Where on earth does this strange idea that Theresa May is in favour of a 'hard' Brexit come from? It seems to be surprisingly widespread. I appreciate that the LibDems and Labour have, in desperation, been trying to push it as an idea, but it's completely and demonstrably wrong. She could have not have been clearer, right from the start, that she wants to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU27, to come into effect on the day we leave, or at least to be agreed as an end-point by then, with transitional arrangement to tide us over. Just look at any speech she's ever made on the subject, or her Article 50 letter, which is the definitive text on her position.
Whether the EU27 want a hard Brexit, with no trade deal, remains to be seen; their position is entirely opaque. But, if we do end up there, it won't be because the UK wants it.
Yes, it's quite transparent that her posturing is a bluff. Why anyone thinks it impresses the EU27 as much as it impresses ex-UKIP voters is a mystery.
The EU's position is also clear: an orderly Brexit, followed by a transition in the single market during which a long term trade deal can be discussed.
Is the problem with Labour's view on the EU not the same as the problem with Labours view on anything right now - that the leadership is utterly ambivalent and the membership and activists are too busy all fighting each other?
A sensible policy might be to respect the vote, but give the government qualified support, i.e. to make sure workers' rights are not regressed. Not helping are a large number of the PLP who seem way more interested in the rights of EU migrants to the UK than the jobs and conditions of their own voters.
....Either we do a deal that will involve the UK making significant concessions; or we don't do a deal and inflict significant harm on ourselves.
What concessions do you think she will, or should, make?
I think she will really struggle to make concessions because she has boxed herself in politically. If it were me, I would be doing all I could to retain as much of our membership of the single market as possible. If that meant finding compromises on free movement, ongoing payments and a role for the ECJ I would do it.
A red, white and blue Brexit, if you like, rather than a White Cliffs of Dover one. I don't think she can do that, though. I think a lot of people are going to be left disappointed. Either we do a deal that will involve the UK making significant concessions; or we don't do a deal and inflict significant harm on ourselves.
Or she already knows from high-level discussions that there cupboard is bare and once the posturing (and the elections) are over they are going to offer us a take-it-or-leave-it on something she has no chance of selling to the country.
Her current positioning serves two purposes, firstly looking like she might walk away might get her something fractionally more saleable, but much more importantly, looking tough but reasonable maximises the chance she will be able to place the blame squarely on the EU when she walks away. Cameron got slaughtered for saying he would walk, and then rolling over and looking like a patsy, I am sure she learned from the lesson.
I think she will really struggle to make concessions because she has boxed herself in politically. If it were me, I would be doing all I could to retain as much of our membership of the single market as possible. If that meant finding compromises on free movement, ongoing payments and a role for the ECJ I would do it.
Our EU friends tell us that compromises on free movement in return for access to the Single Market are not possible. Otherwise I don't think you are too far from Theresa May's position.
In lieu of any exit poll, the 65-70 band might be worth a cover at 8.8. The big cities vote later, I think Macron 60+ is more or less assured, though I wouldn't go staking my life on it...
Where on earth does this strange idea that Theresa May is in favour of a 'hard' Brexit come from? It seems to be surprisingly widespread. I appreciate that the LibDems and Labour have, in desperation, been trying to push it as an idea, but it's completely and demonstrably wrong. She could have not have been clearer, right from the start, that she wants to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU27, to come into effect on the day we leave, or at least to be agreed as an end-point by then, with transitional arrangement to tide us over. Just look at any speech she's ever made on the subject, or her Article 50 letter, which is the definitive text on her position.
Whether the EU27 want a hard Brexit, with no trade deal, remains to be seen; their position is entirely opaque. But, if we do end up there, it won't be because the UK wants it.
Yes, it's quite transparent that her posturing is a bluff. Why anyone thinks it impresses the EU27 as much as it impresses ex-UKIP voters is a mystery.
The EU's position is also clear: an orderly Brexit, followed by a transition in the single market during which a long term trade deal can be discussed.
Everyone accepts that we can't get the final trade deal agreed within two years, and the guidelines state that : "Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply."
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
I think she will really struggle to make concessions because she has boxed herself in politically. If it were me, I would be doing all I could to retain as much of our membership of the single market as possible. If that meant finding compromises on free movement, ongoing payments and a role for the ECJ I would do it.
Our EU friends tell us that compromises on free movement in return for access to the Single Market are not possible. Otherwise I don't think you are too far from Theresa May's position.
If she compromises signficantly on freedom of movement she is a dead woman walking, after all the posturing and promises there is no chance on earth she could walk away from that with her job intact. Graham Brady would need to get his office extended to file all the letters he would receive the next day... ergo the single market is out. This should not be a big surprise, its what she has been saying all along.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
Correct.e circs.
I completely agree. I think there are some very sore souls in Brussels. But mostly these people are entirely irrelevant to the Brexit negotiations.
I hope that's proven out in the end, and also that TMay's position is just electioneering, which they too will understand.
I am that remains to be seen.
I seriously disagree, as does Janet Daley who had this to say in today's Sunday Telegraph:
“The attempt to undermine her was so crass and inept, and such a gross betrayal of common courtesy, that it succeeded in uniting the nation behind her ............ So counter-productive was its effect that I seriously wonder whether the Conservatives would have done as well in the local elections if it had not been for that remarkably stupid intervention from Mr Juncker (which he later compounded by dismissing the English language as a fading influence) ............ Virtually on cue, as if they were being manipulated by Brexit tactical masters, the Brussels establishment had revealed its most unappealing trait. In response to Mrs May’s gracious request for a close and friendly relationship with what she hoped, as she put it in the Lancaster House speech, would be a flourishing EU, she got this outpouring of bile.So an already popular national leader was cast as the would-be victim of a gang of bullies and after a pause to recover from the shock, she was seen to stand up to them in the great British tradition. Well done, Brussels.”
Juncker was not being serious about the English language, as anyone who has watched the full clip of what he said would know. What election result do you believe that "the EU" was seeking to secure by leaking the details of Juncker's meeting to a German language newspaper?
The clip I saw - he really did not appear to be joking.
Where on earth does this strange idea that Theresa May is in favour of a 'hard' Brexit come from? It seems to be surprisingly widespread. I appreciate that the LibDems and Labour have, in desperation, been trying to push it as an idea, but it's completely and demonstrably wrong. She could have not have been clearer, right from the start, that she wants to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU27, to come into effect on the day we leave, or at least to be agreed as an end-point by then, with transitional arrangement to tide us over. Just look at any speech she's ever made on the subject, or her Article 50 letter, which is the definitive text on her position.
Whether the EU27 want a hard Brexit, with no trade deal, remains to be seen; their position is entirely opaque. But, if we do end up there, it won't be because the UK wants it.
Yes, it's quite transparent that her posturing is a bluff. Why anyone thinks it impresses the EU27 as much as it impresses ex-UKIP voters is a mystery.
The EU's position is also clear: an orderly Brexit, followed by a transition in the single market during which a long term trade deal can be discussed.
The EU plan is to obviously interfere in the UK election to allow May to appear strong and fight back against to generate both a massive Tory majority and destroy UKIP after which May ignores the headbangers in her party and arranges softest Brexit.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I think she will really struggle to make concessions because she has boxed herself in politically. If it were me, I would be doing all I could to retain as much of our membership of the single market as possible. If that meant finding compromises on free movement, ongoing payments and a role for the ECJ I would do it.
Our EU friends tell us that compromises on free movement in return for access to the Single Market are not possible. Otherwise I don't think you are too far from Theresa May's position.
What our EU friends say and what they might have ended up delivering are not necessarily the same things.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
Where on earth does this strange idea that Theresa May is in favour of a 'hard' Brexit come from? It seems to be surprisingly widespread. I appreciate that the LibDems and Labour have, in desperation, been trying to push it as an idea, but it's completely and demonstrably wrong. She could have not have been clearer, right from the start, that she wants to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU27, to come into effect on the day we leave, or at least to be agreed as an end-point by then, with transitional arrangement to tide us over. Just look at any speech she's ever made on the subject, or her Article 50 letter, which is the definitive text on her position.
Whether the EU27 want a hard Brexit, with no trade deal, remains to be seen; their position is entirely opaque. But, if we do end up there, it won't be because the UK wants it.
I would say that being outside the Customs Union would be the point at which Brexit becomes a hard Brexit, but I think that May's brinkmanship is at risk of an abrupt WTO term Hard Brexit in March 19.
That was the point that Juncker was making at the infamous dinner. A comprehensive trade deal (never mind other issues like fisheries, debts, financial passporting) could be conducted on that timescale. It is much the same point that Sir Ivan Rogers resigned over. We don't seem to have clicked that both these men are giving sound advice.
My preferred goal would be to be outside the Single Market, but in the customs union. This would prevent a hard border in Ireland and Kent, and meet some of the Scots requests. It may even work for the long term, but a commitment to stay in for the length of the next parliament would give our economy (and theirs) time to adjust to the shocks. Whether the EU would agree, and at what price (either financial, or payment in kind such as fishing rights), I don't know.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
If anyone has £62000 lying around doing nothing, they can make £1369 (minus Betfair's commission) in 12 hours by backing Macron on Betfair at 1.02, assuming the polls and common sense aren't all wrong. Or smaller amounts, proportionately.
I think she will really struggle to make concessions because she has boxed herself in politically. If it were me, I would be doing all I could to retain as much of our membership of the single market as possible. If that meant finding compromises on free movement, ongoing payments and a role for the ECJ I would do it.
Our EU friends tell us that compromises on free movement in return for access to the Single Market are not possible. Otherwise I don't think you are too far from Theresa May's position.
For a person who tries to pass off as very knowledgeable, you do write real tosh sometimes.
Any country in the world has access to the single market. What the EU is saying that you cannot be in the single market without having freedom of movement.
Or she already knows from high-level discussions that there cupboard is bare and once the posturing (and the elections) are over they are going to offer us a take-it-or-leave-it on something she has no chance of selling to the country.
Her current positioning serves two purposes, firstly looking like she might walk away might get her something fractionally more saleable, but much more importantly, looking tough but reasonable maximises the chance she will be able to place the blame squarely on the EU when she walks away. Cameron got slaughtered for saying he would walk, and then rolling over and looking like a patsy, I am sure she learned from the lesson.
Threatening to walk away only works if the other side believes you really don't care AND they are more desperate for a deal than you are. Neither is plausible. Threatening to walk away doesn't make a good more likely; it is almost guaranteed to ensure there is no deal.
Your second point is more telling because I believe Theresa May does think Cameron got it wrong. The problem now is that she will have to do a Grand Old Duke of York because she has boxed herself in. Walking away and blaming it on the EU doesn't work either, except possibly as a short term expedient, because the EU will still be our only gateway to normal relations with our neighbouring countries. It won't drop its demands simply because we have flounced off. Sooner or later Mrs May or her replacement will say, give them what they want and we get on with our lives.
A red, white and blue Brexit, if you like, rather than a White Cliffs of Dover one. I don't think she can do that, though. I think a lot of people are going to be left disappointed. Either we do a deal that will involve the UK making significant concessions; or we don't do a deal and inflict significant harm on ourselves.
Or she already knows from high-level discussions that there cupboard is bare and once the posturing (and the elections) are over they are going to offer us a take-it-or-leave-it on something she has no chance of selling to the country.
Her current positioning serves two purposes, firstly looking like she might walk away might get her something fractionally more saleable, but much more importantly, looking tough but reasonable maximises the chance she will be able to place the blame squarely on the EU when she walks away. Cameron got slaughtered for saying he would walk, and then rolling over and looking like a patsy, I am sure she learned from the lesson.
Their cupboard is bare and we have full of goodies in ours ? Dream on. The only "industry" we had was the financial industry. That is going to be emasculated as well.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
....Either we do a deal that will involve the UK making significant concessions; or we don't do a deal and inflict significant harm on ourselves.
What concessions do you think she will, or should, make?
I think she will really struggle to make concessions because she has boxed herself in politically. If it were me, I would be doing all I could to retain as much of our membership of the single market as possible. If that meant finding compromises on free movement, ongoing payments and a role for the ECJ I would do it.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
If anyone has £62000 lying around doing nothing, they can make £1369 (minus Betfair's commission) in 12 hours by backing Macron on Betfair at 1.02, assuming the polls and common sense aren't all wrong. Or smaller amounts, proportionately.
DYOR though!
Research isn't my problem with this tip, it's the "If anyone has £62k lying around" part...
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
These Tories are really something. Read Richard Nabavi, Fitalass etc. before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought Cameron and Osborne walked on water.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
These Tories are really something. Read Richard Nabavi, Fitalass etc. before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought Cameron and Osborne walked on water.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
What trade deals?
We'd still be bound by the EU treaties until 2019 and the list of countries who would be happy to make an enemy of the EU by signing a deal with us is very short.
74% = low turnout in France. Puts us to shame quite honestly.
We won't get 74% on June 8th.
However to be fair 2nd round spoilt ballots in France are significantly higher than UK general elections which are usually a small fraction of a percent. So the effective turnout is not quite as different as it first appears.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
Thanks. We got the message.
He hates the EU so much that he hopes a Fascist wins. Great !
74% = low turnout in France. Puts us to shame quite honestly.
We won't get 74% on June 8th.
However to be fair 2nd round spoilt ballots in France are significantly higher than UK general elections which are usually a small fraction of a percent. So the effective turnout is not quite as different as it first appears.
These Tories are really something. Read Richard Nabavi, Fitalass etc. before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought Cameron and Osborne walked on water.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
On the other hand you could have read other Tories like SeanT, Indigo, Mortimer, MaxPB, Sandpit etc before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought that Cameron was an arsehead that hadnt the slightest chance of delivering what he promised. I beleive the words "come back with a little bit of tinsel and make out like its a big deal" might have been used on a number of occasions.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
Where on earth does this strange idea that Theresa May is in favour of a 'hard' Brexit come from? It seems to be surprisingly widespread. I appreciate that the LibDems and Labour have, in desperation, been trying to push it as an idea, but it's completely and demonstrably wrong. She could have not have been clearer, right from the start, that she wants to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU27, to come into effect on the day we leave, or at least to be agreed as an end-point by then, with transitional arrangement to tide us over. Just look at any speech she's ever made on the subject, or her Article 50 letter, which is the definitive text on her position.
Whether the EU27 want a hard Brexit, with no trade deal, remains to be seen; their position is entirely opaque. But, if we do end up there, it won't be because the UK wants it.
I would say that being outside the Customs Union would be the point at which Brexit becomes a hard Brexit, but I think that May's brinkmanship is at risk of an abrupt WTO term Hard Brexit in March 19.
That's a bit (a lot?) of a straw man definition of "hard brexit". Being in the customs union would mean we were unable to make third party trade deals. There is, in fact, no point in leaving the EU and remaining in the customs union. Don't forget that customs unions are protectionist arrangements, not free-trade ones.
74% = low turnout in France. Puts us to shame quite honestly.
We won't get 74% on June 8th.
However to be fair 2nd round spoilt ballots in France are significantly higher than UK general elections which are usually a small fraction of a percent. So the effective turnout is not quite as different as it first appears.
An active abstention shows someone could be bothered. I had 7 blank ballots at my count out of about 4000 ballots.
74% = low turnout in France. Puts us to shame quite honestly.
We won't get 74% on June 8th.
However to be fair 2nd round spoilt ballots in France are significantly higher than UK general elections which are usually a small fraction of a percent. So the effective turnout is not quite as different as it first appears.
Why so many? Protest?
Yes.
Also when you take into account our system isn't a direct vote, so many people live in constituencies where there's not a huge point in voting, the difference isn't quite as shocking as it seems.
These Tories are really something. Read Richard Nabavi, Fitalass etc. before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought Cameron and Osborne walked on water.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
Respect to Scott_P and TSE - they at least seem to have some principles unlike these vacuous turncoats!
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
What is anti-democratic is that you are apparently only allowed one opinion about whether to be in the EU or not. A rational EU would understand that countries will sometimes want to leave (after all, enough have joined) and expect to make a mutually beneficial arrangement.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
What trade deals?
We'd still be bound by the EU treaties until 2019 and the list of countries who would be happy to make an enemy of the EU by signing a deal with us is very short.
You seem to be saying that we have already agreed a transitional deal.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
Good luck trying to get that nonsense position to be accepted outside of people who think the EU is just spiffing.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
What trade deals?
We'd still be bound by the EU treaties until 2019 and the list of countries who would be happy to make an enemy of the EU by signing a deal with us is very short.
You seem to be saying that we have already agreed a transitional deal.
No, I'm saying that if we repealed the European Communities Act tomorrow we would still be internationally bound by the treaties of the EU until the expiry of the A50 period in 2019 so we'd be left in limbo.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
Good luck trying to get that nonsense position to be accepted outside of people who think the EU is just spiffing.
What's the alternative my friend? This nonsense position is probably the best we can hope for.
What concessions do you think she will, or should, make? And what should she expect in return?
There's a deal to be made.
We want: (1) Continuity of access to the European markets. We also want continued common regulation and institutions as these unlock opportunities for us not only in the EU, although we are not as explicit about that. (2) Replacement deep and broad relationship similar to CETA that doesn't require FoM, EU laws and ECJ jurisdiction and minimal or no payments. Ideally we get this before Brexit so it also includes our first requriement. (FTA requirement)
The EU wants: (1) An orderly and phased withdrawal of the UK from the EU. (2) EU citizens resident in the UK maintain residency and acquired rights while in the UK after Brexit. (3) Compensation for the harm done to the EU by Brexit.
Continuity of access is not the same as phased withdrawal, but it is similar initially before the withdrawal kicks in. Negotiations here over level of access and for how long.
The EU aren't interested in offering an FTA before Brexit. It is not realistically achievable anyway. A commitment to having one at some point and its broad outline are worth having.
The UK claim they also want to settle the residency issue. More accurately it sees it as a useful bargaining counter it doesn't care too much about. The issue here, as it will be for the FTA, when we get onto it, is the supremacy of laws issue. Baldly, how can EU law be effectively implemented and applied in the UK in the same way as in the EU, while maintaining the UK's sovereignty? If I were the UK negotiators, I would aim to simplify the EU's proposal: a guarantee of non-discrimination between UK citizens and EU citizens resident for five years in the UK before Brexit for the lifetime of those citizens. The same applying to UK citizens in the EU. Accrued rights are paid out of a common fund managed on an actuarial basis similar to a pension fund.
Money. Here it's more a question of how the money gets paid than how much. I would aim to shift more of the compensation to extending continuity of access and less on a lump sum exit fee. The compensation makes continuity valuable to the EU party so they are more likely to extend it.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
Good luck trying to get that nonsense position to be accepted outside of people who think the EU is just spiffing.
Good luck with sustaining a strategy of blaming the EU for the disastrous effects of a hard Brexit. I am afraid genuine patriots do not actively seek outcomes that will have negative consequences for millions of their fellow citizens. I remember a time when we all waved Union Jacks and thought the Iraq invasion was a great idea. Then we changed our minds.
Where on earth does this strange idea that Theresa May is in favour of a 'hard' Brexit come from? It seems to be surprisingly widespread. I appreciate that the LibDems and Labour have, in desperation, been trying to push it as an idea, but it's completely and demonstrably wrong. She could have not have been clearer, right from the start, that she wants to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU27, to come into effect on the day we leave, or at least to be agreed as an end-point by then, with transitional arrangement to tide us over. Just look at any speech she's ever made on the subject, or her Article 50 letter, which is the definitive text on her position.
Whether the EU27 want a hard Brexit, with no trade deal, remains to be seen; their position is entirely opaque. But, if we do end up there, it won't be because the UK wants it.
I would say that being outside the Customs Union would be the point at which Brexit becomes a hard Brexit, but I think that May's brinkmanship is at risk of an abrupt WTO term Hard Brexit in March 19.
That's a bit (a lot?) of a straw man definition of "hard brexit". Being in the customs union would mean we were unable to make third party trade deals. There is, in fact, no point in leaving the EU and remaining in the customs union. Don't forget that customs unions are protectionist arrangements, not free-trade ones.
What would be your definition of Hard Brexit?
Tusk said there is only Brexit and no Brexit back in October.
Leaving the customs union in 22 months would be chaotic, and destructive.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
Good luck trying to get that nonsense position to be accepted outside of people who think the EU is just spiffing.
What's the alternative my friend? This nonsense position is probably the best we can hope for.
Exactly as Mrs May is doing - calling out the EU for being monomaniacal about 'Brexit cannot be a success' and ensuring they're scared witless by her ability to not only walk away from the talks do so with the support of the country.
Telling the truth about the EU is patriotic and democratic. It is also just plain common sense.
This is the main reason that Mrs May is riding high in the polls. The knots that various Labour factions and Tim 'Eurosceptic' Farron tie themselves in is the reason they're both floundering.
Is the problem with Labour's view on the EU not the same as the problem with Labours view on anything right now - that the leadership is utterly ambivalent and the membership and activists are too busy all fighting each other?
A sensible policy might be to respect the vote, but give the government qualified support, i.e. to make sure workers' rights are not regressed. Not helping are a large number of the PLP who seem way more interested in the rights of EU migrants to the UK than the jobs and conditions of their own voters.
It's a very interesting read, and well written. However I have a question about an assumption that you make regarding one of the possible outcomes.
If there was a second EU referendum AND the result was "REMAIN", what legal and political evidence is there that the EU would even let us stay in?
From their point of view we have been the awkward squad for so long, and done the unthinkable and voted to leave. We could do it again. Better to just get rid of us once and for all. In fact, some of our EU "friends" would probably take great delight in saying "NO".
Yes, I know that there have been referendums in EU countries that gave the "wrong" result and were re-run or simply ignored, but never on anything so serious as leaving the EU.
ICM poll details: They ask for certainty to vote - Table 2. It uses this in Table 4 where the VI is shown.
But only those definitely not voting or said WNV are excluded. Therefore, those certain to vote [ 1....9 ] are included. Are they weighted accordingly. If not, what's the point ?
Where on earth does this strange idea that Theresa May is in favour of a 'hard' Brexit come from? It seems to be surprisingly widespread. I appreciate that the LibDems and Labour have, in desperation, been trying to push it as an idea, but it's completely and demonstrably wrong. She could have not have been clearer, right from the start, that she wants to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU27, to come into effect on the day we leave, or at least to be agreed as an end-point by then, with transitional arrangement to tide us over. Just look at any speech she's ever made on the subject, or her Article 50 letter, which is the definitive text on her position.
Whether the EU27 want a hard Brexit, with no trade deal, remains to be seen; their position is entirely opaque. But, if we do end up there, it won't be because the UK wants it.
I would say that being outside the Customs Union would be the point at which Brexit becomes a hard Brexit, but I think that May's brinkmanship is at risk of an abrupt WTO term Hard Brexit in March 19.
That's a bit (a lot?) of a straw man definition of "hard brexit". Being in the customs union would mean we were unable to make third party trade deals. There is, in fact, no point in leaving the EU and remaining in the customs union. Don't forget that customs unions are protectionist arrangements, not free-trade ones.
What would be your definition of Hard Brexit?
Tusk said there is only Brexit and no Brexit back in October.
Leaving the customs union in 22 months would be chaotic, and destructive.
My opinion is: there is only Brexit. Soft Brexit is a chimaera, a Leaver fantasy. No more.
Of course a transitional arrangement would not be unthinkable but it is surely open to us to continue to import EU products without charging tariffs or imposing additional regulation.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
I would suggest the number of millenials supporting a hard Brexit living in Oxford...you could probably fit into a single taxi....
In Mortimer's imagination, a different picture...but not one worthy of you responding to SO..
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
What trade deals?
We'd still be bound by the EU treaties until 2019 and the list of countries who would be happy to make an enemy of the EU by signing a deal with us is very short.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
The way the EU is treating us? It's crazy the way that people believe the hype and spin. Either that or the British people are just nesh.
Good luck with sustaining a strategy of blaming the EU for the disastrous effects of a hard Brexit. I am afraid genuine patriots do not actively seek outcomes that will have negative consequences for millions of their fellow citizens. I remember a time when we all waved Union Jacks and thought the Iraq invasion was a great idea. Then we changed our minds.
But this is about politics not patriotism. The question is what deal can May do with the EU that wont result in losing her job the moment she proposes it, or getting annihilated in the 2022 election. If it doesnt fulfil those basic criteria it wont get considered.
That is why she will walk and blame the EU, the hit will happen early, and wont be as bad as the doom sayers say, and there will be 5 years of Corbyn before the next election, by which time a couple of trade deals will have been done, even if with smaller countries, which will be enough good news to enable her to kick the can far enough down the road to get re-elected.
So the headlines from today are John "I'm not a Marxist, despite saying it on camera only a few years ago" and Mrs Bucket sneering at voters.
One shakes ones head at these odious people. If there was any worse way to run an election plan, it cant be much worse than this. These idiots haven't a clue.
These Tories are really something. Read Richard Nabavi, Fitalass etc. before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought Cameron and Osborne walked on water.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
Respect to Scott_P and TSE - they at least seem to have some principles unlike these vacuous turncoats!
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
Fascinating that the talk has turned to May doing a Cameron. What is it about the Tory party that allows its leaders to get away with failure?
These Tories are really something. Read Richard Nabavi, Fitalass etc. before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought Cameron and Osborne walked on water.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
Respect to Scott_P and TSE - they at least seem to have some principles unlike these vacuous turncoats!
That is indeed correct. The about-turns; you have to watch it in ultra slow motion. It happened so fast.
In a sense, it is still a feudal party. Follow the leader, right or wrong. Not like some of us who calls his leader a moron.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
What trade deals?
We'd still be bound by the EU treaties until 2019 and the list of countries who would be happy to make an enemy of the EU by signing a deal with us is very short.
You seem to be saying that we have already agreed a transitional deal.
No, I'm saying that if we repealed the European Communities Act tomorrow we would still be internationally bound by the treaties of the EU until the expiry of the A50 period in 2019 so we'd be left in limbo.
Therefore we are in transition already and have an initial transitional arrangement in place assuming the treaties are binding in both directions.
We can spend our time talking or we can spend our time preparing. Or we can do both simultaneously.
Good luck with sustaining a strategy of blaming the EU for the disastrous effects of a hard Brexit. I am afraid genuine patriots do not actively seek outcomes that will have negative consequences for millions of their fellow citizens. I remember a time when we all waved Union Jacks and thought the Iraq invasion was a great idea. Then we changed our minds.
But this is about politics not patriotism. The question is what deal can May do with the EU that wont result in losing her job the moment she proposes it, or getting annihilated in the 2022 election. If it doesnt fulfil those basic criteria it wont get considered.
That is why she will walk and blame the EU, the hit will happen early, and wont be as bad as the doom sayers say, and there will be 5 years of Corbyn before the next election, by which time a couple of trade deals will have been done, even if with smaller countries, which will be enough good news to enable her to kick the can far enough down the road to get re-elected.
I agree - it is absolutely about politics and very little about what is actually in the country's best interests. I wouldn't count on Corbyn, though.
So the headlines from today are John "I'm not a Marxist, despite saying it on camera only a few years ago" and Mrs Bucket sneering at voters.
One shakes ones head at these odious people. If there was any worse way to run an election plan, it cant be much worse than this. These idiots haven't a clue.
When the revolution comes in a few weeks, they will be running the country...or so twitter tells me.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
Thanks. We got the message.
He hates the EU so much that he hopes a Fascist wins. Great !
The point being that he has been an anti-Fascist and fervently pro-EU all his life. And when I say an anti-Fascist, I do not mean he says he is one before hanging out with Holocaust deniers or cheering on Hamas. That's how angry he is. It is a genuinely sobering turn of events. It would be the equivalent of you disowning Corbyn and admitting Abbott is insane.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
What trade deals?
We'd still be bound by the EU treaties until 2019 and the list of countries who would be happy to make an enemy of the EU by signing a deal with us is very short.
You seem to be saying that we have already agreed a transitional deal.
No, I'm saying that if we repealed the European Communities Act tomorrow we would still be internationally bound by the treaties of the EU until the expiry of the A50 period in 2019 so we'd be left in limbo.
Therefore we are in transition already and have an initial transitional arrangement in place presuming the treaties are binding in both directions.
We can spend our time talking or we can spend our time preparing. Or we can do both simultaneously.
Yes, it's another way of saying that the clock is ticking.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
Your father hasn't thought it through. We crash out but there will be no deal with the EU, or practically speaking with the main countries in Europe, the continent we happen to be part of. We will be outside our natural market that makes up 50% of out trade. There will be absolutely no prospect of an "enhanced EFTA deal later". It seriously hampers our efforts to develop relations outside of the EU. Is that what people really want? Is it what Theresa May really wants?. We always have a choice.
Any sign of Moniker? Is s/he still calling this one for his/her nasty little fascist friend?
She wants wealth taxes, higher social spending, limited working hours, worker control of companies, tariffs. Sounds like a leftie to me, not a fascist.
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
That might be a mistake. I think she will walk. I dont think they will give her enough to sell to the country, and she is not about to commit suicide like Cameron did.
I agree. She will put her own position first and then seek to blame any collapse on the EU. You can see the ground being prepared for that now. It will probably work for a while, as well. The issue, though, is that it is not a sustainable strategy. Having waved the flag and blamed the duplicitous foreigners, what happens then?
The question then is when will she walk? If the talks break down early and she walks we'll be in for months of chaos while still in the EU and apparently planning for an immediate hard Brexit. The odds are that she'll be back at the table before we leave.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
Or she walks, and uses her huge majority to repeal the European Communities Act (1972) and we are out immediately. If we are neither going to give anything or get anything, there is no point in sitting around, might as well get on with those trade deals.
What trade deals?
We'd still be bound by the EU treaties until 2019 and the list of countries who would be happy to make an enemy of the EU by signing a deal with us is very short.
You seem to be saying that we have already agreed a transitional deal.
No, I'm saying that if we repealed the European Communities Act tomorrow we would still be internationally bound by the treaties of the EU until the expiry of the A50 period in 2019 so we'd be left in limbo.
Therefore we are in transition already and have an initial transitional arrangement in place presuming the treaties are binding in both directions.
We can spend our time talking or we can spend our time preparing. Or we can do both simultaneously.
Yes, it's another way of saying that the clock is ticking.
These Tories are really something. Read Richard Nabavi, Fitalass etc. before June 23rd 2016 and you would have thought Cameron and Osborne walked on water.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
What utter garbage. I've repeatedly made clear that I'm not a huge fan of Theresa May, and that I think that she will prove nothing like as good a PM as Cameron. But we shall see, I keep an open mind, on that as on every other issue.
However, on the narrow but very important issue of her Brexit position, I think she's got it right. Not that that is particularly difficult; her position is simple common sense.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
I can understand this - I've been pretty shocked how many of my Millennial friends have swung behind Hard Brexit in the past few weeks. The combination of respecting democracy and the way the EU are treating us really impacts on the average voter - sometimes wonder if the only EU-philes left are on here.
Wanting the UK to get a good deal that keeps us as far into the single market as possible while allowing us to leave the EU is not being EU-phile, it is being pro-British. Talking nonsense about the EU seeking to undermine British democracy is not patriotic, it is destructive and makes it more likely that millions of Britons will end up enduring a long period of economic uncertainty and declining living standards.
Good luck trying to get that nonsense position to be accepted outside of people who think the EU is just spiffing.
Good luck with sustaining a strategy of blaming the EU for the disastrous effects of a hard Brexit. I am afraid genuine patriots do not actively seek outcomes that will have negative consequences for millions of their fellow citizens. I remember a time when we all waved Union Jacks and thought the Iraq invasion was a great idea. Then we changed our minds.
I can absolutely promise you we didn't all do anything of the kind.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37650077
http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/
Her current positioning serves two purposes, firstly looking like she might walk away might get her something fractionally more saleable, but much more importantly, looking tough but reasonable maximises the chance she will be able to place the blame squarely on the EU when she walks away. Cameron got slaughtered for saying he would walk, and then rolling over and looking like a patsy, I am sure she learned from the lesson.
Here is what I mean
https://twitter.com/shababaty/status/861263108651855872
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29-euco-brexit-guidelines/
FF43 has written very precisely how the talks are sequenced to lock down this outcome. Short of going to war, it's not clear what May could do to prevent this result. Certainly her threats of walking away are not seen as credible.
I was speaking to my father earlier. He's an ardent Europhile. Works with lots of EU agencies on vaccines and disease control. Spends a lot of time in the EU. Absolutely devastated when Britain voted leave - given it came so soon after my mother's death, I was actually really worried about him and made a point of getting down that weekend to visit him to try and cheer him up.
After Juncker's behaviour, he says that he wants the EU to be told they can shove their demands, go for Hard Brexit, possibly going back in on a sort of enhanced EFTA deal later when Juncker has been sacked (or preferably, sectioned). He believes that the Commission have proven they are acting in bad faith and someone needs to stand up to them.
It's also swung him round to hoping Marine Le Pen wins, to give the EU a bloody nose.
To give you some idea of how shocked I still am, it's the equivalent of hearing the Pope has conducted a same sex marriage - to his lover - while Adolf Hitler discourses on all the mighty virtues and achievements of the Jewish race that he admires so much. I exaggerate only very slightly.
I don't know whether Juncker was deliberately sabotaging talks, but if my father's reaction is in any way typical he's managed it whether that was his intention or not.
Also the audience reaction was telling.
That was the point that Juncker was making at the infamous dinner. A comprehensive trade deal (never mind other issues like fisheries, debts, financial passporting) could be conducted on that timescale. It is much the same point that Sir Ivan Rogers resigned over. We don't seem to have clicked that both these men are giving sound advice.
My preferred goal would be to be outside the Single Market, but in the customs union. This would prevent a hard border in Ireland and Kent, and meet some of the Scots requests. It may even work for the long term, but a commitment to stay in for the length of the next parliament would give our economy (and theirs) time to adjust to the shocks. Whether the EU would agree, and at what price (either financial, or payment in kind such as fishing rights), I don't know.
Alternatively if she leaves it too late, the cost of walking will go up.
DYOR though!
Were Le Pen to lose I will in no way troll the Leavers by headlining the piece
'Bad news for Leavers as their preferred choice the fascist loses the second round of the French Presidential election'
Any country in the world has access to the single market. What the EU is saying that you cannot be in the single market without having freedom of movement.
The two are not the same.
Your second point is more telling because I believe Theresa May does think Cameron got it wrong. The problem now is that she will have to do a Grand Old Duke of York because she has boxed herself in. Walking away and blaming it on the EU doesn't work either, except possibly as a short term expedient, because the EU will still be our only gateway to normal relations with our neighbouring countries. It won't drop its demands simply because we have flounced off. Sooner or later Mrs May or her replacement will say, give them what they want and we get on with our lives.
We won't get 74% on June 8th.
Make of that what you will, as its conjecture. The French authorities have made it clear, no reliable estimate before 7.45 local time.
Now, they have been discarded and fragrance comes out of May's arse.
C.f. 82% in a third world 'banana republic' country like Sri Lanka.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4482148/Emily-Thornberry-says-voters-hair.html
So the headlines from today are John "I'm not a Marxist, despite saying it on camera only a few years ago" and Mrs Bucket sneering at voters.
He hates the EU so much that he hopes a Fascist wins. Great !
Also when you take into account our system isn't a direct vote, so many people live in constituencies where there's not a huge point in voting, the difference isn't quite as shocking as it seems.
Farage is stronger than Le Pen, though I think she is superior to Nuttall.
They are strict subtractions.
We want:
(1) Continuity of access to the European markets. We also want continued common regulation and institutions as these unlock opportunities for us not only in the EU, although we are not as explicit about that.
(2) Replacement deep and broad relationship similar to CETA that doesn't require FoM, EU laws and ECJ jurisdiction and minimal or no payments. Ideally we get this before Brexit so it also includes our first requriement. (FTA requirement)
The EU wants:
(1) An orderly and phased withdrawal of the UK from the EU.
(2) EU citizens resident in the UK maintain residency and acquired rights while in the UK after Brexit.
(3) Compensation for the harm done to the EU by Brexit.
Continuity of access is not the same as phased withdrawal, but it is similar initially before the withdrawal kicks in. Negotiations here over level of access and for how long.
The EU aren't interested in offering an FTA before Brexit. It is not realistically achievable anyway. A commitment to having one at some point and its broad outline are worth having.
The UK claim they also want to settle the residency issue. More accurately it sees it as a useful bargaining counter it doesn't care too much about. The issue here, as it will be for the FTA, when we get onto it, is the supremacy of laws issue. Baldly, how can EU law be effectively implemented and applied in the UK in the same way as in the EU, while maintaining the UK's sovereignty? If I were the UK negotiators, I would aim to simplify the EU's proposal: a guarantee of non-discrimination between UK citizens and EU citizens resident for five years in the UK before Brexit for the lifetime of those citizens. The same applying to UK citizens in the EU. Accrued rights are paid out of a common fund managed on an actuarial basis similar to a pension fund.
Money. Here it's more a question of how the money gets paid than how much. I would aim to shift more of the compensation to extending continuity of access and less on a lump sum exit fee. The compensation makes continuity valuable to the EU party so they are more likely to extend it.
Tusk said there is only Brexit and no Brexit back in October.
Leaving the customs union in 22 months would be chaotic, and destructive.
Party PS UMP
Popular vote 18,000,668 16,860,685
Percentage 51.6% 48.4%
Telling the truth about the EU is patriotic and democratic. It is also just plain common sense.
This is the main reason that Mrs May is riding high in the polls. The knots that various Labour factions and Tim 'Eurosceptic' Farron tie themselves in is the reason they're both floundering.
If there was a second EU referendum AND the result was "REMAIN", what legal and political evidence is there that the EU would even let us stay in?
From their point of view we have been the awkward squad for so long, and done the unthinkable and voted to leave. We could do it again. Better to just get rid of us once and for all. In fact, some of our EU "friends" would probably take great delight in saying "NO".
Yes, I know that there have been referendums in EU countries that gave the "wrong" result and were re-run or simply ignored, but never on anything so serious as leaving the EU.
But only those definitely not voting or said WNV are excluded. Therefore, those certain to vote [ 1....9 ] are included. Are they weighted accordingly. If not, what's the point ?
Of course a transitional arrangement would not be unthinkable but it is surely open to us to continue to import EU products without charging tariffs or imposing additional regulation.
In Mortimer's imagination, a different picture...but not one worthy of you responding to SO..
First time that I've agreed with you!
That is why she will walk and blame the EU, the hit will happen early, and wont be as bad as the doom sayers say, and there will be 5 years of Corbyn before the next election, by which time a couple of trade deals will have been done, even if with smaller countries, which will be enough good news to enable her to kick the can far enough down the road to get re-elected.
In a sense, it is still a feudal party. Follow the leader, right or wrong. Not like some of us who calls his leader a moron.
We can spend our time talking or we can spend our time preparing. Or we can do both simultaneously.
However, on the narrow but very important issue of her Brexit position, I think she's got it right. Not that that is particularly difficult; her position is simple common sense.