Looking at the YouGov Scotland tables they are recording 10% SNP to Con Switchers which is higher than any of the other Scotland surveys and a monstrous 31% Lab-to-Con Switch
When the next quarter's numbers are released, the economy will probably have grown about 2% in the 12 months after the Brexit vote. Nothing special, but a far cry from George Osborne's predictions.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
Morning, Mr. G. If "Welch" is an insult rather than just an archaic form of the modern "Welsh" please explain the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 23rd of foot, a regiment of the line which fought with great gallantry for 300 years until it was amalgamated away in the defence cuts of 2006.
There was also the old Welch Regiment, which recruited from South Wales and which went under in the 1969 defence cuts.
On an even happier note, the price of a litre of the Grouse in my local off-licence has this week dropped from £29 to £19 (£17 for a 70cl bottle). Furthermore, a litre of Bells can now be had for £14 whereas a standard bottle of the same is £15! Single malt prices continue to creep up though, my favourite Laphroaig is now £28.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
Morning, Mr. G. If "Welch" is an insult rather than just an archaic form of the modern "Welsh" please explain the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 23rd of foot, a regiment of the line which fought with great gallantry for 300 years until it was amalgamated away in the defence cuts of 2006.
There was also the old Welch Regiment, which recruited from South Wales and which went under in the 1969 defence cuts.
On an even happier note, the price of a litre of the Grouse in my local off-licence has this week dropped from £29 to £19 (£17 for a 70cl bottle). Furthermore, a litre of Bells can now be had for £14 whereas a standard bottle of the same is £15! Single malt prices continue to creep up though, my favourite Laphroaig is now £28.
Perhaps a comma would have made it clearer that malcolmg and you are on the same side.
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
Merkel is playing pure internal politics. She is under extreme pressure from Martin Schulz, the extreme Euro federalists in this years election and to give the impression she is setting out to punish the UK is to show her credentials and defend herself from losing votes to Schulz. I would expect this hard line to continue throughout the Summer but, on the assumption Merkel wins the election, I have no doubt she will revert to being the pragmatic leader that she has been.
Perversely this is a gift to Theresa May who accepted it 'big time' last night by demonstrating how as leader with large mandate she will stand up to Merkel and the EU.
Paul Nuttall's comments this morning saying a 'landslide' win for Theresa May would harm Brexit is likely to add to Theresa May's column from the remainer's who see the opportunity, to negotiate a less extreme outcome than UKIP demand
It is hard to recall any election when so much has been in favour of the leader of the conservative party but, notwithstanding, the election is not over until 10.00pm on the 8th June and while a majority seems assured, the size is not.
Of course it is. That's why she is doing it. But when it comes to actually doing a deal it is not going to be any help at all. She is boxing herself into unnecessary corners for party political reasons.
Why? The EU27 say they are totally united and will have a common position. She's agreeing that they will. How on earth does that box her in?
What is most striking about recent developments is how her calling of this election has totally nonplussed our EU friends, who were clearly planning to exploit the Gina Miller intervention and the confusion in parliament to blackmail her into a bad deal, on the basis that she didn't have the political stength to walk away. Match point to Theresa in the first set.
The EU have structured the negotiations such that we find it in our interests to agree a bit more of their agenda at every stage and it is never sensible to walk away. The general election only adds a bit of delay when time isn't on our side.
It's not absolutely guaranteed we'll be sensible and there's scope for someone in the EU to lob in one of their occasional hand grenades. On the whole, Tusk and Barnier have played this very skillfully so far Tusk for getting EU leaders to consolidate around a political position, when it can be like herding cats. Barnier for his sense of the dynamic of the negotiation and his planning. Knowing where to draw the red lines, where to concede, sequencing it all and ensuring it's all baked in before the actual negotiations start.
What is most striking about recent developments is how her calling of this election has totally nonplussed our EU friends
The UK election makes zero difference to our EU friends, or their negotiating position.
So they keep telling us. Methinks they do protest too much.
I do struggle with the logic of how the election really affects the EU bargaining position.
The only possible point I can see is that the EU will have confidence that any deal it makes with May will then be ratified in the UK. That makes the road less rocky I suppose, but doesn't necessarily mean a different or better deal.
Indeed, I see the logic of the argument that it means a softer Brexit. The pressure, had May continued with her slim majority, would have been more from her headbanger wing than from a loose coalition of SNP, a few Lib Dems, whoever in Labour wanted 5 minutes out from civil war, and Ken Clarke.
Looking at the YouGov Scotland tables they are recording 10% SNP to Con Switchers which is higher than any of the other Scotland surveys and a monstrous 31% Lab-to-Con Switch
@SkyNewsBreak: Ukip leader Paul Nuttall says a "whopping" Conservative majority will only serve to put Brexit "in peril"
Not sure anyone will believe that. It doesn't even make sense.
No kidding. UKIP's best chance is to worry people that 'proper' Brexit will not happen under TMay, but thery've already undermined that by saying they won't stand against various Brexit leaning MPs who will contribute to a big Tory majority.
Prospect of hard Brexit hitting growth figures, looks like the crowing on here was too early.
I thought the position was "we haven't left yet"
When you are the status quo option you get hit from both sides. Remember that when EU membership was standard it was under attack both from the far right and the hard left.
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
Except to hear the William's of this world none of that makes any difference, since the EU leaders' approach is entirely logical and won't change one iota.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has taken steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has ten steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
EU member States would surely be delighted if the Lib Dems were to win the election.
THey are not obliged to give equal time to all parties until Tuesday of next week
Surely it is a failing of the system if UKIP are supposed to get more coverage this time than last?
Do you remember the bloody arguments on here last time? All the justifications for why Farage shouldn't be in the debates. You're quite right, Ukip are not that important this time around and should be treated as such.
But coverage by the broadcasters is largely determined by how a party performed at the previous General Election.LD coverage in 2015 was,therefore, determined by their 2010 performance rather than their prevailing poll standing. On the same basis, LD campaign coverage this time will be reduced due to their poor 2015 result.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
Morning, Mr. G. If "Welch" is an insult rather than just an archaic form of the modern "Welsh" please explain the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 23rd of foot, a regiment of the line which fought with great gallantry for 300 years until it was amalgamated away in the defence cuts of 2006.
There was also the old Welch Regiment, which recruited from South Wales and which went under in the 1969 defence cuts.
On an even happier note, the price of a litre of the Grouse in my local off-licence has this week dropped from £29 to £19 (£17 for a 70cl bottle). Furthermore, a litre of Bells can now be had for £14 whereas a standard bottle of the same is £15! Single malt prices continue to creep up though, my favourite Laphroaig is now £28.
Yes. Welch/Welsh are just alternative spellings as are welsh/welch as in reneging on a deal. I started the original controversy with my use of the word "welsh" down the thread. Maybe I ought to have used "renege" but you're right that "welch" would have been as insulting as "welsh" as it's the same word origin (which is probably but not certainly a slur).
I should note that I had no intention to insult the Principality and apologise profoundly to all proud Welsh people. Instead, my comment was directed to PaddyPower/Betfair - the bunch of bog-hopping bastards*. I hope this clears the controversy up.
* n.b. as it's not always taken kindly on forums, I would like to make clear this is a JOKE.
More evidence of Labour falling in Wales. Tories lead in Assembly voting intentions for the first time, only just. Been a long time coming, wouldn't bet against the Tories in seats like Torfean.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has ten steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
It strengthens her ability to make a deal stick but it doesn't affect her ability to influence the shape of the deal. If anything it weakens her ability to use domestic politics as a way to plead for concessions. "I won't be able to get this through parliament," might work as an argument if you have a slim majority, but if you have a majority of 100+ the EU27 would just laugh.
She is saying that the EU 27 are ganging up on the UK. She is framing the forthcoming negotiation in a way that will make it even more difficult for her to make the concessions that will be needed to ensure we get a good deal, which she has already made harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
How has May made it harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union?
The customs union is a clear non-starter as we won't be able to negotiate our own deals if we stay in it which was a major point of leaving. Even the EFTA are not in the customs union.
As for the Single Market the EU has made it abundantly clear that four freedoms are indivisible while the referendum campaign made it abundantly clear that one of the four freedoms is no longer acceptable here. So what else do you realistically propose May does? Either build resentment in the nation by continuing with the four freedoms - or convince the EU that it can divide them afterall?
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
We were previously told that Merkel's elections were a reason why she couldn't afford to be tough because she would have German industry breathing down her neck about how many cars they sell to us...
If countries go to the polls say every 4 years, on average there'll be a general election in the GE-27 every two months. That doesn't give much time for a spot of quiet negotiation before the next GE or three come along.
More evidence of Labour falling in Wales. Tories lead in Assembly voting intentions for the first time, only just. Been a long time coming, wouldn't bet against the Tories in seats like Torfean.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has ten steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
It strengthens her ability to make a deal stick but it doesn't affect her ability to influence the shape of the deal. If anything it weakens her ability to use domestic politics as a way to plead for concessions. "I won't be able to get this through parliament," might work as an argument if you have a slim majority, but if you have a majority of 100+ the EU27 would just laugh.
Not if Parliament via the opposition is pushing more for what they want than what we want.
With a 100+ majority she can say "my party won't wear this so I won't be able to get this through Parliament", with a slender majority they can say that all the opposition parties accept what they're proposing so "you can't afford to not take this".
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has ten steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
It strengthens her ability to make a deal stick but it doesn't affect her ability to influence the shape of the deal. If anything it weakens her ability to use domestic politics as a way to plead for concessions. "I won't be able to get this through parliament," might work as an argument if you have a slim majority, but if you have a majority of 100+ the EU27 would just laugh.
Although "up yours, we're off regardless", also becomes more plausible.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has taken steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
If they are asked they will comment. I guess if you wish to see people saying that it will make no difference as evidence that it will make a difference I cannot stop you :-)
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give May a free had to negotiate the Brexit deal she wanted to negotiate. There is just no getting round that, I'm afraid. She has also boxed herself in by ruling out our continued membership of the single market and the customs union. That means that she is already in a position where she cannot get the best possible deal for the UK. It wasn't Gina Miller or nine Liberal Democrat MPs who forced her to do that; it was her fear of negative headlines from the right wing Brexit press. And that is going nowhere.
How a big majority strengthen's Mrs May's position, item 1: €60bn. Our EU friends were clearly trying to blackmail* us into conceding an utterly ludicrous exit bill, which we'd have no choice but to pay if MPs and the Lords took the position that we needed a deal at all costs, and there was a risk of the PM losing a vote on it.
* Nothing unexpected about that, of course. Remember the three Bs of diplomacy: Blackmail, Bribery and Bluff.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has ten steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
It strengthens her ability to make a deal stick but it doesn't affect her ability to influence the shape of the deal. If anything it weakens her ability to use domestic politics as a way to plead for concessions. "I won't be able to get this through parliament," might work as an argument if you have a slim majority, but if you have a majority of 100+ the EU27 would just laugh.
Although "up yours, we're off regardless", also becomes more plausible.
Give us a deal or we will inflict major long-term economic and financial damage on ourselves will continue to be a sub-optimal negotiating strategy.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has taken steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
If they are asked they will comment. I guess if you wish to see people saying that it will make no difference as evidence that it will make a difference I cannot stop you :-)
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give May a free had to negotiate the Brexit deal she wanted to negotiate. There is just no getting round that, I'm afraid. She has also boxed herself in by ruling out our continued membership of the single market and the customs union. That means that she is already in a position where she cannot get the best possible deal for the UK. It wasn't Gina Miller or nine Liberal Democrat MPs who forced her to do that; it was her fear of negative headlines from the right wing Brexit press. And that is going nowhere.
How can we get the best deal by continuing membership of the single market and the customs union.
Being members of the customs union and the single market but NOT the EU is the worst case scenario. There is literally no point to Brexit whatsoever if we do that, we'd have all the same obligations in enforcing the rules but none of the privileges of membership in shaping the rules.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has ten steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
It strengthens her ability to make a deal stick but it doesn't affect her ability to influence the shape of the deal. If anything it weakens her ability to use domestic politics as a way to plead for concessions. "I won't be able to get this through parliament," might work as an argument if you have a slim majority, but if you have a majority of 100+ the EU27 would just laugh.
Although "up yours, we're off regardless", also becomes more plausible.
She is saying that the EU 27 are ganging up on the UK. She is framing the forthcoming negotiation in a way that will make it even more difficult for her to make the concessions that will be needed to ensure we get a good deal, which she has already made harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
How has May made it harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union?
The customs union is a clear non-starter as we won't be able to negotiate our own deals if we stay in it which was a major point of leaving. Even the EFTA are not in the customs union.
As for the Single Market the EU has made it abundantly clear that four freedoms are indivisible while the referendum campaign made it abundantly clear that one of the four freedoms is no longer acceptable here. So what else do you realistically propose May does? Either build resentment in the nation by continuing with the four freedoms - or convince the EU that it can divide them afterall?
If the UK is as important to the EU as Brexiteers tell us it is, the EU would do a deal around the single market and immigration.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has ten steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
It strengthens her ability to make a deal stick but it doesn't affect her ability to influence the shape of the deal. If anything it weakens her ability to use domestic politics as a way to plead for concessions. "I won't be able to get this through parliament," might work as an argument if you have a slim majority, but if you have a majority of 100+ the EU27 would just laugh.
Although "up yours, we're off regardless", also becomes more plausible.
Give us a deal or we will inflict major long-term economic and financial damage on ourselves will continue to be a sub-optimal negotiating strategy.
It's only suboptimal if its not believed. If the government wins a whopping majority based on precisely that claim then it is more believable.
She is saying that the EU 27 are ganging up on the UK. She is framing the forthcoming negotiation in a way that will make it even more difficult for her to make the concessions that will be needed to ensure we get a good deal, which she has already made harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
How has May made it harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union?
The customs union is a clear non-starter as we won't be able to negotiate our own deals if we stay in it which was a major point of leaving. Even the EFTA are not in the customs union.
As for the Single Market the EU has made it abundantly clear that four freedoms are indivisible while the referendum campaign made it abundantly clear that one of the four freedoms is no longer acceptable here. So what else do you realistically propose May does? Either build resentment in the nation by continuing with the four freedoms - or convince the EU that it can divide them afterall?
If the UK is as important to the EU as Brexiteers tell us it is, the EU would do a deal around the single market and immigration.
Despite the fact they consistently have said they will not and the Brexiteers never claimed they would? You are in denial.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give May a free had to negotiate the Brexit deal she wanted to negotiate.
No they didn't. Keir Starmer issued a set of mutually contradictory tests which would allow Labour to vote against any deal if they chose. Add in the LibDems, who are on the EU's sde in the negotiation, add in the SNP, who will do whatever causes most trouble, maybe lose a few seats in by-elections, add in a handful of Conservative rebels, and the arithmetic begins to look a bit dicey. Our EU friends can add up as well as anyone else.
More evidence of Labour falling in Wales. Tories lead in Assembly voting intentions for the first time, only just. Been a long time coming, wouldn't bet against the Tories in seats like Torfean.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
The evidence is the number of times they keep mentioning that it will make no difference.
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has taken steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
If they are asked they will comment. I guess if you wish to see people saying that it will make no difference as evidence that it will make a difference I cannot stop you :-)
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give May a free had to negotiate the Brexit deal she wanted to negotiate. There is just no getting round that, I'm afraid. She has also boxed herself in by ruling out our continued membership of the single market and the customs union. That means that she is already in a position where she cannot get the best possible deal for the UK. It wasn't Gina Miller or nine Liberal Democrat MPs who forced her to do that; it was her fear of negative headlines from the right wing Brexit press. And that is going nowhere.
How can we get the best deal by continuing membership of the single market and the customs union.
Being members of the customs union and the single market but NOT the EU is the worst case scenario. There is literally no point to Brexit whatsoever if we do that, we'd have all the same obligations in enforcing the rules but none of the privileges of membership in shaping the rules.
Nope - membership of the single market, for example, does not have to come with the same obligations as membership of the EU.
How a big majority strengthen's Mrs May's position, item 1: €60bn. Our EU friends were clearly trying to blackmail* us into conceding an utterly ludicrous exit bill, which we'd have no choice put to pay if MPs and the Lords took the position that we needed a deal at all costs, and there was a risk of the PM losing a vote on it.
* Nothing unexpected about that, of course. Remember the three Bs of diplomacy: Blackmail, Bribery and Bluff.
It doesn't help May to bluff even harder. That would just have the effect of compressing negotiations closer to 2019 deadline making it more likely that the fail-safe position would be to revoke Article 50.
No they didn't. Keir Starmer issued a set of mutually contradictory tests which would allow Labour to vote against any deal if they chose. Add in the LibDems, who are on the EU's sde in the negotiation, add in the SNP, who will do whatever causes most trouble, maybe lose a few seats in by-elections, add in a handful of Conservative rebels, and the arithmetic begins to look a bit dicey. Our EU friends can add up as well as anyone else.
And they STILL don't care.
The EU doesn't need May to get anything through Parliament.
Our option to walk away remains open, and hasn't changed.
No they didn't. Keir Starmer issued a set of mutually contradictory tests which would allow Labour to vote against any deal if they chose. Add in the LibDems, who are on the EU's sde in the negotiation, add in the SNP, who will do whatever causes most trouble, maybe lose a few seats in by-elections, add in a handful of Conservative rebels, and the arithmetic begins to look a bit dicey. Our EU friends can add up as well as anyone else.
And they STILL don't care.
The EU doesn't need May to get anything through Parliament.
Our option to walk away remains open, and hasn't changed.
Yes, as Frances Coppola put it:
If you are going to play the cliff edge game, you must be prepared for the possibility that the other side will push you over. Especially if your opponent is the EU.
How a big majority strengthen's Mrs May's position, item 1: €60bn. Our EU friends were clearly trying to blackmail* us into conceding an utterly ludicrous exit bill, which we'd have no choice put to pay if MPs and the Lords took the position that we needed a deal at all costs, and there was a risk of the PM losing a vote on it.
* Nothing unexpected about that, of course. Remember the three Bs of diplomacy: Blackmail, Bribery and Bluff.
It doesn't help May to bluff even harder. That would just have the effect of compressing negotiations closer to 2019 deadline making it more likely that the fail-safe position would be to revoke Article 50.
"revoke Article 50"
I have not yet seen a credible argument of how that's unilaterally possible.
Give us a deal or we will inflict major long-term economic and financial damage on ourselves will continue to be a sub-optimal negotiating strategy.
Accept our deal, no matter how absurdly bad, or we will inflict major long-term economic and financial damage on ourselves, is the stated strategy of the EU27. Hopefully that is bluff, but we will find out.
To be clear, I'm not saying this is going to work out well. Overall I'm fairly pessimistic, I think EU politics might lead to mutual self-harm. But Theresa May is doing all the right things to reduce that risk, and above all she is 100% right that she needs to be able to negotiate without grandstanding MPs trying to set up impossible and mutually contradictory red lines.
Guarantees that are effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, and which should be accompanied by simple and smooth administrative procedures.
'enforceable'? If this is the ECJ, Brussels, we have a problem.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give May a free had to negotiate the Brexit deal she wanted to negotiate.
No they didn't. Keir Starmer issued a set of mutually contradictory tests which would allow Labour to vote against any deal if they chose. Add in the LibDems, who are on the EU's sde in the negotiation, add in the SNP, who will do whatever causes most trouble, maybe lose a few seats in by-elections, add in a handful of Conservative rebels, and the arithmetic begins to look a bit dicey. Our EU friends can add up as well as anyone else.
Our EU friends can see an unwhippable parliamentary Labour party in a state of collapse and nine LibDem MPs. They can also see a Parliament that has overwhelmingly given May a free hand. Nothing will have changed after the election. Her negotiating position will remain the same: we have ruled out membership of the customs union and the single market, and the only thing we are in a position to do is to either accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or walk away. A bigger Tory majority will make it politically easier in the UK for May to do that, but it will not change the fact that it would be an act of extreme self-harm that will damage us much more than it damages our EU friends - and that is also something that our EU friends understand.
As I said, this is all about UK politics. It has nothing to do with improving our negotiating position.
Give us a deal or we will inflict major long-term economic and financial damage on ourselves will continue to be a sub-optimal negotiating strategy.
Accept our deal, no matter how absurdly bad, or we will inflict major long-term economic and financial damage on ourselves, is the stated strategy of the EU27. Hopefully that is bluff, but we will find out.
'Hopefully that is a bluff' - and the reason you have to hope it's a bluff is that you know that the UK's no deal option is a bluff.
How a big majority strengthen's Mrs May's position, item 1: €60bn. Our EU friends were clearly trying to blackmail* us into conceding an utterly ludicrous exit bill, which we'd have no choice put to pay if MPs and the Lords took the position that we needed a deal at all costs, and there was a risk of the PM losing a vote on it.
* Nothing unexpected about that, of course. Remember the three Bs of diplomacy: Blackmail, Bribery and Bluff.
It doesn't help May to bluff even harder. That would just have the effect of compressing negotiations closer to 2019 deadline making it more likely that the fail-safe position would be to revoke Article 50.
You never give up do you - I admire your loyalty but sadly, you are going to be very disapointed
Guarantees that are effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, and which should be accompanied by simple and smooth administrative procedures.
'enforceable'? If this is the ECJ, Brussels, we have a problem.
I fear the EU will take advantage of the next few months of UK Government paralysis to get a head start in the Brexit negotiations. Tactically, TM would've been better calling the election before triggering Article 50 !!
She is saying that the EU 27 are ganging up on the UK. She is framing the forthcoming negotiation in a way that will make it even more difficult for her to make the concessions that will be needed to ensure we get a good deal, which she has already made harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
How has May made it harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union?
The customs union is a clear non-starter as we won't be able to negotiate our own deals if we stay in it which was a major point of leaving. Even the EFTA are not in the customs union.
As for the Single Market the EU has made it abundantly clear that four freedoms are indivisible while the referendum campaign made it abundantly clear that one of the four freedoms is no longer acceptable here. So what else do you realistically propose May does? Either build resentment in the nation by continuing with the four freedoms - or convince the EU that it can divide them afterall?
If the UK is as important to the EU as Brexiteers tell us it is, the EU would do a deal around the single market and immigration.
Despite the fact they consistently have said they will not and the Brexiteers never claimed they would? You are in denial.
I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment. EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.
British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. Britain is and always will be a great European power, offering top-table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defence to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing – all the things we need to do together to make our world safer.
Our EU friends can see an unwhippable parliamentary Labour party in a state of collapse and nine LibDem MPs. They can also see a Parliament that has overwhelmingly given May a free hand. Nothing will have changed after the election. Her negotiating position will remain the same: we have ruled out membership of the customs union and the single market, and the only thing we are in a position to do is to either accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or walk away. A bigger Tory majority will make it politically easier in the UK for May to do that, but it will not change the fact that it would be an act of extreme self-harm that will damage us much more than it damages our EU friends - and that is also something that our EU friends understand.
As I said, this is all about UK politics. It has nothing to do with improving our negotiating position.
You've just shown exactly how it improves our negotiating position: "A bigger Tory majority will make it politically easier in the UK for May to do that". You also forgot to mention that a bigger Tory majority will make it easier for the UK to accept a deal (and reliably get it through parliament), so the EU27 will be confident that the PM can deliver. Both are useful going into the negotiations.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
First good post I've ever seen from you ;-)
And it's faze not phase if ever anyone feels the need...
Guarantees that are effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, and which should be accompanied by simple and smooth administrative procedures.
'enforceable'? If this is the ECJ, Brussels, we have a problem.
I fear the EU will take advantage of the next few months of UK Government paralysis to get a head start in the Brexit negotiations. Tactically, TM would've been better calling the election before triggering Article 50 !!
'Few months' = a bit over 5 weeks......
Of course the Scottish Government isn't exact;y helping by publishing confidential correspondence....
Furthermore, a litre of Bells can now be had for £14 whereas a standard bottle of the same is £15!
You do sometimes get bizarre things like that. I once ordered a litre bottle of Smirnoff from Tesco as it was only £1 more than the 70cl bottle. And it turned out that the litre bottles were out of stock when they came to pick it, so they gave me two 70cl bottles instead. For the price of the litre!
Guarantees that are effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, and which should be accompanied by simple and smooth administrative procedures.
'enforceable'? If this is the ECJ, Brussels, we have a problem.
I fear the EU will take advantage of the next few months of UK Government paralysis to get a head start in the Brexit negotiations. Tactically, TM would've been better calling the election before triggering Article 50 !!
The negotiations are not going to start much before the Autumn and probably after the German elections
'Hopefully that is a bluff' - and the reason you have to hope it's a bluff is that you know that the UK's no deal option is a bluff.
The no deal option is bluff on both sides.
To take the most immediate example, our EU friends seem to think they will extort €60bn from us, or something like that. If there's no deal, the total figure will be zero. So, who's bluffing?
What is most striking about recent developments is how her calling of this election has totally nonplussed our EU friends
The UK election makes zero difference to our EU friends, or their negotiating position.
So they keep telling us. Methinks they do protest too much.
I do struggle with the logic of how the election really affects the EU bargaining position.
The only possible point I can see is that the EU will have confidence that any deal it makes with May will then be ratified in the UK. That makes the road less rocky I suppose, but doesn't necessarily mean a different or better deal.
Indeed, I see the logic of the argument that it means a softer Brexit. The pressure, had May continued with her slim majority, would have been more from her headbanger wing than from a loose coalition of SNP, a few Lib Dems, whoever in Labour wanted 5 minutes out from civil war, and Ken Clarke.
The biggest impact it has is that the negotiations' deadline isn't so close to the next election campaign, so a six or 12 month extension, if it becomes necessary, is politically possible.
Guarantees that are effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, and which should be accompanied by simple and smooth administrative procedures.
'enforceable'? If this is the ECJ, Brussels, we have a problem.
I fear the EU will take advantage of the next few months of UK Government paralysis to get a head start in the Brexit negotiations. Tactically, TM would've been better calling the election before triggering Article 50 !!
The negotiations are not going to start much before the Autumn and probably after the German elections
Either way triggering A50 before calling A50 seems barmy.
Our EU friends can see an unwhippable parliamentary Labour party in a state of collapse and nine LibDem MPs. They can also see a Parliament that has overwhelmingly given May a free hand. Nothing will have changed after the election. Her negotiating position will remain the same: we have ruled out membership of the customs union and the single market, and the only thing we are in a position to do is to either accept a deal that the EU essentially dictates or walk away. A bigger Tory majority will make it politically easier in the UK for May to do that, but it will not change the fact that it would be an act of extreme self-harm that will damage us much more than it damages our EU friends - and that is also something that our EU friends understand.
As I said, this is all about UK politics. It has nothing to do with improving our negotiating position.
You've just shown exactly how it improves our negotiating position: "A bigger Tory majority will make it politically easier in the UK for May to do that". You also forgot to mention that a bigger Tory majority will make it easier for the UK to accept a deal (and reliably get it through parliament), so the EU27 will be confident that the PM can deliver. Both are useful going into the negotiations.
Making an option politically easier does not make it any better for the UK. The negotiation is about getting the best deal for the British people, not for the Conservative party. Perhaps where you and I agree is that our EU friends could well be mistaken if they think that getting the best deal for the UK is May's priority.
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
We were previously told that Merkel's elections were a reason why she couldn't afford to be tough because she would have German industry breathing down her neck about how many cars they sell to us...
If countries go to the polls say every 4 years, on average there'll be a general election in the GE-27 every two months. That doesn't give much time for a spot of quiet negotiation before the next GE or three come along.
Only Germany and France truly matter, though.
This, incidentally, is why France will never Leave the EU - because if it does, the EU ceases to have any purpose.
Mr. Pulpstar, an interesting question but somewhat flawed.
UK has been in an economic bloc (EEC then EU) for 40 years, and a political bloc for 20 years. Scotland has been part of the same nation-state as England for over 300 years. The levels of integrations are orders of magnitude greater.
EU workers here should have exactly the same consideration as workers from outside the EU, no more. It is absurd to talk about protecting the 300,000 UK citizens living in Eire when these are joint passport holders. It is absurd to talk about protecting UK citizens living in Spain and France when they just have a holiday home there. Typically a young male asylum seeker is expected to bring another eight into the country. In Canada one young asylum seeker had managed to bring 200 of his closest family into one small town. EU citizens will act in the same way. Guaranteeing EU rights will continue mass immigration.
Mr. Pulpstar, an interesting question but somewhat flawed.
UK has been in an economic bloc (EEC then EU) for 40 years, and a political bloc for 20 years. Scotland has been part of the same nation-state as England for over 300 years. The levels of integrations are orders of magnitude greater.
Just look at currency.
But that reinforces the point. How big would Nicola Sturgeon's majority have to be to force concessions from the rUK?
And how would that compare to the "much easier" task of leaving the EU?
Making an option politically easier does not make it any better for the UK. The negotiation is about getting the best deal for the British people, not for the Conservative party. Perhaps where you and I agree is that our EU friends could well be mistaken if they think that getting the best deal for the UK is May's priority.
That's just silly. Of course Theresa May's absolute priority is the best deal for the UK. It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
EU workers here should have exactly the same consideration as workers from outside the EU, no more.
Of course if the EU did succeed in writing extra protections, shorter working hours etc etc into EU national's job contracts a lot would lose their jobs.....
Making an option politically easier does not make it any better for the UK. The negotiation is about getting the best deal for the British people, not for the Conservative party. Perhaps where you and I agree is that our EU friends could well be mistaken if they think that getting the best deal for the UK is May's priority.
That's just silly. Of course Theresa May's absolute priority is the best deal for the UK. It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
I think May equates what is best for the Tories with what is best for the UK.
That's just silly. Of course Theresa May's absolute priority is the best deal for the UK. It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
Last year, May was campaigning for the best deal for the UK, staying in the EU
Now she is campaigning for something else.
It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
She's not campaigning for something else. The decision to leave has been made by the great British public. Now the focus is on how to get the best deal, given that we are leaving the EU.
Making an option politically easier does not make it any better for the UK. The negotiation is about getting the best deal for the British people, not for the Conservative party. Perhaps where you and I agree is that our EU friends could well be mistaken if they think that getting the best deal for the UK is May's priority.
That's just silly. Of course Theresa May's absolute priority is the best deal for the UK. It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
I think May equates what is best for the Tories with what is best for the UK.
She'd be right to do so. The better the outcome, the better the economy will do, and therefore the longer we're likely to be blessed with a Conservative government.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
Country? No. Wales is not a country, it is a Principality.
What's the betting that after all the hullabaloo about GDP being estimated at 0.1% below forecast, in six months it finishes up getting revised to 0.5%, 0.1% above forecast?
More to the point the way these GDP days have turned into a national event is fairly ridiculous...
That would be nice, especially if it happens before the end of the year, ahem. I do think some upward revisions are likely.
Making an option politically easier does not make it any better for the UK. The negotiation is about getting the best deal for the British people, not for the Conservative party. Perhaps where you and I agree is that our EU friends could well be mistaken if they think that getting the best deal for the UK is May's priority.
That's just silly. Of course Theresa May's absolute priority is the best deal for the UK. It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
I think May equates what is best for the Tories with what is best for the UK.
Indeed so. Just like the rubbish they keep spouting about 'the national interest' - which ,of course, is entirely subjective. All parties believe in 'the national interest' but strongly disagree as to what that is . Such statements are so vacuous and evidence of the lengths that political leaders go to mislead the typical gullable voter.
Lets assume a parallel (Fantasy right now) universe where the SNP had won the referendum.
How strong would Sturgeon's hand be to make England, Wales and Northern Ireland bend to her will, to get a fantastic deal for Scotland.
The EU think Brexit harms them. They didn't choose it. They don't owe us any favours, so they are not going to give us any. If they agree any deals at all, they will be set against things we give them. The ability to sell their cars isn't an especially compelling offer.
On the 29 march 2019 the treaties that govern just about everything we do will lapse. WTO is a void, not an alternative. We should be totally focused on that date. What do we want as a substitute? Why should our EU friends agree? What would we offer them that they want, and which they wouldn't otherwise have?
Making an option politically easier does not make it any better for the UK. The negotiation is about getting the best deal for the British people, not for the Conservative party. Perhaps where you and I agree is that our EU friends could well be mistaken if they think that getting the best deal for the UK is May's priority.
That's just silly. Of course Theresa May's absolute priority is the best deal for the UK. It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
I think May equates what is best for the Tories with what is best for the UK.
All parties believe in 'the national interest'
While parties do I think Labour may be testing that to destruction in their leader.....
Making an option politically easier does not make it any better for the UK. The negotiation is about getting the best deal for the British people, not for the Conservative party. Perhaps where you and I agree is that our EU friends could well be mistaken if they think that getting the best deal for the UK is May's priority.
That's just silly. Of course Theresa May's absolute priority is the best deal for the UK. It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
I think May equates what is best for the Tories with what is best for the UK.
All parties believe in 'the national interest'
While parties do I think Labour may be testing that to destruction in their leader.....
At the end of the day Corbyn will have his own view of 'the national interest' however much you and I might disagree with it.
Comments
When the next quarter's numbers are released, the economy will probably have grown about 2% in the 12 months after the Brexit vote. Nothing special, but a far cry from George Osborne's predictions.
Very useful, I think it was from there that I learnt the value of value.
There was also the old Welch Regiment, which recruited from South Wales and which went under in the 1969 defence cuts.
On an even happier note, the price of a litre of the Grouse in my local off-licence has this week dropped from £29 to £19 (£17 for a 70cl bottle). Furthermore, a litre of Bells can now be had for £14 whereas a standard bottle of the same is £15! Single malt prices continue to creep up though, my favourite Laphroaig is now £28.
Perversely this is a gift to Theresa May who accepted it 'big time' last night by demonstrating how as leader with large mandate she will stand up to Merkel and the EU.
Paul Nuttall's comments this morning saying a 'landslide' win for Theresa May would harm Brexit is likely to add to Theresa May's column from the remainer's who see the opportunity, to negotiate a less extreme outcome than UKIP demand
It is hard to recall any election when so much has been in favour of the leader of the conservative party but, notwithstanding, the election is not over until 10.00pm on the 8th June and while a majority seems assured, the size is not.
It's not absolutely guaranteed we'll be sensible and there's scope for someone in the EU to lob in one of their occasional hand grenades. On the whole, Tusk and Barnier have played this very skillfully so far Tusk for getting EU leaders to consolidate around a political position, when it can be like herding cats. Barnier for his sense of the dynamic of the negotiation and his planning. Knowing where to draw the red lines, where to concede, sequencing it all and ensuring it's all baked in before the actual negotiations start.
The only possible point I can see is that the EU will have confidence that any deal it makes with May will then be ratified in the UK. That makes the road less rocky I suppose, but doesn't necessarily mean a different or better deal.
Indeed, I see the logic of the argument that it means a softer Brexit. The pressure, had May continued with her slim majority, would have been more from her headbanger wing than from a loose coalition of SNP, a few Lib Dems, whoever in Labour wanted 5 minutes out from civil war, and Ken Clarke.
O/T, but this was rather funny from Archbishop Cranmer.
http://archbishopcranmer.com/elevation-blessed-asparagus-church-england-pantomime/
Of course it will make a difference. Our EU friends will have followed the debates, and will have noted the numbers of MPs (let alone Lords) who seem to take the bizarre view that it helps the negotiations to box the PM into an impossible position. Mrs May, extremely sensibly, doesn't want to be boxed in, and has taken steps to ensure that she won't be by calling this election. Of course that strengthens her negotiating position, how could it possibly be otherwise? And of course our EU friends will immediately have understood that, they're not half-wits.
I should note that I had no intention to insult the Principality and apologise profoundly to all proud Welsh people. Instead, my comment was directed to PaddyPower/Betfair - the bunch of bog-hopping bastards*. I hope this clears the controversy up.
* n.b. as it's not always taken kindly on forums, I would like to make clear this is a JOKE.
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2017/04/28/voting-intentions-for-the-national-assembly-the-latest-evidence/
The customs union is a clear non-starter as we won't be able to negotiate our own deals if we stay in it which was a major point of leaving. Even the EFTA are not in the customs union.
As for the Single Market the EU has made it abundantly clear that four freedoms are indivisible while the referendum campaign made it abundantly clear that one of the four freedoms is no longer acceptable here. So what else do you realistically propose May does? Either build resentment in the nation by continuing with the four freedoms - or convince the EU that it can divide them afterall?
With a 100+ majority she can say "my party won't wear this so I won't be able to get this through Parliament", with a slender majority they can say that all the opposition parties accept what they're proposing so "you can't afford to not take this".
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give May a free had to negotiate the Brexit deal she wanted to negotiate. There is just no getting round that, I'm afraid. She has also boxed herself in by ruling out our continued membership of the single market and the customs union. That means that she is already in a position where she cannot get the best possible deal for the UK. It wasn't Gina Miller or nine Liberal Democrat MPs who forced her to do that; it was her fear of negative headlines from the right wing Brexit press. And that is going nowhere.
* Nothing unexpected about that, of course. Remember the three Bs of diplomacy: Blackmail, Bribery and Bluff.
Being members of the customs union and the single market but NOT the EU is the worst case scenario. There is literally no point to Brexit whatsoever if we do that, we'd have all the same obligations in enforcing the rules but none of the privileges of membership in shaping the rules.
http://howardleague.org/blog/lessons-from-scotland/
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/857913548047089665
The EU doesn't need May to get anything through Parliament.
Our option to walk away remains open, and hasn't changed.
If you are going to play the cliff edge game, you must be prepared for the possibility that the other side will push you over. Especially if your opponent is the EU.
http://www.coppolacomment.com/2017/03/game-theory-in-brexitland.html
I have not yet seen a credible argument of how that's unilaterally possible.
https://order-order.com/2017/04/28/lopresti-calls-cops-on-tories-trying-to-deselect-him/
To be clear, I'm not saying this is going to work out well. Overall I'm fairly pessimistic, I think EU politics might lead to mutual self-harm. But Theresa May is doing all the right things to reduce that risk, and above all she is 100% right that she needs to be able to negotiate without grandstanding MPs trying to set up impossible and mutually contradictory red lines.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/28-tusk-invitation-letter-euco-art50/
Guarantees that are effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, and which should be accompanied by simple and smooth administrative procedures.
'enforceable'? If this is the ECJ, Brussels, we have a problem.
As I said, this is all about UK politics. It has nothing to do with improving our negotiating position.
Vive la republique !
British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. Britain is and always will be a great European power, offering top-table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defence to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing – all the things we need to do together to make our world safer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/
Of course the Scottish Government isn't exact;y helping by publishing confidential correspondence....
To take the most immediate example, our EU friends seem to think they will extort €60bn from us, or something like that. If there's no deal, the total figure will be zero. So, who's bluffing?
https://twitter.com/EastRenTories/status/856963053631549442
Lets assume a parallel (Fantasy right now) universe where the SNP had won the referendum.
How strong would Sturgeon's hand be to make England, Wales and Northern Ireland bend to her will, to get a fantastic deal for Scotland.
This, incidentally, is why France will never Leave the EU - because if it does, the EU ceases to have any purpose.
UK has been in an economic bloc (EEC then EU) for 40 years, and a political bloc for 20 years. Scotland has been part of the same nation-state as England for over 300 years. The levels of integrations are orders of magnitude greater.
Just look at currency.
Edited extra bit: anyway, must be off.
And how would that compare to the "much easier" task of leaving the EU?
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/857920905066020864
Now she is campaigning for something else.
It's frankly bonkers to think otherwise.
Rather like Scotland, which is a Parish
As the old saying goes: "With friends like that, who needs enemies".
On the 29 march 2019 the treaties that govern just about everything we do will lapse. WTO is a void, not an alternative. We should be totally focused on that date. What do we want as a substitute? Why should our EU friends agree? What would we offer them that they want, and which they wouldn't otherwise have?
Mrs Merkel is right. Our side is in denial.
The Trend is Your Friend!
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/857923436194222081