In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
Go back another 40 years whether against the DEM, USD whatever. Sterling is always falling.
Then why hasn't it fallen past them yet if it has been doing it for that (which of course it has)? The US has had a bigger, more important economic role in the world since the 20's yet the £ is still worth more. Could it just be that things are more complicated than simply "the £ is falling because we are rubbish"?
I'm not quite clear I follow you... do you mean why do you get more than $1 for £1? If so, that's meaningless as how a country denominates a currency is just a choice made when it's set up - there's no reason to expect it to be 1:1 with any other currency.
And since the 1920s, the £ plainly has pretty consistently declined (when not pegged) - from a little under $5 then to $1.30 now.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday was extremely good for this country.
Possibly, but it was politically fatal for the government.
Because it showed that the government wasn't in control and that the policy they had been pushing so hard was damaging to the country.
If Britain had just left the ERM voluntarily a few months earlier the government wouldn't have taken the political hit and would have reaped the benefits of economic recovery.
I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.
Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
He can join Macron as a Eurosceptic! The LDs have always supported reforming the EU, but with the constructive critical approach of a friend.
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.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
"[Juncker] told Deutschlandfunk he feared that Brexit will drive the remaining 27 EU countries against each other “without much effort”.
“The other 27 don’t know it yet but the British know very well how they’ll manage it. You promise country A one thing, country B one thing and country C another and at the end there’s no European front left,” Juncker said, according to a transcript of the interview.
EU member states are becoming even more divided over opinions that “are not necessarily compatible,” he said, referencing Hungary and Poland.
“Do the Hungarians or the Poles want exactly the same thing as the Germans or the French? I have huge doubts. You have to create a fundamental consensus again. That’s a job for the next two or three years.
“While we’re negotiating with the British, we have to agree on the definitive visions for this continent if we want to avoid an apocalyptic mood,” Juncker said."
That could all have come from a PB Leaver in a fit of optimism. We've got them on the run.
His term expires in 2019 and he won't seek another, seems to be the position.
Hang on! Is Juncker a drunken fool, or an accurate and perceptive analyst of European politics?
Though fortunately his fears were either false, or have been addressed. The EU27 position for the negotiations was unanimously agreed, without rancour.
It may well be that the effect of Brexit is for us to be sitting outside while sensible folk like Macron, Merkel, Tusk and Juncker help evolve the EU into a more attractive consensus that better deals with the ills of globalisation. Which is why ultimately there will be a strong rejoin movement here. We may well improve the EU by leaving it.
Perhaps both? I thought your example of Churchill was meant to establish that as a possibility. Anyway I thought the contradiction was interesting.
And when people negotiate, they negotiate. It does not follow from the fact that your opponents say "the 27 of us are unanimous, and our demands are non-negotiable" that in fact the 27 of them are unanimous, and their demands are non-negotiable. Negotiators say stuff like that, it is what they are paid for.
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
Lovely Bank Holiday morning here in Llandudno. Visitors from across the World are attending our Victorian Extravaganza and the extraordinary Transport Festival with the most amazing collection of vintage vehicles of all shapes and sizes.
So in this spirit I thought I would check up on PB and sadly see an angry polarised debate between remainers and leavers which is continuing from yesterday.
I firmly believe that a deal will be done, probably a fudge, but I hope post the 8th June we can just let Theresa May get on with Brexit and see how it evolves. No amount of fury is going to predict the final destination but I do think it is highly unlikely that we shall end up staying in the EU.
In a separate report today Spain is suffering a big economic hit with ex pats not investing in property and some returning home. It is projected they will lose between 3 - 4 billion annually and they are desparate to come to an arrangement with the UK
Lovely here in Devon, we have had 2 inches of rain in 24 hours after none for a month, and still bucketing down. Sub-optimal for tourists, I suppose.
I am afraid only death will silence the rejoicing of the Remainers over how Leave fell into their cunning trap last June. Masterly inactivity is the ticket.
Desperately needed. But not exactly conducive to delivering leaflets though....
"Please, have a personal message lump of papier mache from Theresa May....."
Macron says EU must reform or face 'Frexit' "I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC. "But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable. "So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project." Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal". "And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Frexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
Except Broxtowe's Con MP is a Clarkite-Europhile who has raged against us leaving the single market. So an unusual situation there.
Macron says EU must reform or face 'Frexit' "I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC. "But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable. "So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project." Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal". "And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Frexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
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.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
"[Juncker] told Deutschlandfunk he feared that Brexit will drive the remaining 27 EU countries against each other “without much effort”.
“The other 27 don’t know it yet but the British know very well how they’ll manage it. You promise country A one thing, country B one thing and country C another and at the end there’s no European front left,” Juncker said, according to a transcript of the interview.
EU member states are becoming even more divided over opinions that “are not necessarily compatible,” he said, referencing Hungary and Poland.
“Do the Hungarians
That could all have come from a PB Leaver in a fit of optimism. We've got them on the run.
His term expires in 2019 and he won't seek another, seems to be the position.
Hang on! Is Juncker a drunken fool, or an accurate and perceptive analyst of European politics?
Though fortunately his fears were either false, or have been addressed. The EU27 position for the negotiations was unanimously agreed, without rancour.
It may well be that the effect of Brexit is for us to be sitting outside while sensible folk like Macron, Merkel, Tusk and Juncker help evolve the EU into a more attractive consensus that better deals with the ills of globalisation. Which is why ultimately there will be a strong rejoin movement here. We may well improve the EU by leaving it.
Perhaps both? I thought your example of Churchill was meant to establish that as a possibility. Anyway I thought the contradiction was interesting.
And when people negotiate, they negotiate. It does not follow from the fact that your opponents say "the 27 of us are unanimous, and our demands are non-negotiable" that in fact the 27 of them are unanimous, and their demands are non-negotiable. Negotiators say stuff like that, it is what they are paid for.
Everything the EU has done and said since last July has been with one voice and unanimity. It is a Union, and our government is only wasting precious time if it tries to cause fissures in that union.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
That is the key issue.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...
Wealthy, right-wing Brexiteers are longing for a fight them on the beaches kind of narrative. They are detached and protected from the actual downsides of what a cliff-edge departure would involve. Cod-Churchill is all very nice when you have a big income that is not dependent on highly-complex trading relationships, but it is much less alluring when your well-paid job in manufacturing will go if such relationships come to an end.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
Frothers are getting desperate, best they can come up with is shout he is a drunk. Used as standard on here by many who lack the ability to debate, they get confused and mix up intelligent people with themselves.
PS: not directing this at ydoethur.
Dunno about your side of the border, Malc, but down here being a drunk is not necessarily a triviality. And you can tell the competent, high-functioning drunks by the fact that they don't appear drunk, at least not in public and when it matters. Or rather, you can't tell them for that reason.
Stop insulting Juncker. He is merely the Reichskanzlerin's right-hand man and what he is reported to have said is entirely consistent with known views of the EU commission and its leading members.
I'm talking about his reliability as a source, not about his personal views. He's about as credible a source as Alistair Campbell except he drinks a lot more. And I haven't insulted him once, although I appreciate the truth isnless han flattering.
So you have been in his company so much you know he drinks a lot then.
For me, the most shocking thing about the recent revelations is that a lot of the wealthy right-wingers who led the Leave camp were not lying. Instead, it turns out they were and extremely thick.
That is a kind perspective. I thought that they were just closet racists wanting to scrape the last vestiges of Johnny Foreigner out of their lives.
I don't think it's the wealthier proponents of Leave who are closet racists tbf.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
Your history is slightly different to mine regarding that period. The issue there was a set of agreements that countries felt duty bound to follow attached to an ultimatum the Austro-Hungarian government knew was unacceptable. It was the unwillingness of that Government to compromise at all that was the problem....
I think the point is that once mobilisation started it was "war by timetable". David Allen Green has coined the description "Brexit by timetable" by analogy. By this he clearly means hard Brexit.
Danny Mills - "Spurs just about shaded it" at the end of the match....
As some know, I do enjoy listening / watching back 'some' events - just listened to R5 commentary yesterday. Mills is beyond hopeless as a pundit, what game was he watching?
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.............?
Not May, Farron or Lucas for sure. Blair and Sturgeon would wipe the floor with any of them.
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
My sense is that most people don't know what Labour's Brexit position is other than a sense that Corbyn is a Brexiteer. For that reason (other than Broxtowe out of loyalty to Nick) I would vote Green or Lib Dem whatever the constituency just to give numbers to those definitely opposed. I agree with your other post that in the future when the EU is thriving and we are just a festering pimple on the backside of Europe there will be a strong movement to rejoin.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday was extremely good for this country.
Possibly, but it was politically fatal for the government.
At most, tt maybe won Blair a handful of extra seats to his landslide. It didn't change the outcome of the 1997 election. The Tories went into that election with the economy in very fine shape. About the only thing that was.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
I'm not really sure what Macron's political philosophy is or his main policies. However I repeatedly see him being described as a centrist. Is there much justification for this? Even if he claims to be that doesn't necessarily mean he is, just that he's making a centrist pitch or is a self-declared 'centrist'. I just hope this isn't another one of those situations where economic/social liberal equals centrist. Why? Because they say they are.
I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.
Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
He can join Macron as a Eurosceptic! The LDs have always supported reforming the EU, but with the constructive critical approach of a friend.
You're setting a very low bar to qualify as Eurosceptic there.
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
Absolutely. It is the duty of any progressive person to vote for the party most likely to stop the Tories winning.
I'm looking forward to the Tory AND Labour attack ads on the flip flopping - Eurosceptic AND Remainer. This week he has given off the signals not only that he is neither Liberal nor Democratic, but also that he wants to ride both horses a la LDs in 2010.
I've said this for a long time - wonder if others are now seeing it too: Farron is not cut out to the leader of a national party. Makes Clegg look like a titan - and that does take some effort...
Everything the EU has done and said since last July has been with one voice and unanimity. It is a Union, and our government is only wasting precious time if it tries to cause fissures in that union.
Yes, that is the impression they wish to create. Did you see Verhofstadt pretty much threatening Hungary with expulsion last week, though?
I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.
Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
He can join Macron as a Eurosceptic! The LDs have always supported reforming the EU, but with the constructive critical approach of a friend.
You're setting a very low bar to qualify as Eurosceptic there.
"Reform" for the Lib Dems or Macron means More Europe.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
And yet Germany is the world's largest exporter.
No it isn't.
Good to see a bit of fact checking of surby's tripe.
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"
No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality. EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
The problem is that Starmer has to deal with a leadership team above him that did all it possibly could to secure Brexit and has always supported the UK's departure from the EU. There is no serious Labour line on anything. The party's manifesto will state that it is committed to the UK's independent nuclear deterrent, with Corbyn in change, though, does anyone believe that actually means anything?
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
Absolutely. It is the duty of any progressive person to vote for the party most likely to stop the Tories winning.
I will do my duty in Kingston and Surbiton.
How long is it since a Stop the Tory party alliance has won an election.
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.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
"[Juncker] told Deutschlandfunk he feared that Brexit will drive the remaining 27 EU countries against each other “without much effort”.
“The other 27 don’t know it yet but the British know very well how they’ll manage it. You promise country A one thing, country B one thing and country C another and at the end there’s no European front left,” Juncker said, according to a transcript of the interview.
EU member states are becoming even more divided over opinions that “are not necessarily compatible,” he said, referencing Hungary and Poland.
“Do the Hungarians
That could all have come from a PB Leaver in a fit of optimism. We've got them on the run.
His term expires in 2019 and he won't seek another, seems to be the position.
Hang on! Is Juncker a drunken fool, or an accurate and perceptive analyst of European politics?
Though fortunately his fears were either false, or have been addressed. The EU27 position for the negotiations was unanimously agreed, without rancour.
It may well be that the effect of Brexit is for us to be sitting outside while sensible folk like Macron, Merkel, Tusk and Juncker help evolve the EU into a more attractive consensus that better deals with the ills of globalisation. Which is why ultimately there will be a strong rejoin movement here. We may well improve the EU by leaving it.
Perhaps both? I thought your example of Churchill was meant to establish that as a possibility. Anyway I thought the contradiction was interesting.
And when people negotiate, they negotiate. It does not follow from the fact that your opponents say "the 27 of us are unanimous, and our demands are non-negotiable" that in fact the 27 of them are unanimous, and their demands are non-negotiable. Negotiators say stuff like that, it is what they are paid for.
Everything the EU has done and said since last July has been with one voice and unanimity. It is a Union, and our government is only wasting precious time if it tries to cause fissures in that union.
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"
No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality. EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
Your history is slightly different to mine regarding that period. The issue there was a set of agreements that countries felt duty bound to follow attached to an ultimatum the Austro-Hungarian government knew was unacceptable. It was the unwillingness of that Government to compromise at all that was the problem....
I think the point is that once mobilisation started it was "war by timetable". David Allen Green has coined the description "Brexit by timetable" by analogy. By this he clearly means hard Brexit.
The mobilization was very slightly later... We have to avoid the ultimatum without compromise first...
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
Absolutely. It is the duty of any progressive person to vote for the party most likely to stop the Tories winning.
I will do my duty in Kingston and Surbiton.
How long is it since a Stop the Tory party alliance has won an election.
Oh wait, never....
It was 2005, probably. It stopped the Tories winning a majority in 2010. It collapsed in 2015 and there is not much sign of it coming back together again. The stop the Corbyn Labour party seems to be in the ascendant now. That's FPTP for you.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
That is the key issue.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...
Isn't that a failure of increasing GDP by 5-10% rather than a reuction.- there was a 5% fall in 2007 - 2008 and I don't remember running around with pitchforks.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
I continue to believe (hope) that there are some rational players in all of this. Merkel is rational, Macron looks like he probably is, Rajoy in Spain is. We can probably also count on the Northern European bloc, too. The Italians probably have enough of their own worries not to take much notice of Brexit. The issue will boil down to just how afraid of the right wing Brexit press May is. Will she put the fear of bad headlines ahead of what is undoubtedly the national interest?
To continue my earlier divorce metaphor. The right-wing press is like your mate who never liked your wife in the first place whispering in your ear saying "She's taking you for a mug, mate. Are you going to stand up for this? Are you a man or a mouse, have you no pride?".
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?
You never been to a business dinner then, they don't spend all night talking football
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
My sense is that most people don't know what Labour's Brexit position is other than a sense that Corbyn is a Brexiteer. For that reason (other than Broxtowe out of loyalty to Nick) I would vote Green or Lib Dem whatever the constituency just to give numbers to those definitely opposed. I agree with your other post that in the future when the EU is thriving and we are just a festering pimple on the backside of Europe there will be a strong movement to rejoin.
How would you vote in Edinburgh South? I believe the incumbent has said he would serve as a minister in a Corbyn government (a deeply hypothetical concept I grant you).
I dislike 'innocent face' twattery, but on this occasion..
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"
No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality. EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.
Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:
He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.
He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?
He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!
So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday was extremely good for this country.
We left the ERM, never changed our minds about going back in and a few years later were in a golden economic situation.
Perhaps that was a transitional choice on the road to Leave?
I agree with Southam that neither side will want to see a cliff edge, but where is the cliff edge?
The vote was June 2016. The departure date is March 2019. There is some scope for extension into a transitional arrangement.
Therefore, there will only be a cliff edge for those who have been in denial, whether in the UK or in Europe, about us leaving.
Businesses and governments on both sides of the channel should have been developing their response plans in the event of WTO.
The thing we don't know is the extent of government contingency planning, though we know it's happening on our side.
It is also the case that our departure really changes the dynamics of EU QMV structures. The population figures without the UK almost create a two nation voting veto for France and Germany.
The small nations are rendered even more irrelevant than before. Ireland, for example, sees it already tiny influence in the vote halved and completely demolished if the two biggest countries say so.
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?
You never been to a business dinner then, they don't spend all night talking football
Well Juncker certainly doesn't... He's normally passed out in a gutter by 9pm!
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.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
Not when he is doing a good job. Anty time I have seen him he has been very diplomatic and intelligent sounding. Just because some nomark thick PBer's don't like him and shout their usual losers cry of "drunk" when they have lost an argument yet again.
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"
No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality. EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.
Exactly. We are leaving Europe, it isn't leaving us.
We decided to leave without conditions. We didn't ask for terms before deciding to leave. Naturally we would like decent terms, but if we don't get them, we are going anyway. That is what we voted for, or at the very least that is the way the Government interpreted the referendum result.
That is what 'Brexit means Brexit' means, if it means anything at all.
Constant repetition of untruths doesn't make it true.
Like every time Tezza says "No deal is better than a bad deal"
Is that really an untruth though? A deal saying we have to pay the EU our entire GDP every year would certainly be worse than no deal.
Isn't this akin to a divorce where both parties start off by saying "we want this to work out well for the children" before descending into acrimony, bitterness and (the point of this metaphor) *endless legal bills*
'No deal' is us walking away in a huff because we're not prepared to pay the child maintenance like some feckless Dad. And we know how well those things turn out...
I'd rather pay some big negotiated £30bn chunk now quite frankly...
If the demands are reasonable and backed up with legal agreements and such, i think we should pay. If they are just punishment payments well above what is in agreements because of vindictiveness i am not so happy for us to pay.
Sounds like what's needed is a positive, forward-looking and grown-up negotiation between rational players. I'm sure that's what we'll get.
Everything the EU has done and said since last July has been with one voice and unanimity. It is a Union, and our government is only wasting precious time if it tries to cause fissures in that union.
Yes, that is the impression they wish to create. Did you see Verhofstadt pretty much threatening Hungary with expulsion last week, though?
Yep - the EU are great proponents of free speech - providing it agrees with what they believe. Look how they stamped on Italy and Greece (and Austria?) when the people had the temerity to want to walk off the straight and narrow.
Could they please threaten us with expulsion? Please! Pretty Please!
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
Absolutely. It is the duty of any progressive person to vote for the party most likely to stop the Tories winning.
I will do my duty in Kingston and Surbiton.
How long is it since a Stop the Tory party alliance has won an election.
Oh wait, never....
Tactical voting works best when it's spontaneous, as in 1997 or 2001. The biggest element of tactical voting this time round looks set to come from people who voted UKIP in 2015 now supporting the Conservatives.
The problem for the Progressive Alliance is that even if it worked, it would mostly just give even bigger majorities to left wing candidates in seats they already hold. Winning 75% in Bristol West or Brighton Pavilion gives you no more seats than winning 45%.
@AlbertoNardelli: Whatever your position on Brexit deal, and posturing to one side, there are 4 underlying issues that should concern all:
@AlbertoNardelli: 1) N10 refusal to acknowledge difficulties/complexity. Those that raise these are shunned/isolated. This leads to incomplete/bad briefings
@AlbertoNardelli: 2) Referendum was a year ago. There is no detailed plan. A speech is not a plan. A declaration is not a plan. A soundbite is not a plan
@AlbertoNardelli: 3) Bad expectation management. If success is defined only by winning the World Cup even if you make the semifinal, it will be a hard sell
@AlbertoNardelli: 4) Soundbite diplomacy and vacuous lines. When there is little substance, you will eventually be exposed.
More Blair-related speculation. Posted without additional comment:
The Blairite plan to take over the Lib Dems
"...But the objective destruction of Labour as a serious party of government next month gives a new focus to all this – not least because many of these less confrontational MPs will soon pay the price for their failure to have acted, and will lose their seats.
"This is the real context of Mr Blair’s words today. They are not, however, about a new party.
"Over the past fortnight I have spoken to a number of experienced, highly respected and influential Labour moderates. Some elected, some behind-the-scenes fixers. Some Blairite, some Brownite. And they have all said the same thing to me, which is that it’s not simply that that it is too difficult to set up a new party: there is no need to set one up. Because there is already a vehicle available: the Lib Dems.
"If the idea is to create a serious opposition then it cannot be seen to be simply a creation of homeless Labour members. It has to be something attractive to them but not of them – not least because it has to be attractive to those Tories who will, the argument goes, soon start to be disenchanted with Mrs May when Brexit starts to bite, such as the likes of Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan. Some have even mentioned George Osborne.
"The plan is that, after the election, a cadre of these Labour moderates will join the Lib Dems. Where they lead, others will follow."
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"
No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality. EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.
Exactly. We are leaving Europe, it isn't leaving us.
We decided to leave without conditions. We didn't ask for terms before deciding to leave. Naturally we would like decent terms, but if we don't get them, we are going anyway. That is what we voted for, or at the very least that is the way the Government interpreted the referendum result.
That is what 'Brexit means Brexit' means, if it means anything at all.
Pleased to see that the supertankers are ready to pull us into mid-Atlantic. We are leaving the EU. We will still be a large market situated 26 miles from mainland Europe (and with a shared border of some description with Eire).
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
That is the key issue.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...
Isn't that a failure of increasing GDP by 5-10% rather than a reuction.- there was a 5% fall in 2007 - 2008 and I don't remember running around with pitchforks.
Really? Not entirely sure Gordon Brown and his cabinet would entirely agree with you. It certainly didn't enhance his electoral chances.And one thing is certain is that if does go tits up those who voted Leave won't blame themselves.
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"
No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality. EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.
Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:
He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.
He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?
He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!
So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?
EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
My sense is that most people don't know what Labour's Brexit position is other than a sense that Corbyn is a Brexiteer. For that reason (other than Broxtowe out of loyalty to Nick) I would vote Green or Lib Dem whatever the constituency just to give numbers to those definitely opposed. I agree with your other post that in the future when the EU is thriving and we are just a festering pimple on the backside of Europe there will be a strong movement to rejoin.
How would you vote in Edinburgh South? I believe the incumbent has said he would serve as a minister in a Corbyn government (a deeply hypothetical concept I grant you).
I dislike 'innocent face' twattery, but on this occasion..
Of course he said he would serve in a Corbyn government! How else could he answer? I doubt he would have said he's serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet though considering he was third to resign from his last one. If there were more Labour MPs like him they wouldn't be the pitiful shambles they now are. (If you're in Edinburgh Morningside I trust you'll be voting for him)
@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.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Simply because you (and the other bitter Enders) don't like her, does not make her stupid. So far, she's run rings round her political opponents.
LOL, what are you on Sean , she is just ahead of Corbyn , Farron and Nuttall. They don't even rate as donkeys and yet all she can do is parrot "strong and stable". Can any fool really be taken in by such a loser.
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?
You never been to a business dinner then, they don't spend all night talking football
In my experience, the business discussion lasts about five minutes, before the serious business of eating and drinking gets under way.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday was fatal because it was a failure just as Brexit was fatal to Cameron.
What would be fatal to May now is if Brexit doesn't happen.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
That is the key issue.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...
GDP drop to millionaires is hardly here nor there, unfortunately they are the clowns running the show. What is more wrrying is that the sheeple are thick enough to be going to vote the Tories back in with a bigger majority.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
That is the key issue.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...
Isn't that a failure of increasing GDP by 5-10% rather than a reuction.- there was a 5% fall in 2007 - 2008 and I don't remember running around with pitchforks.
Really? Not entirely sure Gordon Brown and his cabinet would entirely agree with you. It certainly didn't enhance his electoral chances.And one thing is certain is that if does go tits up those who voted Leave won't blame themselves.
Despite this, the posh boys* still couldn't win a majority.
I'd take my chances as a Tory leader with a decent majority that a slower growth or even a fall wouldn't lead to people saying 'that disaster of a Labour party, led by that group of Trots, they're just the ticket now'. Just as happened in 1992, Recessions sometimes cause the electorate to cling to nurse.
*I'm now using this term ironically, given our rapprochement over the perceptions over it the other day
The lack of any self awareness from so many while being close minded and needlessly mean is simply breathtaking. Anyone who tries for a nuanced position, leave or remain, is set upon by ultras who show less mental flexibility than posturing international diplomats and government leaders, people who famously claim they won't deal and then, lo and behold, do. There are remainers trying to deal with the realities of the situation, and leavers worries about current approaches, but these moronic ultras are determined to keep the battle lines where they were on June 23rd, no deviation.
Small minded, hypocritical, vicious and tiresome. Good luck everyone.
Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
Stop insulting Juncker. He is merely the Reichskanzlerin's right-hand man and what he is reported to have said is entirely consistent with known views of the EU commission and its leading members.
I'm talking about his reliability as a source, not about his personal views. He's about as credible a source as Alistair Campbell except he drinks a lot more. And I haven't insulted him once, although I appreciate the truth isnless han flattering.
So you have been in his company so much you know he drinks a lot then.
No, but anecdotal reports of heavy drinking match the fact that he is frequently seen drunk in public, most embarrassingly when he turned up completely pissed for that summit and started giggling and kissing all the leaders repeatedly. I do from bitter second hand personal experience know what someone with an extremely severe alcohol problem looks like - I was awake much of last night wondering what the hell to do about it (not for Juncker, obviously!) and Juncker shows all the classic signs. It would also go a long way towards explaining his erratic behaviour.*
I don't think it's a smart idea to have such a person in charge of any significant organisation and I am not surprised it is causing problems. I also don't think that what he may or may not have heard/said after mid-afternoon can be relied upon. Probably he genuinely believes it and there's even a faint chance he's right, but he can't be trusted.
*I've often thought Ahmadinejad was probably a secret heavy drinker. And certainly the most plausible explanations for those marines being kidnapped is that the crew of the Iranian flotilla were very drunk and got lost - which would also explain why the marines were released so hurriedly.
More Blair-related speculation. Posted without additional comment:
The Blairite plan to take over the Lib Dems
"...But the objective destruction of Labour as a serious party of government next month gives a new focus to all this – not least because many of these less confrontational MPs will soon pay the price for their failure to have acted, and will lose their seats.
"This is the real context of Mr Blair’s words today. They are not, however, about a new party.
"Over the past fortnight I have spoken to a number of experienced, highly respected and influential Labour moderates. Some elected, some behind-the-scenes fixers. Some Blairite, some Brownite. And they have all said the same thing to me, which is that it’s not simply that that it is too difficult to set up a new party: there is no need to set one up. Because there is already a vehicle available: the Lib Dems.
"If the idea is to create a serious opposition then it cannot be seen to be simply a creation of homeless Labour members. It has to be something attractive to them but not of them – not least because it has to be attractive to those Tories who will, the argument goes, soon start to be disenchanted with Mrs May when Brexit starts to bite, such as the likes of Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan. Some have even mentioned George Osborne.
"The plan is that, after the election, a cadre of these Labour moderates will join the Lib Dems. Where they lead, others will follow."
The Blairites have already taken over one Party - the Conservatives in 2005.
There are some interesting nuggets in the above - it's more akin to forming the 1980s Alliance without forming the SDP. Elements of both Labour and Conservatives parties who are unhappy (or who will become unhappy) with the direction of the A50 negotiations will have a place to go but rather as defence bedevilled the Alliance, so the details of an alternative A50 negotiation stance might not be easy.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday was fatal because it was a failure just as Brexit was fatal to Cameron.
What would be fatal to May now is if Brexit doesn't happen.
Except williamglenn will never see this - because he thinks everyone secretly wants to stay in.
My prediction: Failure to leave the EU would result in riots and marches that would make the Iraq War march look like a teddy bear's picnic.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
I continue to believe (hope) that there are some rational players in all of this. Merkel is rational, Macron looks like he probably is, Rajoy in Spain is. We can probably also count on the Northern European bloc, too. The Italians probably have enough of their own worries not to take much notice of Brexit. The issue will boil down to just how afraid of the right wing Brexit press May is. Will she put the fear of bad headlines ahead of what is undoubtedly the national interest?
My sense from reading the Continental press is that:
1. Brexit isn't the dominant issue that it is for us. It's a serious concern among a bunch of concerns, which people think about from time to time. On many days, there is nothing whatsoever about Brexit in serious European papers. There is no popular pressure on the Continent for any particular outcome - it's seen as a technical problem to be resolved by the professionals.
2. Goodwill for Britain in the sense of "Let's cut them a generous deal" is largely exhausted. The division is now between pragmatist governments who want to make the best of it and governments who have been alienated by May's (and Cameron's) perceived indifference. Merkel and Macron are pragmatists, as you say, and that side is still dominant, though not enough to push through a deal seen as "too generous".
3. The pragmatists feel that this will need to be a much slower process than Britain realises, with lengthy transitional arrangements, An attempt to rush it so we're "entirely free" by 2020 or indeed next election in 2022 will help the hardliners who want a hard Brexit uncomfortable for Britain.
4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.
Of course he said he would serve in a Corbyn government! How else could he answer? I doubt he would have said he's serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet though considering he was third to resign from his last one. If there were more Labour MPs like him they wouldn't be the pitiful shambles they now are. (If you're in Edinburgh Morningside I trust you'll be voting for him)
Long time since I lived in Edinburgh, but as it happens my brother is in IM's constituency. I'll test the water for some anecdotal hot poop..
Edit: apols for mixed metaphor, it has a certain polluted swimming pool feel to it.
When the negotiations turn into a major international slanging match, what do people think President Trump will do? The odds have to be on him telling the UK that we've had our fun and should do what the EU tells us.
That's the nature of politics - you trust who you want to trust, and that's why trust is so important.
Labour's problem is that we know the party members prefer Remain, as do the MPs in general. So when they say "We respect the will of the people", we're waiting for the other shoe to drop "But ..."
May has achieved that rare position. Even if she was a Remainer, most Leavers trust her. Ukip won't have any traction.
That's because immediately after the referendum she accepted it, rather than trying to overturn it.
Mr. kle4, Thucydides wrote something very similar in his account of democrat/oligarch clashes within cities during the Peloponnesian War. Those who were reasonable were seen as cowards, whereas those who were recklessly violent were seen as bold, and those who betrayed confidences as clever.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
That is the key issue.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...
Isn't that a failure of increasing GDP by 5-10% rather than a reuction.- there was a 5% fall in 2007 - 2008 and I don't remember running around with pitchforks.
Really? Not entirely sure Gordon Brown and his cabinet would entirely agree with you. It certainly didn't enhance his electoral chances.And one thing is certain is that if does go tits up those who voted Leave won't blame themselves.
They certainly won't, Midwinter, but if I were compiling a list of those to blame for the fiasco I certainly wouldn't put them at the top.
I'd start with the EU itself, particularly those that drove it on to include 28 countries with widely different economies and cultures. Those who set up a 3,000 mile border without a serious thought for policing it deserve extra contempt.
Then I'd list the UK politicians who misled the electorate about the consequences of Brexit. And then I'd blame the rest who shirked their responsibility in handing over the decision to an electorate that was woefully underinformed to make a difficult, once in a fifty years decision like this.
Then of course there's the pro-Brexit press, which had its own agenda and no conscience.
The voters troop in after that lot. But then if asked a stupid question, can they be blamed for giving a stupid answer?
When the negotiations turn into a major international slanging match, what do people think President Trump will do? The odds have to be on him telling the UK that we've had our fun and should do what the EU tells us.
Probably... But there's no reason we should take any notice...
In that situation we should finally and for once tell America to mind their own business... Oh and BTW we're withdrawing from NATO and leaving America to get on with it...
Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
TBH, this excellent post is very close to what I thought. Respecting and agreeing the rigfhts of those citizens already in place in other countries should surely be a given. They made a choice sometime ago and surely no civilised government would treat themn as bargaining chips! There has to be a question over holidaymakers health rights. of course; if we have two different countries, the EU and Britain, that’s unquestionably a question for negotiation. Again Ireland should be an area for relatively easy agreement.
Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
While it may be possible, getting it done in the very short time we have is going to be extraordinarily hard.
I also do not share your optimism that the EU have set out a negotiating position. I think they believe that they are in such a strong position they can effectively try and impose on us. I also doubt if they can get less than that through the EU Parliament, which has de facto veto over the final deal.
That may make them idiots. As I have made clear upthread, I have as a Remainer no very high opinion of the EU's upper echelons. I think they genuinely believe May will cave in. But she can't unless she has a much bigger majority. That may indeed be why she is calling the election. Even then however such a deal would be politically dangerous.
It seems that the Conservative candidate of 2015 has been re-selected.
It still looks value but that does make me doubtful.
When I see Tom Brake on the London part of the Sunday Politics, I find him quite likeable for a Lib Dem. However, there is a decent Ukip vote for the Tories to eat into this time so that might be a good shout.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
Frothers are getting desperate, best they can come up with is shout he is a drunk. Used as standard on here by many who lack the ability to debate, they get confused and mix up intelligent people with themselves.
PS: not directing this at ydoethur.
Dunno about your side of the border, Malc, but down here being a drunk is not necessarily a triviality. And you can tell the competent, high-functioning drunks by the fact that they don't appear drunk, at least not in public and when it matters. Or rather, you can't tell them for that reason.
We have plenty of real drunks up here same as down south at minimum. However that does not detract from the way some people on her cast aspersions glibly when they lose the argument. They may think it makes them seem smart but it i scompletely the opposite. I know little of Juncker but he is very good if he is always drunk as he comes across as a highly intelligent well informed person. Personally I do not think it is a frivolous subject, unlike many on here who are obviously trying to hide inadequacies. Used far too casually.
The euro survived the financial crisis and a lost decade for the European economy. Now its test is political, and it is likely to survive it—battered as ever and still getting the blame for Europe’s problems.
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.
So he would roll over and hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.
And you want this guy in charge of the negotiations???
Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
I agree. The incomprehension is evenly shared between Leave/Remain. There's those that do boring middle-class jobs which are essentially about advising on/negotiating deals (claims for damages, price of a house, airbnb's forthcoming takeover of NewsCorp. etc) and those that don't. Those that don't tend to think, I think, that negotiations where the parties misrepresent their position to one another (and there is an unspoken understanding that the misrepresentations are in fact misrepresentations) only occur in comedy Middle Eastern bazaars: ("'Ow much for your camel?" "She is like a daughter to me, I could not part with her for less than 1,000 dinars." "1,000 dinars? Who but a madman would pay more than 5 dinars for a spavined old fleabag like that?" etc.) Hence "the 27 say they are united, therefore they are united" etc.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
Your history is slightly different to mine regarding that period. The issue there was a set of agreements that countries felt duty bound to follow attached to an ultimatum the Austro-Hungarian government knew was unacceptable. It was the unwillingness of that Government to compromise at all that was the problem....
I think the point is that once mobilisation started it was "war by timetable". David Allen Green has coined the description "Brexit by timetable" by analogy. By this he clearly means hard Brexit.
The mobilization was very slightly later... We have to avoid the ultimatum without compromise first...
That was A50 in March. Mobilisation has begun. Hard Brexit is the default. Hard Brexit by timetable it is, though I wouldn't rule out a complete collapse and Brexit before March 2019. 2 years is the maximum, not the minimum.
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?
His own doesn't, so why should theirs when it is identical?
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.
Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
TBH, this excellent post is very close to what I thought. Respecting and agreeing the rigfhts of those citizens already in place in other countries should surely be a given. They made a choice sometime ago and surely no civilised government would treat themn as bargaining chips! There has to be a question over holidaymakers health rights. of course; if we have two different countries, the EU and Britain, that’s unquestionably a question for negotiation. Again Ireland should be an area for relatively easy agreement.
That just leaves the money!!!!!
The EHIC is effective in the EEA, not just the EU. (And many people in Spain for example get ripped off as they are sent to private clinics - one of the reasons why travel insurance to the South of Europe is now more expensive than central/ northern.)
The current problem with citizens is that the EU wants EU citizens to be subject to EU laws when they are in the UK - like they are in America - oh wait.
Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
This is an excellent post.
It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.
Of course he said he would serve in a Corbyn government! How else could he answer? I doubt he would have said he's serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet though considering he was third to resign from his last one. If there were more Labour MPs like him they wouldn't be the pitiful shambles they now are. (If you're in Edinburgh Morningside I trust you'll be voting for him)
Long time since I lived in Edinburgh, but as it happens my brother is in IM's constituency. I'll test the water for some anecdotal hot poop..
Edit: apols for mixed metaphor, it has a certain polluted swimming pool feel to it.
Let me know because I'm just about to put a bet on him. In case he thinks he's a Corbynista read this. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Those that don't tend to think, I think, that negotiations where the parties misrepresent their position to one another (and there is an unspoken understanding that the misrepresentations are in fact misrepresentations) only occur in comedy Middle Eastern bazaars: ("'Ow much for your camel?" "She is like a daughter to me, I could not part with her for less than 1,000 dinars." "1,000 dinars? Who but a madman would pay more than 5 dinars for a spavined old fleabag like that?" etc.) Hence "the 27 say they are united, therefore they are united" etc.
They do expect the publicly stated opening positions to have some relation to reality though.
Tezza is haggling about the price of camels with a man who sells carpets...
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
That is the key issue.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...
Isn't that a failure of increasing GDP by 5-10% rather than a reuction.- there was a 5% fall in 2007 - 2008 and I don't remember running around with pitchforks.
Really? Not entirely sure Gordon Brown and his cabinet would entirely agree with you. It certainly didn't enhance his electoral chances.And one thing is certain is that if does go tits up those who voted Leave won't blame themselves.
Despite this, the posh boys* still couldn't win a majority.
I'd take my chances as a Tory leader with a decent majority that a slower growth or even a fall wouldn't lead to people saying 'that disaster of a Labour party, led by that group of Trots, they're just the ticket now'. Just as happened in 1992, Recessions sometimes cause the electorate to cling to nurse.
*I'm now using this term ironically, given our rapprochement over the perceptions over it the other day
Those dastardy Posh Boys didn't win a majority because.
Scotland and to a certain extent the North and Wales retained a strong anti-Tory tradition and to his credit Brown did very well in Scotland.
They were so far behind in 2005 and their vote share was distributed very inefficiently in 2010.
As you pointed out some voters were tempted by Nurse Browns voluptuous charms following and during the banking crisis, iirc the Tory lead almost completely vanished as events initially unfolded.
The expenses scandal hit the Tories disproportionately badly.
Voters have long memories and remembered the shambles of Majors government and how the right of the party behaved. Hasn't taken them long to be reminded of that since 2015.
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.
So he would roll over and hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.
And you want this guy in charge of the negotiations???
We voted to hang British citizens living in other EU member states out to dry on 23rd June last year. It is now in our best interests to ensure that productive, taxpaying residents of this country continue to be productive and continue to pay tax, and do not feel unwelcome and/or as if they are under any risk of losing their current residency status. If we don't, we lose a lot more than we gain. If other countries wish to treat British citizens disgracefully, then we have the means to deal with that.
It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.
She needs a healthy majority to stop media scrutiny.
I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.
Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
He can join Macron as a Eurosceptic! The LDs have always supported reforming the EU, but with the constructive critical approach of a friend.
When debating with Farage on TV, I thought Nick Clegg said he did not seek any change to the EU in ten years time.
Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
That's a decent exposition of a normal negotiation, Bridge, but overlooks one crucial aspect of this one.
The EU knows what our minimum acceptable outcome is. Everybody knows it. We will leave, come what may.
This strikes me as an extraordinarily weak negotiating position.
Comments
And since the 1920s, the £ plainly has pretty consistently declined (when not pegged) - from a little under $5 then to $1.30 now.
If Britain had just left the ERM voluntarily a few months earlier the government wouldn't have taken the political hit and would have reaped the benefits of economic recovery.
And when people negotiate, they negotiate. It does not follow from the fact that your opponents say "the 27 of us are unanimous, and our demands are non-negotiable" that in fact the 27 of them are unanimous, and their demands are non-negotiable. Negotiators say stuff like that, it is what they are paid for.
"Please, have a
personal messagelump of papier mache from Theresa May.....""I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC.
"But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable.
"So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project."
Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal".
"And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Frexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39766334
Danny Mills - "Spurs just about shaded it" at the end of the match....
As some know, I do enjoy listening / watching back 'some' events - just listened to R5 commentary yesterday. Mills is beyond hopeless as a pundit, what game was he watching?
Esher +4.0%
Croydon C +3.6%
Croydon S +3.6%
Reigate +3.4%
Wimbledon +3.0%
Epsom +2.1%
Kingston +2.7%
Sutton -0.8%
Croydon N -1.4%
Mitcham -2.1%
Carshalton -5.1%
Now does anyone know if there was a reason why the Conservatives did so poorly in Carshalton ? A poor candidate perhaps ?
Because if 2015 was a one-off then the 9/5 on a Conservative gain in Carshalton this year looks like great value.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance
I will do my duty in Kingston and Surbiton.
I'm looking forward to the Tory AND Labour attack ads on the flip flopping - Eurosceptic AND Remainer. This week he has given off the signals not only that he is neither Liberal nor Democratic, but also that he wants to ride both horses a la LDs in 2010.
I've said this for a long time - wonder if others are now seeing it too: Farron is not cut out to the leader of a national party. Makes Clegg look like a titan - and that does take some effort...
EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
Here's the Conservative candidate from 2015 in his own words:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11603782/Im-a-Tory-who-lost-to-a-Lib-Dem-MP.-What-sort-of-two-headed-monster-am-I.html
Oh wait, never....
I dislike 'innocent face' twattery, but on this occasion..
He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.
He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?
He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!
So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?
Perhaps that was a transitional choice on the road to Leave?
I agree with Southam that neither side will want to see a cliff edge, but where is the cliff edge?
The vote was June 2016. The departure date is March 2019. There is some scope for extension into a transitional arrangement.
Therefore, there will only be a cliff edge for those who have been in denial, whether in the UK or in Europe, about us leaving.
Businesses and governments on both sides of the channel should have been developing their response plans in the event of WTO.
The thing we don't know is the extent of government contingency planning, though we know it's happening on our side.
It is also the case that our departure really changes the dynamics of EU QMV structures. The population figures without the UK almost create a two nation voting veto for France and Germany.
The small nations are rendered even more irrelevant than before. Ireland, for example, sees it already tiny influence in the vote halved and completely demolished if the two biggest countries say so.
We decided to leave without conditions. We didn't ask for terms before deciding to leave. Naturally we would like decent terms, but if we don't get them, we are going anyway. That is what we voted for, or at the very least that is the way the Government interpreted the referendum result.
That is what 'Brexit means Brexit' means, if it means anything at all.
Could they please threaten us with expulsion? Please! Pretty Please!
The problem for the Progressive Alliance is that even if it worked, it would mostly just give even bigger majorities to left wing candidates in seats they already hold. Winning 75% in Bristol West or Brighton Pavilion gives you no more seats than winning 45%.
The Con/UKIP is far more efficiently distributed.
@AlbertoNardelli: 1) N10 refusal to acknowledge difficulties/complexity. Those that raise these are shunned/isolated. This leads to incomplete/bad briefings
@AlbertoNardelli: 2) Referendum was a year ago. There is no detailed plan. A speech is not a plan. A declaration is not a plan. A soundbite is not a plan
@AlbertoNardelli: 3) Bad expectation management. If success is defined only by winning the World Cup even if you make the semifinal, it will be a hard sell
@AlbertoNardelli: 4) Soundbite diplomacy and vacuous lines. When there is little substance, you will eventually be exposed.
The Blairite plan to take over the Lib Dems
"...But the objective destruction of Labour as a serious party of government next month gives a new focus to all this – not least because many of these less confrontational MPs will soon pay the price for their failure to have acted, and will lose their seats.
"This is the real context of Mr Blair’s words today. They are not, however, about a new party.
"Over the past fortnight I have spoken to a number of experienced, highly respected and influential Labour moderates. Some elected, some behind-the-scenes fixers. Some Blairite, some Brownite. And they have all said the same thing to me, which is that it’s not simply that that it is too difficult to set up a new party: there is no need to set one up. Because there is already a vehicle available: the Lib Dems.
"If the idea is to create a serious opposition then it cannot be seen to be simply a creation of homeless Labour members. It has to be something attractive to them but not of them – not least because it has to be attractive to those Tories who will, the argument goes, soon start to be disenchanted with Mrs May when Brexit starts to bite, such as the likes of Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan. Some have even mentioned George Osborne.
"The plan is that, after the election, a cadre of these Labour moderates will join the Lib Dems. Where they lead, others will follow."
https://reaction.life/blairite-plan-take-lib-dems/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-hard-left-turn-under-jeremy-corbyn-britains-labour-party-on-course-for-historic-defeat/2017/04/30/a4efcc68-29dd-11e7-9081-f5405f56d3e4_story.html?utm_term=.fb3986678047
What would be fatal to May now is if Brexit doesn't happen.
https://twitter.com/rtlfrance/status/858620990204596225
I'd take my chances as a Tory leader with a decent majority that a slower growth or even a fall wouldn't lead to people saying 'that disaster of a Labour party, led by that group of Trots, they're just the ticket now'. Just as happened in 1992, Recessions sometimes cause the electorate to cling to nurse.
*I'm now using this term ironically, given our rapprochement over the perceptions over it the other day
Small minded, hypocritical, vicious and tiresome. Good luck everyone.
When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:
- Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.
- Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.
- Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.
Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.
I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.
They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.
They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.
They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.
It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.
I don't think it's a smart idea to have such a person in charge of any significant organisation and I am not surprised it is causing problems. I also don't think that what he may or may not have heard/said after mid-afternoon can be relied upon. Probably he genuinely believes it and there's even a faint chance he's right, but he can't be trusted.
*I've often thought Ahmadinejad was probably a secret heavy drinker. And certainly the most plausible explanations for those marines being kidnapped is that the crew of the Iranian flotilla were very drunk and got lost - which would also explain why the marines were released so hurriedly.
There are some interesting nuggets in the above - it's more akin to forming the 1980s Alliance without forming the SDP. Elements of both Labour and Conservatives parties who are unhappy (or who will become unhappy) with the direction of the A50 negotiations will have a place to go but rather as defence bedevilled the Alliance, so the details of an alternative A50 negotiation stance might not be easy.
My prediction: Failure to leave the EU would result in riots and marches that would make the Iraq War march look like a teddy bear's picnic.
1. Brexit isn't the dominant issue that it is for us. It's a serious concern among a bunch of concerns, which people think about from time to time. On many days, there is nothing whatsoever about Brexit in serious European papers. There is no popular pressure on the Continent for any particular outcome - it's seen as a technical problem to be resolved by the professionals.
2. Goodwill for Britain in the sense of "Let's cut them a generous deal" is largely exhausted. The division is now between pragmatist governments who want to make the best of it and governments who have been alienated by May's (and Cameron's) perceived indifference. Merkel and Macron are pragmatists, as you say, and that side is still dominant, though not enough to push through a deal seen as "too generous".
3. The pragmatists feel that this will need to be a much slower process than Britain realises, with lengthy transitional arrangements, An attempt to rush it so we're "entirely free" by 2020 or indeed next election in 2022 will help the hardliners who want a hard Brexit uncomfortable for Britain.
4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.
Edit: apols for mixed metaphor, it has a certain polluted swimming pool feel to it.
It still looks value but that does make me doubtful.
I'd start with the EU itself, particularly those that drove it on to include 28 countries with widely different economies and cultures. Those who set up a 3,000 mile border without a serious thought for policing it deserve extra contempt.
Then I'd list the UK politicians who misled the electorate about the consequences of Brexit. And then I'd blame the rest who shirked their responsibility in handing over the decision to an electorate that was woefully underinformed to make a difficult, once in a fifty years decision like this.
Then of course there's the pro-Brexit press, which had its own agenda and no conscience.
The voters troop in after that lot. But then if asked a stupid question, can they be blamed for giving a stupid answer?
In that situation we should finally and for once tell America to mind their own business... Oh and BTW we're withdrawing from NATO and leaving America to get on with it...
Again Ireland should be an area for relatively easy agreement.
That just leaves the money!!!!!
I also do not share your optimism that the EU have set out a negotiating position. I think they believe that they are in such a strong position they can effectively try and impose on us. I also doubt if they can get less than that through the EU Parliament, which has de facto veto over the final deal.
That may make them idiots. As I have made clear upthread, I have as a Remainer no very high opinion of the EU's upper echelons. I think they genuinely believe May will cave in. But she can't unless she has a much bigger majority. That may indeed be why she is calling the election. Even then however such a deal would be politically dangerous.
The euro survived the financial crisis and a lost decade for the European economy. Now its test is political, and it is likely to survive it—battered as ever and still getting the blame for Europe’s problems.
And you want this guy in charge of the negotiations???
The current problem with citizens is that the EU wants EU citizens to be subject to EU laws when they are in the UK - like they are in America - oh wait.
It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/ian-murray-tweets-jeremy-corbyn-is-destroying-labour-1-4390074
Tezza is haggling about the price of camels with a man who sells carpets...
Scotland and to a certain extent the North and Wales retained a strong anti-Tory tradition and to his credit Brown did very well in Scotland.
They were so far behind in 2005 and their vote share was distributed very inefficiently in 2010.
As you pointed out some voters were tempted by Nurse Browns voluptuous charms following and during the banking crisis, iirc the Tory lead almost completely vanished as events initially unfolded.
The expenses scandal hit the Tories disproportionately badly.
Voters have long memories and remembered the shambles of Majors government and how the right of the party behaved. Hasn't taken them long to be reminded of that since 2015.
That does seem to be her primary goal.
The EU knows what our minimum acceptable outcome is. Everybody knows it. We will leave, come what may.
This strikes me as an extraordinarily weak negotiating position.