politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Voters want May to negotiate Brexit and not Corbyn and that’s all you need to know
A new poll shows that UK adults overwhelmingly trust Theresa May rather than Jeremy Corbyn to negotiate Brexit by a margin of 51% to 13%. All else is secondary writes Keiran Pedley.
The British government would have no legal obligation to either pay a €60bn (£52bn) Brexit bill mooted by the European commission or honour payments into the EU budget promised by the former prime minister David Cameron, according to analysis by the House of Lords EU financial affairs sub-committee.
And who would you trust more to negotiate the terms of Britain's exit from the European Union? A Conservative government under Theresa May: 45 A Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn: 16 Neither: 24
The HoL analysis is in my view correct, but to clarify, it rests mainly on the fact that there is no jurisdiction after Brexit and therefore no treaty under which any obligations could be enforced. This is tough luck for the EU side because they (mis)-drafted article 50 without taking into account what would happen legally when someone leaves.
The other question is what the UK should pay regardless of the above. The HoL report is less clear. However, at least half the 'bill' consists of reste à liquider (RAL) which are really nothing more than unfunded promises to spend money in the future that were only ever going to be spent if all the nations agreed to fund them in the future, which has never happened. There is no good grounds for the UK to pay any of this after Brexit. If this was dropped, I suspect the remainder could be negotiated, but this amount (30 billion plus) is completely unrealistic.
It is the weakness of this large sum which is causing the EU to behave in such an overbearing manner - they know it can only be extracted via blackmail as the legal basis is non-existent.
The British government would have no legal obligation to either pay a €60bn (£52bn) Brexit bill mooted by the European commission or honour payments into the EU budget promised by the former prime minister David Cameron, according to analysis by the House of Lords EU financial affairs sub-committee.
The HoL analysis is in my view correct, but to clarify, it rests mainly on the fact that there is no jurisdiction after Brexit and therefore no treaty under which any obligations could be enforced. This is tough luck for the EU side because they (mis)-drafted article 50 without taking into account what would happen legally when someone leaves.
The other question is what the UK should pay regardless of the above. The HoL report is less clear. However, at least half the 'bill' consists of reste à liquider (RAL) which are really nothing more than unfunded promises to spend money in the future that were only ever going to be spent if all the nations agreed to fund them in the future, which has never happened. There is no good grounds for the UK to pay any of this after Brexit. If this was dropped, I suspect the remainder could be negotiated, but this amount (30 billion plus) is completely unrealistic.
It is the weakness of this large sum which is causing the EU to behave in such an overbearing manner - they know it can only be extracted via blackmail as the legal basis is non-existent.
The British government would have no legal obligation to either pay a €60bn (£52bn) Brexit bill mooted by the European commission or honour payments into the EU budget promised by the former prime minister David Cameron, according to analysis by the House of Lords EU financial affairs sub-committee.
I think it's also partly displacement activity - after we've gone there's going to be an almighty row over how they fill the gap left by our contribution - we'll see how long "EU unanimity" survives that.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
Just saw the strap line on BBC World news just before 6 and saw free bats being given to Indian brides! I immediately thought of the free owls given by Ed
Macron seems a very shrewd man from what I've learned about him. It's becoming easier to see why he's made the runoff and Fillon hasn't. He's got the potential to be France's best president in years.
That said, of course, identifying problems is one thing, coming up with solutions is much harder.
Macron seems a very shrewd man from what I've learned about him. It's becoming easier to see why he's made the runoff and Fillon hasn't. He's got the potential to be France's best president in years.
That said, of course, identifying problems is one thing, coming up with solutions is much harder.
Not too sure your endorsement of Macron as having "the potential to be France's best President in years" is much of a ringing endorsement.
Pope Paul Nuttall being the best UKIP leader in many a long month springs to mind ....
Mrs May scores well because although she is a luke-warm Remainer, she is prepared to implement the will of the people - as was promised before the referendum. It's about trust.
Old Bonehead is all over the place and Labour say one thing and mean another (and no one knows what that will be).
Farron is anti-democratic. He wants to do whatever he wants and bollocks to the referendum result.
Evasions and economy with the truth are accepted as political weapons. Downright lies are not. The LDs will implement the will of the people, but only as long as it suits them.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
The reports seem very clear and specific, not a drunken haze, and very credible as they do match other information in the public domain.
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
This article gives a pointer to the seats most likely to change hands at the GE. I expect the Lab to Con swing to be greatest in seats with a strong Leave vote and/or higher UKIP %vote share at the last GE (e.g. in much of Wales, the East coast, the English Midlands and the North of England outside bigger cities), with much less swing (possibly even negative) in pro-Remain areas with a smaller UKIP %vote share at the last GE (e.g. most of London and the southern parts of Greater Manchester). Unfortunately, I am not aware of any local or regional opinion polls that provide evidence for this, except for Wales as it is treated as a distinct country.
Therefore, I expect that the LDs only have a chance in the second zone and may even lose 1 or 2 of the seats that they currently hold, so predict that they will end up with less than 20 seats, as suggested by A.Meeks. Labour have a large number of seats in the first zone, so I expect that they will lose a large number of seats, in excess of what may be predicted by UNS. If Labour's overall vote share is close to that at the last GE (i.e. about 30% as I expect), despite losing a large number of seats (because of large swings in Leave areas and collapse in the UKIP vote), will Corbyn resign or be deposed post the GE?
Those with a betting inclination should take note of the findings in this article,
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
Leading on Brexit negotiations is something that Starmer will do well. It is a job for a lawyer with an eye for detail. Thornbury would be more useful than Boris for similar reasons.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
An interesting brief from "Commission sources". I wonder what the UK version looks like.
The £50 billion bill is amusing. Think of a number and double it a couple of times. Have you ever left a club because of dissatisfaction and received a ludicrous bill to leave? If some Remainers are happy to pay it without a quibble, I suggest they organise a whip round.
We all know it's a negotiating position. We start with "Hard Brexit or else? OK, we'll go for Hard Brexit." They counter with "The bills, the bills first, think of the children left behind."
What is unusual is that there's a few (but only a few) British citizens cheerleading for the EU.
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
La la la la. I have my fingers in my ears. Brexit will be a success. La la la la.
Mrs May scores well because although she is a luke-warm Remainer, she is prepared to implement the will of the people - as was promised before the referendum. It's about trust.
Old Bonehead is all over the place and Labour say one thing and mean another (and no one knows what that will be).
Farron is anti-democratic. He wants to do whatever he wants and bollocks to the referendum result.
Evasions and economy with the truth are accepted as political weapons. Downright lies are not. The LDs will implement the will of the people, but only as long as it suits them.
Maybe Corbyn's last card will be to admit how he really voted in June...
Macron seems a very shrewd man from what I've learned about him. It's becoming easier to see why he's made the runoff and Fillon hasn't. He's got the potential to be France's best president in years.
That said, of course, identifying problems is one thing, coming up with solutions is much harder.
Not too sure your endorsement of Macron as having "the potential to be France's best President in years" is much of a ringing endorsement.
Pope Paul Nuttall being the best UKIP leader in many a long month springs to mind ....
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
Who do you suggest? Corbyn ? The mind boggles
I'm no fan of Corbyn as he likely voted Leave condemning the Uk to a decade of economic under performance. However Starmer would be a decent lead for us.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
La la la la. I have my fingers in my ears. Brexit will be a success. La la la la.
How many times do you need to be reminded I am a Remainer? Edit - or are you being ironic and describing yourself? Your lack of self awareness is certainly one of your less endearing traits.
From Jeremy Cliff's report on the dinner: 19) Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
Who do you suggest? Corbyn ? The mind boggles
I'm no fan of Corbyn as he likely voted Leave condemning the Uk to a decade of economic under performance. However Starmer would be a decent lead for us.
Even, the godlike Starmer can only represent the view of the party leader. Otherwise it's not party policy, just an individuals opinion.
Macron seems a very shrewd man from what I've learned about him. It's becoming easier to see why he's made the runoff and Fillon hasn't. He's got the potential to be France's best president in years.
That said, of course, identifying problems is one thing, coming up with solutions is much harder.
Not too sure your endorsement of Macron as having "the potential to be France's best President in years" is much of a ringing endorsement.
Pope Paul Nuttall being the best UKIP leader in many a long month springs to mind ....
You can only beat the competition that's there...
Just ask Theresa May
I see that the interim leader of FN has been forced to stand down for Holocaust Denial.
Macron seems a very shrewd man from what I've learned about him. It's becoming easier to see why he's made the runoff and Fillon hasn't. He's got the potential to be France's best president in years.
That said, of course, identifying problems is one thing, coming up with solutions is much harder.
Not too sure your endorsement of Macron as having "the potential to be France's best President in years" is much of a ringing endorsement.
Pope Paul Nuttall being the best UKIP leader in many a long month springs to mind ....
You can only beat the competition that's there...
Just ask Theresa May
No competition for the Conservative members vote and even less competition for the General Election vote .... I see what you mean ....
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
The reports seem very clear and specific, not a drunken haze, and very credible as they do match other information in the public domain.
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
Who do you suggest? Corbyn ? The mind boggles
I'm no fan of Corbyn as he likely voted Leave condemning the Uk to a decade of economic under performance. However Starmer would be a decent lead for us.
I think that's unfair. He said he voted Remain and while I don't trust him far there's no reason to disbelieve him. However, that said I think he probably sees the result as his big chance to reshape Britain as a Socialist utopia, apparently unaware that he has to win an election to do it.
It's disturbing to think Starmer would be an improvement on him...
From Jeremy Cliff's report on the dinner: 19) Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
"No trade deal" cuts both ways.
The UK electorate decided to trade a little economic growth for democratic accountability - as was their right. We now have millionaires Miller accepting donations from abroad to campaign against the result.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
Stop insulting Juncker. He is merely the Reichskanzlerin's right-hand man and what he is reported to have said is entirely consistent with known views of the EU commission and its leading members. Unless the UK pays up and agrees to continue with EU regulations and jurisdiction, there will be no deal and major barriers to trade and travel, as at the borders between the EU and Russia/Belarus.
Macron seems a very shrewd man from what I've learned about him. It's becoming easier to see why he's made the runoff and Fillon hasn't. He's got the potential to be France's best president in years.
That said, of course, identifying problems is one thing, coming up with solutions is much harder.
Not too sure your endorsement of Macron as having "the potential to be France's best President in years" is much of a ringing endorsement.
Pope Paul Nuttall being the best UKIP leader in many a long month springs to mind ....
You can only beat the competition that's there...
Just ask Theresa May
I see that the interim leader of FN has been forced to stand down for Holocaust Denial.
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
On topic, well yes. Even if you don't trust Theresa May on Brexit or even if you think she's deluded, her untrustworthiness and delusion are going to be better than Jeremy Corbyn's complete lack of any functioning ability as a politician. It will make Labour's task of gathering votes dependent on blind loyalty, sympathy, fear of too large a majority and visceral opposition.
Stop insulting Juncker. He is merely the Reichskanzlerin's right-hand man and what he is reported to have said is entirely consistent with known views of the EU commission and its leading members.
I'm talking about his reliability as a source, not about his personal views. He's about as credible a source as Alistair Campbell except he drinks a lot more. And I haven't insulted him once, although I appreciate the truth isnless han flattering.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
La la la la. I have my fingers in my ears. Brexit will be a success. La la la la.
How many times do you need to be reminded I am a Remainer? Edit - or are you being ironic and describing yourself? Your lack of self awareness is certainly one of your less endearing traits.
On the subject of the disastrous dinner, it seems that Theresa May thinks she's playing to a domestic audience before trying to get a squidgy soft Brexit. I don't see how that works for anyone.
Whatever you think of this leak, there is no aspect of it that suggests that the prospects of any kind of deal are high. Car crash Brexit looms.
An interesting brief from "Commission sources". I wonder what the UK version looks like.
The £50 billion bill is amusing. Think of a number and double it a couple of times. Have you ever left a club because of dissatisfaction and received a ludicrous bill to leave?
I think @TheScreamingEagles is the only one on here who frequents that type of club
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
I thought the EU had ruled that out?
Or do you think they will do a Groucho Marx if the price we offer is right?
That's the nature of politics - you trust who you want to trust, and that's why trust is so important.
Labour's problem is that we know the party members prefer Remain, as do the MPs in general. So when they say "We respect the will of the people", we're waiting for the other shoe to drop "But ..."
May has achieved that rare position. Even if she was a Remainer, most Leavers trust her. Ukip won't have any traction.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
La la la la. I have my fingers in my ears. Brexit will be a success. La la la la.
How many times do you need to be reminded I am a Remainer? Edit - or are you being ironic and describing yourself? Your lack of self awareness is certainly one of your less endearing traits.
Did I say you weren't?
Yes, in effect, and you have done several times when I pull you up on some of your more unpleasant posts. But maybe you just didn't realise it.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
La la la la. I have my fingers in my ears. Brexit will be a success. La la la la.
The fundamental difference is that May is saying "I want Brexit to be a success, how do we achieve that" while Juncker is saying "You are leaving the EU, Brexit can not [i.e. must not] be a success"
Wow - this is really explosive. The UK could be screwed! At a time like this we need intelligent leadership not moronic hapless May. What a lightweight she is!!
Who do you suggest? Corbyn ? The mind boggles
I'm no fan of Corbyn as he likely voted Leave condemning the Uk to a decade of economic under performance. However Starmer would be a decent lead for us.
No. He wouldn't. But I'm not comfortable sharing why.
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Didn't Corbyn say he wanted to leave the single market while maintaining free movement?
On the subject of the disastrous dinner, it seems that Theresa May thinks she's playing to a domestic audience before trying to get a squidgy soft Brexit. I don't see how that works for anyone.
Whatever you think of this leak, there is no aspect of it that suggests that the prospects of any kind of deal are high. Car crash Brexit looms.
Indeed but that is what some idiots want including some the headbanging lunatics on here.
At the least this dinner anecdote reinforces the impression of a government that is utterly disorganised in its approach to Brexit. Not so much "strong and stable". More "heedless and chaotic"
Whatever you think of the EU demands, they are clear about what they want, focused on getting their goals and have planned for them rigourously
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
When the man is unfit to run a village post office, a well known liar and drunkard, and more useless than a chocolate furnace, that's the right thing to do. He may be telling the truth, but it isn't actually significant whether he is or not given who it is coming from.
La la la la. I have my fingers in my ears. Brexit will be a success. La la la la.
The fundamental difference is that May is saying "I want Brexit to be a success, how do we achieve that" while Juncker is saying "You are leaving the EU, Brexit can not [i.e. must not] be a success"
No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.
On topic, well yes. Even if you don't trust Theresa May on Brexit or even if you think she's deluded, her untrustworthiness and delusion are going to be better than Jeremy Corbyn's complete lack of any functioning ability as a politician. It will make Labour's task of gathering votes dependent on blind loyalty, sympathy, fear of too large a majority and visceral opposition.
Jezza is growing on me a bit.
Labour is running a good campaign, particularly compared to the blank manifesto of the Tories. Employment rights yesterday, rent reform today. They are going to have their agenda out first.
Much of it is impractical populist nonsense incompatible with the real world, but that is the international political fashion of the times.
Jezza is a poor and ineffectual leader, but one of his strengths is campaigning. He is going to come over surprisingly well.
The fundamental difference is that May is saying "I want Brexit to be a success, how do we achieve that" while Juncker is saying "You are leaving the EU, Brexit can not [i.e. must not] be a success"
No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.
Except he did say exactly that, Brexit cannot be a success. Let's just be thankful he's not the only one on the negotiating table.
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Morning all and thank you for the comments on my thread header yesterday.
It's been said before but bears repeating that immigration control with single market membership is simply not on offer from the EU. Had it been the referendum result would likely have been different.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
I'm sure the header is correct. Personally I can't even imagine Corbyn in charge of the Brexit negotiations. So we're stuck with Mrs May who is temperamentally unsuited as a negotiator and David Davis, who is blinkered to the point of stupidity.
As a leaver, I'd be delighted with full market membership. I'm sure the Tories, when they break off from chewing on babies, would be too. That's why Labour's position is incoherent. They have to show that May is deliberately trying to avoid that to make the economics as bad as possible. I wish them luck with that, but only the left wing fanatics will believe it of her. Not while her trust ratings are so high.
Keir, bless his socks, is asking for the moon as a minimum, and we all know it. Yet he continues his deluded quest.
The EU can't give us this - it would ensure their break-up. It will only happen if we pay so much, it will be seen as a heavy defeat and a punishment beating - to coin a phrase.
The fundamental difference is that May is saying "I want Brexit to be a success, how do we achieve that" while Juncker is saying "You are leaving the EU, Brexit can not [i.e. must not] be a success"
No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.
Except he did say exactly that, Brexit cannot be a success. Let's just be thankful he's not the only one on the negotiating table.
He meant that Brexit cannot be a success until May re-enters Earth's atmosphere.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
It's not about benefits. It's about the project. Brexit brings the entire concept of 'ever-closer union' into question. Therefore, it has to be a disaster to ensure that nobody else dares to question it.
Short-sighted, stupid, reckless and likely to cause a completely avoidable catastrophe for everybody. But very typical of the way the EU approaches matters.
On the subject of the disastrous dinner, it seems that Theresa May thinks she's playing to a domestic audience before trying to get a squidgy soft Brexit. I don't see how that works for anyone.
Whatever you think of this leak, there is no aspect of it that suggests that the prospects of any kind of deal are high. Car crash Brexit looms.
It's only being described as disastrous by the EU side and that's just because May isn't rolling over, playing dead and agreeing to all their demands. Whether you backed or opposed Brexit the EU is our opponent in these negotiations not our partner and we need to act accordingly. The EU aren't happy the UK is standing up for itself. The dinner seems to have been a major success as far as I can see.
The fundamental difference is that May is saying "I want Brexit to be a success, how do we achieve that" while Juncker is saying "You are leaving the EU, Brexit can not [i.e. must not] be a success"
No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.
Except he did say exactly that, Brexit cannot be a success. Let's just be thankful he's not the only one on the negotiating table.
He meant that Brexit cannot be a success until May re-enters Earth's atmosphere.
According to the anecdote it was simply that Brexit could not be a success.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
It's not about benefits. It's about the project. Brexit brings the entire concept of 'ever-closer union' into question. Therefore, it has to be a disaster to ensure that nobody else dares to question it.
Short-sighted, stupid, reckless and likely to cause a completely avoidable catastrophe for everybody. But very typical of the way the EU approaches matters.
Alternatively if the UK makes a success of Brexit without the EUs assistance then it will even more show the EU to be a no clothes emperor.
The translations circulating of the Junker article are extraordinary.
May has no idea what she is doing
Fuck Juncker, then. Clean break it is.
I'd rather lick piss off the ground that kowtow to that toerag.
You will not be alone in that sentiment
While flicking through the last thread I came accross this not untypical contribution from a Brexiteer. I wonder whether the distaste some of us Remainers have for the Leavers stems from the arrogance that has been very much a part of British right wing culture since the earliest days of Thatcher.
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
If free trade with significant and acceptable controls on immigration was possible there would have been no need for a Referendum as Remain would have polled about 80 percent. It's not though. Hence Leave.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
It's not about benefits. It's about the project. Brexit brings the entire concept of 'ever-closer union' into question. Therefore, it has to be a disaster to ensure that nobody else dares to question it.
Short-sighted, stupid, reckless and likely to cause a completely avoidable catastrophe for everybody. But very typical of the way the EU approaches matters.
Britain is an apostate and punishment is the only option. "Make Brexit a success" simply does not compute.
I don't think that thread headline is right. It's not that people want May to be the negotiater, it's that if it's a choice between May and Corbyn, they realise May is the only viable option. If they had a free choice, they would probably want someone who appeared to know what they were doing.
Yeah but, it is not their rules, nor is it their process. This is the mistake the EU are making.
Read article 50. They can impose NOTHING on the UK. The UK and the EU are discussing an exit agreement (which requires UK approval) and an FTA, which is by definition an agreement between two consenting parties. If they think they can dictate terms, there will simply be no agreement. They will (as David correctly told them) not get any 'divorce' money or have any way of pursuing this, and the EU will end up paying a net GBP7-10 billion a year in tariffs to the UK. There will be some degree of mutual economic damage. And life will go on.
Amazing isn't it that the only time the EU is even barely functional as an organisation is when they have someone to bully. Wrong target this time.
No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.
No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.
But unless the rules and process are part of a binding protocol to which the parties have previously signed up (point to it if it exists), "this is how we negotiate" is itself merely a negotiating position.
Leaving aside the obvious error on dates in "May has been floundering around since June 24th...", I am not sure that sitting at your keyboard shouting "You're going to screw up the negotiations and look jolly silly, ha ha" is that productive a way to behave. How did sitting at your keyboard shouting "You're going to lose the referendum and look jolly silly, ha ha" work out for you?
The translations circulating of the Junker article are extraordinary.
May has no idea what she is doing
Fuck Juncker, then. Clean break it is.
I'd rather lick piss off the ground that kowtow to that toerag.
You will not be alone in that sentiment
While flicking through the last thread I came accross this not untypical contribution from a Brexiteer. I wonder whether the distaste some of us Remainers have for the Leavers stems from the arrogance that has been very much a part of British right wing culture since the earliest days of Thatcher.
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Didn't Corbyn say he wanted to leave the single market while maintaining free movement?
The agreed policy at a Shadow Cabinet meeting (presumably with Jezza in the chair) was quite different. Restrictions on free movement, but trade and workers rights must be protected. Brexit, but not the immigration monomania of the Tories. It seems a balanced approach.
Agreeing to a Brexit bill, normalising the status of EU nationals and staying in the customs union would sort the Irish border. All this would address the 3 preconditions to trade talks set by the EU27 the other day. Starmers approach would get onto trade almost immediately. There would still be a risk of failure to get a suitable agreement, but that seems nailed on with May's approach.
I don't think that thread headline is right. It's not that people want May to be the negotiater, it's that if it's a choice between May and Corbyn, they realise May is the only viable option. If they had a free choice, they would probably want someone who appeared to know what they were doing.
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Didn't Corbyn say he wanted to leave the single market while maintaining free movement?
The agreed policy at a Shadow Cabinet meeting (presumably with Jezza in the chair) was quite different. Restrictions on free movement, but trade and workers rights must be protected. Brexit, but not the immigration monomania of the Tories. It seems a balanced approach.
Agreeing to a Brexit bill, normalising the status of EU nationals and staying in the customs union would sort the Irish border. All this would address the 3 preconditions to trade talks set by the EU27 the other day. Starmers approach would get onto trade almost immediately. There would still be a risk of failure to get a suitable agreement, but that seems nailed on with May's approach.
On "normalising the status of EU nationals". Would they roll over and just accept Brussel's demand for jurisdiction over EU citizens in the UK? If not, it would be a stumbling block.
At the least this dinner anecdote reinforces the impression of a government that is utterly disorganised in its approach to Brexit. Not so much "strong and stable". More "heedless and chaotic"
Whatever you think of the EU demands, they are clear about what they want, focused on getting their goals and have planned for them rigourously
What utter nonsense. The EU 'goals' for a deal are as delusional and unattainable as ours; and their rhetoric almost as disobliging. I have some hope that the temperature will cool a bit after the elections in France, here and Germany, but that seems far from certain.
I don't think that thread headline is right. It's not that people want May to be the negotiater, it's that if it's a choice between May and Corbyn, they realise May is the only viable option. If they had a free choice, they would probably want someone who appeared to know what they were doing.
Oooh so cutting. No one would want the oh so Christian bit of an euro sceptic lib dem leader Farron..
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Didn't Corbyn say he wanted to leave the single market while maintaining free movement?
The agreed policy at a Shadow Cabinet meeting (presumably with Jezza in the chair) was quite different. Restrictions on free movement, but trade and workers rights must be protected. Brexit, but not the immigration monomania of the Tories. It seems a balanced approach.
Agreeing to a Brexit bill, normalising the status of EU nationals and staying in the customs union would sort the Irish border. All this would address the 3 preconditions to trade talks set by the EU27 the other day. Starmers approach would get onto trade almost immediately. There would still be a risk of failure to get a suitable agreement, but that seems nailed on with May's approach.
On "normalising the status of EU nationals". Would they roll over and just accept Brussel's demand for jurisdiction over EU citizens in the UK? If not, it would be a stumbling block.
This is what May wanted to do last year but was blocked by Merkel?
The translations circulating of the Junker article are extraordinary.
May has no idea what she is doing
Fuck Juncker, then. Clean break it is.
I'd rather lick piss off the ground that kowtow to that toerag.
While flicking through the last thread I came accross this not untypical contribution from a Brexiteer. I wonder whether the distaste some of us Remainers have for the Leavers stems from the arrogance that has been very much a part of British right wing culture since the earliest days of Thatcher.
At the least this dinner anecdote reinforces the impression of a government that is utterly disorganised in its approach to Brexit. Not so much "strong and stable". More "heedless and chaotic"
Whatever you think of the EU demands, they are clear about what they want, focused on getting their goals and have planned for them rigourously
I don't think that thread headline is right. It's not that people want May to be the negotiater, it's that if it's a choice between May and Corbyn, they realise May is the only viable option. If they had a free choice, they would probably want someone who appeared to know what they were doing.
Who would you think the public would go for above May? Farron/Starmer/Lucas/Sturgeon/Blair.............?
Whilst Dr Fox is on board, yesterday afternoon I discovered a patent treatment for foul hangovers, man flu and malaise in extremis.
The Audi R8 Spyder Mk II
Rather a nifty little highway perambulator. Even JackW was ever so slightly shaken and stirred. Sadly not much room for Mrs JackW's shopping expeditions .... suddenly the car grows on me very considerably ....
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Morning all and thank you for the comments on my thread header yesterday.
It's been said before but bears repeating that immigration control with single market membership is simply not on offer from the EU. Had it been the referendum result would likely have been different.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the EU. It is and it has to be a multilateral organisation where decisions are decided in common. If each country has its side deals, it undermines the organisation. Freedom of movement may or may not be a bad thing but the UK was unable to convince a majority so the collective decision held. Indeed it didn't even try because it tried to go bilateral.
The problem now is that it's trying to go bilateral at the same level, but from outside. Something will give. Either we operate at a much lower level or we put ourselves in the situation where we only do what the EU tells us. It's hard to claim that either of those is better than full membership and no-one has prepared the British public to make the choice between the two remaining options.
For myself, I have been grappling with this question since the referendum.
Comments
The British government would have no legal obligation to either pay a €60bn (£52bn) Brexit bill mooted by the European commission or honour payments into the EU budget promised by the former prime minister David Cameron, according to analysis by the House of Lords EU financial affairs sub-committee.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a
deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish
Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
And who would you trust more to negotiate the terms of Britain's exit from the European Union?
A Conservative government under Theresa May: 45
A Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn: 16
Neither: 24
All consistent with the Opinium polling above.
Con > 100 seat Maj: +3 (possible/likely/certain: 59%)
Con ± 50 seat Maj: +7 (possible/likely/certain: 68%)
Con small Maj: -18 (possible/likely/certain: 54%)
Hung Parl Con coalition: -44 (unlikely/almost impossible: 49%)
Hung Parl Lab coal w' SNP/LD: -32 (unlikely/almost impossible: 55%)
Lab Maj: -25 ('unlikely/almost impossible' 63%)
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
The other question is what the UK should pay regardless of the above. The HoL report is less clear. However, at least half the 'bill' consists of reste à liquider (RAL) which are really nothing more than unfunded promises to spend money in the future that were only ever going to be spent if all the nations agreed to fund them in the future, which has never happened. There is no good grounds for the UK to pay any of this after Brexit. If this was dropped, I suspect the remainder could be negotiated, but this amount (30 billion plus) is completely unrealistic.
It is the weakness of this large sum which is causing the EU to behave in such an overbearing manner - they know it can only be extracted via blackmail as the legal basis is non-existent.
@dvidallangreen Dear gods. Read this account of the May-Juncker dinner conversation.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
Just saw the strap line on BBC World news just before 6 and saw free bats being given to Indian brides! I immediately thought of the free owls given by Ed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39766334
Macron seems a very shrewd man from what I've learned about him. It's becoming easier to see why he's made the runoff and Fillon hasn't. He's got the potential to be France's best president in years.
That said, of course, identifying problems is one thing, coming up with solutions is much harder.
Give us a link!
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/858810953353367552
Pope Paul Nuttall being the best UKIP leader in many a long month springs to mind ....
Old Bonehead is all over the place and Labour say one thing and mean another (and no one knows what that will be).
Farron is anti-democratic. He wants to do whatever he wants and bollocks to the referendum result.
Evasions and economy with the truth are accepted as political weapons. Downright lies are not. The LDs will implement the will of the people, but only as long as it suits them.
on secrecy:
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/858813725981241344
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/858814025567801345
It is the EU that wants the progress to be widely discussed. TM wants it all secret until all agreed, so she can sell her pig in a poke.
Therefore, I expect that the LDs only have a chance in the second zone and may even lose 1 or 2 of the seats that they currently hold, so predict that they will end up with less than 20 seats, as suggested by A.Meeks. Labour have a large number of seats in the first zone, so I expect that they will lose a large number of seats, in excess of what may be predicted by UNS. If Labour's overall vote share is close to that at the last GE (i.e. about 30% as I expect), despite losing a large number of seats (because of large swings in Leave areas and collapse in the UKIP vote), will Corbyn resign or be deposed post the GE?
Those with a betting inclination should take note of the findings in this article,
The £50 billion bill is amusing. Think of a number and double it a couple of times. Have you ever left a club because of dissatisfaction and received a ludicrous bill to leave? If some Remainers are happy to pay it without a quibble, I suggest they organise a whip round.
We all know it's a negotiating position. We start with "Hard Brexit or else? OK, we'll go for Hard Brexit." They counter with "The bills, the bills first, think of the children left behind."
What is unusual is that there's a few (but only a few) British citizens cheerleading for the EU.
Still quite a contrast to the stitch up Giscard perpetrated over the infamous Constitution pour l'Europe.
Just ask Theresa May
Edit - or are you being ironic and describing yourself? Your lack of self awareness is certainly one of your less endearing traits.
From Jeremy Cliff's report on the dinner:
19) Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39745057
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Just, just maybe, Nanny DOESN”T know best!
It's disturbing to think Starmer would be an improvement on him...
The UK electorate decided to trade a little economic growth for democratic accountability - as was their right. We now have millionaires Miller accepting donations from abroad to campaign against the result.
Whatever you think of this leak, there is no aspect of it that suggests that the prospects of any kind of deal are high. Car crash Brexit looms.
Or do you think they will do a Groucho Marx if the price we offer is right?
That's the nature of politics - you trust who you want to trust, and that's why trust is so important.
Labour's problem is that we know the party members prefer Remain, as do the MPs in general. So when they say "We respect the will of the people", we're waiting for the other shoe to drop "But ..."
May has achieved that rare position. Even if she was a Remainer, most Leavers trust her. Ukip won't have any traction.
Whatever you think of the EU demands, they are clear about what they want, focused on getting their goals and have planned for them rigourously
Labour is running a good campaign, particularly compared to the blank manifesto of the Tories. Employment rights yesterday, rent reform today. They are going to have their agenda out first.
Much of it is impractical populist nonsense incompatible with the real world, but that is the international political fashion of the times.
Jezza is a poor and ineffectual leader, but one of his strengths is campaigning. He is going to come over surprisingly well.
Morning all and thank you for the comments on my thread header yesterday.
It's been said before but bears repeating that immigration control with single market membership is simply not on offer from the EU. Had it been the referendum result would likely have been different.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
And as a man of medicine you know what must be done !!
Keir, bless his socks, is asking for the moon as a minimum, and we all know it. Yet he continues his deluded quest.
The EU can't give us this - it would ensure their break-up. It will only happen if we pay so much, it will be seen as a heavy defeat and a punishment beating - to coin a phrase.
Short-sighted, stupid, reckless and likely to cause a completely avoidable catastrophe for everybody. But very typical of the way the EU approaches matters.
It's not that people want May to be the negotiater, it's that if it's a choice between May and Corbyn, they realise May is the only viable option.
If they had a free choice, they would probably want someone who appeared to know what they were doing.
Read article 50. They can impose NOTHING on the UK. The UK and the EU are discussing an exit agreement (which requires UK approval) and an FTA, which is by definition an agreement between two consenting parties. If they think they can dictate terms, there will simply be no agreement. They will (as David correctly told them) not get any 'divorce' money or have any way of pursuing this, and the EU will end up paying a net GBP7-10 billion a year in tariffs to the UK. There will be some degree of mutual economic damage. And life will go on.
Amazing isn't it that the only time the EU is even barely functional as an organisation is when they have someone to bully. Wrong target this time.
Leaving aside the obvious error on dates in "May has been floundering around since June 24th...", I am not sure that sitting at your keyboard shouting "You're going to screw up the negotiations and look jolly silly, ha ha" is that productive a way to behave. How did sitting at your keyboard shouting "You're going to lose the referendum and look jolly silly, ha ha" work out for you?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/24/labour-vows-to-rip-up-and-rethink-brexit-white-paper
Agreeing to a Brexit bill, normalising the status of EU nationals and staying in the customs union would sort the Irish border. All this would address the 3 preconditions to trade talks set by the EU27 the other day. Starmers approach would get onto trade almost immediately. There would still be a risk of failure to get a suitable agreement, but that seems nailed on with May's approach.
F1: my post-race Russian ramble is up here, comrades:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/russia-post-race-analysis.html
Interesting to see how the local results get portrayed by the media. Also got the second leg of the French presidential election at the weekend.
The EU 'goals' for a deal are as delusional and unattainable as ours; and their rhetoric almost as disobliging.
I have some hope that the temperature will cool a bit after the elections in France, here and Germany, but that seems far from certain.
(Sorry I used the wrong quote earlier)
The Audi R8 Spyder Mk II
Rather a nifty little highway perambulator. Even JackW was ever so slightly shaken and stirred. Sadly not much room for Mrs JackW's shopping expeditions .... suddenly the car grows on me very considerably ....
The problem now is that it's trying to go bilateral at the same level, but from outside. Something will give. Either we operate at a much lower level or we put ourselves in the situation where we only do what the EU tells us. It's hard to claim that either of those is better than full membership and no-one has prepared the British public to make the choice between the two remaining options.
For myself, I have been grappling with this question since the referendum.