Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).
Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.
It may be a deal -breaker. For example, a British government may wish to have different entitlements to social security for British nationals and non-British nationals.
If the UK government is going to play silly buggers then it will have to be a hard brexit - now. These "rights" will only apply to EU citizens in the country before a certain date - not all EU citizens.
Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).
Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.
The best way to enshrine rights is to become a citizen, which is probably the reason for the existing application form being mentioned as an issue.
We have applicants struggling to prove their residency links to Britain.
I have no idea what the process is for Brits in Europe.
They just take their residency card. And don't fill a 83 page form.
Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.
But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.
Who are these losers? Labour supported A50. The lib dems have less than 10 MPs.
EEA was killed by May and the fact there were enough leavers in the Tory party who would never accept it.
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.
Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.
Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
But there is freedom of movement and they have to make contributions to the EU. In addition, many of the EU Directives are also in Norwegian law.
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 name has to be changed to, say, the Democrats or the Democratic Party.
Remember - the Liberal Democrats aren't a real party. They are Spare Labour. Just as the Greens are.
All you have to do is ask them (you don't even have to be nice about it) and they will turn their party into a vehicle for Blair and a bunch of 3rd rate losers to do with what they will.
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:
- 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.
The pro-Brexit media will want to blame the nasty Europeans as the consequences of leaving the EU become increasingly apparent.
But what's this nonsense about May needing a healthy majority? It desn't matter a jot to the other side what sort of a majority she has, be it 1 or 300; they will give us what they want to give us, no less and no more, because they have no reason to do otherwise and will be perfectly aware that the UK representatives are handcuffed by the referendum result.
I note with thanks the excellent analysis in the thread header, but am struck by the naivity of those who perceive May as being more able to negotiate the best Brexit deal. Personally I would trust May more than Corbyn to perform any useful task, from Brexit to going down the High Street to get me a bag of chips. But it makes precious little difference who conducts the Brexit negotiations. We will get what we are given, regardless.
And accept it, regardless.
If the EU believes there are 10 Tories who would vote against a tough deal and bring down May's government they will be more inclined to push for a tough deal.
Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).
Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.
One could argue this about any international treaty though - how do we know it will be adhered to?
There are two potential solutions. Trust the other country's domestic law, with ultimate recourse to the ICJ. Or set up a special court to ajudicate.
What is clearly not sustainable is the EU's suggestion that their own court be the arbiter of what each party does.
Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).
Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.
It may be a deal -breaker. For example, a British government may wish to have different entitlements to social security for British nationals and non-British nationals.
Sure - and then it would be a deal-breaker if we want to have the right to discriminate against EU citizens that came to settle in the UK before the UK left the EU. Do we?
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.
Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.
Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
But there is freedom of movement and they have to make contributions to the EU. In addition, many of the EU Directives are also in Norwegian law.
Well every one of the EU Directives will be in UK Law very soon - but the point is taken. At the moment the UK pays £8 billion a year for 'free access' to the EU market. If the EU imposed tariffs the UK could subsidise a lot of UK exports to the EU at a substantially lower cost. (FWIW the UK collects tariffs on imports into the UK from outside the EU and then sends 80% of them to the EU. Keeping the same tariffs would quadruple UK income from them).
Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).
Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.
One could argue this about any international treaty though - how do we know it will be adhered to?
There are two potential solutions. Trust the other country's domestic law, with ultimate recourse to the ICJ. Or set up a special court to ajudicate.
What is clearly not sustainable is the EU's suggestion that their own court be the arbiter of what each party does.
That argument does not make it into the EU's written position. Where do we get the idea that it is actually an argument in the first place? I am sure it must be, but I have not seen it anywhere.
The idea that the EU cares (or even knows) about the composition of the UK Parliament is yet another Brexit fantasy with no basis in reality.
They will offer a deal, we can take it, or walk away. May appears to favour walk away, which suggests she is still more worried about the right wing press than the public
As I recall the German economy went through a rough patch at that time with some post-reunification blues. Meanwhile, we were in the middle of something of a boomlet. At one point in the late 90s the mark hit three to the pound having been down to near 2 in 1995. So it's not a terribly helpful comparator.
1.1.1953 GBP = DEM 11.810 Today GBP = DEM 2.31
Which country has exported more in the last 60 years ? Which country's productivity has increased far faster than the other's ?
Both of them Germany. As the currency shows. So I'm not quite sure what your point is? Mine was that the circumstances were atypical and that the underlying economic factors were probably more in Germany's favour than the currency showed at the time.
Plainly. Much of Germany was still in ruins in 1953, but Germany had the potential to bounce back.
What the Brexiters will never accept is that the UK is and has been for 60-70 years , a low productivity economy. This was true in 60s, 70s,.........00's, 10s.
That is why from time to time we need a "currency adjustment" - in the old days it was called devaluation - to remain competitive.
However, it is only a short term fix. Gradually input costs go up because of the devaluation and competitiveness is slowly eroded.....until the next time.
Alternatively we could try living within our means.
But that's not a suggestion politicians are keen on. Least of all Labour politicians.
Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).
Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.
The best way to enshrine rights is to become a citizen, which is probably the reason for the existing application form being mentioned as an issue.
We have applicants struggling to prove their residency links to Britain.
I have no idea what the process is for Brits in Europe.
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:
- 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.
The pro-Brexit media will want to blame the nasty Europeans as the consequences of leaving the EU become increasingly apparent.
But what's this nonsense about May needing a healthy majority? It desn't matter a jot to the other side what sort of a majority she has, be it 1 or 300; they will give us what they want to give us, no less and no more, because they have no reason to do otherwise and will be perfectly aware that the UK representatives are handcuffed by the referendum result.
I note with thanks the excellent analysis in the thread header, but am struck by the naivity of those who perceive May as being more able to negotiate the best Brexit deal. Personally I would trust May more than Corbyn to perform any useful task, from Brexit to going down the High Street to get me a bag of chips. But it makes precious little difference who conducts the Brexit negotiations. We will get what we are given, regardless.
And accept it, regardless.
If the EU believes there are 10 Tories who would vote against a tough deal and bring down May's government they will be more inclined to push for a tough deal.
A big majority takes that risk off the table
God, that's desperate, Charles.
Too much of the falling-down liquid last nite?
Simple maths of doing a deal - in many commercial deals, for example, you are not dealing with just the leaders of the company. You are making a deal with them based on their support among the shareholders.
Mr. Observer, ah. So, you mean privileged compared to other migrants?
Benefits might be an area of contention.
Mr. Chestnut, interesting graphs.
Yep - those EU citizens that are here now should be in a privileged position compared to other migrants. They came here on that basis and it is in our interests that this continues to be the case. Post-Brexit, of course, other arrangements might apply to newcomers from the EU.
These are Shires only which are good for Tories compared with others surely.
The figures given for the locals are not the actual results but calculated NEV vote shares . As posted earlier you also need to look at the opinion polls . In 1983 the opinion polls at the time of the locals had the Conservatives at 48% as did the final pre GE polls an overstatement of 4%
One wonders if the Lib Dems have a bad election but Cable gets back in if Farron has to step down and Vince takes over as a caretaker leader. Labour defections then begin. However I'm a bit lost when people start talking about Tory defections - Soubry perhaps - but George Osborne?????? If he's welcome in a progressive party I certainly wouldn't want to be voting for it. The problem runs deeper though. Could a party without a clear electoral hinterland really succeed. In the early days of this site I used to be an advocate for the Lib Dems replacing Labour. It is now clear though - post Brexit - why that is so difficult. many labour heartlands are amongst the most socially conservative parts of the country. Would such a government risk a more understanding attitude towards paedophiles, international aid and refugees?
The SNP under Nicola Sturgeon grows hollower by the day. You need not be a nationalist to respect the men and women who toiled for years to get the SNP taken seriously. Would they recognise their party today, a press release dispenser in search of a principle? Miss Sturgeon says she personally supports EU membership but won’t say if the SNP manifesto will endorse it; Alex Salmond says the party would now settle for the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). SNP MPs openly question GERS, the Scottish Government’s own figures which show Scotland with a £15bn deficit. Finance secretary Derek Mackay has (belatedly) defended the integrity of civil servants.
After nine months of demanding a second independence referendum, Miss Sturgeon has dropped all mention of it from the general election campaign. Her spokesman has said a good showing for the SNP in June would be an endorsement of Indyref 2 but a bad result would have no impact on Indyref 2. (The Scottish Government has an ever-expanding army of special advisers; it seems they’ve now added White House press secretary Sean Spicer.)
This is what happens when you gut your party of all policy and place the constitution at the centre of everything you do. It wins you elections but it also changes your opponents and the country at large.
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.
Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.
Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
But there is freedom of movement and they have to make contributions to the EU. In addition, many of the EU Directives are also in Norwegian law.
Well every one of the EU Directives will be in UK Law very soon - but the point is taken. At the moment the UK pays £8 billion a year for 'free access' to the EU market. If the EU imposed tariffs the UK could subsidise a lot of UK exports to the EU at a substantially lower cost. (FWIW the UK collects tariffs on imports into the UK from outside the EU and then sends 80% of them to the EU. Keeping the same tariffs would quadruple UK income from them).
As a matter of interest, several people have commned to me spontaneously that Anna Soubry has been sounding muh less critical of Brexit lately (she was on regional TV about it this week). The general local view is that she'll fall into line in the end.
I'm not standing, by the way - thought about it seriously, but the deadline between selection (Wed/Thur) and finalisation of election address (Monday) is very short as I've been out of the constituency for the last two years and am not really up to speed on all the issues that need to be raised: I decided to defer to someone with more current local knowledge. And "time to make way for somone younger" has a certain resonance too - the "one more battle" is always tempting, but one needs to draw a line somewhere.
'The idea that the EU cares (or even knows) about the composition of the UK Parliament is yet another Brexit fantasy with no basis in reality'
You really believe that ?
You really believe that the EU is unaware of May's small majority,that a handful of MP's could derail May's negotiations not to mention the antics of the Remain majority in the House of Lords ?
I disagree with Keiran Pedley's assumption - shared by the commentariat - that attitudes to Brexit will be the key determinant of how people will vote on June 8th. Already we see other issues starting to come to the fore - Taxation - Education - the NHS - and I expect this to be increasingly the case as we move further into the campaign period. Labour will to a large extent refuse to engage on Brexit beyond the statements already made and will raise other questions to which the Tories will feel obliged to respond. I am strengthened in my view re- the limited salience of Brexit by the failure of the LibDems to gain traction to date.
The idea that the EU cares (or even knows) about the composition of the UK Parliament is yet another Brexit fantasy with no basis in reality.
They will offer a deal, we can take it, or walk away. May appears to favour walk away, which suggests she is still more worried about the right wing press than the public
It is amazing how much influence the right wing press still have over UK governments.Will their power diminish as the younger generation get older and do not buy papers as much as the current old people ?
Opinium:.......SNP 50 Con 30 Lab 13 LD 2 Panelbase:…. SNP 48 Con 27 Lab 10 LD 6 ORB:………… SNP 47 Con 27 Lab 16 LD 7 Survation…… SNP 45 Lab 20 Con 19 LD 7 Panelbase:… SNP 44 Con 33 Lab 13 LD 5 (FULL) ICM:………… SNP 44 Con 27 Lab 16 LD 10 Survation…… SNP 43 Con 28 Lab 18 LD 9 (FULL) ComRes:…… SNP 42 Con 38 Lab 10 LD 9 Ipsos:……….. SNP 41 Con 36 Lab 17 LD 4 Yougov……… SNP 41 Con 28 Lab 18 LD 7 (FULL) Yougov:…….. SNP 36 Con 32 Lab 25 LD 5
Just to add there is also too much certainty amongst the Blairites that Brexit will do massive economic damage. Presumably because they believe the experts much derided by Michael Gove. But are those experts such merchants of doom? It's notable that the likes of Mervyn King and Adair Turner (who was once an advocate of the Euro) have not been overly pessimistic.
You really believe that the EU was unaware of May's small majority,that a handful of MP's could derail May's negotiations not to mention the antics of the Remain majority in the House of Lords ?
Please at least get real.
The idea that what happens in Westminster is of any concern to the EU in the upcoming deal is fantasy.
If Tezza can't sell the deal back home, that is not a problem for the EU, that is a problem for her.
Please at least get real, although I hold out little hope of that happening for most Brexiteers any time soon.
When the scales finally fall from their eyes, there will be tears before bedtime.
The SNP under Nicola Sturgeon grows hollower by the day. You need not be a nationalist to respect the men and women who toiled for years to get the SNP taken seriously. Would they recognise their party today, a press release dispenser in search of a principle? Miss Sturgeon says she personally supports EU membership but won’t say if the SNP manifesto will endorse it; Alex Salmond says the party would now settle for the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). SNP MPs openly question GERS, the Scottish Government’s own figures which show Scotland with a £15bn deficit. Finance secretary Derek Mackay has (belatedly) defended the integrity of civil servants.
After nine months of demanding a second independence referendum, Miss Sturgeon has dropped all mention of it from the general election campaign. Her spokesman has said a good showing for the SNP in June would be an endorsement of Indyref 2 but a bad result would have no impact on Indyref 2. (The Scottish Government has an ever-expanding army of special advisers; it seems they’ve now added White House press secretary Sean Spicer.)
This is what happens when you gut your party of all policy and place the constitution at the centre of everything you do. It wins you elections but it also changes your opponents and the country at large.
I like Daisley, he has a nice flow to his writing I have to say. I think I had a chat with someone on her not long ago about how the SNP had become a strong political force by managing to herd cats, but this had left them having very little room to move on policy as it would piss off one of the cats. Hence a year of almost no policy making in Holyrood.
@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.
She is not stupid. She has a mediocre, inflexible mind that is far in advance of the ones possessed by Jeremy Corbyn and Andrea Leadsom.
I lived in Maidenhead for twelve years arriving at much the same time as Mrs May. She is a very conscientious and hard working constituency MP. Hard work always seems to be effective so I am not sure we need to worry about whether or not she is clever. It's just a shame she has found herself working hard to get us out of the EU. It would be much better if she were working on some project that was in the national interest rather than directly counter to it.
I think I had a chat with someone on her not long ago about how the SNP had become a strong political force by managing to herd cats, but this had left them having very little room to move on policy as it would piss off one of the cats. Hence a year of almost no policy making in Holyrood.
Exemplified by Salmond getting gubbed by Andrew Neil yesterday.
For an administration with education as their number 1 priority, they have spent 43 hours debating indy, and ZERO debating education
Mrs May scores well because although she is a luke-warm Remainer, she is prepared to implement the will of the people - as was promised before the referendum. It's about trust.
Old Bonehead is all over the place and Labour say one thing and mean another (and no one knows what that will be).
Farron is anti-democratic. He wants to do whatever he wants and bollocks to the referendum result.
Evasions and economy with the truth are accepted as political weapons. Downright lies are not. The LDs will implement the will of the people, but only as long as it suits them.
Maybe Corbyn's last card will be to admit how he really voted in June...
In the past few days Macron's campaign has presented him as standing up to Germany and Poland, and he now says the EU must reform or face Frexit. But he's not giving any specifics on the euro or Schengen, and he's not promising a referendum on "Emmanuel's deal", so I wonder how his new approach will play. From now and going in to the TV debate on Wednesday, and then afterwards, he may find he has a label stuck on him saying "all style, no substance. and two fingers up to any role for the population in deciding France's European policy". Blair won but that was different: he was the change candidate and the Tories were covered in sleaze stories and on their way out. Macron was Hollande's unofficial number two only a short while ago.
I think I had a chat with someone on her not long ago about how the SNP had become a strong political force by managing to herd cats, but this had left them having very little room to move on policy as it would piss off one of the cats. Hence a year of almost no policy making in Holyrood.
Exemplified by Salmond getting gubbed by Andrew Neil yesterday.
For an administration with education as their number 1 priority, they have spent 43 hours debating indy, and ZERO debating education
Is that because Scottish education is the best in the world and doesn't need any improvement?
I think I had a chat with someone on her not long ago about how the SNP had become a strong political force by managing to herd cats, but this had left them having very little room to move on policy as it would piss off one of the cats. Hence a year of almost no policy making in Holyrood.
Exemplified by Salmond getting gubbed by Andrew Neil yesterday.
For an administration with education as their number 1 priority, they have spent 43 hours debating indy, and ZERO debating education
Is that because Scottish education is the best in the world and doesn't need any improvement?
Or because even Secondary schools in the Education Minister's Constituency cannot find qualified teachers...
Part of the country really has gone mad. Is padded cell Brexit an option?
You should come to Scotland, William. Last night I encountered a young SNP supporter who insisted that the SNP are polling at 66%; the Scottish government has a say in immigration policy; the Scottish parliament has a legal right to call another independence referendum; Shetlanders view themselves as Scots; the SNP has a majority at Holyrood, without support from anyone else; that if an independent Scotland joins the EU and rUK stays outside the single market and customs union then it will be up to the Scottish government whether or not to have the border as a hard external EU one or to be in a single market with rUK; and that the three main Scottish unionist parties are not Scottish but are "branch offices" of "English" parties.
I disagree with Keiran Pedley's assumption - shared by the commentariat - that attitudes to Brexit will be the key determinant of how people will vote on June 8th. Already we see other issues starting to come to the fore - Taxation - Education - the NHS - and I expect this to be increasingly the case as we move further into the campaign period. Labour will to a large extent refuse to engage on Brexit beyond the statements already made and will raise other questions to which the Tories will feel obliged to respond. I am strengthened in my view re- the limited salience of Brexit by the failure of the LibDems to gain traction to date.
All governments since the 80s have not really considered housing a priority.When you think what was achieved after the war by both parties compared to the last few years it is a disgrace.Ths Lib Dems concentrating nearly all on Brexit to the detriment over other concerns is not opposition in reality more like UKIP in reverse single issue.
The SNP under Nicola Sturgeon grows hollower by the day. You need not be a nationalist to respect the men and women who toiled for years to get the SNP taken seriously. Would they recognise their party today, a press release dispenser in search of a principle? Miss Sturgeon says she personally supports EU membership but won’t say if the SNP manifesto will endorse it; Alex Salmond says the party would now settle for the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). SNP MPs openly question GERS, the Scottish Government’s own figures which show Scotland with a £15bn deficit. Finance secretary Derek Mackay has (belatedly) defended the integrity of civil servants.
After nine months of demanding a second independence referendum, Miss Sturgeon has dropped all mention of it from the general election campaign. Her spokesman has said a good showing for the SNP in June would be an endorsement of Indyref 2 but a bad result would have no impact on Indyref 2. (The Scottish Government has an ever-expanding army of special advisers; it seems they’ve now added White House press secretary Sean Spicer.)
This is what happens when you gut your party of all policy and place the constitution at the centre of everything you do. It wins you elections but it also changes your opponents and the country at large.
With SNP still c.45% - SCON & SLAB have just swopped 2nd & 3rd place %s - SCON hope to pick up a few seats as they hope their vote is better concentrated ! - The SNP seem set for a good result !!
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.
Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.
Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
But there is freedom of movement and they have to make contributions to the EU. In addition, many of the EU Directives are also in Norwegian law.
Well every one of the EU Directives will be in UK Law very soon - but the point is taken. At the moment the UK pays £8 billion a year for 'free access' to the EU market. If the EU imposed tariffs the UK could subsidise a lot of UK exports to the EU at a substantially lower cost. (FWIW the UK collects tariffs on imports into the UK from outside the EU and then sends 80% of them to the EU. Keeping the same tariffs would quadruple UK income from them).
That's strictly banned under WTO rules.
OK - well one point - the pound dropped by 10% against the Euro - imposing a 10% tariff would merely result in the price of UK goods in the EU being the same as at June 22nd 2016. At the same time the price of EU goods in the UK would be 20% higher.
Mrs May scores well because although she is a luke-warm Remainer, she is prepared to implement the will of the people - as was promised before the referendum. It's about trust.
Old Bonehead is all over the place and Labour say one thing and mean another (and no one knows what that will be).
Farron is anti-democratic. He wants to do whatever he wants and bollocks to the referendum result.
Evasions and economy with the truth are accepted as political weapons. Downright lies are not. The LDs will implement the will of the people, but only as long as it suits them.
Maybe Corbyn's last card will be to admit how he really voted in June...
I suspect that both Corbyn and May voted Leave.
I think you suspect wrong the both were reluctant remainers .However May has become like an evangelical crusader for Brexit and Corbyn is still reluctant.
Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.
But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.
The name has to be changed to, say, the Democrats or the Democratic Party.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, one of the best timelines ever published on www.alternatehistory.com involved a devastated Labour party having to rename itself to the Democrats, albeit for very different reasons. If you're interested in 1970's British politics I can heartily recommend it.
With reference to the French Presidential, this is a great political sign - "Neither plague nor cholera." Could have used that in the US.
It would also make a great title for a novel.
It's a bit close to the "Ni Trompettes, Ni Tambours " mentioned in the elaborately constructed joke about novel titles in Truffaut's Domicile Conjugal.
Alas, such viewing will probably be proscribed in post-Brexit UK. It'll be Carry on Camping and Sex Lives of the Potato Men round the clock.
Part of the country really has gone mad. Is padded cell Brexit an option?
You should come to Scotland, William. Last night I encountered a young SNP supporter who insisted that the SNP are polling at 66%; the Scottish government has a say in immigration policy; the Scottish parliament has a legal right to call another independence referendum; Shetlanders view themselves as Scots; the SNP has a majority at Holyrood, without support from anyone else; that if an independent Scotland joins the EU and rUK stays outside the single market and customs union then it will be up to the Scottish government whether or not to have the border as a hard external EU one or to be in a single market with rUK; and that the three main Scottish unionist parties are not Scottish but are "branch offices" of "English" parties.
Peak anecdotage.
I've got one. I 'met' someone on here last year pre referendum who suggested that the EU Leave vote might be higher in Scotland than the rUK. He was a sharp one alright.
With reference to the French Presidential, this is a great political sign - "Neither plague nor cholera." Could have used that in the US.
It would also make a great title for a novel.
It's a bit close to the "Ni Trompettes, Ni Tambours " mentioned in the elaborately constructed joke about novel titles in Truffaut's Domicile Conjugal.
Alas, such viewing will probably be proscribed in post-Brexit UK. It'll be Carry on Camping and Sex Lives of the Potato Men round the clock.
And that'll be before they've even switched on the telly.
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.
Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.
Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
But there is freedom of movement and they have to make contributions to the EU. In addition, many of the EU Directives are also in Norwegian law.
Well every one of the EU Directives will be in UK Law very soon - but the point is taken. At the moment the UK pays £8 billion a year for 'free access' to the EU market. If the EU imposed tariffs the UK could subsidise a lot of UK exports to the EU at a substantially lower cost. (FWIW the UK collects tariffs on imports into the UK from outside the EU and then sends 80% of them to the EU. Keeping the same tariffs would quadruple UK income from them).
That's strictly banned under WTO rules.
OK - well one point - the pound dropped by 10% against the Euro - imposing a 10% tariff would merely result in the price of UK goods in the EU being the same as at June 22nd 2016. At the same time the price of EU goods in the UK would be 20% higher.
Great point for finished products. It doesn't work as well for components, which I suspect most of the trade actually is.
I have just discovered that Times Red Box has opened a guessing game for the General Election result on Twitter, #RedBoxSweepstake. I have made an attempt.
Will any similar competition be coming for PBer's at some point nearer the big day - just for fun, of course?
Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.
But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.
"Failing and blaming", as I've said before.
However, in an attempt to convince thru presentation of facts (a waste of time on this board but heyho, habit of a lifetime), you may wish to consider the following. After the vote and when DExEu was formed, there was a consultation exercise about what it was people wanted from Brexit (a stance begging for a HitchHikers reference) and immigration/border control featured highly. Hence the government's stance.
The name has to be changed to, say, the Democrats or the Democratic Party.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, one of the best timelines ever published on www.alternatehistory.com involved a devastated Labour party having to rename itself to the Democrats, albeit for very different reasons. If you're interested in 1970's British politics I can heartily recommend it.
More BrExit tedium and pointless circlejerkery I see. A beer or two and a local hostelry seems like a good idea, especially since I can get two beers for about 80p
The name has to be changed to, say, the Democrats or the Democratic Party.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, one of the best timelines ever published on www.alternatehistory.com involved a devastated Labour party having to rename itself to the Democrats, albeit for very different reasons. If you're interested in 1970's British politics I can heartily recommend it.
I have just discovered that Times Red Box has opened a guessing game for the General Election result on Twitter, #RedBoxSweepstake. I have made an attempt.
Will any similar competition be coming for PBer's at some point nearer the big day - just for fun, of course?
Not enough PB prediction comps - and we don’t need prizes to take part IMHO .
Roger, Al's pounding the pavements for your man. Shame Darling didn't stick around for the 2015 GE just so we'd have an idea of how much electoral fairy dust he still possesses.
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.
How do you know that ? How do we know if the wealthier people of remain/leave are closet racist ?
Apart from offering a few constituency markets, Ladbrokes appear to have all but given up as regards the 2017 GE, although I suppose there's still time for them to become active. It seems strange really, since previously with Shadsy at the helm, they were at the very forefront of political betting - invariably having the widest and most innovative range of markets. You have to wonder whether their infinitely lower profile has resulted from Laddies' recent merger with Corals where muscles are perhaps still being flexed in terms of establishing the enlarged group's future direction.
I have just discovered that Times Red Box has opened a guessing game for the General Election result on Twitter, #RedBoxSweepstake. I have made an attempt.
Will any similar competition be coming for PBer's at some point nearer the big day - just for fun, of course?
Not enough PB prediction comps - and we don’t need prizes to take part IMHO .
Agreed. I am perfectly prepared to make myself look silly with my wayward forecasts. I assume that a sufficient number of others are likewise willing to participate to make it interesting?
These are Shires only which are good for Tories compared with others surely.
The figures given for the locals are not the actual results but calculated NEV vote shares . As posted earlier you also need to look at the opinion polls . In 1983 the opinion polls at the time of the locals had the Conservatives at 48% as did the final pre GE polls an overstatement of 4%
What's your hunch now ? After the first week and a half.
'OK - well one point - the pound dropped by 10% against the Euro - imposing a 10% tariff would merely result in the price of UK goods in the EU being the same as at June 22nd 2016. At the same time the price of EU goods in the UK would be 20% higher.'
20% higher as things stand now without any further devaluation of Sterling.
Could for example be the final tipping point for VW, $16 billion lawsuit in the US,probably the same again in Europe & then their vehicles sold in their second largest export market are subject to a 20 - 30% price increase.
The name has to be changed to, say, the Democrats or the Democratic Party.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, one of the best timelines ever published on www.alternatehistory.com involved a devastated Labour party having to rename itself to the Democrats, albeit for very different reasons. If you're interested in 1970's British politics I can heartily recommend it.
With regard to this Thursday's round of voting - something oft remarked upon but just as quickly forgotten, as frantic over-analysis takes place the day after.
Why local elections are not useful indicators of national votes
..."In 1983 and 1987 Margaret Thatcher called an election immediately after the local elections (general election campaigns were shorter then), meaning then – as now – we got local elections in May and a general election a month later. This is the comparison between the projected vote shares coming out of the local elections and the actual general election results just a month later:
1983
Local election: Con 39%, Lab 36%, Lib/SDP 20% General election: Con 44%, Lab 28%, Lib/SDP 26%
FWIW, one would imagine that the Conservatives will be very pleased if Labour avoids a calamity on Thursday. Even though local elections clearly aren't an accurate predictor of the General Election result, the media will go for the big headlines and a lower than expected gap between the Tories and Labour is bound to be interpreted as evidence that the General Election race is a lot more competitive than had previously been assumed, This should assist the Tory GOTV drive next month.
A significant point of difference re-1983 & 1987 is that the election had not yet been announced. In 1987 there was a widespread expectation that Thatcher would shortly announce a June election , but 1983 was a bit different in that most commentaors were expecting an Autumn election. It came as a bit of a surprise when the election announcement was made on May 9th a few days after the local elections. On both occasions - particularly 1983 - a General Election was likely to have featured much less in the awareness of voters when the local elections were held. It will obviously be different this year .
'OK - well one point - the pound dropped by 10% against the Euro - imposing a 10% tariff would merely result in the price of UK goods in the EU being the same as at June 22nd 2016. At the same time the price of EU goods in the UK would be 20% higher.'
20% higher as things stand now without any further devaluation of Sterling.
Could for example be the final tipping point for VW, $16 billion lawsuit in the US,probably the same again in Europe & then their vehicles sold in their second largest export market are subject to a 20 - 30% price increase.
Their biggest market is still the EU. The question should be asked: what % of their output is sold in the UK, rather than pompous words like "second largest". 1% / 2%, if that.
I am pretty sure China is a much bigger market for them even though they produce in China.
Edit: VW sold 10.3m cars last year. About 150k in the UK. So I make it ~ 1.5%.
Yes, a 20% jump will kill VW - the largest car producer in the world. Think NOT.
Remember most of their competitors are also non-UK.
Great point for finished products. It doesn't work as well for components, which I suspect most of the trade actually is.
It would incentivise UK companies to source component products from within the UK instead of importing from abroad, wouldn't it?
Yes it would.
In the same way as cutting off your right hand incentivises you to use your left.
Well it would help the balance of payments deficit with the EU and keep money circulating in the UK rather than draining off elsewhere - which means a higher tax return.
'OK - well one point - the pound dropped by 10% against the Euro - imposing a 10% tariff would merely result in the price of UK goods in the EU being the same as at June 22nd 2016. At the same time the price of EU goods in the UK would be 20% higher.'
20% higher as things stand now without any further devaluation of Sterling.
Could for example be the final tipping point for VW, $16 billion lawsuit in the US,probably the same again in Europe & then their vehicles sold in their second largest export market are subject to a 20 - 30% price increase.
Their biggest market is still the EU. The question should be asked: what % of their output is sold in the UK, rather than pompous words like "second largest". 1% / 2%, if that.
I am pretty sure China is a much bigger market for them even though they produce in China.
Edit: VW sold 10.3m cars last year. About 150k in the UK. So I make it ~ 1.5%.
Yes, a 20% jump will kill VW - the largest car producer in the world. Think NOT.
Remember most of their competitors are also non-UK.
But not necessarily EU.
Although of course the Euro may rocket sharply in value - after all if the agreement is going to be terrible for the UK and marvellous for the EU (as everyone says - cough, cough) that is bound to happen.
OK, question. I am quite convinced that the local elections won't be a total disaster for Labour. Perhaps they'll go backwards - but by insubstantial amount. Is there a market?
Ridiculous statement like many of the assertions by the extreme right-wing Leave brigade here.
It is silly but the reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behaviour is only increasing the anger but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I do wonder if they are of the misguided opinion that by making their comments in the way they have that opinion in the UK is likely to force Theresa May to surrender to them
They do not know this Country or Theresa May. Also reports from France that Macron is getting worried as Le Pen closes on him. He is calling for wide scale EU reform and does look a bit worried.
The French election is only going to add to the EU problems no matter the result.
OK, question. I am quite convinced that the local elections won't be a total disaster for Labour. Perhaps they'll go backwards - but by insubstantial amount. Is there a market?
What makes you think that? The opportunity to hit labour at the General Election, may mean some voters don't feel the need to do it at the LE as well, but it looks as if the overall seeing is big and concentrated in labour areas of strength, including Wales and Scotland.
P.S. Sorry I don't know wherever there is a betting market for that.
Ridiculous statement like many of the assertions by the extreme right-wing Leave brigade here.
It is silly but the reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behaviour is only increasing the anger but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I do wonder if they are of the misguided opinion that by making their comments in the way they have that opinion in the UK is likely to force Theresa May to surrender to them
They do not know this Country or Theresa May. Also reports from France that Macron is getting worried as Le Pen closes on him. He is calling for wide scale EU reform and does look a bit worried.
The French election is only going to add to the EU problems no matter the result.
This is probably correct but it shows a difference of mentality between the UK and large parts of the continent. As a populous you back the British people up against a wall and the likely response is 'come on then, do your worst you sack of bastards'.
Too many EU officials are giving off the kind of approach that is likely to get just such a reaction. I'm not sure they get that.
If this was a domestic situation the jilted partner, in this case the EU, would have a restraining order taken out against it for obsessive behaviour.
Those who voted against (ie Leave) are by and large under no illusions. Those who cant handle the result have spent their time denegrating the majority of those who voted.
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.
Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.
Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
But there is freedom of movement and they have to make contributions to the EU. In addition, many of the EU Directives are also in Norwegian law.
Well every one of the EU Directives will be in UK Law very soon - but the point is taken. At the moment the UK pays £8 billion a year for 'free access' to the EU market. If the EU imposed tariffs the UK could subsidise a lot of UK exports to the EU at a substantially lower cost. (FWIW the UK collects tariffs on imports into the UK from outside the EU and then sends 80% of them to the EU. Keeping the same tariffs would quadruple UK income from them).
That's strictly banned under WTO rules.
Not if it is in the form of tax cuts or R&D credits.
Ridiculous statement like many of the assertions by the extreme right-wing Leave brigade here.
Obviously the EUphobics will always be EUphobics. Given, unfortunately, that we are about to leave the EU, the best thing would be to send the EUphobics to Benbecula or somewhere with no Wifi for a couple of years where they can scream and moan into their pints and drams until the bureaucrats have sorted the whole mess out to a least a livewithable degree. Otherwise I fear that Brexit will be double the disaster that it could be. How these numpties (many of whom are businesspeople fgs) think that alienating 300 million people will be good for business lord alone knows.
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.
Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.
Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
But there is freedom of movement and they have to make contributions to the EU. In addition, many of the EU Directives are also in Norwegian law.
Well every one of the EU Directives will be in UK Law very soon - but the point is taken. At the moment the UK pays £8 billion a year for 'free access' to the EU market. If the EU imposed tariffs the UK could subsidise a lot of UK exports to the EU at a substantially lower cost. (FWIW the UK collects tariffs on imports into the UK from outside the EU and then sends 80% of them to the EU. Keeping the same tariffs would quadruple UK income from them).
That's strictly banned under WTO rules.
Not if it is in the form of tax cuts or R&D credits.
The rules are pretty strict on this, and they'd likely have a good case if they took it to the WTO
Great point for finished products. It doesn't work as well for components, which I suspect most of the trade actually is.
It would incentivise UK companies to source component products from within the UK instead of importing from abroad, wouldn't it?
Yes, but if you source your jam jars in the UK which is a smaller market than the EU then they'll be more expensive than the same jars made for the larger market. Overall it will make UK goods less competitive on the world market.
Great point for finished products. It doesn't work as well for components, which I suspect most of the trade actually is.
It would incentivise UK companies to source component products from within the UK instead of importing from abroad, wouldn't it?
Yes, but if you source your jam jars in the UK which is a smaller market than the EU then they'll be more expensive than the same jars made for the larger market. Overall it will make UK goods less competitive on the world market.
Not if you give up preferential access to 12% of the market but secure preferential access in enough of the remaining 88%.
Comments
These "rights" will only apply to EU citizens in the country before a certain date - not all EU citizens.
All you have to do is ask them (you don't even have to be nice about it) and they will turn their party into a vehicle for Blair and a bunch of 3rd rate losers to do with what they will.
They will even say thank you.
Too much of the falling-down liquid last nite?
There are two potential solutions. Trust the other country's domestic law, with ultimate recourse to the ICJ. Or set up a special court to ajudicate.
What is clearly not sustainable is the EU's suggestion that their own court be the arbiter of what each party does.
https://twitter.com/TonyParsonsUK/status/858995006648066049
The stoopids are in charge now.
These are Shires only which are good for Tories compared with others surely.
I was just composing a similar reply.
The idea that the EU cares (or even knows) about the composition of the UK Parliament is yet another Brexit fantasy with no basis in reality.
They will offer a deal, we can take it, or walk away. May appears to favour walk away, which suggests she is still more worried about the right wing press than the public
But that's not a suggestion politicians are keen on. Least of all Labour politicians.
After nine months of demanding a second independence referendum, Miss Sturgeon has dropped all mention of it from the general election campaign. Her spokesman has said a good showing for the SNP in June would be an endorsement of Indyref 2 but a bad result would have no impact on Indyref 2. (The Scottish Government has an ever-expanding army of special advisers; it seems they’ve now added White House press secretary Sean Spicer.)
This is what happens when you gut your party of all policy and place the constitution at the centre of everything you do. It wins you elections but it also changes your opponents and the country at large.
https://stephendaisley.com/2017/05/01/every-time-sturgeon-shouts-tory-another-voter-decides-to-give-them-a-go/
I'm not standing, by the way - thought about it seriously, but the deadline between selection (Wed/Thur) and finalisation of election address (Monday) is very short as I've been out of the constituency for the last two years and am not really up to speed on all the issues that need to be raised: I decided to defer to someone with more current local knowledge. And "time to make way for somone younger" has a certain resonance too - the "one more battle" is always tempting, but one needs to draw a line somewhere.
You really believe that ?
You really believe that the EU is unaware of May's small majority,that a handful of MP's could derail May's negotiations not to mention the antics of the Remain majority in the House of Lords ?
Please at least get real.
Opinium:.......SNP 50 Con 30 Lab 13 LD 2
Panelbase:…. SNP 48 Con 27 Lab 10 LD 6
ORB:………… SNP 47 Con 27 Lab 16 LD 7
Survation…… SNP 45 Lab 20 Con 19 LD 7
Panelbase:… SNP 44 Con 33 Lab 13 LD 5 (FULL)
ICM:………… SNP 44 Con 27 Lab 16 LD 10
Survation…… SNP 43 Con 28 Lab 18 LD 9 (FULL)
ComRes:…… SNP 42 Con 38 Lab 10 LD 9
Ipsos:……….. SNP 41 Con 36 Lab 17 LD 4
Yougov……… SNP 41 Con 28 Lab 18 LD 7 (FULL)
Yougov:…….. SNP 36 Con 32 Lab 25 LD 5
https://stephendaisley.com/2017/05/01/every-time-sturgeon-shouts-tory-another-voter-decides-to-give-them-a-go/
If Tezza can't sell the deal back home, that is not a problem for the EU, that is a problem for her.
Please at least get real, although I hold out little hope of that happening for most Brexiteers any time soon.
When the scales finally fall from their eyes, there will be tears before bedtime.
I think I had a chat with someone on her not long ago about how the SNP had become a strong political force by managing to herd cats, but this had left them having very little room to move on policy as it would piss off one of the cats. Hence a year of almost no policy making in Holyrood.
For an administration with education as their number 1 priority, they have spent 43 hours debating indy, and ZERO debating education
Cutting corporation tax to say 10% & scrapping employer NI contributions is not banned.
Plus a € 60 billion saving.
It would also make a great title for a novel.
Ipsos:………….. Con 50 Lab 32 LD 8 UKIP 5
ComRes:………. Con 45 Lab 36 LD 9 UKIP 8
Survation:…..... Con 42 Lab 40 LD 8 UKIP 8
Panelbase:….... Con 42 Lab 40 LD 9 UKIP 6
ICM:……………. Con 37 Lab 33 LD 9 UKIP 6 (SNP 12???)
ORB:………….... Lab 41 Con 40 LD 9 UKIP 9
Yougov:……….. Lab 43 Con 41 LD 9 UKIP 9
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/859005434287542273
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:agent_lavender
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/agent-lavender-the-flight-of-harold-wilson.261475/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Agent-Lavender-Flight-Harold-Wilson-ebook/dp/B01FCCMTHM
Alas, such viewing will probably be proscribed in post-Brexit UK. It'll be Carry on Camping and Sex Lives of the Potato Men round the clock.
I've got one. I 'met' someone on here last year pre referendum who suggested that the EU Leave vote might be higher in Scotland than the rUK. He was a sharp one alright.
https://twitter.com/Anth0ny_Ward/status/859016669552889856
Will any similar competition be coming for PBer's at some point nearer the big day - just for fun, of course?
https://order-order.com/2017/05/01/oh-gloria/
However, in an attempt to convince thru presentation of facts (a waste of time on this board but heyho, habit of a lifetime), you may wish to consider the following. After the vote and when DExEu was formed, there was a consultation exercise about what it was people wanted from Brexit (a stance begging for a HitchHikers reference) and immigration/border control featured highly. Hence the government's stance.
I had suggested that a new name for Labour defectors joining up with the LD's could be called the Democrats.
In the same way as cutting off your right hand incentivises you to use your left.
Echoes many of the more bellicose PB Brexiteers
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/859023128420286464
Roger, Al's pounding the pavements for your man.
Shame Darling didn't stick around for the 2015 GE just so we'd have an idea of how much electoral fairy dust he still possesses.
It seems strange really, since previously with Shadsy at the helm, they were at the very forefront of political betting - invariably having the widest and most innovative range of markets.
You have to wonder whether their infinitely lower profile has resulted from Laddies' recent merger with Corals where muscles are perhaps still being flexed in terms of establishing the enlarged group's future direction.
20% higher as things stand now without any further devaluation of Sterling.
Could for example be the final tipping point for VW, $16 billion lawsuit in the US,probably the same again in Europe & then their vehicles sold in their second largest export market are subject to a 20 - 30% price increase.
I am pretty sure China is a much bigger market for them even though they produce in China.
Edit: VW sold 10.3m cars last year. About 150k in the UK. So I make it ~ 1.5%.
Yes, a 20% jump will kill VW - the largest car producer in the world. Think NOT.
Remember most of their competitors are also non-UK.
https://twitter.com/Brighti/status/858975482133581825
Although of course the Euro may rocket sharply in value - after all if the agreement is going to be terrible for the UK and marvellous for the EU (as everyone says - cough, cough) that is bound to happen.
new thread
I do wonder if they are of the misguided opinion that by making their comments in the way they have that opinion in the UK is likely to force Theresa May to surrender to them
They do not know this Country or Theresa May. Also reports from France that Macron is getting worried as Le Pen closes on him. He is calling for wide scale EU reform and does look a bit worried.
The French election is only going to add to the EU problems no matter the result.
P.S. Sorry I don't know wherever there is a betting market for that.
Too many EU officials are giving off the kind of approach that is likely to get just such a reaction. I'm not sure they get that.
If this was a domestic situation the jilted partner, in this case the EU, would have a restraining order taken out against it for obsessive behaviour.
Those who voted against (ie Leave) are by and large under no illusions. Those who cant handle the result have spent their time denegrating the majority of those who voted.