< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning. All the confusion is on our side as our witless ministers try to assemble an ala carte meal that is not available.
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
As "Blimp" himself says "you mock my moustache, but don't know why I wear it!" The film explains why...
Is it because he is bigoted?
On the contrary, Blimp is very fairminded to his enemies whenever he meets them. Indeed a large part of the films message (released 1943) is that those sorts of gentlemans rules are obselete in total war.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning. All the confusion is on our side as our witless ministers try to assemble an ala carte meal that is not available.
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
Then why are they negotiating at all? Why not just say, 'OK, thanks, bye?' Why this figure of £60 billion or the attempts to get the ECJ to have jurisdiction in Britain?
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
That seems more plausible and I certainly agree with the last sentence.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
For them no, but for us it would have confirmed why we left.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
Agree with this, I think it's the EU side that has not got a clue.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning. All the confusion is on our side as our witless ministers try to assemble an ala carte meal that is not available.
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
Then why are they negotiating at all? Why not just say, 'OK, thanks, bye?' Why this figure of £60 billion or the attempts to get the ECJ to have jurisdiction in Britain?
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
That seems more plausible and I certainly agree with the last sentence.
They are negotiating the mechanism of Brexit, we are attempting to negotiate the destination (albeit not knowing which way we want to go ourselves!). That is the fundamental disconnect.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning.
Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit".
As "Blimp" himself says "you mock my moustache, but don't know why I wear it!" The film explains why...
Is it because he is bigoted?
On the contrary, Blimp is very fairminded to his enemies whenever he meets them. Indeed a large part of the films message (released 1943) is that those sorts of gentlemans rules are obselete in total war. ¿ Did the joke fall flat ?
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Oh please give it a rest, you sound more ridiculous everyday
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Interestingly, despite Leave propaganda food imports from outside the EU often have zero tariffs due to various EU deals - not only FTAs but also preferential access development deals with the poorest countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, all of that would go.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Not correct. In the late 1990s and into the 2000s we could have fed ourselves. After that came the Rural Farm Payments Agency. We could still do it but it might take a while.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning.
Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit".
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Interestingly, despite Leave propaganda food imports from outside the EU often have zero tariffs due to various EU deals - not only FTAs but also preferential access development deals with the poorest countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, all of that would go.
You must have been very deeply hurt by the result of this referendum. I'm not sorry it happened but I am sorry it seems to have affected you in the way that it has.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Interestingly, despite Leave propaganda food imports from outside the EU often have zero tariffs due to various EU deals - not only FTAs but also preferential access development deals with the poorest countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, all of that would go.
You must have been very deeply hurt by the result of this referendum. I'm not sorry it happened but I am sorry it seems to have affected you in the way that it has.
Imagine having the outlook on life that some of these posters have, must be awful
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Interestingly, despite Leave propaganda food imports from outside the EU often have zero tariffs due to various EU deals - not only FTAs but also preferential access development deals with the poorest countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, all of that would go.
You must have been very deeply hurt by the result of this referendum. I'm not sorry it happened but I am sorry it seems to have affected you in the way that it has.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Interestingly, despite Leave propaganda food imports from outside the EU often have zero tariffs due to various EU deals - not only FTAs but also preferential access development deals with the poorest countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, all of that would go.
I don't think that true. I expect that in the immediate aftermath of hard Brexit (now 18 months away) we will not impose import tariffs on food. Partly this will be policy, but also we will simply not have the customs infrastructure to implement tariffs.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
Agree with this, I think it's the EU side that has not got a clue.
I agree that the EU side do not want an agreement. The best way not to get an agreement is to attack and insult the other side through the media. It is noticeable that all the attack lines come from the EU side of the negotiation. The UK negotiators are not saying anything derogatory about their EU counterparts. No deal seems to me almost inevitable under these circumstances when one side is working so hard to attack the other.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning.
Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit".
I have not seen anything from any senior EU leader that contradicts the position.
Out of interest how do you know how the negotiations are going? You and others keep telling us that our people have not got a clue, they are useless etc whilst the EU side are frustrated with us, they are brilliant and hold all the cards.
Excuse me for asking but you are a consultant in the medical field I believe, so who is keeping you up to speed with how it is really going?
Truth is you have no idea how it is going, and nor do I. Robert does have an insight and has been told things are progressing, think I would much rather trust his word than the doom merchants on here.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
Isn't it rather that we become more reluctant to buy their newly expensive products?
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
There is always a chance that Brexit will lead to a plague of locusts and eat all our food.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Interestingly, despite Leave propaganda food imports from outside the EU often have zero tariffs due to various EU deals - not only FTAs but also preferential access development deals with the poorest countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, all of that would go.
You must have been very deeply hurt by the result of this referendum. I'm not sorry it happened but I am sorry it seems to have affected you in the way that it has.
Well I don't want to become an object of pity but thanks.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Not correct. In the late 1990s and into the 2000s we could have fed ourselves. After that came the Rural Farm Payments Agency. We could still do it but it might take a while.
Who was that dopey French bint who said "let them eat fish"? Hold on, it wasn't fish it was cake wasn't it. Is she still an MEP?
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
Surely not! Imports are paid for in foreign currency. A lower exchange rate just means imports are more costly domestically. Unless you think that the world is going to run out of dollars and euros etc then this will not impede our ability to import food.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
All true. There'd be more Remain --> Leave than Leave --> Remain switchers I reckon - it'd be a simple matter for Vote Leave 2.0 to compare and contrast what Remain said would happen to the economy with what's actually happened.
All this gets a part of me quite liking the idea of a second referendum, because winning again with a bigger margin would be pretty damn sweet. However, actually holding a second referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process first time round, so I'd rather not.
You seem to be missing the point that the next referendum will take place when what was said about the economy will largely be happening.
My brother runs a restaurant in the Home Counties, and voted Leave, influenced (it seemed to me) by the views of many of his regular customers. Now, his mostly Eastern European staff are wanting to return home, and his food costs a significant amount more; in a second vote he would vote remain in a heartbeat. He already says he didn't expect Leave to win and it was supposed to be just a protest vote.
For most people, the economy will be a bit dismal, but no disaster, as it's been since Q2 2010.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning.
Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit".
I have not seen anything from any senior EU leader that contradicts the position.
Out of interest how do you know how the negotiations are going? You and others keep telling us that our people have not got a clue, they are useless etc whilst the EU side are frustrated with us, they are brilliant and hold all the cards.
Excuse me for asking but you are a consultant in the medical field I believe, so who is keeping you up to speed with how it is really going?
Truth is you have no idea how it is going, and nor do I. Robert does have an insight and has been told things are progressing, think I would much rather trust his word than the doom merchants on here.
I am indeed a provincial doctor, and Yokel has a pizza delivery business. We both have other sources!
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning.
Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit".
I have not seen anything from any senior EU leader that contradicts the position.
Out of interest how do you know how the negotiations are going? You and others keep telling us that our people have not got a clue, they are useless etc whilst the EU side are frustrated with us, they are brilliant and hold all the cards.
Excuse me for asking but you are a consultant in the medical field I believe, so who is keeping you up to speed with how it is really going?
Truth is you have no idea how it is going, and nor do I. Robert does have an insight and has been told things are progressing, think I would much rather trust his word than the doom merchants on here.
I am indeed a provincial doctor, and Yokel has a pizza delivery business. We both have other sources!
Except you don't have other sources, you just believe what you want to believe.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning. All the confusion is on our side as our witless ministers try to assemble an ala carte meal that is not available.
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
Then why are they negotiating at all? Why not just say, 'OK, thanks, bye?' Why this figure of £60 billion or the attempts to get the ECJ to have jurisdiction in Britain?
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
That seems more plausible and I certainly agree with the last sentence.
They are negotiating the mechanism of Brexit, we are attempting to negotiate the destination (albeit not knowing which way we want to go ourselves!). That is the fundamental disconnect.
Absolutely true, Dr Sox. And they are trying to dictate the mechanism, not negotiate it. No reason the UK delegation should meekly go along with the EU demands, and somewhat tunnel-visioned of the Barnier to confuse British refusal to do so with being unprepared.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning. All the confusion is on our side as our witless ministers try to assemble an ala carte meal that is not available.
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
Then why are they negotiating at all? Why not just say, 'OK, thanks, bye?' Why this figure of £60 billion or the attempts to get the ECJ to have jurisdiction in Britain?
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
That seems more plausible and I certainly agree with the last sentence.
They are negotiating the mechanism of Brexit, we are attempting to negotiate the destination (albeit not knowing which way we want to go ourselves!). That is the fundamental disconnect.
Absolutely true, Dr Sox. And they are trying to dictate the mechanism, not negotiate it. No reason the UK delegation should meekly go along with the EU demands, and somewhat tunnel-visioned of the Barnier to confuse British refusal to do so with being unprepared.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I don't agree that the outcome of the negotiations will be perceived as purely an economic issue. They will also be about national pride and esteem, and our place in the world. Things that go to the heart of the motivation for Brexit.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Not correct. In the late 1990s and into the 2000s we could have fed ourselves. After that came the Rural Farm Payments Agency. We could still do it but it might take a while.
We've had this discussion before (see lengthy posts between myself and Paul_Bedfordshire last year, I think). The short answer is "No, we can't, even if we include the Republic of Ireland as 'us', although we can get up to 90% on meat". We didn't even do it in WWII, when the occupation of the Low Countries and Denmark deprived us of existing suppliers of things like bacon.
As to "can it be done?", the answer is yes, although it would be quite a wrench and it would be the point at which things became too silly for words. It's up there with making your own clothes and dancing naked around stone circles to commune with Mother Nature, a state of affairs at which it would be a crime not to employ the word "fuckwitted".
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm not sure that you can write off the economic argument completely but I do agree that the debate is overly focused on that to the exclusion of non economic issues.
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning.
Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit".
I have not seen anything from any senior EU leader that contradicts the position.
Out of interest how
Truth is you have no idea how it is going, and nor do I. Robert does have an insight and has been told things are progressing, think I would much rather trust his word than the doom merchants on here.
I am indeed a provincial doctor, and Yokel has a pizza delivery business. We both have other sources!
Except you don't have other sources, you just believe what you want to believe.
I think that it is you that believes what you want to believe.
The EU27 has a policy of openness on these discussions. Partly this is pragmatic as with 27 countries there are bound to be leaks, and partly as a policy of transparency.
David Allen Green has done this useful description of the evolution of the EU position. My other sources triangulate with this:
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning.
Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit".
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
Methinks you do not understand how floating currencies work. A fall, per se, is not a problem. After all, in WW I, the sterling/$ rate was 1:4.7 ... the pound has fallen a long way since then, but is still perfectly well accepted. http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist.htm
Currencies only become shunned when economies and public finances become basket cases, such as Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Argentina (as was) and Greece.
What evidence do you have that Brexit UK will come anywhere close to that state? Oh, yes, of course. The UK economy fell off a cliff with the Leave vote. Oh, wait ...
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
By 2025 we'll be paying them in groats?
Where's Malcolmg?
He thought the suggestion was goats and he's out looking.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. (and. even better, A Matter of Life and Death, though strictly speaking that came out in 1946.)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is particularly interesting for coming out during the war, as did two other classics "Went the day Well?" and " The Way Ahead".
Blimp was officially discouraged because of its portrayal of British officers as stuffy and not very bright upper class twits (one of whom has to be taught his job by a German).
I once read a book which suggested that this official discouragement was so much rubbish and in fact the government secretly provided all the military equipment for free because they wanted to show they'd got rid of all the useless old duffers to the Home Guard and their newer officers were intelligent and enterprising. Wasn't convinced but it's not completely implausible.
If that was true however, the government must have been pretty cross when those vital first twenty minutes were cut for the theatrical release, robbing the film of much of its potency.
Blimp is fascinating for many reasons, and I would place it as one of the best British films ever.
It is particularly unusual for its depiction of the complexities and ambiguities of war, while still carrying a good propaganda punch of British values.
As "Blimp" himself says "you mock my moustache, but don't know why I wear it!" The film explains why...
Candy and his German counterpart are both portrayed very sympathetically, but also shown as being too chivalrous for WWII.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm not sure that you can write off the economic argument completely but I do agree that the debate is overly focused on that to the exclusion of non economic issues.
The YouGov poll earlier this week(?) showed how unimportant economic issues are when it comes to Brexit. A fair proportion of both sides of the argument were prepared to take a hit economically in order to get the result they wanted.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
So why are we going to run out of money to pay for food?
As the £ sterling sinks lower and lower , other countries will become more and more reluctant to accept payment in it .
Starting with Scotland?
Funnily enough, when I was abroad last month one of the bureaux de change had a posted rate for the Scottish pound as distinct from the rate for the British pound.
The said rate for the former was, of course, significantly inferior.
Yes, thanks to Bill Gates we have a massively lively and successful computer industry. Without him, we might have what we had in the early to mid 1980s: a magnificent array of differing standards and incompatible hardware and software. Now, for most purposes, we just have Wintel, Apple, Linux and ARM/Android, with Wintel winning on Desktops and ARM/Android on mobile devices. (*)
And Bill Gates can thank Xerox for inventing all the cool stuff he went on to sell...
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning. All the confusion is on our side as our witless ministers try to assemble an ala carte meal that is not available.
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
Then why are they negotiating at all? Why not just say, 'OK, thanks, bye?' Why this figure of £60 billion or the attempts to get the ECJ to have jurisdiction in Britain?
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
That seems more plausible and I certainly agree with the last sentence.
They are negotiating the mechanism of Brexit, we are attempting to negotiate the destination (albeit not knowing which way we want to go ourselves!). That is the fundamental disconnect.
Absolutely true, Dr Sox. And they are trying to dictate the mechanism, not negotiate it. No reason the UK delegation should meekly go along with the EU demands, and somewhat tunnel-visioned of the Barnier to confuse British refusal to do so with being unprepared.
A special counsel investigating claims of Russian meddling in the US election has reportedly impanelled a grand jury. The reports by Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry is stepping up. Reuters reports the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.He
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
The EU27 position has been clear and unified from the beginning. All the confusion is on our side as our witless ministers try to assemble an ala carte meal that is not available.
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
Then why are they negotiating at all? Why not just say, 'OK, thanks, bye?' Why this figure of £60 billion or the attempts to get the ECJ to have jurisdiction in Britain?
I think that at the end of the process they want to be able to say they held fully to all the euro-dogma and didn't yield on anything. I do fear that this is not going to end well.
That seems more plausible and I certainly agree with the last sentence.
They are negotiating the mechanism of Brexit, we are attempting to negotiate the destination (albeit not knowing which way we want to go ourselves!). That is the fundamental disconnect.
Absolutely true, Dr Sox. And they are trying to dictate the mechanism, not negotiate it. No reason the UK delegation should meekly go along with the EU demands, and somewhat tunnel-visioned of the Barnier to confuse British refusal to do so with being unprepared.
That deadlock is why we will have WTO Brexit. The EU27 position is not a flexible one, it has little or no scope for negotiation.
The talk of a 3 year transition period is in part driven by fear of the prospect of an unprepared cliff edge Brexit, and in part a justification aimed at the British public for paying the Brexit bill.
...Go on, then, explain it without using meaningless terms like "hard Brexit"....
To extract as much as possible from the UK before departure, have a brief party[1] when we leave, then get on with their lives.
[1] Older readers may remember EPP-ED, a strained attempt by Christian Democrats and British Conservatives to cohabit in the same political group in the European Parliament before we left to set up our own less successful version...oh, foreshadowing. If memory serves, yes, they had a brief party.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
It doesn't need to be so soon. A deal could be reached as late as late March 2019 with part of the deal being an extension of the A50 period to allow for ratification.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm not sure that you can write off the economic argument completely but I do agree that the debate is overly focused on that to the exclusion of non economic issues.
The YouGov poll earlier this week(?) showed how unimportant economic issues are when it comes to Brexit. A fair proportion of both sides of the argument were prepared to take a hit economically in order to get the result they wanted.
I think that's probably right but it's not where MSM seems to want the debate and what passes for politicians these days seem unable or unwilling to move away from. I daresay racism will rear its head again before too long.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm not sure that you can write off the economic argument completely but I do agree that the debate is overly focused on that to the exclusion of non economic issues.
Isn't the point that, by and large, Leave appealed to the emotions and Remain tried to create a rational argument. I say this not to disparage Leave, indeed it was the Remain campaign that clearly effed it up; emotions are very hard to change and impossible to argue against.
If I am right, there would probably not be much point in a second referendum because whatever the facts, the emotions for core leavers will still be there, possibly strengthened by a perceived 'affront to democracy'.
The only way I could see a second referendum voting Remain is if the economic qonsequences are clearly disasterous (but the timing doesn't work for that - it would be a re-join vote by then). Or, just possibly, if Labour changed their minds and were in the popularity ascendancy. Jezza's good showing in June has put paid to that imho - he has no need to change on Brexit, or even address it to any great extent.
So I am left with hoping for the softest possible Brexit, which tbh is what I expect.
By the way I doubt that Mark Carney understands how floating currencies work. I've just seen him on tv blaming the rise in inflation on the fall in sterling. Nothing to do with the BoE, no sirree.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
From my experience of international negotiations, the clock is usually stopped indefinitely at the 23:59 hour of the final day.
So if the EU says a deal must be done by March 2019, I would be unsurprised to see real negotiations start on 1 April 2019.
A special counsel investigating claims of Russian meddling in the US election has reportedly impanelled a grand jury. The reports by Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry is stepping up. Reuters reports the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.He
I find this all very confusing. Isn't interfering with other countries' government processes a cornerstone of USA foreign policy? Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
From my experience of international negotiations, the clock is usually stopped indefinitely at the 23:59 hour of the final day.
So if the EU says a deal must be done by March 2019, I would be unsurprised to see real negotiations start on 1 April 2019.
Blimey, what about ratification? Do that during Transition?
A special counsel investigating claims of Russian meddling in the US election has reportedly impanelled a grand jury. The reports by Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry is stepping up. Reuters reports the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.He
I find this all very confusing. Isn't interfering with other countries' government processes a cornerstone of USA foreign policy? Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
USA* foreign policy hypocritical - who'd have thought it eh?
(*Substitute any other country for USA as you wish)
By the way I doubt that Mark Carney understands how floating currencies work. I've just seen him on tv blaming the rise in inflation on the fall in sterling. Nothing to do with the BoE, no sirree.
Yes and what does it say about the reporters at the news conference who were unable to challenge him on that technical matter?
A special counsel investigating claims of Russian meddling in the US election has reportedly impanelled a grand jury. The reports by Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry is stepping up. Reuters reports the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.He
I find this all very confusing. Isn't interfering with other countries' government processes a cornerstone of USA foreign policy? Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
You are failing to take into account American exceptionalism ...
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm not sure that you can write off the economic argument completely but I do agree that the debate is overly focused on that to the exclusion of non economic issues.
Isn't the point that, by and large, Leave appealed to the emotions and Remain tried to create a rational argument. I say this not to disparage Leave, indeed it was the Remain campaign that clearly effed it up; emotions are very hard to change and impossible to argue against.
If I am right, there would probably not be much point in a second referendum because whatever the facts, the emotions for core leavers will still be there, possibly strengthened by a perceived 'affront to democracy'.
The only way I could see a second referendum voting Remain is if the economic qonsequences are clearly disasterous (but the timing doesn't work for that - it would be a re-join vote by then). Or, just possibly, if Labour changed their minds and were in the popularity ascendancy. Jezza's good showing in June has put paid to that imho - he has no need to change on Brexit, or even address it to any great extent.
So I am left with hoping for the softest possible Brexit, which tbh is what I expect.
Time will tell!
It will indeed but the debate will continue long after time has told.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm not sure that you can write off the economic argument completely but I do agree that the debate is overly focused on that to the exclusion of non economic issues.
The YouGov poll earlier this week(?) showed how unimportant economic issues are when it comes to Brexit. A fair proportion of both sides of the argument were prepared to take a hit economically in order to get the result they wanted.
I think that's probably right but it's not where MSM seems to want the debate and what passes for politicians these days seem unable or unwilling to move away from. I daresay racism will rear its head again before too long.
There's a strange convention that debates ought to be about economics when, in reality, they're about quite different things. People dress up their political arguments in economic terms.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Not correct. In the late 1990s and into the 2000s we could have fed ourselves. After that came the Rural Farm Payments Agency. We could still do it but it might take a while.
We've had this discussion before (see lengthy posts between myself and Paul_Bedfordshire last year, I think). The short answer is "No, we can't, even if we include the Republic of Ireland as 'us', although we can get up to 90% on meat". We didn't even do it in WWII, when the occupation of the Low Countries and Denmark deprived us of existing suppliers of things like bacon.
As to "can it be done?", the answer is yes, although it would be quite a wrench and it would be the point at which things became too silly for words. It's up there with making your own clothes and dancing naked around stone circles to commune with Mother Nature, a state of affairs at which it would be a crime not to employ the word "fuckwitted".
WWII is interestingly a bad parallel due to the major changes in agricultural practice since. It is more highly mechanised and productive than it was in 1945. You get considerably more yield from less land as a result. Of course, that's a mixed blessing ecologically but that's a different problem.
So yes, it could still be possible. Down to about 1996 it would actually have been quite easy. Now due to the devastation of agriculture under Blair (which was definitely not the EU's fault although it did many things that didn't help) and a much larger population it would be hard, and it would not be instant, and it would require many new golf courses to be ploughed up, but it would still be possible.
Anyway, my phone battery is worn out and so am I. Have a nice evening everyone.
By the way I doubt that Mark Carney understands how floating currencies work. I've just seen him on tv blaming the rise in inflation on the fall in sterling. Nothing to do with the BoE, no sirree.
The best you can say about Carney is that he has 20:20 hindsight.
Of course @MarkSenior doesn't understand how floating currencies work. He lives in a world of autarkies.
I suppose the world of LD parish council by elections is much like an autarky.
I can remember the time when Conservatives did not believe that devaluation meant that it did not mean the £ in your pocket was not affected . nowadays Conservatives are the party of devaluation and think it is a panacea .
A special counsel investigating claims of Russian meddling in the US election has reportedly impanelled a grand jury. The reports by Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry is stepping up. Reuters reports the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.He
I find this all very confusing. Isn't interfering with other countries' government processes a cornerstone of USA foreign policy? Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
USA* foreign policy hypocritical - who'd have thought it eh?
(*Substitute any other country for USA as you wish)
The initial post was specific to USA and whilst I acknowledge the universality of the practice, I suspect that it's actually the most active by some distance.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
And you're still assuming the principal bases for voters making their decision are economic. They were not and are not for most Brexit voters. Consequently, the outcome of the negotiations, which focus almost entirely on economic issues, is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm not sure that you can write off the economic argument completely but I do agree that the debate is overly focused on that to the exclusion of non economic issues.
Isn't the point that, by and large, Leave appealed to the emotions and Remain tried to create a rational argument. I say this not to disparage Leave, indeed it was the Remain campaign that clearly effed it up; emotions are very hard to change and impossible to argue against.
If I am right, there would probably not be much point in a second referendum because whatever the facts, the emotions for core leavers will still be there, possibly strengthened by a perceived 'affront to democracy'.
The only way I could see a second referendum voting Remain is if the economic qonsequences are clearly disasterous (but the timing doesn't work for that - it would be a re-join vote by then). Or, just possibly, if Labour changed their minds and were in the popularity ascendancy. Jezza's good showing in June has put paid to that imho - he has no need to change on Brexit, or even address it to any great extent.
So I am left with hoping for the softest possible Brexit, which tbh is what I expect.
Time will tell!
It will indeed but the debate will continue long after time has told.
Maybe, but probably only on the 0.000001% of the polulation who are regular contributors to PB!
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
A special counsel investigating claims of Russian meddling in the US election has reportedly impanelled a grand jury. The reports by Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry is stepping up. Reuters reports the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.He
I find this all very confusing. Isn't interfering with other countries' government processes a cornerstone of USA foreign policy? Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
USA* foreign policy hypocritical - who'd have thought it eh?
(*Substitute any other country for USA as you wish)
The initial post was specific to USA and whilst I acknowledge the universality of the practice, I suspect that it's actually the most active by some distance.
Of course @MarkSenior doesn't understand how floating currencies work. He lives in a world of autarkies.
I suppose the world of LD parish council by elections is much like an autarky.
I can remember the time when Conservatives did not believe that devaluation meant that it did not mean the £ in your pocket was not affected . nowadays Conservatives are the party of devaluation and think it is a panacea .
I'm having difficulty with the treble negatives, but aren't you referring to Harold Wilson's pound in your pocket speech in 1967?
Of course @MarkSenior doesn't understand how floating currencies work. He lives in a world of autarkies.
I suppose the world of LD parish council by elections is much like an autarky.
I can remember the time when Conservatives did not believe that devaluation meant that it did not mean the £ in your pocket was not affected . nowadays Conservatives are the party of devaluation and think it is a panacea .
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Why do you think we are going to run out of food?
Because he is a ridiculous Remain scaremonger
We have not produced enough to feed ourselves for many years now . When we run out of money to pay to import it then there will be shortages .
Interestingly, despite Leave propaganda food imports from outside the EU often have zero tariffs due to various EU deals - not only FTAs but also preferential access development deals with the poorest countries. In the event of a crash-out Brexit, all of that would go.
You must have been very deeply hurt by the result of this referendum. I'm not sorry it happened but I am sorry it seems to have affected you in the way that it has.
It's a disaster for Britain but it should be quite good for Russia, so I expect you're happy. Your empathy for other nationals does you credit though.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I hope you put more into your bedside manner when doing the day job.
WWII is interestingly a bad parallel due to the major changes in agricultural practice since. It is more highly mechanised and productive than it was in 1945. You get considerably more yield from less land as a result. Of course, that's a mixed blessing ecologically but that's a different problem.
So yes, it could still be possible. Down to about 1996 it would actually have been quite easy. Now due to the devastation of agriculture under Blair (which was definitely not the EU's fault although it did many things that didn't help) and a much larger population it would be hard, and it would not be instant, and it would require many new golf courses to be ploughed up, but it would still be possible.
Anyway, my phone battery is worn out and so am I. Have a nice evening everyone.
Also, synthetic biology's impact has yet to be felt on agriculture. Yields can be improved massively by making plants more drought, temperature and salinity tolerant, more disease and pest resistant, and simply faster growing.
Something like 30% of the brassica crop in Europe is lost to pests, for example. Arthropods alone destroy about 18-26% of the global crop.
Not that I am arguing that the UK should have a policy of food self-sufficiency, and we shall always be limited by the climate on the range of crops we can grow, but we may well end up getting close to theoretically feeding ourselves sometime in the not too distant future.
Of course @MarkSenior doesn't understand how floating currencies work. He lives in a world of autarkies.
I suppose the world of LD parish council by elections is much like an autarky.
I can remember the time when Conservatives did not believe that devaluation meant that it did not mean the £ in your pocket was not affected . nowadays Conservatives are the party of devaluation and think it is a panacea .
I'm having difficulty with the treble negatives, but aren't you referring to Harold Wilson's pound in your pocket speech in 1967?
Indeed I am , a speech which was criticised by Conservatives at the time but which today's Conservatives seem to believe .
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
Sometimes you wanna go, where nobody knows your name...& they're never glad you came.
"London is the least neighbourly place to live in the UK, new research has revealed.
Sixty-eight per cent of people in the capital said they did not know their neighbour well or at all, according to research commissioned by Nextdoor, a social network which aims to link people living in the same area.
Londoners were also the least confident about a parcel being left with a neighbour with about 64 per cent saying they would choose not to.
The capital was also top of the regions in the UK where people did not even know their neighbours’ names with 16 per cent of those surveyed saying they had no idea."
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
If we have no idea what the government's policy is, why are you so confident that hard Brexit isn't it?
More to the point, mightn't they deign to let the electorate know?
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
Our government has a policy of no Eurppean Court, no Single Market and no Customs Union, or is as far as we can tell! Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
Yes , it will always be someone else's fault .
Incompetents always find someone to blame their failures on.
A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
The risk of breakdown is real. To go to your other question, what does the EU want? It wants above all to maintain its integrity and the value of its membership. Which means most of what is useful about the EU comes through membership and is not available to outsiders like us. In a lose/lose situation it also wants as much of the inevitable damage of Brexit to fall on the other side (ie us) and not them. Despite all that, the EU does want a deal with the UK.
Our problem is the Leave promise of separation with continuity, which is undeliverable. Any Brexit will be massively compromised as we scramble to maintain continuity. The alternatives to a compromised Brexit are a failed Brexit and no Brexit at all. The EU is operating on the assumption that our side will act rationally, that clearly almost any deal is better than no deal at all. Thing is, we're struggling to resolve the contradictions of our programme. None of our people seems able to negotiate, rationally or not, and say, accept this, reject that, propose this, change that.
Now, "better than nothing; less than what we had before" is a big negotiating space. It really shouldn't be difficult to work out something that falls into that gap. I think the compromised Brexit is mostly likely to happen with a small possibility of no Brexit at all and a somewhat larger possibility of a failed Brexit. The prospect of a failed Brexit is what would drive the no Brexit option.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
@EdConwaySky: Odd. That shocking statistic of Carney’s today (UK biz investment in 2020 will be 20% lower due to Brexit) wasn’t in the Inf Report itself
Comments
The EU27 are fine with a Hard Brexit. As Tusk said last year: "There is only hard Brexit and no Brexit".
On the contrary, Blimp is very fairminded to his enemies whenever he meets them. Indeed a large part of the films message (released 1943) is that those sorts of gentlemans rules are obselete in total war.
¿ Did the joke fall flat ?
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/10/13-tusk-speech-epc/
I have not seen anything from any senior EU leader that contradicts the position.
Excuse me for asking but you are a consultant in the medical field I believe, so who is keeping you up to speed with how it is really going?
Truth is you have no idea how it is going, and nor do I. Robert does have an insight and has been told things are progressing, think I would much rather trust his word than the doom merchants on here.
As to "can it be done?", the answer is yes, although it would be quite a wrench and it would be the point at which things became too silly for words. It's up there with making your own clothes and dancing naked around stone circles to commune with Mother Nature, a state of affairs at which it would be a crime not to employ the word "fuckwitted".
The EU27 has a policy of openness on these discussions. Partly this is pragmatic as with 27 countries there are bound to be leaks, and partly as a policy of transparency.
David Allen Green has done this useful description of the evolution of the EU position. My other sources triangulate with this:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/857565209891885056
Currencies only become shunned when economies and public finances become basket cases, such as Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Argentina (as was) and Greece.
What evidence do you have that Brexit UK will come anywhere close to that state? Oh, yes, of course. The UK economy fell off a cliff with the Leave vote. Oh, wait ...
The said rate for the former was, of course, significantly inferior.
The reports by Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry is stepping up.
Reuters reports the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.He
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
The talk of a 3 year transition period is in part driven by fear of the prospect of an unprepared cliff edge Brexit, and in part a justification aimed at the British public for paying the Brexit bill.
[1] Older readers may remember EPP-ED, a strained attempt by Christian Democrats and British Conservatives to cohabit in the same political group in the European Parliament before we left to set up our own less successful version...oh, foreshadowing. If memory serves, yes, they had a brief party.
Sorry.
Rates are a cost of doing business, to be perfectly frank. There are few meaningful votes to be won on it.
If I am right, there would probably not be much point in a second referendum because whatever the facts, the emotions for core leavers will still be there, possibly strengthened by a perceived 'affront to democracy'.
The only way I could see a second referendum voting Remain is if the economic qonsequences are clearly disasterous (but the timing doesn't work for that - it would be a re-join vote by then). Or, just possibly, if Labour changed their minds and were in the popularity ascendancy. Jezza's good showing in June has put paid to that imho - he has no need to change on Brexit, or even address it to any great extent.
So I am left with hoping for the softest possible Brexit, which tbh is what I expect.
Time will tell!
So if the EU says a deal must be done by March 2019, I would be unsurprised to see real negotiations start on 1 April 2019.
USA* foreign policy hypocritical - who'd have thought it eh?
(*Substitute any other country for USA as you wish)
So yes, it could still be possible. Down to about 1996 it would actually have been quite easy. Now due to the devastation of agriculture under Blair (which was definitely not the EU's fault although it did many things that didn't help) and a much larger population it would be hard, and it would not be instant, and it would require many new golf courses to be ploughed up, but it would still be possible.
Anyway, my phone battery is worn out and so am I. Have a nice evening everyone.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
Something like 30% of the brassica crop in Europe is lost to pests, for example. Arthropods alone destroy about 18-26% of the global crop.
Not that I am arguing that the UK should have a policy of food self-sufficiency, and we shall always be limited by the climate on the range of crops we can grow, but we may well end up getting close to theoretically feeding ourselves sometime in the not too distant future.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
"London is the least neighbourly place to live in the UK, new research has revealed.
Sixty-eight per cent of people in the capital said they did not know their neighbour well or at all, according to research commissioned by Nextdoor, a social network which aims to link people living in the same area.
Londoners were also the least confident about a parcel being left with a neighbour with about 64 per cent saying they would choose not to.
The capital was also top of the regions in the UK where people did not even know their neighbours’ names with 16 per cent of those surveyed saying they had no idea."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-london-is-the-least-neighbourly-place-to-live-in-the-uk-a3602916.html
More to the point, mightn't they deign to let the electorate know?
Our problem is the Leave promise of separation with continuity, which is undeliverable. Any Brexit will be massively compromised as we scramble to maintain continuity. The alternatives to a compromised Brexit are a failed Brexit and no Brexit at all. The EU is operating on the assumption that our side will act rationally, that clearly almost any deal is better than no deal at all. Thing is, we're struggling to resolve the contradictions of our programme. None of our people seems able to negotiate, rationally or not, and say, accept this, reject that, propose this, change that.
Now, "better than nothing; less than what we had before" is a big negotiating space. It really shouldn't be difficult to work out something that falls into that gap. I think the compromised Brexit is mostly likely to happen with a small possibility of no Brexit at all and a somewhat larger possibility of a failed Brexit. The prospect of a failed Brexit is what would drive the no Brexit option.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
https://www.youtube.com/user/PrisonPlanetLive/about