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?
Starmer wants to do it unilaterally, not reciprocally, as a goodwill gesture.
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?
I suspect the EU and UK have different ideas about what would be an acceptable outcome in this area.
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?
Starmer wants to do it unilaterally, not reciprocally, as a goodwill gesture.
Unless it is what they are after, which looks to be jurisdiction over EU citizens, I am not sure that solves anything. To the EU it would still be up for negotiation.
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
One minor quibble about the excellent thread header, this bit ought to read "The context of this election is that Brexit negotiations are about to begin and Theresa May is overwhelmingly the most trusted figure >>out of the two on offer<< to represent Britain at those negotiations..."
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.
And the arrogance of people like Gina Millern and Nick Clegg doesn't concern you, why?
One minor quibble about the excellent thread header, this bit ought to read "The context of this election is that Brexit negotiations are about to begin and Theresa May is overwhelmingly the most trusted figure >>out of the two on offer<< to represent Britain at those negotiations..."</p>
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
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.
My bold
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
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..
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.
Not at all.
May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.
Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
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,
I believe you're right, and there is some evidence. There will probably be more:-
1. UKIP voters from 2015 are switching in droves to the Tories. The bigger the UKIP vote, the bigger the Conservative gain.
2. The swing to the Tories since 2015 is bigger among working class voters than middle class voters.
3. The ICM polls show bigger swings to the Conservatives in Labour held marginals than overall.
4. Yougov shows the biggest swing in Labour Leave seats, and the smallest in Conservative Remain seats.
5. That's borne out by the poll of Kensington, which shows a small swing *to* Labour.
Putting it all together, if the Conservative finish ahead by 44/31, as Labour did in 1997, they'll get a similar result to Labour. Labour are doing worst where it hurts them most.
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.
He simply means that the terms of a Brexit deal would be worse than membership terms, a fairly common view in Europe. It was also the view of 48% of Britons including a majority of Scots and Northern Irish. The EU sees leaving the union as worse than staying in. It is not a desire to punish.
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?
Starmer wants to do it unilaterally, not reciprocally, as a goodwill gesture.
Yup - and sod the hundreds of thousands of Brits living in EU countries - I can just see him waving the bit of paper as he gets off the plane.
Short-sighted, stupid, reckless and likely to cause a completely avoidable catastrophe for everybody. But very typical of the way the EU approaches matters.
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
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.
He simply means that the terms of a Brexit deal would be worse than membership terms, a fairly common view in Europe. It was also the view of 48% of Britons including a majority of Scots and Northern Irish. The EU sees leaving the union as worse than staying in. It is not a desire to punish.
You can still aim to make a success of it within such restrictions. It seems as though he wants it to crash and burn.
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.............?
If you want to know more about Cliffe consult Guido Fawkes.
His twitter string reads like a pretty accurate report. It is interesting that no conflicting report has yet emerged to dispute it.
You don't give credence to Twitter reports. Not sure I want to believe someone who thinks that nasty piece of work russel brand should be treated seriously.....
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
If the UK stays in the customs union it pretty much guarantees that the EU will be right - Brexit will be a worse outcome for the UK. They lose the ability to make international trade deals so all the potential upside of Brexit is taken away and just replaced with an inferior deal with the EU. No point in this.
Agreeing to pay 60 billion that we don't have to pay in return for nothing - well, that is pretty much what people would expect from Corbyn.
Immigration control within the single market is impossible. The EU have been quite clear and in this regard, they are quite entitled to do so. May was quite right to realise this and abandon this route. It could only end up with a 'fudge' that takes us back to the Cameron type deal that was already rejected.
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.
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.
My bold
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
Schengen always allowed suspension in case of emergency. The EU has demonstrated admirable flexibility and pragmatism with Schengen.
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.
I think the problem you are grappling with is the same fundamental one that I have: it's about the scope of the EU.
If it was a trade agreement it would be great. If it's a political union where countries with a fundamentally different political tradition get to outvote the UK and force us to do things with which we disagree then that's not for me.
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.............?
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.
The much bigger danger for the EU is if we leave the single market and succeed outside of it. The EU is built on the idea of giving up sovereignty to the centre for ease of trading between nations, eventually leading to a single country. If Britain were to show there is life for a European nation outside of the single market, then it makes a mockery of their central idea. Personally I think we'd be fine either way. I'd rather go in to the next 10-15 years with our heads held high, knowing where we stand than bending the knee for Brussels. Britain outside of the single market also needs a radical tax cutting agenda to model the economy on somewhere like Switzerland. Unfortunately I don'tthink Theresa can deliver this.
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
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?
I suspect the EU and UK have different ideas about what would be an acceptable outcome in this area.
The EU does rather appear to want to "cherry pick" - Britain is a "Third country" - except when it comes to the rights of EU citizens. They've changed government in Italy & Greece - I think they think they can do the same in the UK
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
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?
I suspect the EU and UK have different ideas about what would be an acceptable outcome in this area.
The EU does rather appear to want to "cherry pick" - Britain is a "Third country" - except when it comes to the rights of EU citizens. They've changed government in Italy & Greece - I think they think they can do the same in the UK
And security cooperation. I'm with the PM on this, it's all or nothing.
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
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?
I suspect the EU and UK have different ideas about what would be an acceptable outcome in this area.
The EU does rather appear to want to "cherry pick" - Britain is a "Third country" - except when it comes to the rights of EU citizens. They've changed government in Italy & Greece - I think they think they can do the same in the UK
And they want our money too. They do seem to believe we should be their doormat.
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?
Starmer wants to do it unilaterally, not reciprocally, as a goodwill gesture.
Yup - and sod the hundreds of thousands of Brits living in EU countries - I can just see him waving the bit of paper as he gets off the plane.
Post Brexit, Britons in the EU27 would no longer be EU/EEA nationals, so residence rights and obligations would be a national competence. The EU has no power to agree those rights, though the various individual countries could.
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.
Morning, Mr.D. Liked the write up, but I must be an incurable fanatic, as I found the race rather good - though I'll grant you the Russian track is far from ideal. My opinion is possibly coloured by my betting; I successfully laid all pre race Ferrari bets and had a very small punt on the magnificent Finn.
Sets up an interesting season ... If I didn't have questions about their reliability, Ferrari would seem favourites for the title now. As it is, there is the prospect for further intriguing betting opportunities.
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.
My bold
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
Schengen always allowed suspension in case of emergency. The EU has demonstrated admirable flexibility and pragmatism with Schengen.
I don't think the EU had anything to do with it. I think it was imposed by individual states and the EU had to agree to protect the image of Schengen
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
You mean a Foreign Office establishment civil servant thinks leaving is not wonderful! I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. (hint: we voted leave because a majority of voters are fed up with these types)
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.
My bold
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
Schengen always allowed suspension in case of emergency. The EU has demonstrated admirable flexibility and pragmatism with Schengen.
I don't think the EU had anything to do with it. I think it was imposed by individual states and the EU had to agree to protect the image of Schengen
By accepting the border controls, the EU demonstrated common sense and pragmatism.
Mr Juncker has been toxified good and proper. Kow-towing to him would be political suicide. Being seen to kow-tow to the EU threats wouldn't be very far behind. I suspect the EU don't realise this.
It will all calm down later, but bashing the Boche, the Frogs or whoever isn't likely to become unpopular in the circles I move in. You, of course, probably move in more exalted circles.
One minor quibble about the excellent thread header, this bit ought to read "The context of this election is that Brexit negotiations are about to begin and Theresa May is overwhelmingly the most trusted figure >>out of the two on offer<< to represent Britain at those negotiations..."</p>
Don't know and neither were both options.
But not really on offer to represent Britain at the negotiations....
One of the problems I have with the whole Brexit debate is the apparent conflation (by some not all, and on both sides) of what I would describe as free movement and Free Movement. To me the first is the simple right to travel to another country without having to apply for permission first, or even (in the case of Shengen) the need to show a passport. The second is the right to be treated in exactly the same way as a citizen of that country when you get there, with all the rights and entitlements that implies.
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
Theresa May did not beat the competition that was there. Boris, Gove and Andrea Leadsom all withdrew after what might or might not have been pressure from the men in grey suits.
One minor quibble about the excellent thread header, this bit ought to read "The context of this election is that Brexit negotiations are about to begin and Theresa May is overwhelmingly the most trusted figure >>out of the two on offer<< to represent Britain at those negotiations..."</p>
Don't know and neither were both options.
But not really on offer to represent Britain at the negotiations....
But it clearly isn't a forced choice between the two, since you can say neither.
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
Cutting ones nose off to spite ones face isn't overly bright. On the other hand kissing Junckers hairy bottom leaves a sick taste that won't go away. (and would upset Farron). What to do?
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
Theresa May did not beat the competition that was there. Boris, Gove and Andrea Leadsom all withdrew after what might or might not have been pressure from the men in grey suits.
Didn't Gove get voted out?
In fact, under the old, pre Hague rules I think she would have been elected quite comfortably by the MPs.
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
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.
My bold
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
Schengen always allowed suspension in case of emergency. The EU has demonstrated admirable flexibility and pragmatism with Schengen.
I don't think the EU had anything to do with it. I think it was imposed by individual states and the EU had to agree to protect the image of Schengen
By accepting the border controls, the EU demonstrated common sense and pragmatism.
It may be pragmatism but not common sense! Faced with a number of states saying 'sod this, we're closing our borders'. The EU bureaucrats couldn't say anything else!
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.
That sounds rather like the deal the EU stubbornly refused to give Cameron.
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
Haha so true. She is quite frankly out of her depth. What a shame at this point in our history we have someone as clueless and crap as her.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
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.
That sounds rather like the deal the EU stubbornly refused to give Cameron.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
Also utterly obvious that boat has sailed, however regrettable some of us might find that.
Immigration control is compatible with membership of the Customs Union though (for example Turkey). It would also solve substantially the issue of a hard border in Ireland (and potentially indyScotland).
The Brexit bill will be negotiated down and by paying in installments be in effect a reduced contribution to cover the costs of being in a customs union.
I agree that it would restrict us pursuing other trade agreements, but these are largely fictitious. It would not be a complete bar, as Iceland and Switzerland have demonstrated.
Starmer's approach is really a rather good one, or at least the best way out of the sticky situation that we have inflicted on ourselves.
If the UK stays in the customs union it pretty much guarantees that the EU will be right - Brexit will be a worse outcome for the UK. They lose the ability to make international trade deals so all the potential upside of Brexit is taken away and just replaced with an inferior deal with the EU. No point in this.
Agreeing to pay 60 billion that we don't have to pay in return for nothing - well, that is pretty much what people would expect from Corbyn.
Immigration control within the single market is impossible. The EU have been quite clear and in this regard, they are quite entitled to do so. May was quite right to realise this and abandon this route. It could only end up with a 'fudge' that takes us back to the Cameron type deal that was already rejected.
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.
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
At least we got to tell the Banker of Brussels to piss off with his condescending not-really-an-offer.
I bet you loved the seventies - Labour Governments, and being told what we could and couldn't do by the IMF...
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
Most dinners aren't about discussing international agreements. I am quite prepared to believe all sorts of foolishness about Juncker.
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.
That sounds rather like the deal the EU stubbornly refused to give Cameron.
Or Cameron never tried to get. Sadly, if he writes his memoirs he’ll probably make some money, but if he’s truthful, they could shed some light on what may well turn out to be a disastrous episode in our history. Bit like Mary I losing Calais!
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?
Starmer wants to do it unilaterally, not reciprocally, as a goodwill gesture.
Yup - and sod the hundreds of thousands of Brits living in EU countries - I can just see him waving the bit of paper as he gets off the plane.
Post Brexit, Britons in the EU27 would no longer be EU/EEA nationals, so residence rights and obligations would be a national competence. The EU has no power to agree those rights, though the various individual countries could.
Mr Juncker has been toxified good and proper. Kow-towing to him would be political suicide. Being seen to kow-tow to the EU threats wouldn't be very far behind. I suspect the EU don't realise this.
It will all calm down later, but bashing the Boche, the Frogs or whoever isn't likely to become unpopular in the circles I move in. You, of course, probably move in more exalted circles.
Mrs May's political problems are no longer the EU's. Brexit is Brexit, remember.
One of the most illuminating aspects of this story is that it has come out in the middle of an election campaign. The EU hierarchy knows how unpopular it is in the UK. But it judges that it doesn't need to consider the reaction to this story as a priority.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
It seems from the comments on this thread that the Brexiteers think Tezza should approach the negotiations like a bad gangster movie.
There will be a deal on offer, which will be on less favourable terms offered to those willing to accept the terms and obligations of membership, but Tezza should reject that "cos they disrespected us" and instead enter a bitter trade war.
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
At least we got to tell the Banker of Brussels to piss off with his condescending not-really-an-offer.
I bet you loved the seventies - Labour Governments, and being told what we could and couldn't do by the IMF...
One of the problems I have with the whole Brexit debate is the apparent conflation (by some not all, and on both sides) of what I would describe as free movement and Free Movement. To me the first is the simple right to travel to another country without having to apply for permission first, or even (in the case of Shengen) the need to show a passport. The second is the right to be treated in exactly the same way as a citizen of that country when you get there, with all the rights and entitlements that implies.
Am I missing something?
No, I don't think so. Which is why this issue could be quite a complex negotiation rather than a simple agreement that everyone already there can stay where they are.
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
One of many ironic comments this morningin the light of a thread header from the left-winger Kieron Pedley and a leading pollster.
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
Cutting ones nose off to spite ones face isn't overly bright. On the other hand kissing Junckers hairy bottom leaves a sick taste that won't go away. (and would upset Farron). What to do?
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
Haha so true. She is quite frankly out of her depth. What a shame at this point in our history we have someone as clueless and crap as her.
Yet incredibly the official opposition have provided a leader and shadow cabinet almost infinitely crappier and more clueless, whilst the Lib Dem leader is an utter irrelevance. Come back Dave, George and Nick.
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.
That sounds rather like the deal the EU stubbornly refused to give Cameron.
Or Cameron never tried to get. Sadly, if he writes his memoirs he’ll probably make some money, but if he’s truthful, they could shed some light on what may well turn out to be a disastrous episode in our history. Bit like Mary I losing Calais!
More like Lord North losing the American colonies, but heyho, it all worked out in the end, no?
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.............?
You couln`t do much better than Clegg.
No, the LibDems couldn't do much better than Clegg. But with seven other MPs to choose from, they managed to do much worse....
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
Cutting ones nose off to spite ones face isn't overly bright. On the other hand kissing Junckers hairy bottom leaves a sick taste that won't go away. (and would upset Farron). What to do?
Kiss Farron's bottom and upset him even more?
I don't think poor Tim could cope with any more ethical dilemnas....Imagine if he liked it...
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
He was making a point to someone who seems to think you can negotiate a broad and deep FTA in a few months without any groundwork being put in first, rather than a decade or so of grinding negotiations. Mrs May's reaction, I am guessing, wasn't "Of course I know that. Why don't you teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
It was a business meeting, I suspect no one was expecting a purely social dinner discussing the cusine, wine, holiday plans and children!
Juncker may enjoy the occasional glass (like many in the political world) but he is no fool. Charles Kennedy and Winston Churchill were both frequently pickled, but also very effective.
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
Haha so true. She is quite frankly out of her depth. What a shame at this point in our history we have someone as clueless and crap as her.
Yet incredibly the official opposition have provided a leader and shadow cabinet almost infinitely crappier and more clueless, whilst the Lib Dem leader is an utter irrelevance. Come back Dave, George and Nick.
Maybe but Starmer at least seems to have his head screwed on right.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
He was making a point to someone who seems to think you can negotiate a broad and deep FTA in a few months without any groundwork being put in first, rather than a decade or so of grinding negotiations. Mrs May's reaction, I am guessing, wasn't "Of course I know that. Why don't you teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"
Has ever a trade negotiation started with regulatory frameworks in such perfect alignment? That's got to shave time some time off.
I'd like to apologise to the good Brexiteers of Hartlipool for suggesting that having our future governance determined by them was a ridiculous decison.
One minor quibble about the excellent thread header, this bit ought to read "The context of this election is that Brexit negotiations are about to begin and Theresa May is overwhelmingly the most trusted figure >>out of the two on offer<< to represent Britain at those negotiations..."</p>
True, but also irrelevant. A bit like walking into a greasy spoon cafe and finding that tea and coffee are the best drinks on offer: you might fancy a glass of Champagne, but you're not expecting to find it and you're not going to get it, either. So scarcely any point in lamenting its absence.
Short-sighted, stupid, reckless and likely to cause a completely avoidable catastrophe for everybody. But very typical of the way the EU approaches matters.
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
TBH I think the reason people prefer May is as I describe immediately above. But her electoral coalition isn't going to hold together for very long if she isn't prepared to walk. Personally I would rather we didn't have to, but the European Union is not a rational actor: its monomaniacal obsession with the preservation and furthering of its political project trumps all else, and renders it pitiless, deaf and blind to all forms of protest, rational argument, cruelty and human suffering. Virtually all of the damage that has been done to the Eurozone periphery by its disastrous single currency experiment is entirely its fault, but it doesn't care one iota. Individuals, communities and whole nations destroyed by its blunders are treated variously as having brought their fate down upon their own heads, as sacrifices made to a higher cause, or, simply, as collateral damage.
Thus, if it calculates that trying to browbeat and humiliate Britain will be more beneficial than a co-operative approach in terms of advancing the cause of "ever closer union" between the remaining states, then that is the path it will choose. We should be ready to be treated as an enemy rather than a friend, and to respond accordingly.
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.
That sounds rather like the deal the EU stubbornly refused to give Cameron.
Or Cameron never tried to get. Sadly, if he writes his memoirs he’ll probably make some money, but if he’s truthful, they could shed some light on what may well turn out to be a disastrous episode in our history. Bit like Mary I losing Calais!
More like Lord North losing the American colonies, but heyho, it all worked out in the end, no?
Yup, fair point. ‘History’ is a long, long time. Is there a counterfactual anywhere where Washington loses and flees to France?
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
He was making a point to someone who seems to think you can negotiate a broad and deep FTA in a few months without any groundwork being put in first, rather than a decade or so of grinding negotiations. Mrs May's reaction, I am guessing, wasn't "Of course I know that. Why don't you teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"
It seems like a premeditated attempt to be patronising. Mansplaining, as someone called it upthread.
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
Also utterly obvious that boat has sailed, however regrettable some of us might find that.
Not obvious. Alan Sked founded the Anti-Federalist League in 1991 and stood in the 1992 GE and twice in by-elections in 1993. Then it changed into Ukip and had candidates in 1997 (when it also had competition from another out-of-Europe party, the Referendum party). A Back into Europe Party now wouldn't look any more quixotic than Sked did then, so where is it? Jack Monroe is standing for the National Health Action Party, the OMRLP has named 12 candidates, even outright comedy acts like the Labour party are having a go. But no sign of a Back into Europe Party. The Remainers stick by the creed which stood them in such good stead in the referendum, that you get political results by sitting on your arse addressing snidey remarks to the twittersphere.
Mr. B, a very astute call on your part to back Bottas.
Must admit I'm a bit annoyed with myself for not doing so, and for not backing Perez to be top 6. Of the three bets I was contemplating, the only one that didn't happen was the one I backed. Ah well.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
At least we got to tell the Banker of Brussels to piss off with his condescending not-really-an-offer.
I bet you loved the seventies - Labour Governments, and being told what we could and couldn't do by the IMF...
You are left with the last box.
Open it TM
Oh dear it's the minus £100Bn box
You think TM had any hand in choosing the boxes that were dispensed with along the way?
And if you look carefully at the bottom of the box, what's this, hidden away? Ah yes - the right to run our own country, free from the leaden, deadening hand of Brussels, to decide who comes in and out of our borders, to decide who we can trade with. And the right to vote the buggers out of office if we don't like how they do the above.
In the next decade, there'll be many in the EU wishing they had opened that box.
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
Haha so true. She is quite frankly out of her depth. What a shame at this point in our history we have someone as clueless and crap as her.
Yet incredibly the official opposition have provided a leader and shadow cabinet almost infinitely crappier and more clueless, whilst the Lib Dem leader is an utter irrelevance. Come back Dave, George and Nick.
Maybe but Starmer at least seems to have his head screwed on right.
What Starmer is proposing, as has been said down thread, is exactly what Cameron wanted. Reasonable control of immigration would have meant no Brexit.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
He was making a point to someone who seems to think you can negotiate a broad and deep FTA in a few months without any groundwork being put in first, rather than a decade or so of grinding negotiations. Mrs May's reaction, I am guessing, wasn't "Of course I know that. Why don't you teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"
It seems like a premeditated attempt to be patronising. Mansplaining, as someone called it upthread.
Possibly. Nevertheless a valid point that Mrs May seems to be avoiding. And that's the important thing.
Dr. Foxinsox, you're doing Charlie Kennedy a disservice. As for comparing Juncker with Churchill, one might be tempted to ask if you've been on the sauce yourself.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
It was a business meeting, I suspect no one was expecting a purely social dinner discussing the cusine, wine, holiday plans and children!
Juncker may enjoy the occasional glass (like many in the political world) but he is no fool. Charles Kennedy and Winston Churchill were both frequently pickled, but also very effective.
A man who believes it is screamingly funny to greet a leader on roughly his own political wavelength with the Nazi salute isn't a fool?
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
Haha so true. She is quite frankly out of her depth. What a shame at this point in our history we have someone as clueless and crap as her.
Yet incredibly the official opposition have provided a leader and shadow cabinet almost infinitely crappier and more clueless, whilst the Lib Dem leader is an utter irrelevance. Come back Dave, George and Nick.
Dave and George have gone and must be buying popcorn as we speak ready to watch the hopeless TM as Noels contestant in his special Deal or No Deal episode.
As for Nick serves him right. Contemplate Tory Collaboration now.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
He was making a point to someone who seems to think you can negotiate a broad and deep FTA in a few months without any groundwork being put in first, rather than a decade or so of grinding negotiations. Mrs May's reaction, I am guessing, wasn't "Of course I know that. Why don't you teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"
Has ever a trade negotiation started with regulatory frameworks in such perfect alignment? That's got to shave time some time off.
Yep. That's called the EEA. We could sign up to that quickly. The point is that Mrs May wants to unpick the alignment. That's why it will take longer.
Edit. The quick options are minimal change or minimal agreement. If we don't go for the first we get the second.
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
Also utterly obvious that boat has sailed, however regrettable some of us might find that.
Not obvious. Alan Sked founded the Anti-Federalist League in 1991 and stood in the 1992 GE and twice in by-elections in 1993. Then it changed into Ukip and had candidates in 1997 (when it also had competition from another out-of-Europe party, the Referendum party). A Back into Europe Party now wouldn't look any more quixotic than Sked did then, so where is it? Jack Monroe is standing for the National Health Action Party, the OMRLP has named 12 candidates, even outright comedy acts like the Labour party are having a go. But no sign of a Back into Europe Party. The Remainers stick by the creed which stood them in such good stead in the referendum, that you get political results by sitting on your arse addressing snidey remarks to the twittersphere.
But....but...but - the LibDems? Aren't they the Back into Europe Party?
Or has Farron the Eurosceptic killed off that idea?
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 think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
Also utterly obvious that boat has sailed, however regrettable some of us might find that.
Not obvious. Alan Sked founded the Anti-Federalist League in 1991 and stood in the 1992 GE and twice in by-elections in 1993. Then it changed into Ukip and had candidates in 1997 (when it also had competition from another out-of-Europe party, the Referendum party). A Back into Europe Party now wouldn't look any more quixotic than Sked did then, so where is it? Jack Monroe is standing for the National Health Action Party, the OMRLP has named 12 candidates, even outright comedy acts like the Labour party are having a go. But no sign of a Back into Europe Party. The Remainers stick by the creed which stood them in such good stead in the referendum, that you get political results by sitting on your arse addressing snidey remarks to the twittersphere.
We were talking about staying in Europe - not a three decade project to get back in. And you don't seem beyond snidely remarks yourself, FWIW.
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?
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?
Starmer wants to do it unilaterally, not reciprocally, as a goodwill gesture.
Yup - and sod the hundreds of thousands of Brits living in EU countries - I can just see him waving the bit of paper as he gets off the plane.
Post Brexit, Britons in the EU27 would no longer be EU/EEA nationals, so residence rights and obligations would be a national competence. The EU has no power to agree those rights, though the various individual countries could.
Yup - but we're not post-Brexit. Doh.
We will be. Post Brexit status of Non-EU/EEA nationals such as Britons would be a national not EU competence. The EU27 should not promise that without getting agreement from 27 different parliaments, none of whom can bind their successors.
The main reason to normalise the status of EU nationals resident here on March 29th 2017 is that it is in our own interest. Most have beeen resident for a decade or decades and are an integral part of our economy and communities.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
Mr. B, a very astute call on your part to back Bottas.
Must admit I'm a bit annoyed with myself for not doing so, and for not backing Perez to be top 6. Of the three bets I was contemplating, the only one that didn't happen was the one I backed. Ah well.
What I want to know is why Juncker is still in place? The not-so-sharp minds of PB have been repeatedly claiming his days are numbered, and yet...
Of course they're mainly the types that have been predicting the collapse of the Euro & the EU thrice weekly for years, so I suppose I should have known.
Comments
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.
Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
1. UKIP voters from 2015 are switching in droves to the Tories. The bigger the UKIP vote, the bigger the Conservative gain.
2. The swing to the Tories since 2015 is bigger among working class voters than middle class voters.
3. The ICM polls show bigger swings to the Conservatives in Labour held marginals than overall.
4. Yougov shows the biggest swing in Labour Leave seats, and the smallest in Conservative Remain seats.
5. That's borne out by the poll of Kensington, which shows a small swing *to* Labour.
Putting it all together, if the Conservative finish ahead by 44/31, as Labour did in 1997, they'll get a similar result to Labour. Labour are doing worst where it hurts them most.
Agreeing to pay 60 billion that we don't have to pay in return for nothing - well, that is pretty much what people would expect from Corbyn.
Immigration control within the single market is impossible. The EU have been quite clear and in this regard, they are quite entitled to do so. May was quite right to realise this and abandon this route. It could only end up with a 'fudge' that takes us back to the Cameron type deal that was already rejected.
If it was a trade agreement it would be great. If it's a political union where countries with a fundamentally different political tradition get to outvote the UK and force us to do things with which we disagree then that's not for me.
@BBCr4today: "No [Brexit] deal is the worst of all possible deals," says Lord Ricketts, former ambassador to France… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/858942208325693440
Liked the write up, but I must be an incurable fanatic, as I found the race rather good - though I'll grant you the Russian track is far from ideal. My opinion is possibly coloured by my betting; I successfully laid all pre race Ferrari bets and had a very small punt on the magnificent Finn.
Sets up an interesting season ... If I didn't have questions about their reliability, Ferrari would seem favourites for the title now. As it is, there is the prospect for further intriguing betting opportunities.
(hint: we voted leave because a majority of voters are fed up with these types)
Mr Juncker has been toxified good and proper. Kow-towing to him would be political suicide.
Being seen to kow-tow to the EU threats wouldn't be very far behind. I suspect the EU don't realise this.
It will all calm down later, but bashing the Boche, the Frogs or whoever isn't likely to become unpopular in the circles I move in. You, of course, probably move in more exalted circles.
Am I missing something?
In fact, under the old, pre Hague rules I think she would have been elected quite comfortably by the MPs.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
The Brexit bill will be negotiated down and by paying in installments be in effect a reduced contribution to cover the costs of being in a customs union.
I agree that it would restrict us pursuing other trade agreements, but these are largely fictitious. It would not be a complete bar, as Iceland and Switzerland have demonstrated.
Starmer's approach is really a rather good one, or at least the best way out of the sticky situation that we have inflicted on ourselves.
I bet you loved the seventies - Labour Governments, and being told what we could and couldn't do by the IMF...
Bit like Mary I losing Calais!
"He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be."
I'm not sure of the terminology, but isn't that "Manplaining"? I'm sure the outrage bus will be revving its engine at that.
At the very least, it's talking down to the 'little woman'. Or doesn't it count because he's a hero of the counter-revolution.
Those supplementals are now worse.
https://twitter.com/cllryardley/status/858784634036867072
One of the most illuminating aspects of this story is that it has come out in the middle of an election campaign. The EU hierarchy knows how unpopular it is in the UK. But it judges that it doesn't need to consider the reaction to this story as a priority.
It was a working dinner, wasn’t it?
There will be a deal on offer, which will be on less favourable terms offered to those willing to accept the terms and obligations of membership, but Tezza should reject that "cos they disrespected us" and instead enter a bitter trade war.
Open it TM
Oh dear it's the minus £100Bn box
Come back Dave, George and Nick.
Juncker may enjoy the occasional glass (like many in the political world) but he is no fool. Charles Kennedy and Winston Churchill were both frequently pickled, but also very effective.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3443568/ukip-fight-hartlepool-paul-nuttall-campaign/
TBH I think the reason people prefer May is as I describe immediately above. But her electoral coalition isn't going to hold together for very long if she isn't prepared to walk. Personally I would rather we didn't have to, but the European Union is not a rational actor: its monomaniacal obsession with the preservation and furthering of its political project trumps all else, and renders it pitiless, deaf and blind to all forms of protest, rational argument, cruelty and human suffering. Virtually all of the damage that has been done to the Eurozone periphery by its disastrous single currency experiment is entirely its fault, but it doesn't care one iota. Individuals, communities and whole nations destroyed by its blunders are treated variously as having brought their fate down upon their own heads, as sacrifices made to a higher cause, or, simply, as collateral damage.
Thus, if it calculates that trying to browbeat and humiliate Britain will be more beneficial than a co-operative approach in terms of advancing the cause of "ever closer union" between the remaining states, then that is the path it will choose. We should be ready to be treated as an enemy rather than a friend, and to respond accordingly.
‘History’ is a long, long time. Is there a counterfactual anywhere where Washington loses and flees to France?
Must admit I'm a bit annoyed with myself for not doing so, and for not backing Perez to be top 6. Of the three bets I was contemplating, the only one that didn't happen was the one I backed. Ah well.
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
And if you look carefully at the bottom of the box, what's this, hidden away? Ah yes - the right to run our own country, free from the leaden, deadening hand of Brussels, to decide who comes in and out of our borders, to decide who we can trade with. And the right to vote the buggers out of office if we don't like how they do the above.
In the next decade, there'll be many in the EU wishing they had opened that box.
It's a point of view I suppose...
As for Nick serves him right. Contemplate Tory Collaboration now.
Edit. The quick options are minimal change or minimal agreement. If we don't go for the first we get the second.
Or has Farron the Eurosceptic killed off that idea?
Bunch of clowns.....
And you don't seem beyond snidely remarks yourself, FWIW.
The main reason to normalise the status of EU nationals resident here on March 29th 2017 is that it is in our own interest. Most have beeen resident for a decade or decades and are an integral part of our economy and communities.
Many times, in my case.
Of course they're mainly the types that have been predicting the collapse of the Euro & the EU thrice weekly for years, so I suppose I should have known.