicism and endurance, we positively welcome blood sweat and tears.
It may be delusional and self harming but that is our national psychology. We don't bend the knee.
And in the end it is very arguable as to whether crashing out would be any worse than some half arse bodge, in the long term. Who can say.
By Crash Brexit we get absolute freedom. London would suffer, in the beginning. But the nation would regain self respect, via self reliance.
Or riot. It is easy to take it on the chin when you earn more than the Prime Minister
We'd be free to do exactly what we want in every respect, and there's no doubt we would go for a low tax, ruthless, hugely capitalist model. It would be our best and only hope.
*cough*
Apart from the WTO terms we need to negotiate.
That can be vetoed by other members.
Like Argentina
Oh, Fu...
Remind us who won in 1982
Do you think Scotty wanted Mrs T to "negotiate" with Argentina in '82?
The more accurate parallel would be the negotiations over the Falklands before 1982. Mrs Thatchers govt in 1980 proposed a leaseback arrangement for example:
And the EU aren't aiming for an amicable settlement. They are aiming for a settlement substantially on their terms. It's business.
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
It's not clever at all, it's extremely stupid, based on a series of political miscalculations, for multiple reasons:
1. If this is going to work out to both sides' benefit, both sides need to get on with discussing the real issue, which is the post-Brexit deal. Time is of the essence, for both sides - not just for the UK, as they seem to think.
2. The EU27 think that a chaotic crash-out would hurt the UK more than them. That is true, but that will be of little consolation to them if it happens, because they will still be badly hit. They seem to be in la-la land about this (much like the Brexiteers were when they were telling us we could leave without much damage).
3. They are manoeuvring themselves into a position where it may be impossible for them to agree a reasonable deal, most notably with their completely bonkers exit payment demand.
4. Bringing Gibraltar into the equation is highly provocative and completely unnecessary. What on earth were they thinking?
This is casinoroyale's thesis. And I come to see its merits. The EU has a strong hand which they are about to overplay. They think we won't accept crashing out. Of course we will. We are Britain. We'll take it. We have a self image of stoicism and endurance, we positively welcome blood sweat and tears.
It may be delusional and self harming but that is our national psychology. We don't bend the knee.
And in the end it is very arguable as to whether crashing out would be any worse than some half arse bodge, in the long term. Who can say.
By Crash Brexit we get absolute freedom. London would suffer, in the beginning. But the nation would regain self respect, via self reliance.
Whilst I don't agree at all with your view that Crash Brexit would work out ok (and I say that as someone who was QUITE close to voting Leave a year ago), I think there's probably a lot of Brits who share your view, or will share your view soon.
Britain formally leaving the EU/Single Market by the end of summer 2017 is a very likely outcome IMO; no proper negotiations even attempted because of "irreconcilable differences".
Comments
Gordon'sScott P's alive!https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/847389749287374848
I may be wrong but the faux outrage seems in the main to be coming from the very people who the voter rejected in the referendum
Donkeys and
TSEsArses 48.1%Chunks of what used to be fairly nice London suburbia are very grim these days as the rougher elements in the centre get displaced by high prices, hipsters and housing benefit changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars
https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/848296994070294528
Notice no Italy on the list, the only war in recent centuries we fought against them was against Mussolini in which case the Italian army was a joke anyway and before that you really have to go back to the Romans. Italians are also probably the European nation Brits are most fond of, funny, friendly, cultured, sexy and lovers of good food and wine
That went well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Acqui_Division
https://twitter.com/misteriosoman51/status/848629182301175809
People see what they want to see.
(a) It can be the case that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately" and yet we're not supposed to discuss the post-Brexit deal until we've agreed the so-called exit deal (by which I think they mean €50bn)?
and
(b) "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union", yet apparently we're supposed to haggle with Spain over Gibraltar?.
No offense.
Tusk and May seem the most sensible figures so far.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004JHY6N2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
But, that same media does provide a role: it allows the more emotive on both sides to vent and take out their frustrations the serious talking is done behind closed doors.
That is probably a necessary part of the process.
But TM was quite right not to mention Gib as it's non-negotiable so there will be nothing to talk about until and unless Gib themselves want to leave the UK or change their constitutional arrangements.
b) We've got them, and they know it. Too many easily identifiable, vested and acute interests on their side. We can press their individual buttons whenever the mood takes us. Let's hope they are sensible enough that we feel no need to create disharmony and that we can reach an early and amicable deal.
#WWIII
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/848649940855398400
To what extent did anger over the metric system and maroon passports cause the Anglo-Spanish War (2017-2022)?
Will they get one? Providing EU Parliament or some other faction doesn't muck up, I think they will, based on the draft framework issued on Friday. It's a very clever negotiating strategy which concedes just enough to the UK side at the right stages to keep them on board, while allowing the EU side to drive the direction and pace, which will be leisurely.
https://www.facebook.com/shakira/photos/a.142708799559.109364.5027904559/10155096602724560/?type=3&theater
My grandfather went off to war in 1916, but didn't like it much, each to their own.
Tony Blair, a supremely skilled politician at the height of his powers, sober and controlled, almost singlehandedly charmed the entire UK into a war it didn't want or need.
You never know until afterwards...
also note, there were approx 500 000 extra cancer deaths due to the GFC of 2008:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/financial-crisis-caused-500000-extra-cancer-death-according-to-l/
A drop in GDP does indeed kiil.
1. If this is going to work out to both sides' benefit, both sides need to get on with discussing the real issue, which is the post-Brexit deal. Time is of the essence, for both sides - not just for the UK, as they seem to think.
2. The EU27 think that a chaotic crash-out would hurt the UK more than them. That is true, but that will be of little consolation to them if it happens, because they will still be badly hit. They seem to be in la-la land about this (much like the Brexiteers were when they were telling us we could leave without much damage).
3. They are manoeuvring themselves into a position where it may be impossible for them to agree a reasonable deal, most notably with their completely bonkers exit payment demand.
4. Bringing Gibraltar into the equation is highly provocative and completely unnecessary. What on earth were they thinking?
Apart from the WTO terms we need to negotiate.
That can be vetoed by other members.
Like Argentina
Oh, Fu...
They simply do not have Britain's flexibility to respond to the future.
They - 19 of them - do not own their own currency. They - all of them - have no unilateral authority to adjust their tariff regimes/quotas etc.
They're on the chain gang.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/02/28/brexit-and-the-issue-of-the-wto-schedules/
What many who were concerned at the apparent threat of veto by other WTO members may have missed was the rather narrow basis on which one country can in practice object to the new WTO schedules of another.
As Cambridge trade law academic Dr Lorand Bartels explains (in the fascinating comments under that post by Mr Braithwaite – some of the best “below the line” comments I have seen on any post):
The other 163 WTO Members (actually, 27 of these are EU Member States, so there are fewer voices than that) do not have a veto over the UK’s scheduled commitments.
They do have a veto over the certification of these schedules. But certification has merely evidentiary weight. It is like coronation. The UK’s scheduled commitments exist even if they are not certified, just as a monarch is a monarch prior to coronation. Indeed, the EU itself has not traded under certified schedules since 1974. The sky has not fallen.
Mind you, the thing you said last night about the transition deal being limited to three years would fuck everything up if it happened. The important thing is for the EU NOT to punish us. As the affable Mr Tusk pointed out, the EU doesn't need to.
You guys really are crazy for war...
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/southamerica/falklands/falklandswar.htm
Indeed it was these negotiations over sovereignty that led the Argies to think that we didn't really want the Islands.
Britain formally leaving the EU/Single Market by the end of summer 2017 is a very likely outcome IMO; no proper negotiations even attempted because of "irreconcilable differences".