In the first week of triggering Article 50, we've been mostly discussing going to war with Spain, this does not fill me with confidence about the whole process.
Fortunately we've got Liam Fox, David Davis, and Boris Johnson to fix it.
Oh....,
Davis has been receiving pretty good reviews in recent weeks/months. And to be fair to Boris, I think his statement wasn't that unhinged, just saying that the settlement cannot change without the consent of the locals.
I'm confused about these good reviews of David Davis. In December he was saying a transitional deal would only be necessary to be 'kind' to the EU and that immigration would fall because of the skills and apprenticeships programs that were going to be introduced. Now he's saying a transitional deal is necessary and that immigration won't fall at all.
He seems like a particularly slow on the job learner.
He at least shows some signs he has grasped the complexity of the issues.
A minute of consideration should have been enough to show the complexity of the issues.
Instead it seems to have taken him several months of tax payer funded tutoring just for him to have realised all the things that he doesn't know.
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
I believe that this is a very fair summary as we start this process and entirely in line with today's ICM poll. The Spain - Gibraltar spat will have had no adverse effect on Theresa May and tonights pictures from Jordan with the military will have done her no harm.
The UK will not be bullied by the EU and I do believe it is the EU who have shot themselves in the foot with stupid ransom demands of 50 billion pounds and introducing division over Spain - Gibraltar.
I expect that Theresa May feels very confident that she has shown the right tone and it is the EU who are on the backfoot. Continue with stupid comments from Junckers et al and not only will the EU be deminished here but also outside Europe
I'm genuinely curious - what do you consider more important - the economic future of the United Kingdom or the political survival of Theresa May ?
We are now seeing the inevitable spin - if it's a good deal for Britain, it's good for Theresa May but apparently if it's a bad deal or no deal it's also good for Theresa May.
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
From Cameron's original referendum decision through to the type of Brexit deal we get this has always been as much to do with what's best for the Conservative Party rather than what's best for the country. RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
Olly, it's all about the Tory party. Brexit is both exposing the desperation of the Tory party to stay together at the same time as its ever more Janusian nature. Happily it can only eventually end badly.
I think you underestimate Conservative MP's interest in power.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
OTOH, many people in Britain will be well aware the financial settlement is an integral part of any divorce and a mutually amicable financial settlement isn't predicated on one side walking off without paying a penny yet wanting custody of almost everything.
If they perceive it to be reasonable. To do that temperate language needs to be used.
God help us if the euroloons on here were let anywhere near the discussion. They would generate the rock hardest of hard Brexits.
I am also convinced that notwithstanding the hyperbole the media have made over Spain Theresa May's stance will be widely approved
Interesting. I'm pretty sure the EU is not going to budge on the payments. It may not be the full €60 billion, but they will want an enforceable commitment in the tens of billions. We won't walk away, of course. We wouldn't be able to fly out of the country for a start. But it could get very messy.
Out of interest what would happen to people that did try to fly out of the country in that situation?
All aviation safety operations - airline management, air traffic control and aircradt maintenance - are certified by the European Aviation Safety Authority. If we leave the EU we leave the EASA unless we agree otherwise. We wouldn't be able to walk away from that and there are quite a few other agreements that we would have to sign back up to.
There are plenty of non-EU countries that agree within their national law to be regulated according to EASA rules (or its predecessor the JAA). For example Turkey, Switzerland and the EFTA states.
The relevant legislation will be passed in the UK as part of the EU Repeal Bill and amended later if required - most of them originated in English Law to start with! There's no chance that the UK leaving the EU will lead to planes being grounded or some sort of civil air war across Europe.
It's the authority that's lacking in your scenario. The EASA literally says, that aeroplane can fly, that airline can fly it and those ATCs can guide it. It won't have authority in the UK unless we agree it. Now I don't imagine for a moment that we wouldn't agree. The point is that we won't actually walk away.
The authority will come from the British legislation, basically saying that the UK CAA will continue to do everything they do now, under EASA rules, until such times as Parliament says otherwise.
That doesn't require any deal with the EU and is the entire reasoning behind the Great Repeal Bill. There are other EU-based industry bodies (such as Euratom) that will be dealt with in the same way, I'm sure others will be able to enlighten based on their areas of knowledge.
I believe that this is a very fair summary as we start this process and entirely in line with today's ICM poll. The Spain - Gibraltar spat will have had no adverse effect on Theresa May and tonights pictures from Jordan with the military will have done her no harm.
The UK will not be bullied by the EU and I do believe it is the EU who have shot themselves in the foot with stupid ransom demands of 50 billion pounds and introducing division over Spain - Gibraltar.
I expect that Theresa May feels very confident that she has shown the right tone and it is the EU who are on the backfoot. Continue with stupid comments from Junckers et al and not only will the EU be deminished here but also outside Europe
I'm genuinely curious - what do you consider more important - the economic future of the United Kingdom or the political survival of Theresa May ?
We are now seeing the inevitable spin - if it's a good deal for Britain, it's good for Theresa May but apparently if it's a bad deal or no deal it's also good for Theresa May.
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
From Cameron's original referendum decision through to the type of Brexit deal we get this has always been as much to do with what's best for the Conservative Party rather than what's best for the country. RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
To be fair to Nabavi, this is a political betting site so it is understandable to focus on such things.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
OTOH, many people in Britain will be well aware the financial settlement is an integral part of any divorce and a mutually amicable financial settlement isn't predicated on one side walking off without paying a penny yet wanting custody of almost everything.
It won't be painted as a divorce bill in the UK; well, not any bit of it that will be paid, at any rate. Mr Smithson Jnr's idea of paying for it with a levy on those sectors getting preferential treatment might just work, of course.
If the EU apparatchniks have any sense (I'm still waiting for evidence: Verhofstadt and Juncker come across more like WilliamGlenn and Hezza, to be frank) they won't frame it that way either, meanwhile making it quite clear behind the scenes that it is exactly that, pour encourager les autres.
I believe that this is a very fair summary as we start this process and entirely in line with today's ICM poll. The Spain - Gibraltar spat will have had no adverse effect on Theresa May and tonights pictures from Jordan with the military will have done her no harm.
The UK will not be bullied by the EU and I do believe it is the EU who have shot themselves in the foot with stupid ransom demands of 50 billion pounds and introducing division over Spain - Gibraltar.
I expect that Theresa May feels very confident that she has shown the right tone and it is the EU who are on the backfoot. Continue with stupid comments from Junckers et al and not only will the EU be deminished here but also outside Europe
I'm genuinely curious - what do you consider more important - the economic future of the United Kingdom or the political survival of Theresa May ?
We are now seeing the inevitable spin - if it's a good deal for Britain, it's good for Theresa May but apparently if it's a bad deal or no deal it's also good for Theresa May.
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
From Cameron's original referendum decision through to the type of Brexit deal we get this has always been as much to do with what's best for the Conservative Party rather than what's best for the country. RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
Olly, it's all about the Tory party. Brexit is both exposing the desperation of the Tory party to stay together at the same time as its ever more Janusian nature. Happily it can only eventually end badly.
I think you underestimate Conservative MP's interest in power.
I think you've forgotten how Conservative MPs behaved during 1992-1997.
I am also convinced that notwithstanding the hyperbole the media have made over Spain Theresa May's stance will be widely approved
Interesting. I'm pretty sure the EU is not going to budge on the payments. It may not be the full €60 billion, but they will want an enforceable commitment in the tens of billions. We won't walk away, of course. We wouldn't be able to fly out of the country for a start. But it could get very messy.
Out of interest what would happen to people that did try to fly out of the country in that situation?
All aviation safety operations - airline management, air traffic control and aircradt maintenance - are certified by the European Aviation Safety Authority. If we leave the EU we leave the EASA unless we agree otherwise. We wouldn't be able to walk away from that and there are quite a few other agreements that we would have to sign back up to.
There are plenty of non-EU countries that agree within their national law to be regulated according to EASA rules (or its predecessor the JAA). For example Turkey, Switzerland and the EFTA states.
The relevant legislation will be passed in the UK as part of the EU Repeal Bill and amended later if required - most of them originated in English Law to start with! There's no chance that the UK leaving the EU will lead to planes being grounded or some sort of civil air war across Europe.
It's the authority that's lacking in your scenario. The EASA literally says, that aeroplane can fly, that airline can fly it and those ATCs can guide it. It won't have authority in the UK unless we agree it. Now I don't imagine for a moment that we wouldn't agree. The point is that we won't actually walk away.
The authority will come from the British legislation, basically saying that the UK CAA will continue to do everything they do now, under EASA rules, until such times as Parliament says otherwise.
British legislation can say whatever it wants and claim whatever authority it wants but if the rest of the world doesn't recognise our arrangements because they are not part of any treaty then its our issue.
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
In the first week of triggering Article 50, we've been mostly discussing going to war with Spain, this does not fill me with confidence about the whole process.
Fortunately we've got Liam Fox, David Davis, and Boris Johnson to fix it.
Oh....,
Davis has been receiving pretty good reviews in recent weeks/months. And to be fair to Boris, I think his statement wasn't that unhinged, just saying that the settlement cannot change without the consent of the locals.
I'm confused about these good reviews of David Davis. In December he was saying a transitional deal would only be necessary to be 'kind' to the EU and that immigration would fall because of the skills and apprenticeships programs that were going to be introduced. Now he's saying a transitional deal is necessary and that immigration won't fall at all.
He seems like a particularly slow on the job learner.
He at least shows some signs he has grasped the complexity of the issues.
A minute of consideration should have been enough to show the complexity of the issues.
Instead it seems to have taken him several months of tax payer funded tutoring just for him to have realised all the things that he doesn't know.
Yes, but for many of his compatriots that the EU has not collapsed and come on bended knee at the behest of German car makers seems to have caused a fit of the vapours. Credit where it is due.
I believe that this is a very fair summary as we start this process and entirely in line with today's ICM poll. The Spain - Gibraltar spat will have had no adverse effect on Theresa May and tonights pictures from Jordan with the military will have done her no harm.
The UK will not be bullied by the EU and I do believe it is the EU who have shot themselves in the foot with stupid ransom demands of 50 billion pounds and introducing division over Spain - Gibraltar.
I expect that Theresa May feels very confident that she has shown the right tone and it is the EU who are on the backfoot. Continue with stupid comments from Junckers et al and not only will the EU be deminished here but also outside Europe
I'm genuinely curious - what do you consider more important - the economic future of the United Kingdom or the political survival of Theresa May ?
We are now seeing the inevitable spin - if it's a good deal for Britain, it's good for Theresa May but apparently if it's a bad deal or no deal it's also good for Theresa May.
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
From Cameron's original referendum decision through to the type of Brexit deal we get this has always been as much to do with what's best for the Conservative Party rather than what's best for the country. RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
Olly, it's all about the Tory party. Brexit is both exposing the desperation of the Tory party to stay together at the same time as its ever more Janusian nature. Happily it can only eventually end badly.
I think you underestimate Conservative MP's interest in power.
I think you've forgotten how Conservative MPs behaved during 1992-1997.
They behaved in the interest of the country. History has proved them entirely in tune with the British public.
I am also convinced that notwithstanding the hyperbole the media have made over Spain Theresa May's stance will be widely approved
Interesting. I'm pretty sure the EU is not going to budge on the payments. It may not be the full €60 billion, but they will want an enforceable commitment in the tens of billions. We won't walk away, of course. We wouldn't be able to fly out of the country for a start. But it could get very messy.
Out of interest what would happen to people that did try to fly out of the country in that situation?
All aviation safety operations - airline management, air traffic control and aircradt maintenance - are certified by the European Aviation Safety Authority. If we leave the EU we leave the EASA unless we agree otherwise. We wouldn't be able to walk away from that and there are quite a few other agreements that we would have to sign back up to.
There are plenty of non-EU countries that agree within their national law to be regulated according to EASA rules (or its predecessor the JAA). For example Turkey, Switzerland and the EFTA states.
The relevant legislation will be passed in the UK as part of the EU Repeal Bill and amended later if required - most of them originated in English Law to start with! There's no chance that the UK leaving the EU will lead to planes being grounded or some sort of civil air war across Europe.
It's the authority that's lacking in your scenario. The EASA literally says, that aeroplane can fly, that airline can fly it and those ATCs can guide it. It won't have authority in the UK unless we agree it. Now I don't imagine for a moment that we wouldn't agree. The point is that we won't actually walk away.
The authority will come from the British legislation, basically saying that the UK CAA will continue to do everything they do now, under EASA rules, until such times as Parliament says otherwise.
That doesn't require any deal with the EU and is the entire reasoning behind the Great Repeal Bill. There are other EU-based industry bodies (such as Euratom) that will be dealt with in the same way, I'm sure others will be able to enlighten based on their areas of knowledge.
They don't have the inspectors - engineers with an intimate understanding of aviation operations and encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant safety regulations, of which there are thousands. They haven't recruited any. They don't have the offices, the systems, the training programmes, the certification processes. The same for Euratom. It's just not going to happen.
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
Maybe but the comprehensive rejection of paying 10 billion or more across the UK in the ICM poll is very compelling
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
That's right. I think in the majority of possible Brexit failures the government can come out looking OK. The two things which would scupper it are an accompanying recession/house price collapse (which might happen coincidentally, given that we are overdue both, but would nonetheless be toxic), or secondly the full-on, farcical and almost surreal incompetence of the Major government on Black Wednesday - which is certainly something the Fox Davis Bojo triumvirate could match in the right circumstances.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
They don't have the inspectors - engineers with an intimate understanding of aviation operations and encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant safety regulations, of which there are thousands. They haven't recruited any. They don't have the offices, the systems, the training programmes, the certification processes. The same for Euratom. It's just not going to happen.
The inspectors and engineers working in the UK would be recalled? I thought a lot of them would live or be based here.
I'm genuinely curious - what do you consider more important - the economic future of the United Kingdom or the political survival of Theresa May ?
We are now seeing the inevitable spin - if it's a good deal for Britain, it's good for Theresa May but apparently if it's a bad deal or no deal it's also good for Theresa May.
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
From Cameron's original referendum decision through to the type of Brexit deal we get this has always been as much to do with what's best for the Conservative Party rather than what's best for the country. RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
Olly, it's all about the Tory party. Brexit is both exposing the desperation of the Tory party to stay together at the same time as its ever more Janusian nature. Happily it can only eventually end badly.
I think you underestimate Conservative MP's interest in power.
I think you've forgotten how Conservative MPs behaved during 1992-1997.
They then swallowed their pride (after a fall), elected Cameron and won power back. Then elected May, who is hardly a hard right candidate. If they win the next election, then I can expect serious ructions if things start to go wrong as their ego's will be stoked but right now they know how tenuous power is for them.
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
That's right. I think in the majority of possible Brexit failures the government can come out looking OK. The two things which would scupper it are an accompanying recession/house price collapse (which might happen coincidentally, given that we are overdue both, but would nonetheless be toxic), or secondly the full-on, farcical and almost surreal incompetence of the Major government on Black Wednesday - which is certainly something the Fox Davis Bojo triumvirate could match in the right circumstances.
I think it was OE that suggested that some things should be termed 'implementation costs' .
It's a more palatable way of describing what may be essential costs.
Trying to make everything adversarial is only going to create a stand off and make a blow up more probable. The spurned and defeated need to stop needling.
Good thread from Richard. The only thing I disagree with is the assessment of the EUs statement over Gibraltar. As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
I am also convinced that notwithstanding the hyperbole the media have made over Spain Theresa May's stance will be widely approved
Out of interest what would happen to people that did try to fly out of the country in that situation?
All aviation safety operations - airline management, air traffic control and aircradt maintenance - are certified by the European Aviation Safety Authority. If we leave the EU we leave the EASA unless we agree otherwise. We wouldn't be able to walk away from that and there are quite a few other agreements that we would have to sign back up to.
There are plenty of non-EU countries that agree within their national law to be regulated according to EASA rules (or its predecessor the JAA). For example Turkey, Switzerland and the EFTA states.
The relevant legislation will be passed in the UK as part of the EU Repeal Bill and amended later if required - most of them originated in English Law to start with! There's no chance that the UK leaving the EU will lead to planes being grounded or some sort of civil air war across Europe.
It's the authority that's lacking in your scenario. The EASA literally says, that aeroplane can fly, that airline can fly it and those ATCs can guide it. It won't have authority in the UK unless we agree it. Now I don't imagine for a moment that we wouldn't agree. The point is that we won't actually walk away.
The authority will come from the British legislation, basically saying that the UK CAA will continue to do everything they do now, under EASA rules, until such times as Parliament says otherwise.
British legislation can say whatever it wants and claim whatever authority it wants but if the rest of the world doesn't recognise our arrangements because they are not part of any treaty then its our issue.
Such heavily regulated and safety-orientated practical organisations don't like attempts at political posturing and interference, there is no chance at all of the EU getting the entire G-reg fleet grounded.
I'm genuinely curious - what do you consider more important - the economic future of the United Kingdom or the political survival of Theresa May ?
We are now seeing the inevitable spin - if it's a good deal for Britain, it's good for Theresa May but apparently if it's a bad deal or no deal it's also good for Theresa May.
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
From Cameron's original referendum decision through to the type of Brexit deal we get this has always been as much to do with what's best for the Conservative Party rather than what's best for the country. RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
Olly, it's all about the Tory party. Brexit is both exposing the desperation of the Tory party to stay together at the same time as its ever more Janusian nature. Happily it can only eventually end badly.
I think you underestimate Conservative MP's interest in power.
I think you've forgotten how Conservative MPs behaved during 1992-1997.
They then swallowed their pride (after a fall), elected Cameron and won power back. Then elected May, who is hardly a hard right candidate. If they win the next election, then I can expect serious ructions if things start to go wrong as their ego's will be stoked but right now they know how tenuous power is for them.
Insofar as May was elected by anyone, I'm pretty sure the 'bastards' weren't going to vote for her.
@Pulpstar Depends on who has control of the Senate in 2018 after the elections. Then again, even if the Dems didn't filibuster, in the case of a more right-wing SCOTUS nominee in the future with the Dems (likely) opposing that, the GOP could still pull the nuclear option with majority control of Senate. Really, in order to exert some type of influence over the situation either way, the Dems have to do well in regards to Senate in 2018. If they don't, it's likely the ideological balance of SCOTUS will go to the right. Not a great scenario, especially considering that the SCOTUS should not be a platform for either right or left to enforce an ideological world view on people.
To add to my comment, I don't think Gorusch is the Justice the Democrats should be fighting over. He's conservative, but less hard line than Scalia, and independent-minded.
While I think there are some concerning things about Gorsuch's record as a leftie (Hobby Lobby etc.) and not in the least his inclination to avoid answering stuff that even Roberts and Alito answered at their hearings, on balance I think you're probably right.
This article by Peter Beinart is a thought-provoking (IMHO) analysis on the impact of the increasing secularisation that is happening in America. It's got even someone like me, who has an inclination to be critical of religion reviewing my own view that secularisation is a wholly positive thing: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/#article
This article by Peter Beinart is a thought-provoking (IMHO) analysis on the impact of the increasing secularisation that is happening in America. It's got even someone like me, who has an inclination to be critical of religion reviewing my own view that secularisation is a wholly positive thing: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/#article
I'm amazed enough that apparently they are secularizing at all, to read the rest.
As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.
All aviation safety operations - airline management, air traffic control and aircradt maintenance - are certified by the European Aviation Safety Authority. If we leave the EU we leave the EASA unless we agree otherwise. We wouldn't be able to walk away from that and there are quite a few other agreements that we would have to sign back up to.
There are plenty of non-EU countries that agree within their national law to be regulated according to EASA rules (or its predecessor the JAA). For example Turkey, Switzerland and the EFTA states.
The relevant legislation will be passed in the UK as part of the EU Repeal Bill and amended later if required - most of them originated in English Law to start with! There's no chance that the UK leaving the EU will lead to planes being grounded or some sort of civil air war across Europe.
It's the authority that's lacking in your scenario. The EASA literally says, that aeroplane can fly, that airline can fly it and those ATCs can guide it. It won't have authority in the UK unless we agree it. Now I don't imagine for a moment that we wouldn't agree. The point is that we won't actually walk away.
The authority will come from the British legislation, basically saying that the UK CAA will continue to do everything they do now, under EASA rules, until such times as Parliament says otherwise.
That doesn't require any deal with the EU and is the entire reasoning behind the Great Repeal Bill. There are other EU-based industry bodies (such as Euratom) that will be dealt with in the same way, I'm sure others will be able to enlighten based on their areas of knowledge.
They don't have the inspectors - engineers with an intimate understanding of aviation operations and encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant safety regulations, of which there are thousands. They haven't recruited any. They don't have the offices, the systems, the training programmes, the certification processes. The same for Euratom. It's just not going to happen.
EASA is currently run pretty much entirely by Brits, French and Germans. There's plenty of British knowledge there.
The required knowledge of the technical regulations is already with the UK CAA and at commercial level with the AOC holders and maintainance organisations.
We don't need new offices and staff to give effect to the current EU law in this area, we can happily piggyback the existing legislation into UK law and demonstrate compliance to ICAO without needing the EU involved at all!!
I believe that this is a very fair summary as we start this process and entirely in line with today's ICM poll. The Spain - Gibraltar spat will have had no adverse effect on Theresa May and tonights pictures from Jordan with the military will have done her no harm.
The UK will not be bullied by the EU and I do believe it is the EU who have shot themselves in the foot with stupid ransom demands of 50 billion pounds and introducing division over Spain - Gibraltar.
I expect that Theresa May feels very confident that she has shown the right tone and it is the EU who are on the backfoot. Continue with stupid comments from Junckers et al and not only will the EU be deminished here but also outside Europe
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
From Cameron's original referendum decision through to the type of Brexit deal we get this has always been as much to do with what's best for the Conservative Party rather than what's best for the country. RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
Olly, it's all about the Tory party. Brexit is both exposing the desperation of the Tory party to stay together at the same time as its ever more Janusian nature. Happily it can only eventually end badly.
Yep, things are looking really terrible for the tories at the moment.
Nice of you to rejoice at the prospect of a bad ending for your country.
You're the ones bringing it about. When my country the Tory party thinks its big and clever to start threatening one of our friends and neighbours (one where 700,000 of our fellow citizens have made their home) with the might of our Naval power, at the same time as trying to negotiate a good deal for Wrexit, I'd call that Janusian.
I'd like to think you'd think it was idiotic too. Although I realise self harm is all the rage with the right at the moment.
This article by Peter Beinart is a thought-provoking (IMHO) analysis on the impact of the increasing secularisation that is happening in America. It's got even someone like me, who has an inclination to be critical of religion reviewing my own view that secularisation is a wholly positive thing: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/#article
I'm amazed enough that apparently they are secularizing at all, to read the rest.
As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.
A familiar feeling.
It's not as rapid as it is here (and in Europe) - but there a many more atheists in America now, than they were two decades ago. Increasingly, many individuals (from the article) are identifying with a belief in god but not attending Church regularly.
On the last bit, yep politics is becoming A LOT more divisive. The culture wars in America will be an interesting watch, especially with VP Mike Pence in the White House.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Where is the perpetrator(s)? Early suggestions of a suicide bomber but there is equally indications that this wasn't a suicide job at all.The obvious suspect group is Islamists but again thats not quite certain.
Of all countries, if it is Islamists, Russia is perhaps most likely to suffer cluster attacks.
They don't have the inspectors - engineers with an intimate understanding of aviation operations and encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant safety regulations, of which there are thousands. They haven't recruited any. They don't have the offices, the systems, the training programmes, the certification processes. The same for Euratom. It's just not going to happen.
Simply not true. The CAA carries out many of the inspections necessary for the EASA on their behalf and also as an independent organisation responsible for air safety in the UK.
They also regularly make rulings that run counter to those of the EASA. A recent example is the grounding of the Superpuma helicopters after the Norwegian crash at Turøy a year ago. the EASA chose to lift the ban on flights last October. Both the CAA and the Norwegian Luftfartstilsynet chose not to lift their bans as they were not satisfied with the safety of the aircraft.
They don't have the inspectors - engineers with an intimate understanding of aviation operations and encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant safety regulations, of which there are thousands. They haven't recruited any. They don't have the offices, the systems, the training programmes, the certification processes. The same for Euratom. It's just not going to happen.
Simply not true. The CAA carries out many of the inspections necessary for the EASA on their behalf and also as an independent organisation responsible for air safety in the UK.
They also regularly make rulings that run counter to those of the EASA. A recent example is the grounding of the Superpuma helicopters after the Norwegian crash at Turøy a year ago. the EASA chose to lift the ban on flights last October. Both the CAA and the Norwegian Luftfartstilsynet chose not to lift their bans as they were not satisfied with the safety of the aircraft.
From the wiki
The CAA directly or indirectly regulates all aspects of aviation in the UK. In some aspects of aviation it is the primary regulator, in other areas, where the responsibility for regulation has passed to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the CAA acts as EASA's local office, implementing the regulations.
Sounds like a changeover wouldn't be too challenging.
I believe that this is a very fair summary as we start this process and entirely in line with today's ICM poll. The Spain - Gibraltar spat will have had no adverse effect on Theresa May and tonights pictures from Jordan with the military will have done her no harm.
The UK will not be bullied by the EU and I do believe it is the EU who have shot themselves in the foot with stupid ransom demands of 50 billion pounds and introducing division over Spain - Gibraltar.
I expect that Theresa May feels very confident that she has shown the right tone and it is the EU who are on the backfoot. Continue with stupid comments from Junckers et al and not only will the EU be deminished here but also outside Europe
Now, even I know you can't have it both ways and eventually every politician has to make a choice between the best for their country and their personal popularity because sometimes what's good for the country won't be good for you politically or personally.
When May reaches that point - when she has to make a decision in the negotiations that will be the right thing overall but will be bad for her because, perhaps, it will contradict an earlier policy pronouncement, what then ?
I know you'll die in the ditch for her - I won't, why should I ? Doesn't mean I don't want what's best for Britain - it does mean I don't necessarily want what's best for Theresa May.
article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it.
Olly, it's all about the Tory party. Brexit is both exposing the desperation of the Tory party to stay together at the same time as its ever more Janusian nature. Happily it can only eventually end badly.
Yep, things are looking really terrible for the tories at the moment.
Nice of you to rejoice at the prospect of a bad ending for your country.
You're the ones bringing it about. When my country the Tory party thinks its big and clever to start threatening one of our friends and neighbours (one where 700,000 of our fellow citizens have made their home) with the might of our Naval power, at the same time as trying to negotiate a good deal for Wrexit, I'd call that Janusian.
I'd like to think you'd think it was idiotic too. Although I realise self harm is all the rage with the right at the moment.
In more sabre rattling with a pin , the MOD has announced that HMS Victory will be returned to active service and be based in Gibraltar as a threat to Spain
Where is the perpetrator(s)? Early suggestions of a suicide bomber but there is equally indications that this wasn't a suicide job at all.The obvious suspect group is Islamists but again thats not quite certain.
Of all countries, if it is Islamists, Russia is perhaps most likely to suffer cluster attacks.
Russian TV was suggesting the train bombs were disguised as fire extinguishers - plausible, repeatable and a nightmare to constantly check without removing all the real ones.
The Sun really haved stoked this up with the Rock in the Union Jack and apparently posters against Spain and the EU. As I have said before, tonight is not good news for those who want to remain close to the EU. Whether you read the Sun or not it has a big readership and will stoke anger against the EU
They don't have the inspectors - engineers with an intimate understanding of aviation operations and encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant safety regulations, of which there are thousands. They haven't recruited any. They don't have the offices, the systems, the training programmes, the certification processes. The same for Euratom. It's just not going to happen.
Simply not true. The CAA carries out many of the inspections necessary for the EASA on their behalf and also as an independent organisation responsible for air safety in the UK.
They also regularly make rulings that run counter to those of the EASA. A recent example is the grounding of the Superpuma helicopters after the Norwegian crash at Turøy a year ago. the EASA chose to lift the ban on flights last October. Both the CAA and the Norwegian Luftfartstilsynet chose not to lift their bans as they were not satisfied with the safety of the aircraft.
From the wiki
The CAA directly or indirectly regulates all aspects of aviation in the UK. In some aspects of aviation it is the primary regulator, in other areas, where the responsibility for regulation has passed to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the CAA acts as EASA's local office, implementing the regulations.
Sounds like a changeover wouldn't be too challenging.
Yep exactly. I fly in helicopters a lot and when things go wrong we get a huge amount of information from the CAA about ongoing investigations - right down to them sending out daily updates to all interested parties informing us of their latest findings. Certainly in the Superpuma case we have a lot more confidence in the UK and Norwegian authorities than in the EASA who seemed to be rather too quick to say everything was okay.
I am struggling to understand how the EU can offer the UK a deal which is worth accepting.
The phrase 'single market' has become so all consuming that nobody is really explaining what it means. However, if we leave all the Brexit arguments aside, if the UK were already a third party to the EU and were negotiating an FTA with the EU, why would they ever seek a deal as bad as the single market? Basically, we pay 10billion a year to join a market where we have a huge deficit, and where we forgo 6-7billion in net tariffs. So we are 'down' say 17 billion before we start. This is against total UK exports of 240 billion so a pretty material proportion.
The ONLY reason to agree to this deal would be if we get what we want in return, and for the UK that would be (a) administrative arrangements that made trade easier at the border and (b) unfettered access to services, where we actually run a surplus. The EU market in services is already patchy, but you could certainly argue that (if we weren't paying EU membership, or paying for market access) then giving up the tariffs on goods is worth the access to services.
But all we hear from the EU is that any deal cannot be as good as membership, which inevitably implies that they will in fact further restrict access to services (in reality everyone knows goods will remain tariff free). So the tradeoff keeps looking worse.
The problem is that going tariff-free is not of benefit to the UK. It is a loss. The UK could reimburse all tariffs paid by UK exporters in full and still be miles ahead. There is no point just proclaiming that having no tariffs magically makes trade much easier - when currencies change by the same sorts of amounts (e.g. 3-4%) it makes next to no difference to trade. The only reason to agree to tariff free trade when you have a perpetual large deficit is to get something of equal value.
The usual response to this is to mutter darkly about 'non-tariff barriers' which is a nice way of saying that there is some magic about the single market which nobody can really explain but we just have to have it. But non-tariff barrier do exist and apply mostly to services access. So if the EU keeps threatening to impose more of these as part of negotiation, what is the commercial basis for the UK to deal?
Seems to me the UK would be better off agreeing the reintroduction of WTO tariffs unless we basically get the same access to services we do no now, and instead focus on the administrative matters at the border (certification, mutual recognition of standards, border checks) which have far more relevance to actual trade.
Free trade arrangements are not magic - they don't just benefit everyone regardless, despite the popular hype. They are commercial tradeoffs of things each party wants. Right now, I can't see that the EU is going to offer enough in services to make a deal worthwhile.
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
Maybe but the comprehensive rejection of paying 10 billion or more across the UK in the ICM poll is very compelling
I'm sure the public also want free owls from the EU it's not going to matter a jot in the negotiations and they are not going to get them.
How are you expecting it to work? - UK negotiator: "I say chaps, the polls say the British public won't stand for paying you any money"
EU negotiator:" we didn't know that forget we ever mentioned it old boy'.
I used to live in Gib, all this talk is making me quite nostalgic. Halfway on my running route was the mosque which must be at one of the most southern points of Europe
That's very funny, but certain sections of the media -on all sides- need to watch they don't overblow things. But then again, what do the British media know about self-awareness?
The Sun really haved stoked this up with the Rock in the Union Jack and apparently posters against Spain and the EU. As I have said before, tonight is not good news for those who want to remain close to the EU. Whether you read the Sun or not it has a big readership and will stoke anger against the EU
To be honest this is not good for anyone who wants any sort of relationship with the EU after Brexit. It is infantile and the fact it is based on false information makes it even worse.
Evening all - an interesting set of responses. To answer a few of the points made:
@Monksfield (and others making similar points): "And the little slice of Nabavi partisan pie above completely fails to take account of the European perspective. It's simply not in their interest to offer us a sweetheart divorce. ". Well, it's not in their interests for relations to go sour with a major European economy, accounting for a substantial chunk of their trade, home to a large number of their citizens, crucial to their financial facilities, and crucial to their security. You might be right that in the European perspective they don't give sufficient weight to that. More fool them, if that is so. However, all that is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is about how this will play out in UK politics.
@Anorak: "To my mind, there is a fairly high probability that the Tories self-immolate." Maybe, but I don't think so. The unreasonableness of the EU demands will tend to unite the Conservative Party, as it will tend to unite the country.
@FF43: "They have set up their negotiating strategy so that we do agree. Now they may miscalculate or balls things up, but as long as we sign on the dotted line, they don't care about our feelings. They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements." Of course they don't care about our feelings, just as we don't care about theirs, but I believe that they have calculated wrongly, and in fact have got themselves tied up in groupthink. We won't sign on the dotted line for tens of billions of Euros for nothing much in return (and without even knowing what we're getting for our money).
@OllyT: "RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it. " Yes, you got it. That is what this article is about, to counter what I think is the lazy and incorrect assumption that Brexit disaster would help the opposition parties.
@Richard_Tyndall: "As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service." That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
I used to live in Gib, all this talk is making me quite nostalgic. Halfway on my running route was the mosque which must be the southern most point in Europe
I used to live in Gib, all this talk is making me quite nostalgic. Halfway on my running route was the mosque which must be the southern most point in Europe
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
Maybe but the comprehensive rejection of paying 10 billion or more across the UK in the ICM poll is very compelling
I'm sure the public also want free owls from the EU it's not going to matter a jot in the negotiations and they are not going to get them.
How are you expecting it to work? - UK negotiator: "I say chaps, the polls say the British public won't stand for paying you any money"
EU negotiator:" we didn't know that forget we ever mentioned it old boy'.
Where is the perpetrator(s)? Early suggestions of a suicide bomber but there is equally indications that this wasn't a suicide job at all.The obvious suspect group is Islamists but again thats not quite certain.
Of all countries, if it is Islamists, Russia is perhaps most likely to suffer cluster attacks.
Russian TV was suggesting the train bombs were disguised as fire extinguishers - plausible, repeatable and a nightmare to constantly check without removing all the real ones.
Possible new terrorist group, or just a new MO?
You could count three or four possible origins for the attack but something struck early that it wasn't a clear suicide bomber case. The World Tonight on Radio 4 reported Russian media suggesting it was a suicide job but perhaps thats been replaced by the reports you've seen.
That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
Are the papers any worse than this kind of thing? They're not going to bat an eyelid over our tabloids disgracing themselves.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Where is the perpetrator(s)? Early suggestions of a suicide bomber but there is equally indications that this wasn't a suicide job at all.The obvious suspect group is Islamists but again thats not quite certain.
Of all countries, if it is Islamists, Russia is perhaps most likely to suffer cluster attacks.
Russian TV was suggesting the train bombs were disguised as fire extinguishers - plausible, repeatable and a nightmare to constantly check without removing all the real ones.
Possible new terrorist group, or just a new MO?
You could count three or four possible origins for the attack but something struck early that it wasn't a clear suicide bomber case. The World Tonight on Radio 4 reported Russian media suggesting it was a suicide job but perhaps thats been replaced by the reports you've seen.
Without wanting to sound like a conspiraloon, the timing is convenient given the current crack-down on dissidents and constant fear of a 'colour' revolution.
Evening all - an interesting set of responses. To answer a few of the points made: @Richard_Tyndall: "As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service.". That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
I have to say I don't agree. I genuinely think that the addition of the comments about Gibraltar were designed to defuse any possible problems and make it clear this could not be an issue in the Brexit negotiations. I don't say this often but in this case I think the EU has been badly misrepresented by those wanting to stir things up in the UK including the media and some politicians.
Where is the perpetrator(s)? Early suggestions of a suicide bomber but there is equally indications that this wasn't a suicide job at all.The obvious suspect group is Islamists but again thats not quite certain.
Of all countries, if it is Islamists, Russia is perhaps most likely to suffer cluster attacks.
Russian TV was suggesting the train bombs were disguised as fire extinguishers - plausible, repeatable and a nightmare to constantly check without removing all the real ones.
Possible new terrorist group, or just a new MO?
You could count three or four possible origins for the attack but something struck early that it wasn't a clear suicide bomber case. The World Tonight on Radio 4 reported Russian media suggesting it was a suicide job but perhaps thats been replaced by the reports you've seen.
Interesting. I'll ask Mrs Sandpit what she hears in the morning - she's the Russian one in the house!
Evening all - an interesting set of responses. To answer a few of the points made: @Richard_Tyndall: "As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service.". That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
I have to say I don't agree. I genuinely think that the addition of the comments about Gibraltar were designed to defuse any possible problems and make it clear this could not be an issue in the Brexit negotiations. I don't say this often but in this case I think the EU has been badly misrepresented by those wanting to stir things up in the UK including the media and some politicians.
As the negotiation strategy of threatening hard Brexit depends on convincing them that we're crazy and irrational, perhaps it's helped our chances...
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
UKIP have already lost around 40 of the councillors elected in 2013 to defection or at by elections , in the last few days one in Lincs and 1 on the IofW have announced they will be defending their seats as Conservatives . Why the Conservatives should want these opportunistic rats back is another question .
The Sun really haved stoked this up with the Rock in the Union Jack and apparently posters against Spain and the EU. As I have said before, tonight is not good news for those who want to remain close to the EU. Whether you read the Sun or not it has a big readership and will stoke anger against the EU
The media has somewhat overdone it with the rhetoric. Best case scenario actual proper work is going on by those involved which will pay little attention to these sorts of debacle. It cannot be totally divorced from it, both sides need to sell things to their electorates (probably why the EU is going for a hard and simple approach, as its easiest to sell as well as more comforting), but even some loonies have thought it overblown the last few days.
The Sun is so over the top that it almost seems knowingly parodying of itself. The callback-to-a-classic headline, the simultaneous ad for 15 pound holidays to Spain. It almost seems like satire.
To be honest most leaders in Europe know not to take heed of our gutter press - the real effect this sort of reporting may have is to bind May's own hands rather than provoke the EU.
I have to say I don't agree. I genuinely think that the addition of the comments about Gibraltar were designed to defuse any possible problems and make it clear this could not be an issue in the Brexit negotiations. I don't say this often but in this case I think the EU has been badly misrepresented by those wanting to stir things up in the UK including the media and some politicians.
I think you're being a bit generous to them, but in a way it doesn't matter. It's just one example of what I suggested in the header: As the specifics emerge, matters get less and less amicable
The Sun is so over the top that it almost seems knowingly parodying of itself. The callback-to-a-classic headline, the simultaneous ad for 15 pound holidays to Spain. It almost seems like satire.
To be honest most leaders in Europe know not to take heed of our gutter press - the real effect this sort of reporting may have is to bind May's own hands rather than provoke the EU.
It is very difficult to take the headline seriously, especially when they're flogging a holiday there for the same price as a couple of rounds of fish & chips !
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Are you going to do a French election spreadsheet or do you only do domestics?!
To be honest most leaders in Europe know not to take heed of our gutter press - the real effect this sort of reporting may have is to bind May's own hands rather than provoke the EU.
The germ of a narrative is forming that might allow a climbdown from our side. It is based on the idea that it is the Brexit vote that has forced the EU to get its act together. Somehow the UK will take the credit for the success of the EU because it was our bold decision that made them raise their game, even if in reality the result is a rebuff to all the promises the Leave campaign was based on.
Evening all - an interesting set of responses. To answer a few of the points made: @Richard_Tyndall: "As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service.". That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
I have to say I don't agree. I genuinely think that the addition of the comments about Gibraltar were designed to defuse any possible problems and make it clear this could not be an issue in the Brexit negotiations. I don't say this often but in this case I think the EU has been badly misrepresented by those wanting to stir things up in the UK including the media and some politicians.
As the negotiation strategy of threatening hard Brexit depends on convincing them that we're crazy and irrational, perhaps it's helped our chances...
Many a true word spoken in jest. I honestly think that we were reminding the EU that we are not entirely sane actors (the public in particular) when it comes to overseas territories. Mentioning the Falklands was an essential part of that, with demoting Spain to just another 'Spanish-speaking nation' a particularly swivel eyed bit of trolling. The Sun joining in will be seen as a bonus.
Whether the UK can press our madness home as an advantage at the negotiating table or whether it causes us to self-destruct into a disorderly Brexit - well, frankly, who knows.
To be honest most leaders in Europe know not to take heed of our gutter press - the real effect this sort of reporting may have is to bind May's own hands rather than provoke the EU.
The germ of a narrative is forming that might allow a climbdown from our side. It is based on the idea that it is the Brexit vote that has forced the EU to get its act together. Somehow the UK will take the credit for the success of the EU because it was our bold decision that made them raise their game, even if in reality the result is a rebuff to all the promises the Leave campaign was based on.
The Sun is so over the top that it almost seems knowingly parodying of itself. The callback-to-a-classic headline, the simultaneous ad for 15 pound holidays to Spain. It almost seems like satire.
The Sun really haved stoked this up with the Rock in the Union Jack and apparently posters against Spain and the EU. As I have said before, tonight is not good news for those who want to remain close to the EU. Whether you read the Sun or not it has a big readership and will stoke anger against the EU
Murdoch uses the Sun for one main purpose, to sell papers and make money and attract publicity, which is what this cover will do, as May's laughter makes clear today and her statement she prefers 'jaw jaw' she does not take it too seriously
Evening all - an interesting set of responses. To answer a few of the points made: @Richard_Tyndall: "As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service.". That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
I have to say I don't agree. I genuinely think that the addition of the comments about Gibraltar were designed to defuse any possible problems and make it clear this could not be an issue in the Brexit negotiations. I don't say this often but in this case I think the EU has been badly misrepresented by those wanting to stir things up in the UK including the media and some politicians.
An European diplomat said they did not in interpret May's security comments initially in any way like it has been reported.
He said they went back to re-read the letter again and again after reading the English media.
I have to say when I first read it, I read it as a shot over the bows. What else could it been, written like that.
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
Maybe but the comprehensive rejection of paying 10 billion or more across the UK in the ICM poll is very compelling
I'm sure the public also want free owls from the EU it's not going to matter a jot in the negotiations and they are not going to get them.
How are you expecting it to work? - UK negotiator: "I say chaps, the polls say the British public won't stand for paying you any money"
EU negotiator:" we didn't know that forget we ever mentioned it old boy'.
Evening all - an interesting set of responses. To answer a few of the points made: @Richard_Tyndall: "As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service.". That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
I have to say I don't agree. I genuinely think that the addition of the comments about Gibraltar were designed to defuse any possible problems and make it clear this could not be an issue in the Brexit negotiations. I don't say this often but in this case I think the EU has been badly misrepresented by those wanting to stir things up in the UK including the media and some politicians.
An European diplomat said they did not in interpret May's security comments initially in any way like it has been reported.
He said they went back to re-read the letter again and again after reading the English media.
I have to say when I first read it, I read it as a shot over the bows. What else could it been, written like that.
So Remainers moaning about the bit on security made it into an issue? Great!
I still think some sort of deal will be done in the end, probably some EU budget contributions continuing for a few bilateral agreements
Not acceptable for the Ultras.
Only blocking up the Channel Tunnel will be acceptable for the Ultras!
The Daily Mail ran an article about secret plans to nuke the Channel Tunnel and said it 'put into historical context criticism of Theresa May for planning to severe Britain's link with the EU via a 'hard' Brexit.'
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
A critical, unbiased review.
As he showed yesterday Surbiton really doesn't live on the same planet as sane people.
Richard N still makes no secret of his dislike of Brexit but he has had the honesty and integrity to accept a democratic decision and, unlike a very few people, he now wants to make it work for everyone. Nor is he by any means alone in this and there are plenty of Remainers who have proved themselves bigger people (for want of a better phrase) in this way. If enough people from both sides followed their example it would probably make the whole process a lot more fruitful and successful.
Comments
Instead it seems to have taken him several months of tax payer funded tutoring just for him to have realised all the things that he doesn't know.
God help us if the euroloons on here were let anywhere near the discussion. They would generate the rock hardest of hard Brexits.
That doesn't require any deal with the EU and is the entire reasoning behind the Great Repeal Bill.
There are other EU-based industry bodies (such as Euratom) that will be dealt with in the same way, I'm sure others will be able to enlighten based on their areas of knowledge.
If the EU apparatchniks have any sense (I'm still waiting for evidence: Verhofstadt and Juncker come across more like WilliamGlenn and Hezza, to be frank) they won't frame it that way either, meanwhile making it quite clear behind the scenes that it is exactly that, pour encourager les autres.
That's their purpose.
If they win the next election, then I can expect serious ructions if things start to go wrong as their ego's will be stoked but right now they know how tenuous power is for them.
It's a more palatable way of describing what may be essential costs.
Trying to make everything adversarial is only going to create a stand off and make a blow up more probable. The spurned and defeated need to stop needling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization
Such heavily regulated and safety-orientated practical organisations don't like attempts at political posturing and interference, there is no chance at all of the EU getting the entire G-reg fleet grounded.
As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.
A familiar feeling.
The required knowledge of the technical regulations is already with the UK CAA and at commercial level with the AOC holders and maintainance organisations.
We don't need new offices and staff to give effect to the current EU law in this area, we can happily piggyback the existing legislation into UK law and demonstrate compliance to ICAO without needing the EU involved at all!!
my countrythe Tory party thinks its big and clever to start threatening one of our friends and neighbours (one where 700,000 of our fellow citizens have made their home) with the might of our Naval power, at the same time as trying to negotiate a good deal for Wrexit, I'd call that Janusian.I'd like to think you'd think it was idiotic too. Although I realise self harm is all the rage with the right at the moment.
On the last bit, yep politics is becoming A LOT more divisive. The culture wars in America will be an interesting watch, especially with VP Mike Pence in the White House.
Where is the perpetrator(s)? Early suggestions of a suicide bomber but there is equally indications that this wasn't a suicide job at all.The obvious suspect group is Islamists but again thats not quite certain.
Of all countries, if it is Islamists, Russia is perhaps most likely to suffer cluster attacks.
They also regularly make rulings that run counter to those of the EASA. A recent example is the grounding of the Superpuma helicopters after the Norwegian crash at Turøy a year ago. the EASA chose to lift the ban on flights last October. Both the CAA and the Norwegian Luftfartstilsynet chose not to lift their bans as they were not satisfied with the safety of the aircraft.
The CAA directly or indirectly regulates all aspects of aviation in the UK. In some aspects of aviation it is the primary regulator, in other areas, where the responsibility for regulation has passed to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the CAA acts as EASA's local office, implementing the regulations.
Sounds like a changeover wouldn't be too challenging.
Possible new terrorist group, or just a new MO?
The phrase 'single market' has become so all consuming that nobody is really explaining what it means. However, if we leave all the Brexit arguments aside, if the UK were already a third party to the EU and were negotiating an FTA with the EU, why would they ever seek a deal as bad as the single market? Basically, we pay 10billion a year to join a market where we have a huge deficit, and where we forgo 6-7billion in net tariffs. So we are 'down' say 17 billion before we start. This is against total UK exports of 240 billion so a pretty material proportion.
The ONLY reason to agree to this deal would be if we get what we want in return, and for the UK that would be (a) administrative arrangements that made trade easier at the border and (b) unfettered access to services, where we actually run a surplus. The EU market in services is already patchy, but you could certainly argue that (if we weren't paying EU membership, or paying for market access) then giving up the tariffs on goods is worth the access to services.
But all we hear from the EU is that any deal cannot be as good as membership, which inevitably implies that they will in fact further restrict access to services (in reality everyone knows goods will remain tariff free). So the tradeoff keeps looking worse.
The problem is that going tariff-free is not of benefit to the UK. It is a loss. The UK could reimburse all tariffs paid by UK exporters in full and still be miles ahead. There is no point just proclaiming that having no tariffs magically makes trade much easier - when currencies change by the same sorts of amounts (e.g. 3-4%) it makes next to no difference to trade. The only reason to agree to tariff free trade when you have a perpetual large deficit is to get something of equal value.
The usual response to this is to mutter darkly about 'non-tariff barriers' which is a nice way of saying that there is some magic about the single market which nobody can really explain but we just have to have it. But non-tariff barrier do exist and apply mostly to services access. So if the EU keeps threatening to impose more of these as part of negotiation, what is the commercial basis for the UK to deal?
Seems to me the UK would be better off agreeing the reintroduction of WTO tariffs unless we basically get the same access to services we do no now, and instead focus on the administrative matters at the border (certification, mutual recognition of standards, border checks) which have far more relevance to actual trade.
Free trade arrangements are not magic - they don't just benefit everyone regardless, despite the popular hype. They are commercial tradeoffs of things each party wants. Right now, I can't see that the EU is going to offer enough in services to make a deal worthwhile.
How are you expecting it to work? -
UK negotiator: "I say chaps, the polls say the British public won't stand for paying you any money"
EU negotiator:" we didn't know that forget we ever mentioned it old boy'.
@Monksfield (and others making similar points): "And the little slice of Nabavi partisan pie above completely fails to take account of the European perspective. It's simply not in their interest to offer us a sweetheart divorce. ". Well, it's not in their interests for relations to go sour with a major European economy, accounting for a substantial chunk of their trade, home to a large number of their citizens, crucial to their financial facilities, and crucial to their security. You might be right that in the European perspective they don't give sufficient weight to that. More fool them, if that is so. However, all that is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is about how this will play out in UK politics.
@Anorak: "To my mind, there is a fairly high probability that the Tories self-immolate." Maybe, but I don't think so. The unreasonableness of the EU demands will tend to unite the Conservative Party, as it will tend to unite the country.
@FF43: "They have set up their negotiating strategy so that we do agree. Now they may miscalculate or balls things up, but as long as we sign on the dotted line, they don't care about our feelings. They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements." Of course they don't care about our feelings, just as we don't care about theirs, but I believe that they have calculated wrongly, and in fact have got themselves tied up in groupthink. We won't sign on the dotted line for tens of billions of Euros for nothing much in return (and without even knowing what we're getting for our money).
@OllyT: "RN's article seems more concerned about how a Brexit disaster would impact on Theresa May than the impact on those that would suffer from it. " Yes, you got it. That is what this article is about, to counter what I think is the lazy and incorrect assumption that Brexit disaster would help the opposition parties.
@Richard_Tyndall: "As others with a far better understanding of these things have pointed out, the EU was explicitly removing the issue of Gibraltar from the Brexit negotiations. Far from blackmailing us they have done us a considerable service." That may be so, but the perception and headlines are dire. At the very least, they have been crassly insensitive - further evidence, I think, that they are overplaying their hand because they think they have us over a barrel.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
https://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/de/41259.jpg
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
To be honest most leaders in Europe know not to take heed of our gutter press - the real effect this sort of reporting may have is to bind May's own hands rather than provoke the EU.
https://youtu.be/l35YUpi2oPE
Interfax reports a suicide bomber. Other outlets report a name but without any info if alive or dead.
Whether the UK can press our madness home as an advantage at the negotiating table or whether it causes us to self-destruct into a disorderly Brexit - well, frankly, who knows.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
https://twitter.com/TedMalloch_/status/848092814646837248
A Brexit Breakdown would be a disaster for the UK
I don't think he wishes for this, but he is probably correct in stating its inevitability...
He said they went back to re-read the letter again and again after reading the English media.
I have to say when I first read it, I read it as a shot over the bows. What else could it been, written like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY&list=RDr3BO6GP9NMY#t=4
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/03/brexit-michael-howard-accused-of-absurd-jingoism-over-gibraltar-threat-politics-live?page=with:block-58e24deee4b01ea2330beca1#block-58e24deee4b01ea2330beca1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4375712/UK-plotted-blow-Channel-Tunnel-NUKE.html
Richard N still makes no secret of his dislike of Brexit but he has had the honesty and integrity to accept a democratic decision and, unlike a very few people, he now wants to make it work for everyone. Nor is he by any means alone in this and there are plenty of Remainers who have proved themselves bigger people (for want of a better phrase) in this way. If enough people from both sides followed their example it would probably make the whole process a lot more fruitful and successful.