Andy Street has apparently spent over £1m on his election for mayor. All perfectly legal, done before the spending limits applied but wow. Cause and effect will be difficult but if he wins spending will presumably have played a part, even if it was only to increase name awareness.
Cyan no they do not have to be arrested to be charged; an individual can be postal charged these days or simply summonsed of course.
Thanks for this. I'm wondering how easy or hard it would be to delay charges issued before the election from getting into the news until after.
Edit: TheWhiteRabbit says they would have to be arrested before being charged. Which one of you is correct? What has happened in the past when charges have been issued under PPERA?
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
Or rather, we did face up to the real choices in the 60s and 70s. However since the late 80s and early 90s, a sustained propaganda campaign has convinced a majority that we didn't and that other choices are available.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
What's the difference?
The fact is, the two sides can't even begin to discuss any exit bill, still less the Irish border, without first figuring out what the trading relationship is going to look like. They might be able to discuss reciprocal rights to EU and British citizens; indeed, they could have done that months ago as the UK suggested, but everything else - literally everything - depends massively on what the future relationship is going to be.
Richard, you have metamorphosed from a die hard Cameron supporter to a May supporter. No surprise there. I wish you could read some of your own posts pre June 23rd. But Tories are Tories. Look at Carlotta, look at Fitalass.
No matter how much you shout unfair, the EU will not change its mind. Yes, Brexit will also hurt them. But because their overall economy is 6 times larger than the UK's , the impact it will feel will be much less.
However, there is an intangible benefit for them also. It provides an example to any future leaver of what may happen to them too. The EU will not make life easy for anyone other than it's citizens and, of course, Ireland, member.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Cui did it?. The EU Commission without a doubt to show May's position is untenable. (I think they were also genuinely a bit shocked). You could say it was a big breach of trust, which will make the negotiations harder going forward. Or you could say, Mrs May's position is actually untenable and the sooner she becomes more realistic the sooner we can move on and sort things out.
My personal view is that Mrs May's position is untenable but the EU's leak isn't helpful to them, fascinating as it is. The false assumptions behind Brexit have solidified over decades. They will unwind, as they must, but the EU can let that happen in an orderly way without weakening their position further.
The EU wants a deal on its terms. The trick for them is getting us to agree an arrangement that is materially worse than what we had had before because the alternative is worse again. That takes some subtlety.
This leak was the opposite of subtle. They are driving TMay towards Fuck You Brexit.
I hope not, but it's possible. It doesn't serve their interests, even if it serves ours even less.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
Mr. Glenn, what if someone believes EU collapse is inevitable? Would it not be better to evacuate before the grand edifice crumbles
Absolutely not. If you believe a collapse is inevitable then we were in the perfect strategic position before Brexit - on the inside but not in the single currency. It's a system of treaties, not a building that will fall on your head, so the metaphor of a 'collapse' is of limited use.
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 behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
But I wonder if other EU leaders, like the Dutch, Irish, Danes, who really depend on UK trade, are so sanguine about Crash Brexit.
The other issue for them is that even if we end up crashing out of the EU, the government now has enough fiscal room to stimulate the economy with tax cuts, infrastructure spending and other investment. The budget could be in balance by 2019 on the current growth and spending trajectories, this year we recorded a 2.6% deficit and despite the OBR saying it will go up, I don't see much evidence in the figures. With nominal growth looking to come in at around 4-5% this year, the deficit should fall fairly rapidly even with a slowdown in real growth from 2.1% to 1.5-1.8%.
In a less long winded way, the government has finally fixed the roof, most of the leaks are patched up as well. If we fall out of the single market and the government acts swiftly enough to offset any growth loss which may arise (may being the key word) the value of the single market goes down markedly. Why bother with it if the UK can show there is life after it.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopeshe negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
Only if you concentrate solely on the economics (and even then it is arguable - in the longterm (I wholly accept the UK is bound to experience short term pain))
Seizing independence from a larger, encompassing political entity is nearly always difficult and costly, but often it is desirable, and ultimately beneficial, nonetheless. People want to govern themselves.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
I think the richer and more cocooned from the downsides of Brexit are the more phlegmatic you can afford to be about the economic consequences of leaving might be. A cliff-edge departure will put many well-paid jobs in manufacturing and other sectors at significant risk. When that reality hits, it's hard to say how people will react and who'll they blame. Most Irish people were poor before independence and they remained so afterwards; they also had strong folk memories of colonial oppression, land seizure and mass starvation.
I remember a fair amount of scorn and derision being directed at Crick when these investigations first started. I think it is worth recognising what a great service he has done the country in exposing these practices.
Why did he focus on only one party? And don't tell me they weren't all at it, that's just not credible.
Because Mark Clarke decided to get his revenge on the Tory party.
The Government will get their revenge when they despatch the whole of C4 to (say) Belfast.
The difference is there is a lot of potential flexibility in being able to define what progress looks like: "if" becomes a key word in such circumstances. Thus, if we can agree such and such, we will pay such and such over such and such a period. It's the kind of thing that the EU does all the time.
In other words, they are talking nonsense when they try to say the exit agreement and the future trading relationship are separate.
As for citizens' rights, two very different accounts of what has happened up to now are floating around. The EU says it made an offer that May rejected. It's a shame the British government will not tell us what offer it made to the EU.
It would actually be far better if, as the PM has suggested, if they stopped trying to negotiate in public and instead disappeared into a smoke-free room and negotiated the outlines of the whole deal. Unfortunately our EU friends don't seem to be willing to do that, which certainly much reduces the chances of a deal which is good for both sides.
The exit agreement and the future trading relationship are separate. Absolutely.
One is cancelling your gym membership and you pay up whatever is due.
The other is getting into a new arrangement to use their facilities. Once out, we can negotiate like Canada, USA, South Korea whatever. We always seem to have this attitude [ hangover from the Empire, I suppose ] that we are very important. We are another country albeit a large economy.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
where are the gains we got from being in ? I cant see a position where our gains outweighed our benefits.
As for social cohesion, pre 2016 that was one of the main factors in the out vote. That you chose to ignore the effects on others parts of society on the grounds it didnt affect you explains to some extent your shock.
Christopher Meyer @SirSocks I voted Remain. But I am revolted by the Remoaners' assumption that Juncker's leak was a true and unbiased account of his dinner with PM.
Macron's new line is vague. If he agrees a reform deal, will he take it to the people? Putting what options on the ballot? And if he doesn't? He's bound to face these questions in Wednesday's TV debate.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
Why should we do what they tell us? Other countries don't.
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
No, that was changed back to the original position by Merkel recently IIRC. It's basically stupid. Blair fell for it once, one hopes May won't fall for it again, or at least make any exit bill payable on the signing of a trade agreement.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
The difference is there is a lot of potential flexibility in being able to define what progress looks like: "if" becomes a key word in such circumstances. Thus, if we can agree such and such, we will pay such and such over such and such a period. It's the kind of thing that the EU does all the time.
In other words, they are talking nonsense when they try to say the exit agreement and the future trading relationship are separate.
As for citizens' rights, two very different accounts of what has happened up to now are floating around. The EU says it made an offer that May rejected. It's a shame the British government will not tell us what offer it made to the EU.
It would actually be far better if, as the PM has suggested, if they stopped trying to negotiate in public and instead disappeared into a smoke-free room and negotiated the outlines of the whole deal. Unfortunately our EU friends don't seem to be willing to do that, which certainly much reduces the chances of a deal which is good for both sides.
The EU's position paper makes complete sense. It's a shame we have to see it as a series of threats.
It was Boris who talked in public about the EU citizens' deal.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I see the North Korea Leave faction is strong today.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
If you're leaking you're losing.
Judging by the frankly ridiculous squawking on here today, that's obviously wrong.
You're right - Scotty/Surby/Willy et al have been like demented chickens scrambling to get their tongues up Merky & Junky's behinds non-stop today.
Mr. Glenn, but the deeper the integration, the greater the pain of disentangling the mingled interests, money, influence, assets and debts once the EU disintegrates.
I do expect civil disturbance and perhaps a small war when the EU collapses, though, of course, I hope any end to the EU will be as calm and peaceful as possible.
Mrs C, their may be barriers to trade with the EU, but those barriers will fall when it comes to the rest of the world. Trade deals will no longer require agreements amongst 28 countries, they can be made purely to suit the British interest.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
Why should we do what they tell us? Other countries don't.
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
No, that was changed back to the original position by Merkel recently IIRC. It's basically stupid. Blair fell for it once, one hopes May won't fall for it again, or at least make any exit bill payable on the signing of a trade agreement.
It's in the position paper the EU27 agreed at the end of last week.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
I work with those people every day, I suspect a factory in wolverhampton is closer to the edge than an office in london
I see the North Korea Leave faction is strong today.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
If you're leaking you're losing.
Judging by the frankly ridiculous squawking on here today, that's obviously wrong.
You're right - Scotty/Surby/Willy et al have been like demented chickens
LOL! Yep, they've been at it all day.
Most of the PB Leavers have been pretty quiet today,
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
Is it even a myth? There are plenty of roads that lead to a more successful UK post Brexit, whether or not Theresa and Phil are able to deliver is a different question entirely, but to say there is no life after the EU is downright stupid. It does show the kind of delusion the EUcrats have though, the answer from the continent is and has always been "EU is best", it is an incredibly insular view, but one that is extremely common among the more ardent EUphiles, you can even see it on this thread.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
where are the gains we got from being in ? I cant see a position where our gains outweighed our benefits.
As for social cohesion, pre 2016 that was one of the main factors in the out vote. That you chose to ignore the effects on others parts of society on the grounds it didnt affect you explains to some extent your shock.
I am not in shock. I have made my decisions and I am doing my best to insulate myself and my family from whichever side (EU or UK) does the worst.
I have as yet seen nothing to change my view that pre-Brexit was worse than post-Brexit, quite the contrary.
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 behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
I don't believe that. But if it is true, they have fatally misjudged the British psyche. We are a proud, stubborn and obstinate people. Perhaps these are grievous faults, but that's the case.
If we Brexit to disaster, we will blame it on the EU (especially after all the shit they're pumping out about United Ireland, Gibraltar etc, it seems actively hostile - ditto "Brexit cannot be a success" - was Juncker drinking when he said that?). And once we've blamed it on the EU, returning to the EU will be utterly impossible for many decades, if not forever.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
Our performance in the 1930s doesn't bode well. No budging from depression until rearmament kicked in. Well, I suppose that could be a route to prosperity.
... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
[emphasis added]
It seems to me the EU is in breach of the Treaty if they refuse to discuss "the framework for [the UK's] future relationship with the Union" until their pre-conditions have been met. Article 50 sensibly stipulates that the parties should agree the "future framework" before negotiating the withdrawal arrangements. Otherwise it cannot be taken into account.
First we decide where we're going, then we work out how to get there.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
I think this ignores some rather important existential questions.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I don't think 'Catholic theocracy' is on the agenda for post-Brexit Britain....
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
I work with those people every day, I suspect a factory in wolverhampton is closer to the edge than an office in london
But you are well-off and protected from the downsides of a cliff-edge Brexit (as am I, of course). It's not your mortgage, your summer holiday, your new car etc on the line.
... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
[emphasis added]
It seems to me the EU is in breach of the Treaty if they refuse to discuss "the framework for [the UK's] future relationship with the Union" until their pre-conditions have been met. Article 50 sensibly stipulates that the parties should agree the "future framework" before negotiating the withdrawal arrangements. Otherwise it cannot be taken into account.
First we decide where we're going, then we work out how to get there.
WE can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
I don't believe that. But if it is true, they have fatally misjudged the British psyche. We are a proud, stubborn and obstinate people. Perhaps these are grievous faults, but that's the case.
If we Brexit to disaster, we will blame it on the EU (especially after all the shit they're pumping out about United Ireland, Gibraltar etc, it seems actively hostile - ditto "Brexit cannot be a success" - was Juncker drinking when he said that?). And once we've blamed it on the EU, returning to the EU will be utterly impossible for many decades, if not forever.
I think the UK and the EU are defining 'success' in different ways, and it's very likely that both will be correct in their own terms.
Yes.
It's important to see that we have differing economic partnerships as well.
Germany 'exports' 64% of it's product to the EU. We export 44%.
The Americans wouldn't consider California selling something to Texas as an export. The EU counts Germany selling to Greece though.
It tries to simultaneously portray itself as a United States and then counts internal trade as exports.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
Not a single Irish person will say it wasn't worth it. In far less time than that the same will be true here.
Mr. Glenn, but the deeper the integration, the greater the pain of disentangling the mingled interests, money, influence, assets and debts once the EU disintegrates.
I do expect civil disturbance and perhaps a small war when the EU collapses, though, of course, I hope any end to the EU will be as calm and peaceful as possible.
Mrs C, their may be barriers to trade with the EU, but those barriers will fall when it comes to the rest of the world. Trade deals will no longer require agreements amongst 28 countries, they can be made purely to suit the British interest.
The League of Nations infringes on the sovereignty of its members. Let it collapse and have a little war.
... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
[emphasis added]
It seems to me the EU is in breach of the Treaty if they refuse to discuss "the framework for [the UK's] future relationship with the Union" until their pre-conditions have been met. Article 50 sensibly stipulates that the parties should agree the "future framework" before negotiating the withdrawal arrangements. Otherwise it cannot be taken into account.
First we decide where we're going, then we work out how to get there.
WE can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I did wonder whether we should do that. It would be amusing if nothing else.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
Sean, at least, you are being honest. Most Brexiters here believe it will be Nirvana.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I don't think 'Catholic theocracy' is on the agenda for post-Brexit Britain....
I do not think 'massive trading success' is either ....
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
where are the gains we got from being in ? I cant see a position where our gains outweighed our benefits.
As for social cohesion, pre 2016 that was one of the main factors in the out vote. That you chose to ignore the effects on others parts of society on the grounds it didnt affect you explains to some extent your shock.
I am not in shock. I have made my decisions and I am doing my best to insulate myself and my family from whichever side (EU or UK) does the worst.
I have as yet seen nothing to change my view that pre-Brexit was worse than post-Brexit, quite the contrary.
you do realise that out there in the big world, most people arent talking about brexit ? Theyre getting on with their lives. Brexit is a political bubble issue for geeks and wonks.
I dont recall discussing brexit with my wife at all in April.
JEREMY Corbyn demanded taxpayers prop up a controversial charity linked to a terror group, The Sun can reveal.
The Labour leader called for the Bank of England to give a bank account to Interpal, an Islamic charity which has been accused of being linked to Palestinian hate group Hamas.
I think the UK and the EU are defining 'success' in different ways, and it's very likely that both will be correct in their own terms.
The EU undoubtedly thinks Brexit is a harmful act and therefore, emotionally, success for them is that Brexit is not a success. In policy terms, I don't think it actually matters. The EU will make a much harder distinction between membership with benefits and obligations and non-membership. As the EU represents the large part of Europe, a "Europe of Nations" is not on offer. Non-members will be very isolated. They were lax on that distinction with Norway and Switzerland because the belief was that these countries were part of a universal trend to EUdom. That belief has been shattered by Brexit.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
As always you present your opinion as fact. All of the above is complete rubbish, just like the rest of your posts.
... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
[emphasis added]
It seems to me the EU is in breach of the Treaty if they refuse to discuss "the framework for [the UK's] future relationship with the Union" until their pre-conditions have been met. Article 50 sensibly stipulates that the parties should agree the "future framework" before negotiating the withdrawal arrangements. Otherwise it cannot be taken into account.
First we decide where we're going, then we work out how to get there.
WE can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I did wonder whether we should do that. It would be amusing if nothing else.
Why shouldn't we go to the ECJ? In Europe we are almost unique in our respect for due process.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
As always you present your opinion as fact. All of the above is complete rubbish, just like the rest of your posts.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
where are the gains we got from being in ? I cant see a position where our gains outweighed our benefits.
As for social cohesion, pre 2016 that was one of the main factors in the out vote. That you chose to ignore the effects on others parts of society on the grounds it didnt affect you explains to some extent your shock.
I am not in shock. I have made my decisions and I am doing my best to insulate myself and my family from whichever side (EU or UK) does the worst.
I have as yet seen nothing to change my view that pre-Brexit was worse than post-Brexit, quite the contrary.
you do realise that out there in the big world, most people arent talking about brexit ? Theyre getting on with their lives. Brexit is a political bubble issue for geeks and wonks.
I dont recall discussing brexit with my wife at all in April.
The ERM was an issue for geeks and wonks until one day when people saw the Chancellor running around like a headless chicken and they realised the potential impact on their own lives. Brexit's black day will come...
I remember a fair amount of scorn and derision being directed at Crick when these investigations first started. I think it is worth recognising what a great service he has done the country in exposing these practices.
Why did he focus on only one party? And don't tell me they weren't all at it, that's just not credible.
Because Mark Clarke decided to get his revenge on the Tory party.
Crick is a pretty poor excuse for a journalist if he's happy to indulge such a thing with a partisan witch-hunt.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
Not a single Irish person will say it wasn't worth it. In far less time than that the same will be true here.
Barely anyone, even in the depths of the 1970s, in Ireland would ever have said "gosh,I wished we'd remained part of the UK because if we had, our GDP might be 20% higher."
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorce and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
I work with those people every day, I suspect a factory in wolverhampton is closer to the edge than an office in london
But you are well-off and protected from the downsides of a cliff-edge Brexit (as am I, of course). It's not your mortgage, your summer holiday, your new car etc on the line.
not in the least, I have my arse stuck out the window with a bank. Some of my employees earn more than I do.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
I work with those people every day, I suspect a factory in wolverhampton is closer to the edge than an office in london
But you are well-off and protected from the downsides of a cliff-edge Brexit (as am I, of course). It's not your mortgage, your summer holiday, your new car etc on the line.
The vote was clear - the consequences remain [sic] to be seen. We've had the soothsayers on all day like Fraser from Dad's Army - time to give it a bit of a rest maybe?
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us.
That's where the logical error is that causes your argument to fail.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
As always you present your opinion as fact. All of the above is complete rubbish, just like the rest of your posts.
Expertly argued :-D
Three options, one including Bhutan? If it was any other poster I'd assume it was tongue in cheek, but with FF43 I know he is deadly serious. Some of the EUphiles have gone completely insane. Not even Alastair Meeks has descended to this level.
Seizing independence from a larger, encompassing political entity is nearly always difficult and costly, but often it is desirable, and ultimately beneficial, nonetheless. People want to govern themselves.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
They joined the EU, which makes them not Sovereign (according to Brexiteers) so that's not really a good example...
... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
[emphasis added]
It seems to me the EU is in breach of the Treaty if they refuse to discuss "the framework for [the UK's] future relationship with the Union" until their pre-conditions have been met. Article 50 sensibly stipulates that the parties should agree the "future framework" before negotiating the withdrawal arrangements. Otherwise it cannot be taken into account.
First we decide where we're going, then we work out how to get there.
WE can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I did wonder whether we should do that. It would be amusing if nothing else.
Why should't we go to the ECJ? In Europe we are almost unique in our respect for due process.
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
No, that was changed back to the original position by Merkel recently IIRC. It's basically stupid. Blair fell for it once, one hopes May won't fall for it again, or at least make any exit bill payable on the signing of a trade agreement.
It's in the position paper the EU27 agreed at the end of last week.
If the UK side insists that trade talks must start simultaneously with the other items, then May & co. may get their wish granted immediately.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
I work with those people every day, I suspect a factory in wolverhampton is closer to the edge than an office in london
But you are well-off and protected from the downsides of a cliff-edge Brexit (as am I, of course). It's not your mortgage, your summer holiday, your new car etc on the line.
The vote was clear - the consequences remain [sic] to be seen. We've had the soothsayers on all day like Fraser from Dad's Army - time to give it a bit of a rest maybe?
We're on a political message board. This is a big political story. We all have views and we are sharing them.
For what it's worth I don't think there are many PB Brexiteers who believe LEAVING will be pain free. Nor do I think people like Hannan or Bojo or Gove were deluded on that point, either
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
As always you present your opinion as fact. All of the above is complete rubbish, just like the rest of your posts.
Expertly argued :-D
Three options, one including Bhutan? If it was any other poster I'd assume it was tongue in cheek, but with FF43 I know he is deadly serious. Some of the EUphiles have gone completely insane. Not even Alastair Meeks has descended to this level.
"Not even Alastair Meeks has descended to this level. " - The lowest insult !
@faisalislam ... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
If the UK side insists that trade talks must start simultaneously with the other items, then May & co. may get their wish granted immediately.
Hard Brexit. No need to wait for 2 years. WTO.
You forgot the bit about 'And an exit payment of €0, no special rights for EU citizens in the UK, no institutional structure for the EU to benefit from our expertise in intelligence & security, and big disruption to the EU's access to capital markets'.
All this may happen; I'm not particularly optimistic that it won't. But, if it does, the blame will quite clearly lie with the EU27, whose position makes no sense.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
As always you present your opinion as fact. All of the above is complete rubbish, just like the rest of your posts.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
I think this ignores some rather important existential questions.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
That's a VERY high bar to set. The Republic of Ireland went into the EEC for the sake of (a) increasing its prosperity and (b) getting away from dependency on us. Leaving the EU, unless it globalises even more, would presumably contradict the second aim; as for the first, however well we might be able to do outside of the EU, they would have the psychological barrier of chucking in the Euro and reviving the Punt to overcome. That, in turn, would also effectively mean admitting that everything they suffered during the Eurozone crisis - including a very sharp spike in unemployment, a property crash and a huge bailout - was entirely avoidable and, therefore, a complete waste of time and resources. That's hard.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
We have gained the right to repeal the said EU law. And the freedom from having more imposed on us.
@faisalislam ... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
Yes, to be fair, we certainly shouldn't assume that the leaked account is necessarily accurate.
let's say that Britain and the EU are at a stand-off and continually agree for the UK to continue on the present basis... does the EU really want the narrative to be constanty talking about Britain's leaving for the next decade?
@faisalislam ... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
I suspect this is the case. Stories get leaked for all sorts of reasons. If you look at the on-the-record, written EU and UK positions there is plenty of room for compromise. Creating a scenario where sides are miles apart and no deal looks possible makes a final deal easier to sell and also makes the dealmakers look rather good.
Mr. 1000, I'm not diminishing the gravity of war. On the contrary, the sooner the EU ends, the less the fall-out of its collapse, and the better the chance of a peaceful, orderly dissolving of the organisation.
The more it integrates, the greater the pain and the conflict when it ends.
The UK being outside the EU is a good thing, and likewise for other nations.
Cyan. I can't see TheWhiteRabbit's comment. I haven't followed the details of these expenses enquiries. Have any of the suspects been arrested? I haven't heard any reports of any arrests. If there are any that were arrested then presumably they are on police bail. Should the CPS elect to charge any suspect on police bail then that suspect will be charged when he answers bail (and presumably then bailed to court). Given that there don't seem to have been reports of arrests I assume that the suspects have mainly (?wholly) attended for police interviews under caution on a voluntary basis i.e they have turned up by appointment. Any such suspect is not on bail and therefore has no fixed date to return. Should the CPS elect to charge any suspect who has merely been interviewed under caution then that suspect is likely to be postal-charged (a charge in the post along with a first court date basically) but the old option of issuing a court summons still exists I think. Given that this is high profile a postal charge isn't going to drop on the doormat unexpectedly. A suspect could be arrested in order to charge them but such an arrest would have to be justified and such would appear unlikely here i.e. arrest in itself is not a necessity in order to charge. Please ignore all of the above in relation to any Scottish cases (different legal system to E&W). The law on police bail changed very recently but these cases presumably all predate that.
It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain.
That's what 'we' think is its sole raison d'etre, but that is a misconception.
No, it's the EUcrat modus operandi. Slowly ratchet up centralisation and threaten economic doom for nations who don't accept. If the latter turns out to be an empty threat then there are a lot of nations who will no longer accept the former.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
I wonder if the poverty of Ireland for most of its post independence period acted as a deterrent to Scottish nationalism
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
No, that was changed back to the original position by Merkel recently IIRC. It's basically stupid. Blair fell for it once, one hopes May won't fall for it again, or at least make any exit bill payable on the signing of a trade agreement.
It's in the position paper the EU27 agreed at the end of last week.
If the UK side insists that trade talks must start simultaneously with the other items, then May & co. may get their wish granted immediately.
Hard Brexit. No need to wait for 2 years. WTO.
It's Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that insists that trade talks - "the framework" - should be negotiated first. Aren't we all bound by it? If the EU can tear up a Treaty when it suits them, where does it end?
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
Sean, at least, you are being honest. Most Brexiters here believe it will be Nirvana.
I've been consistent on this point. Brexit will hurt, and hurt quite badly. It's one reason I havered over my vote. I wrote about Brexit being like childbirth, in the Speccie, as I may have mentioned once or twice. Having babies and bringing up kids is arduous, difficult, and expensive.
For what it's worth I don't think there are many PB Brexiteers who believe LEAVING will be pain free. Nor do I think people like Hannan or Bojo or Gove were deluded on that point, either.
Indeed most posters expected the pain to be much more severe and earlier whichever way they voted. The prophets of doom overdid it from day one - today they just sound shrill masochists.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
I wonder if the poverty of Ireland for most of its post independence period acted as a deterrent to Scottish nationalism
It probably did tbh, Scottish nationalism has really only been successful since the EU gave them a different route and Ireland showed it to be a viable one.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
I work with those people every day, I suspect a factory in wolverhampton is closer to the edge than an office in london
But you are well-off and protected from the downsides of a cliff-edge Brexit (as am I, of course). It's not your mortgage, your summer holiday, your new car etc on the line.
The vote was clear - the consequences remain [sic] to be seen. We've had the soothsayers on all day like Fraser from Dad's Army - time to give it a bit of a rest maybe?
We're on a political message board. This is a big political story. We all have views and we are sharing them.
It's when the views get presented as facts that it gets really boring.
Mr. 1000, I'm not diminishing the gravity of war. On the contrary, the sooner the EU ends, the less the fall-out of its collapse, and the better the chance of a peaceful, orderly dissolving of the organisation.
The more it integrates, the greater the pain and the conflict when it ends.
The UK being outside the EU is a good thing, and likewise for other nations.
Imagine the EU ends tomorrow peacefully, there's a political vacuum in Europe and you're Vladimir Putin. What do you do?
@faisalislam ... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
Like all well-off Brexiteers, you totally dismiss the hardships a cliff-edge will deliver to many millions of people.
I work with those people every day, I suspect a factory in wolverhampton is closer to the edge than an office in london
But you are well-off and protected from the downsides of a cliff-edge Brexit (as am I, of course). It's not your mortgage, your summer holiday, your new car etc on the line.
The vote was clear - the consequences remain [sic] to be seen. We've had the soothsayers on all day like Fraser from Dad's Army - time to give it a bit of a rest maybe?
We're on a political message board. This is a big political story. We all have views and we are sharing them.
It's when the views get presented as facts that it gets really boring.
A handy tip when reading posts is to imagine "I think" in front of what is written. You can even do it with this one ;-)
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
Not a single Irish person will say it wasn't worth it. In far less time than that the same will be true here.
Barely anyone, even in the depths of the 1970s, in Ireland would ever have said "gosh,I wished we'd remained part of the UK because if we had, our GDP might be 20% higher."
I am not disputing that Mr RCS, I am merely pointing out that it took several generations to get over the break with the UK.
When I grew up in the 70s it was an accepted fact that young people in the Republic would emigrate because the RoI economy was so poor.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
Exactly so. And even the freedom to write our own laws in the future is a pretty small matter. How many issues are so unique that Britain needs to do things differently to the rest of the continent?
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
I wonder if the poverty of Ireland for most of its post independence period acted as a deterrent to Scottish nationalism
Ireland has been a recipient of EU funds - what will happen to that post Brexit? How much will it reduce?
Is there a chart for who will switch from net recipients to net payers? I think this will impact the various populations' opinion of the EU.
Comments
Andy Street has apparently spent over £1m on his election for mayor. All perfectly legal, done before the spending limits applied but wow. Cause and effect will be difficult but if he wins spending will presumably have played a part, even if it was only to increase name awareness.
As do the leaks and anecdotes.
The local elections will give a further clue.
Edit: TheWhiteRabbit says they would have to be arrested before being charged. Which one of you is correct? What has happened in the past when charges have been issued under PPERA?
No matter how much you shout unfair, the EU will not change its mind. Yes, Brexit will also hurt them. But because their overall economy is 6 times larger than the UK's , the impact it will feel will be much less.
However, there is an intangible benefit for them also. It provides an example to any future leaver of what may happen to them too. The EU will not make life easy for anyone other than it's citizens and, of course, Ireland, member.
Mr. 43, you sound like a 14th century Byzantine civil servant contemplating trade agreements with Venice and Genoa.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
In a less long winded way, the government has finally fixed the roof, most of the leaks are patched up as well. If we fall out of the single market and the government acts swiftly enough to offset any growth loss which may arise (may being the key word) the value of the single market goes down markedly. Why bother with it if the UK can show there is life after it.
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
One is cancelling your gym membership and you pay up whatever is due.
The other is getting into a new arrangement to use their facilities. Once out, we can negotiate like Canada, USA, South Korea whatever. We always seem to have this attitude [ hangover from the Empire, I suppose ] that we are very important. We are another country albeit a large economy.
As for social cohesion, pre 2016 that was one of the main factors in the out vote. That you chose to ignore the effects on others parts of society on the grounds it didnt affect you explains to some extent your shock.
@SirSocks
I voted Remain. But I am revolted by the Remoaners' assumption that Juncker's leak was a true and unbiased account of his dinner with PM.
It was Boris who talked in public about the EU citizens' deal.
I do expect civil disturbance and perhaps a small war when the EU collapses, though, of course, I hope any end to the EU will be as calm and peaceful as possible.
Mrs C, their may be barriers to trade with the EU, but those barriers will fall when it comes to the rest of the world. Trade deals will no longer require agreements amongst 28 countries, they can be made purely to suit the British interest.
Most of the PB Leavers have been pretty quiet today,
I have as yet seen nothing to change my view that pre-Brexit was worse than post-Brexit, quite the contrary.
... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
[emphasis added]
It seems to me the EU is in breach of the Treaty if they refuse to discuss "the framework for [the UK's] future relationship with the Union" until their pre-conditions have been met. Article 50 sensibly stipulates that the parties should agree the "future framework" before negotiating the withdrawal arrangements. Otherwise it cannot be taken into account.
First we decide where we're going, then we work out how to get there.
No one in Ireland wants to leave the EU or the Euro. It has a higher per capita income that the UK.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
It's important to see that we have differing economic partnerships as well.
Germany 'exports' 64% of it's product to the EU. We export 44%.
The Americans wouldn't consider California selling something to Texas as an export. The EU counts Germany selling to Greece though.
It tries to simultaneously portray itself as a United States and then counts internal trade as exports.
I dont recall discussing brexit with my wife at all in April.
JEREMY Corbyn demanded taxpayers prop up a controversial charity linked to a terror group, The Sun can reveal.
The Labour leader called for the Bank of England to give a bank account to Interpal, an Islamic charity which has been accused of being linked to Palestinian hate group Hamas.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3454760/jeremy-corbyn-demanded-taxpayers-prop-up-controversial-charity-linked-to-hamas/
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
Hard Brexit. No need to wait for 2 years. WTO.
... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
All this may happen; I'm not particularly optimistic that it won't. But, if it does, the blame will quite clearly lie with the EU27, whose position makes no sense.
The more it integrates, the greater the pain and the conflict when it ends.
The UK being outside the EU is a good thing, and likewise for other nations.
I haven't followed the details of these expenses enquiries. Have any of the suspects been arrested? I haven't heard any reports of any arrests. If there are any that were arrested then presumably they are on police bail. Should the CPS elect to charge any suspect on police bail then that suspect will be charged when he answers bail (and presumably then bailed to court).
Given that there don't seem to have been reports of arrests I assume that the suspects have mainly (?wholly) attended for police interviews under caution on a voluntary basis i.e they have turned up by appointment. Any such suspect is not on bail and therefore has no fixed date to return. Should the CPS elect to charge any suspect who has merely been interviewed under caution then that suspect is likely to be postal-charged (a charge in the post along with a first court date basically) but the old option of issuing a court summons still exists I think. Given that this is high profile a postal charge isn't going to drop on the doormat unexpectedly.
A suspect could be arrested in order to charge them but such an arrest would have to be justified and such would appear unlikely here i.e. arrest in itself is not a necessity in order to charge.
Please ignore all of the above in relation to any Scottish cases (different legal system to E&W).
The law on police bail changed very recently but these cases presumably all predate that.
When I grew up in the 70s it was an accepted fact that young people in the Republic would emigrate because the RoI economy was so poor.
Ireland has been a recipient of EU funds - what will happen to that post Brexit? How much will it reduce?
Is there a chart for who will switch from net recipients to net payers? I think this will impact the various populations' opinion of the EU.