Enter the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. A salesperson approaches...
S. "Good morning, Sir. How may I help you today?"
DD. "I would like to buy a car."
S. "Certainly. Do you know what colour you would like?"
DD. "Yes, but I am not going to tell you. I need some constructive ambiguity in the negotiation"
Several hours pass. Exit DD, without a car...
And more importantly the salesman has no commission.
You getting it yet? He can buy a car anywhere.
It's you who isn't getting it. Our relationship with our own continent is indispensable for our economic and physical security and we cannot 'buy it' anywhere other than through dealing with the EU. When David Davis finally gets around to listing his requirements, the salesman will have to say, "What you need is 'membership', sir. It's got everything you want!"
More nonsense.
There are countries on "our own continent" that are doing perfectly well without being in the EU.
Anyway, conversing with you is becoming increasingly tedious and pointless, life is far too short to engage with flat earthers.
Yep - it's not as if there have been numerous speeches, position papers, interviews and parliamentary discussions about it.
Remainers are not listening if they don't know what Leave means yet.
I voted LEAVE and I don't know what it will mean either.
There are daily reports, semi-reports and rumours and the Government's own position, for all your cheerleading, appears to this observer to be confused and contradictory.
Yes, we are leaving but the manner of the departure and the not inconsiderable issue of the country's economic relationship with the EU and the rest of the world isn't as clear as you try to portray.
Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).
That would be....er....a bit childish?
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
No offence taken If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
Typically high 70s in polls accepting that the result needs to be implemented.
That 70%+ includes me. Democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU. No-one has made a coherent and convincing policy out of that single word, leave. Tellingly they haven't bothered to try.
Could have fooled me.
I'll put you in the same group with Fox who not believes that everything you read in the Remainstream media is both totally accurate and complete.
FWIW I am interested in outcomes, which if you take a somewhat objective view look to be significantly worse than what we have now, although they might be mitigated. It's how you square the circle that makes it fascinating. Change is always more interesting than the status quo. I suppose they said the same about the French Revolution.
Enter the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. A salesperson approaches...
S. "Good morning, Sir. How may I help you today?"
DD. "I would like to buy a car."
S. "Certainly. Do you know what colour you would like?"
DD. "Yes, but I am not going to tell you. I need some constructive ambiguity in the negotiation"
Several hours pass. Exit DD, without a car...
And more importantly the salesman has no commission.
You getting it yet? He can buy a car anywhere.
It's you who isn't getting it. Our relationship with our own continent is indispensable for our economic and physical security and we cannot 'buy it' anywhere other than through dealing with the EU. When David Davis finally gets around to listing his requirements, the salesman will have to say, "What you need is 'membership', sir. It's got everything you want!"
More nonsense.
There are countries on "our own continent" that are doing perfectly well without being in the EU.
Without being in the EU and without having deep relations with the EU?
Give it up mate, we're leaving, its done, finished, over, call it what you like.
If and it's a big if that was where we ended up what difference would it make to Joe Public. Decisions made in Brussels or London to which the average voter has no influence. Yes we have General Elections but most votes are irrelevant in our wonderful system where in 500 or more they end up voting for the donkey with the right colour rosette.
Joe Public thought it does matter. That's why 33 m of them voted.
They voted largely on the basis of who was offering the best bribes. Obviously Labour at the last general election. The same as they voted in the EU Referendum. You remember, 350 million a week for the NHS...
The Tories did as well as they did on the grounds that they weren`t Corbyn.
But does anybody seriously think that Corbyn`s gang would be more competent than the present shambles?
Your knowledge of the motivation of voters in a secret ballot is very impressive and fully explains the very large majority achieved by the LD in the recent 'stuck in a hole' parish by-election in the 'back of beyond'.
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
No offence taken, Free, but if I'd voted Leave (and I thought about it) and was sure I'd got it right, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Diehards who won't accept the result. I would just sit back and let events unfold. As they see the benefits Brexit brings, they will either change their views, or (more likely) appear increasingly foolish as their denial becomes increasingly untenable.
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
That 70%+ includes me. Democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU. No-one has made a coherent and convincing policy out of that single word, leave. Tellingly they haven't bothered to try.
Yep - it's not as if there have been numerous speeches, position papers, interviews and parliamentary discussions about it.
Remainers are not listening if they don't know what Leave means yet.
Leave the EU, stay in customs union, single market.
Given some of the reporting - '29% of Remain voters want EU Citizens deported' (sic) - worth reading the report:
While there appear to be few aspects of the negotiations that Leave and Remain voters demand at all cost or reject at all cost, there are aspects of the negotiations that are very important to them. Leave voters are particularly concerned about control over immigration and opposed to deals that give Britain less than “full control” over immigration. They are similarly concerned about legal sovereignty and any “divorce bill”. They also strongly prefer scenarios where EU citizens are able to apply for residence more than scenarios where all must leave. Remain voters care much more about the rights of EU citizens – indeed, no other aspect of the negotiations appears to matter more to them. They also agree with Leave voters that trade terms with fewer barriers and lower tariffs than a “no deal” scenario would bring are preferable to a hard break from the common market. Yet, ultimately, citizens are indifferent about many aspects of Brexit.
It is possibly the worst-reported opinion poll this year. It would be nice to see some of the papers that so woefully misreported it correct themselves, but I expect we'll have a long wait for that.
The Indie actually did - and fessed up to misunderstanding the impact of the non-standard methodology:
James Ball has a lot to answer for here - he seems to have initially published details of the survey on Buzzfeed and various papers lazily picked up highlights from his article.
But it appears that he fell into the trap that the Indie explains. Since he's an Oxford PPE graduate with a diploma in Investigative Journalism, you'd expect a bit better when it comes to critical analysis of surveys!
Enter the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. A salesperson approaches...
S. "Good morning, Sir. How may I help you today?"
DD. "I would like to buy a car."
S. "Certainly. Do you know what colour you would like?"
DD. "Yes, but I am not going to tell you. I need some constructive ambiguity in the negotiation"
Several hours pass. Exit DD, without a car...
And more importantly the salesman has no commission.
You getting it yet? He can buy a car anywhere.
It's you who isn't getting it. Our relationship with our own continent is indispensable for our economic and physical security and we cannot 'buy it' anywhere other than through dealing with the EU. When David Davis finally gets around to listing his requirements, the salesman will have to say, "What you need is 'membership', sir. It's got everything you want!"
More nonsense.
There are countries on "our own continent" that are doing perfectly well without being in the EU.
Anyway, conversing with you is becoming increasingly tedious and pointless, life is far too short to engage with flat earthers.
So far as I'm aware, the countries outside the EU and doing 'perfectly well' are unusual
they're tax havens and look after other peoples' money (Switzerland and Liechtenstein) they 'got lucky' and have $1 trillion of their own oil money in the bank (Norway) or they're located in a cold northern ocean stuffed full of fish (Iceland).
'Mainstream' northern European countries lacking such features (from the Netherlands to Sweden) all joined the EU, some early, others after the UK (Sweden and Finland). Their GDP/capita is 15-25% above the UK average. It is somewhat more evenly distributed (both geographically and from top to bottom.) That has rather good results for social cohesion and 'happiness'; read the Spirit Level.
Kent & East Sussex done today - longest standard gauge heritage railway in the South East.
Is that the one that goes to Bodiam, along the Rother valley? I used to go fishing there as a kid.
Will they ever re-open up the connection to Robertsbridge?
They just got the planning permission a few months ago. Sadly, had to make do with stopping at Bodiam today!
There are surely worse places in the world to have to stop at!
Once the link to Roberstbridge is open the line will presumably connect to national rail network - Beeching will be turning in his grave. Oh the waste!
The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.
Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).
That would be....er....a bit childish?
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
...
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
Typically high 70s in polls accepting that the result needs to be implemented.
That 70%+ includes me. Democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU. No-one has made a coherent and convincing policy out of that single word, leave. Tellingly they haven't bothered to try.
You're not going to get anywhere.
The response to 'democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU, but I'm a bit concerned about how that's going to happen' is 'we won, suck it up'.
A surprisingly similar attitude to that of the Labour spokesman on R4 this morning who refused to answer simple questions about Labour's Brexit policy, while insisting that Labour should be put in charge of the negotiations.
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
No offence taken, Free, but if I'd voted Leave (and I thought about it) and was sure I'd got it right, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Diehards who won't accept the result. I would just sit back and let events unfold. As they see the benefits Brexit brings, they will either change their views, or (more likely) appear increasingly foolish as their denial becomes increasingly untenable.
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
That 70%+ includes me. Democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU. No-one has made a coherent and convincing policy out of that single word, leave. Tellingly they haven't bothered to try.
Yep - it's not as if there have been numerous speeches, position papers, interviews and parliamentary discussions about it.
Remainers are not listening if they don't know what Leave means yet.
Leave the EU, stay in customs union, single market.
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
It's the same article she writes every week, simply exhibiting her irrational prejudice against Conservatives - which seems to be the driving force of her life. She wrote similar articles about David Cameron, for example.
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
It's the same article she writes every week, simply exhibiting her irrational prejudice against Conservatives - which seems to be the driving force of her life. She wrote similar articles about David Cameron, for example.
Quite. If one can't come up with one's own reasons why Mogg is a bit of an arse, I don't think Polly is going to help much; and if one can, then ditto.
Enter the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. A salesperson approaches...
S. "Good morning, Sir. How may I help you today?"
DD. "I would like to buy a car."
S. "Certainly. Do you know what colour you would like?"
DD. "Yes, but I am not going to tell you. I need some constructive ambiguity in the negotiation"
Several hours pass. Exit DD, without a car...
And more importantly the salesman has no commission.
You getting it yet? He can buy a car anywhere.
It's you who isn't getting it. Our relationship with our own continent is indispensable for our economic and physical security and we cannot 'buy it' anywhere other than through dealing with the EU. When David Davis finally gets around to listing his requirements, the salesman will have to say, "What you need is 'membership', sir. It's got everything you want!"
More nonsense.
There are countries on "our own continent" that are doing perfectly well without being in the EU.
Anyway, conversing with you is becoming increasingly tedious and pointless, life is far too short to engage with flat earthers.
Enter the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. A salesperson approaches...
S. "Good morning, Sir. How may I help you today?"
DD. "I would like to buy a car."
S. "Certainly. Do you know what colour you would like?"
DD. "Yes, but I am not going to tell you. I need some constructive ambiguity in the negotiation"
Several hours pass. Exit DD, without a car...
And more importantly the salesman has no commission.
You getting it yet? He can buy a car anywhere.
It's you who isn't getting it. Our relationship with our own continent is indispensable for our economic and physical security and we cannot 'buy it' anywhere other than through dealing with the EU. When David Davis finally gets around to listing his requirements, the salesman will have to say, "What you need is 'membership', sir. It's got everything you want!"
More nonsense.
There are countries on "our own continent" that are doing perfectly well without being in the EU.
Anyway, conversing with you is becoming increasingly tedious and pointless, life is far too short to engage with flat earthers.
So far as I'm aware, the countries outside the EU and doing 'perfectly well' are unusual
they're tax havens and look after other peoples' money (Switzerland and Liechtenstein) they 'got lucky' and have $1 trillion of their own oil money in the bank (Norway) or they're located in a cold northern ocean stuffed full of fish (Iceland).
'Mainstream' northern European countries lacking such features (from the Netherlands to Sweden) all joined the EU, some early, others after the UK (Sweden and Finland). Their GDP/capita is 15-25% above the UK average. It is somewhat more evenly distributed (both geographically and from top to bottom.) That has rather good results for social cohesion and 'happiness'; read the Spirit Level.
I suspect there is a reason why their GDP/ Capita is larger than the UK's and that's partly why we are now leaving the EU...
Kent & East Sussex done today - longest standard gauge heritage railway in the South East.
Is that the one that goes to Bodiam, along the Rother valley? I used to go fishing there as a kid.
Will they ever re-open up the connection to Robertsbridge?
They just got the planning permission a few months ago. Sadly, had to make do with stopping at Bodiam today!
There are surely worse places in the world to have to stop at!
Once the link to Roberstbridge is open the line will presumably connect to national rail network - Beeching will be turning in his grave. Oh the waste!
If the stupid bugger hadn't closed the Great Central line to Sheffield from Aylesbury then we wouldn't be fielding about with HS2 either.
That said, if some even stupider bugger hadn't sold off half a mile of track bed for housing (under Thatcher, I think?) it could easily have been put back anyway.
Now probably not possible due to redevelopment in Leicester. Tragic waste of a line that was a century ahead of its time - and therefore naturally a dinosaur - but would now really come into its own.
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
It's the same article she writes every week, simply exhibiting her irrational prejudice against Conservatives - which seems to be the driving force of her life. She wrote similar articles about David Cameron, for example.
I note they are not allowing comments on it.
It is particularly nasty, even by her own standards "ludicrous names for his six children".
Given some of the reporting - '29% of Remain voters want EU Citizens deported' (sic) - worth reading the report:
While there appear to be few aspects of the negotiations that Leave and Remain voters demand at all cost or reject at all cost, there are aspects of the negotiations that are very important to them. Leave voters are particularly concerned about control over immigration and opposed to deals that give Britain less than “full control” over immigration. They are similarly concerned about legal sovereignty and any “divorce bill”. They also strongly prefer scenarios where EU citizens are able to apply for residence more than scenarios where all must leave. Remain voters care much more about the rights of EU citizens – indeed, no other aspect of the negotiations appears to matter more to them. They also agree with Leave voters that trade terms with fewer barriers and lower tariffs than a “no deal” scenario would bring are preferable to a hard break from the common market. Yet, ultimately, citizens are indifferent about many aspects of Brexit.
It is possibly the worst-reported opinion poll this year. It would be nice to see some of the papers that so woefully misreported it correct themselves, but I expect we'll have a long wait for that.
The Indie actually did - and fessed up to misunderstanding the impact of the non-standard methodology:
James Ball has a lot to answer for here - he seems to have initially published details of the survey on Buzzfeed and various papers lazily picked up highlights from his article.
But it appears that he fell into the trap that the Indie explains. Since he's an Oxford PPE graduate with a diploma in Investigative Journalism, you'd expect a bit better when it comes to critical analysis of surveys!
My old lecturer used to say that PPE is mostly learning how to write as if you know what you're on about.
The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.
Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).
That would be....er....a bit childish?
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
No offence taken, Free, but if I'd voted Leave (and I thought about it) and was sure I'd got it right, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Diehards who won't accept the result. I would just sit back and let events unfold. As they see the benefits Brexit brings, they will either change their views, or (more likely) appear increasingly foolish as their denial becomes increasingly untenable.
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
Typically high 70s in polls accepting that the result needs to be implemented.
I am one of the 70%+ but absolutely nothing has happened since the referendum to make me believe it was the right decision.
Watching this government flounder around trying to find a solution that suits internal Tory party politics without any concern as to whether it will be accepted by the EU27, I think it's going to turn out worse than I feared.
Enter the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. A salesperson approaches...
S. "Good morning, Sir. How may I help you today?"
DD. "I would like to buy a car."
S. "Certainly. Do you know what colour you would like?"
DD. "Yes, but I am not going to tell you. I need some constructive ambiguity in the negotiation"
Several hours pass. Exit DD, without a car...
And more importantly the salesman has no commission.
You getting it yet? He can buy a car anywhere.
It's you who isn't getting it. Our relationship with our own continent is indispensable for our economic and physical security and we cannot 'buy it' anywhere other than through dealing with the EU. When David Davis finally gets around to listing his requirements, the salesman will have to say, "What you need is 'membership', sir. It's got everything you want!"
More nonsense.
There are countries on "our own continent" that are doing perfectly well without being in the EU.
Anyway, conversing with you is becoming increasingly tedious and pointless, life is far too short to engage with flat earthers.
Given some of the reporting - '29% of Remain voters want EU Citizens deported' (sic) - worth reading the report:
While there appear to be few aspects of the negotiations that Leave and Remain voters demand at all cost or reject at all cost, there are aspects of the negotiations that are very important to them. Leave voters are particularly concerned about control over immigration and opposed to deals that give Britain less than “full control” over immigration. They are similarly concerned about legal sovereignty and any “divorce bill”. They also strongly prefer scenarios where EU citizens are able to apply for residence more than scenarios where all must leave. Remain voters care much more about the rights of EU citizens – indeed, no other aspect of the negotiations appears to matter more to them. They also agree with Leave voters that trade terms with fewer barriers and lower tariffs than a “no deal” scenario would bring are preferable to a hard break from the common market. Yet, ultimately, citizens are indifferent about many aspects of Brexit.
It is possibly the worst-reported opinion poll this year. It would be nice to see some of the papers that so woefully misreported it correct themselves, but I expect we'll have a long wait for that.
The Indie actually did - and fessed up to misunderstanding the impact of the non-standard methodology:
James Ball has a lot to answer for here - he seems to have initially published details of the survey on Buzzfeed and various papers lazily picked up highlights from his article.
But it appears that he fell into the trap that the Indie explains. Since he's an Oxford PPE graduate with a diploma in Investigative Journalism, you'd expect a bit better when it comes to critical analysis of surveys!
My old lecturer used to say that PPE is mostly learning how to write as if you know what you're on about.
James Chapman must have misheard - he's writing about what he knows as if he's on something
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
It's the same article she writes every week, simply exhibiting her irrational prejudice against Conservatives - which seems to be the driving force of her life. She wrote similar articles about David Cameron, for example.
I note they are not allowing comments on it. It is particularly nasty, even by her own standards "ludicrous names for his six children".
From someone so privileged that she got into Oxford on one A level.
Enter the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. A salesperson approaches...
S. "Good morning, Sir. How may I help you today?"
DD. "I would like to buy a car."
S. "Certainly. Do you know what colour you would like?"
DD. "Yes, but I am not going to tell you. I need some constructive ambiguity in the negotiation"
Several hours pass. Exit DD, without a car...
And more importantly the salesman has no commission.
You getting it yet? He can buy a car anywhere.
It's you who isn't getting it. Our relationship with our own continent is indispensable for our economic and physical security and we cannot 'buy it' anywhere other than through dealing with the EU. When David Davis finally gets around to listing his requirements, the salesman will have to say, "What you need is 'membership', sir. It's got everything you want!"
More nonsense.
There are countries on "our own continent" that are doing perfectly well without being in the EU.
Anyway, conversing with you is becoming increasingly tedious and pointless, life is far too short to engage with flat earthers.
Picking up on Alastair's point I think there is some truth in the contention that very little effort has been put into persuading those that voted Remain to come on board. Indeed there has been desperately little effort to set out clear positions (other than the very occasional and broad speech) for over a year now. This has inevitably given Remainers and their many friends in the media free rein to explain how it is all going to be a disaster. It is incompetent politics and unfortunately fairly typical of this government.
An optimist would hope that the position papers now being published will start to address this but the realist should recognise that these position papers will be produced in a negative and hostile atmosphere where the agenda has already been set. Having heard DD on Today this morning I am not sure that "constructive ambiguity" and crafty little chuckles is much of an answer.
What could have been done? Well I still regret the government's lack of interest in involving Peter Mandelson when he offered to do so. Very few if any Brits have a better understanding of how the EU works and thinks. I think the government should have been much more open about involving opposition MPs such as Starmer. This is a time of major national importance and I think a more national effort would have been appropriate, especially after the election result. But that would have required a politician with a lot more imagination and vision than Mrs May.
We've had the most important UK political news since the election today, in DD's position paper on customs arrangements. There are two parts to the proposal: the transitional continuation of little or no customs formalities, and the longer term proposal for a streamlined customs arrangement. He has also hinted very strongly (whilst pretending not to) that the former would allow us to pay some chunkyish sums to the EU for at least a couple of years.
There are things in this proposal which our EU friends will bridle at, notably the role or otherwise of the ECJ. They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified - it would just be damaging the UK for the sake of it, with no benefit to them - so I'd expect them to back down on that. The former is a matter of quasi-religious ideology, so is likely to prove trickier.
But what choice do they have?
- They say a high priority is avoiding disruption at the Irish border; this can't be achieved any other way than along the lines of what DD proposes.
- They want loads of dosh from us - in fact, they need loads of dosh from us to cover their budget commitments. None of the net contributor countries is prepared to cough it up, and we'd be off our heads to pay them loads of money for nothing in return.
- They are totally unprepared for a hard Brexit - the BBC and other news sources keep up the usual barrage of negativity about the UK government's alleged incompetence and lack of preparation, but where are new customs systems in France, Belgium and Holland? There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that our continental friends could have something set up in time for March 2019, let alone the Irish. There may not be a snowflake's chance in hell that we could, either, but that supports the point that DD's plan is the only viable one. Sales of German cars and French champagne to us are important for their economies - can they really contemplate a scenario where they get seriously disrupted?
- More than that, the strength of the UK economy in general is important to them. It's not just the big exporting countries such as Germany who have a lot to lose, it's even more the small tourist economies such as Malta, Greece, Cyprus, as well as Spain, Portugal, Italy and even France.
Expect much bitching from the EU and from the usual suspects here in the UK, but DD is on the right lines. Hopefully sense will prevail over Euroreligion.
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
Bollocks, equating JRM with Johnson and Farage is just lazy and wrong (I don't say that he is any better or nicer than they are, just that he is not the same). Lots of people make the same mistake, but they don't get paid to be right. She does. She has the same problem Gerald Scarfe had in the Thatcher years - his hatred of her was so overpowering that it deprived him of the ability to be funny - or perhaps he thought the subject was too important for mere humour. Not a helpful thing to believe when you are meant to be a cartoonist.
Labour party duped by pretend working class washing machine salesman instead of Momentum candidate?
LabourList @LabourList Keith Vaz beats Momentum candidate to retain place on Labour’s NEC http://bit.ly/2vXXRNv Photo published for Keith Vaz beats Momentum candidate to retain place on Labour's NEC | LabourList Keith Vaz beats Momentum candidate to retain place on Labour's NEC
Given some of the reporting - '29% of Remain voters want EU Citizens deported' (sic) - worth reading the report:
While there appear to be few aspects of the negotiations that Leave and Remain voters demand at all cost or reject at all cost, there are aspects of the negotiations that are very important to them. Leave voters are particularly concerned about control over immigration and opposed to deals that give Britain less than “full control” over immigration. They are similarly concerned about legal sovereignty and any “divorce bill”. They also strongly prefer scenarios where EU citizens are able to apply for residence more than scenarios where all must leave. Remain voters care much more about the rights of EU citizens – indeed, no other aspect of the negotiations appears to matter more to them. They also agree with Leave voters that trade terms with fewer barriers and lower tariffs than a “no deal” scenario would bring are preferable to a hard break from the common market. Yet, ultimately, citizens are indifferent about many aspects of Brexit.
It is possibly the worst-reported opinion poll this year. It would be nice to see some of the papers that so woefully misreported it correct themselves, but I expect we'll have a long wait for that.
The Indie actually did - and fessed up to misunderstanding the impact of the non-standard methodology:
James Ball has a lot to answer for here - he seems to have initially published details of the survey on Buzzfeed and various papers lazily picked up highlights from his article.
But it appears that he fell into the trap that the Indie explains. Since he's an Oxford PPE graduate with a diploma in Investigative Journalism, you'd expect a bit better when it comes to critical analysis of surveys!
My old lecturer used to say that PPE is mostly learning how to write as if you know what you're on about.
James Chapman must have misheard - he's writing about what he knows as if he's on something
What could have been done? Well I still regret the government's lack of interest in involving Peter Mandelson when he offered to do so. Very few if any Brits have a better understanding of how the EU works and thinks. I think the government should have been much more open about involving opposition MPs such as Starmer. This is a time of major national importance and I think a more national effort would have been appropriate, especially after the election result. But that would have required a politician with a lot more imagination and vision than Mrs May.
Possibly such cross party unity would be helpful in the right circumstances with the right personnel.
But you've also just named one of the most controversial and tribal politicians currently active, as well as one of the most disliked. How many Conservatives would be happy with a man who bullied them for years, calling them racist, lazy, stupid, corrupt (ironically) and incompetent having a lead role in their pet policy? It would be like that famous time the Australian PM offered Clive Lloyd the post of national cricket coach. How many non-Conservative voters would worry that such a Europhile would sell them out? If anything could make UKIP relevant again while they are debating how grave a threat homosexual donkeys are to civilisation, that would.
As for Starmer, he talks well enough but there's no substance to him. Remember this is a man who was a pretty poor and highly partisan DPP who is only in shadow cabinet because of the desperate paucity of talent willing to serve Corbyn. Labour's position on the EU is considerably more muddled than the Tories'. They are fortunate not to be in government where thatwould be cruelly exposed.
The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.
Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).
That would be....er....a bit childish?
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
...
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
Typically high 70s in polls accepting that the result needs to be implemented.
That 70%+ includes me. Democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU. No-one has made a coherent and convincing policy out of that single word, leave. Tellingly they haven't bothered to try.
You're not going to get anywhere.
The response to 'democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU, but I'm a bit concerned about how that's going to happen' is 'we won, suck it up'.
A surprisingly similar attitude to that of the Labour spokesman on R4 this morning who refused to answer simple questions about Labour's Brexit policy, while insisting that Labour should be put in charge of the negotiations.
If only the vocal minority of continuity Remainers were so calm and concilatory.
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
No offence taken, Free, but if I'd voted Leave (and I thought about it) and was sure I'd got it right, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Diehards who won't accept the result. I would just sit back and let events unfold. As they see the benefits Brexit brings, they will either change their views, or (more likely) appear increasingly foolish as their denial becomes increasingly untenable.
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
That 70%+ includes me. Democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU. No-one has made a coherent and convincing policy out of that single word, leave. Tellingly they haven't bothered to try.
Yep - it's not as if there have been numerous speeches, position papers, interviews and parliamentary discussions about it.
Remainers are not listening if they don't know what Leave means yet.
Leave the EU, stay in customs union, single market.
All good for you?
And have no say in making the rules!
No change there, then...
Eh?????
Have you being paying any attention to our relationship with the EEC/EU over the last 25 years plus?
We've had the most important UK political news since the election today, in DD's position paper on customs arrangements. There are two parts to the proposal: the transitional continuation of little or no customs formalities, and the longer term proposal for a streamlined customs arrangement. He has also hinted very strongly (whilst pretending not to) that the former would allow us to pay some chunkyish sums to the EU for at least a couple of years.
There are things in this proposal which our EU friends will bridle at, notably the role or otherwise of the ECJ. They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified - it would just be damaging the UK for the sake of it, with no benefit to them - so I'd expect them to back down on that. The former is a matter of quasi-religious ideology, so is likely to prove trickier.
But what choice do they have?
- They say a high priority is avoiding disruption at the Irish border; this can't be achieved any other way than along the lines of what DD proposes.
- They want loads of dosh from us - in fact, they need loads of dosh from us to cover their budget commitments. None of the net contributor countries is prepared to cough it up, and we'd be off our heads to pay them loads of money for nothing in return.
- They are totally unprepared for a hard Brexit - the BBC and other news sources keep up the usual barrage of negativity about the UK government's alleged incompetence and lack of preparation, but where are new customs systems in France, Belgium and Holland? There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that our continental friends could have something set up in time for March 2019, let alone the Irish. There may not be a snowflake's chance in hell that we could, either, but that supports the point that DD's plan is the only viable one. Sales of German cars and French champagne to us are important for their economies - can they really contemplate a scenario where they get seriously disrupted?
- More than that, the strength of the UK economy in general is important to them. It's not just the big exporting countries such as Germany who have a lot to lose, it's even more the small tourist economies such as Malta, Greece, Cyprus, as well as Spain, Portugal, Italy and even France.
Expect much bitching from the EU and from the usual suspects here in the UK, but DD is on the right lines. Hopefully sense will prevail over Euroreligion.
OK. So we will be in a customs union with the EU with everything that implies. Why not say so?
(snip) - They say a high priority is avoiding disruption at the Irish border; this can't be achieved any other way than along the lines of what DD proposes.
- They want loads of dosh from us - in fact, they need loads of dosh from us to cover their budget commitments. None of the net contributor countries is prepared to cough it up, and we'd be off our heads to pay them loads of money for nothing in return.
- They are totally unprepared for a hard Brexit - the BBC and other news sources keep up the usual barrage of negativity about the UK government's alleged incompetence and lack of preparation, but where are new customs systems in France, Belgium and Holland? There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that our continental friends could have something set up in time for March 2019, let alone the Irish. There may not be a snowflake's chance in hell that we could, either, but that supports the point that DD's plan is the only viable one. Sales of German cars and French champagne to us are important for their economies - can they really contemplate a scenario where they get seriously disrupted?
- More than that, the strength of the UK economy in general is important to them. It's not just the big exporting countries such as Germany who have a lot to lose, it's even more the small tourist economies such as Malta, Greece, Cyprus, as well as Spain, Portugal, Italy and even France.
Expect much bitching from the EU and from the usual suspects here in the UK, but DD is on the right lines. Hopefully sense will prevail over Euroreligion.
I think Eire will play a very important role in this. The position of the EU that they want this discussed first allows us to address all the issues we want to address on trade and freedom of movement right now, not when we have agreed what needs to be paid.
If we find a frictionless solution for the border with Eire why would we not copy it over to the rest of the EU in due course, possibly with the smallest of tweaks? The Customs Paper should form the basis for those discussions about Eire which everyone can pretend are not really about everyone else as well.
We've had the most important UK political news since the election today, in DD's position paper on customs arrangements. There are two parts to the proposal: the transitional continuation of little or no customs formalities, and the longer term proposal for a streamlined customs arrangement. He has also hinted very strongly (whilst pretending not to) that the former would allow us to pay some chunkyish sums to the EU for at least a couple of years.
There are things in this proposal which our EU friends will bridle at, notably the role or otherwise of the ECJ. They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified - it would just be damaging the UK for the sake of it, with no benefit to them - so I'd expect them to back down on that. The former is a matter of quasi-religious ideology, so is likely to prove trickier.
But what choice do they have?
- They say a high priority is avoiding disruption at the Irish border; this can't be achieved any other way than along the lines of what DD proposes.
- They want loads of dosh from us - in fact, they need loads of dosh from us to cover their budget commitments. None of the net contributor countries is prepared to cough it up, and we'd be off our heads to pay them loads of money for nothing in return.
- They are totally unprepared for a hard Brexit - the BBC and other news sources keep up the usual barrage of negativity about the UK government's alleged incompetence and lack of preparation, but where are new customs systems in France, Belgium and Holland? There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that our continental friends could have something set up in time for March 2019, let alone the Irish. There may not be a snowflake's chance in hell that we could, either, but that supports the point that DD's plan is the only viable one. Sales of German cars and French champagne to us are important for their economies - can they really contemplate a scenario where they get seriously disrupted?
- More than that, the strength of the UK economy in general is important to them. It's not just the big exporting countries such as Germany who have a lot to lose, it's even more the small tourist economies such as Malta, Greece, Cyprus, as well as Spain, Portugal, Italy and even France.
Expect much bitching from the EU and from the usual suspects here in the UK, but DD is on the right lines. Hopefully sense will prevail over Euroreligion.
Some very interesting stuff from DD.
How many times will Scott_P share Faisal's tweets's about the Eurocrats reaction and threats to DD's proposals in the next 48hrs?
The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
Typically high 70s in polls accepting that the result needs to be implemented.
That 70%+ includes me. Democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU. No-one has made a coherent and convincing policy out of that single word, leave. Tellingly they haven't bothered to try.
Yep - it's not as if there have been numerous speeches, position papers, interviews and parliamentary discussions about it.
Remainers are not listening if they don't know what Leave means yet.
Leave the EU, stay in customs union, single market.
All good for you?
If you honestly think that is what the Govt position is, you've not been listening either:
Leave the EU. Leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Leave the customs union and single market. All after a transition the length of which to be negotiated. To be be replaced with a trade deal, likely free trade in goods, the details of which to be discussed.
I think Eire will play a very important role in this. The position of the EU that they want this discussed first allows us to address all the issues we want to address on trade and freedom of movement right now, not when we have agreed what needs to be paid.
If we find a frictionless solution for the border with Eire why would we not copy it over to the rest of the EU in due course, possibly with the smallest of tweaks? The Customs Paper should form the basis for those discussions about Eire which everyone can pretend are not really about everyone else as well.
Yes, Eire is absolutely crucial. They seem to be well ahead of the other EU27 governments in understanding the issues and dangers. Of course, they've got more to lose than anyone else.
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
It's the same article she writes every week, simply exhibiting her irrational prejudice against Conservatives - which seems to be the driving force of her life. She wrote similar articles about David Cameron, for example.
I note they are not allowing comments on it. It is particularly nasty, even by her own standards "ludicrous names for his six children".
From someone so privileged that she got into Oxford on one A level.
If any proof were needed that a pass grade at A-level was dead easy in the 60s...
Incidentally this is a very interesting and nuanced article on her:
OK. So we will be in a customs union with the EU with everything that implies. Why not say so?
A Customs Union but not the Customs Union. It is a critical difference. One is a bilateral arrangement between 2 parties of equal standing if not size that can be reviewed, changed and even terminated at the instance of either party. The other is a key element of the Single Market binding its participants into an entire legal system and regulation by the Court of one of the parties.
We've had the most important UK political news since the election today, in DD's position paper on customs arrangements. There are two parts to the proposal: the transitional continuation of little or no customs formalities, and the longer term proposal for a streamlined customs arrangement. He has also hinted very strongly (whilst pretending not to) that the former would allow us to pay some chunkyish sums to the EU for at least a couple of years.
There are things in this proposal which our EU friends will bridle at, notably the role or otherwise of the ECJ. They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified - it would just be damaging the UK for the sake of it, with no benefit to them - so I'd expect them to back down on that. The former is a matter of quasi-religious ideology, so is likely to prove trickier.
But what choice do they have?
- They say a high priority is avoiding disruption at the Irish border; this can't be achieved any other way than along the lines of what DD proposes.
- They want loads of dosh from us - in fact, they need loads of dosh from us to cover their budget commitments. None of the net contributor countries is prepared to cough it up, and we'd be off our heads to pay them loads of money for nothing in return.
- They are totally unprepared for a hard Brexit - the BBC and other news sources keep up the usual barrage of negativity about the UK government's alleged incompetence and lack of preparation, but where are new customs systems in France, Belgium and Holland? There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that our continental friends could have something set up in time for March 2019, let alone the Irish. There may not be a snowflake's chance in hell that we could, either, but that supports the point that DD's plan is the only viable one. Sales of German cars and French champagne to us are important for their economies - can they really contemplate a scenario where they get seriously disrupted?
- More than that, the strength of the UK economy in general is important to them. It's not just the big exporting countries such as Germany who have a lot to lose, it's even more the small tourist economies such as Malta, Greece, Cyprus, as well as Spain, Portugal, Italy and even France.
Expect much bitching from the EU and from the usual suspects here in the UK, but DD is on the right lines. Hopefully sense will prevail over Euroreligion.
Some very interesting stuff from DD.
How many times will Scott_P share Faisal's tweets's about the Eurocrats reaction and threats to DD's proposals in the next 48hrs?
Picking up on Alastair's point I think there is some truth in the contention that very little effort has been put into persuading those that voted Remain to come on board. Indeed there has been desperately little effort to set out clear positions (other than the very occasional and broad speech) for over a year now. This has inevitably given Remainers and their many friends in the media free rein to explain how it is all going to be a disaster. It is incompetent politics and unfortunately fairly typical of this government.
An optimist would hope that the position papers now being published will start to address this but the realist should recognise that these position papers will be produced in a negative and hostile atmosphere where the agenda has already been set. Having heard DD on Today this morning I am not sure that "constructive ambiguity" and crafty little chuckles is much of an answer.
What could have been done? Well I still regret the government's lack of interest in involving Peter Mandelson when he offered to do so. Very few if any Brits have a better understanding of how the EU works and thinks. I think the government should have been much more open about involving opposition MPs such as Starmer. This is a time of major national importance and I think a more national effort would have been appropriate, especially after the election result. But that would have required a politician with a lot more imagination and vision than Mrs May.
The problem is that only a Remainer can deliver a damage limited Brexit because only a Remainer can admit that leaving the EU might result in serious damage that needs to be limited. But Leavers don't trust Remainers because they see that damage limitation as sabotage. The government's problems stem from that basic fact.
Picking up on Alastair's point I think there is some truth in the contention that very little effort has been put into persuading those that voted Remain to come on board. Indeed there has been desperately little effort to set out clear positions (other than the very occasional and broad speech) for over a year now. This has inevitably given Remainers and their many friends in the media free rein to explain how it is all going to be a disaster. It is incompetent politics and unfortunately fairly typical of this government.
An optimist would hope that the position papers now being published will start to address this but the realist should recognise that these position papers will be produced in a negative and hostile atmosphere where the agenda has already been set. Having heard DD on Today this morning I am not sure that "constructive ambiguity" and crafty little chuckles is much of an answer.
What could have been done? Well I still regret the government's lack of interest in involving Peter Mandelson when he offered to do so. Very few if any Brits have a better understanding of how the EU works and thinks. I think the government should have been much more open about involving opposition MPs such as Starmer. This is a time of major national importance and I think a more national effort would have been appropriate, especially after the election result. But that would have required a politician with a lot more imagination and vision than Mrs May.
A year has been wasted, during which time the government has managed to lose the remaining goodwill that it had with its EU counterparts and allow its outriders in the media and on the backbenches to insult the very large minority in this country that didn't agree with it. To call the government clueless is being charitable.
Brexit was always going to be very bad, due largely to the way in which it was secured, but the government has played a poor hand really badly. Blaming those who were previously sceptical is a bit rich.
OK. So we will be in a customs union with the EU with everything that implies. Why not say so?
A Customs Union but not the Customs Union. It is a critical difference. One is a bilateral arrangement between 2 parties of equal standing if not size that can be reviewed, changed and even terminated at the instance of either party. The other is a key element of the Single Market binding its participants into an entire legal system and regulation by the Court of one of the parties.
I think has been the obvious solution since June 23rd.
As Gove and Andrew Neil reminded us, there is free trade from Iceland to Turkey - why would we be the exception, especially when we consume so much European product.
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
It's the same article she writes every week, simply exhibiting her irrational prejudice against Conservatives - which seems to be the driving force of her life. She wrote similar articles about David Cameron, for example.
I note they are not allowing comments on it. It is particularly nasty, even by her own standards "ludicrous names for his six children".
From someone so privileged that she got into Oxford on one A level.
If any proof were needed that a pass grade at A-level was dead easy in the 60s...
Incidentally this is a very interesting and nuanced article on her:
Hahaha, well the subject of my post was actually JRM but you all seem much more interested in Polly T. I'm no great fan of hers tbh - I just thought she had nailed it on this occasion.
But what the hell - JRM will rise or fall on his own merits or failings, regardless of Polly.
We've had the most important UK political news since the election today, in DD's position paper on customs arrangements. There are two parts to the proposal: the transitional continuation of little or no customs formalities, and the longer term proposal for a streamlined customs arrangement. He has also hinted very strongly (whilst pretending not to) that the former would allow us to pay some chunkyish sums to the EU for at least a couple of years.
There are things in this proposal which our EU friends will bridle at, notably the role or otherwise of the ECJ. They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified - it would just be damaging the UK for the sake of it, with no benefit to them - so I'd expect them to back down on that. The former is a matter of quasi-religious ideology, so is likely to prove trickier.
But what choice do they have?
- They say a high priority is avoiding disruption at the Irish border; this can't be achieved any other way than along the lines of what DD proposes.
- They want loads of dosh from us - in fact, they need loads of dosh from us to cover their budget commitments. None of the net contributor countries is prepared to cough it up, and we'd be off our heads to pay them loads of money for nothing in return.
- They are totally unprepared for a hard Brexit - the BBC and other news sources keep up the usual barrage of negativity about the UK government's alleged incompetence and lack of preparation, but where are new customs systems in France, Belgium and Holland? There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that our continental friends could have something set up in time for March 2019, let alone the Irish. There may not be a snowflake's chance in hell that we could, either, but that supports the point that DD's plan is the only viable one. Sales of German cars and French champagne to us are important for their economies - can they really contemplate a scenario where they get seriously disrupted?
- More than that, the strength of the UK economy in general is important to them. It's not just the big exporting countries such as Germany who have a lot to lose, it's even more the small tourist economies such as Malta, Greece, Cyprus, as well as Spain, Portugal, Italy and even France.
Expect much bitching from the EU and from the usual suspects here in the UK, but DD is on the right lines. Hopefully sense will prevail over Euroreligion.
This morning there didn't seem to be any question of the negotiated trade deals coming into force before the end of the transition/customs union agreement. The former EU trade commissioner seemed to confirm that.
This morning there didn't seem to be any question of the negotiated trade deals coming into force before the end of the transition/customs union agreement. The former EU trade commissioner seemed to confirm that.
How could they?
As I understand it, DD is saying we would be able to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transitional period, but that they would only come into effect at the end of the transition. That seems entirely reasonable.
Kent & East Sussex done today - longest standard gauge heritage railway in the South East.
Is that the one that goes to Bodiam, along the Rother valley? I used to go fishing there as a kid.
Will they ever re-open up the connection to Robertsbridge?
They just got the planning permission a few months ago. Sadly, had to make do with stopping at Bodiam today!
There are surely worse places in the world to have to stop at!
Once the link to Roberstbridge is open the line will presumably connect to national rail network - Beeching will be turning in his grave. Oh the waste!
If the stupid bugger hadn't closed the Great Central line to Sheffield from Aylesbury then we wouldn't be fielding about with HS2 either.
That said, if some even stupider bugger hadn't sold off half a mile of track bed for housing (under Thatcher, I think?) it could easily have been put back anyway.
Now probably not possible due to redevelopment in Leicester. Tragic waste of a line that was a century ahead of its time - and therefore naturally a dinosaur - but would now really come into its own.
No. The Great Central was not, and is not, a rival for HS2.
The last twenty or thirty miles into London Marylebone is still in heavy use, with little spare capacity. This is one of the areas that requires extra capacity. It was also not in any way high speed.
It was also relatively little used throughout its life, partially because it had been built more or less standalone and had few connections with the rest of the network (something that became critical in BR times). In fact, the part of the network that survives into London was not actually built by the GCR, but the Metropolitan.
Finally, the route was systematically ripped up in Leicester (and particularly Nottingham) the moment it was closed. Work started on the Victoria Centre in Nottingham (on the site of Victoria station) the year it closed, blocking the route. Claims that the bottom storey was left to allow a station to be rebuilt later are apparently bogus. BR was in indecent haste to render the route unusable for the same reason the Midalnd route between Matlock and Buxton was closed - internal rivalries vying for reducing traffic levels.
The undoubted success of the railways since privatisation have led to them facing a problem that they'd never planned for: growing traffic. It's unfair to expect the BR of thirty years before to predict that growth.
This morning there didn't seem to be any question of the negotiated trade deals coming into force before the end of the transition/customs union agreement. The former EU trade commissioner seemed to confirm that.
How could they?
As I understand it, DD is saying we would be able to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transitional period, but that they would only come into effect at the end of the transition. That seems entirely reasonable.
Yes that seems much more sensible. But your "They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified" perhaps I mis-read.
That's utter tosh - the EU issued lots of press releases and individual EU politicians gave lots of interviews on the various subjects before the EU position papers were published (and why not?). This is a fine example of the usual suspects being negative about the UK government.
More to the point, if the EU hadn't been so pig-headed about the mythical sacredness of the schedule they invented, we could have started planning the substantive discussions a year ago.
This morning there didn't seem to be any question of the negotiated trade deals coming into force before the end of the transition/customs union agreement. The former EU trade commissioner seemed to confirm that.
How could they?
As I understand it, DD is saying we would be able to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transitional period, but that they would only come into effect at the end of the transition. That seems entirely reasonable.
Yes that seems much more sensible. But your "They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified" perhaps I mis-read.
The counterparties we try to negotiate trade deals with that will never come into force will have more right to bitch than anyone else. They might even wonder if we're working in cahoots with the Commission.
This morning there didn't seem to be any question of the negotiated trade deals coming into force before the end of the transition/customs union agreement. The former EU trade commissioner seemed to confirm that.
How could they?
As I understand it, DD is saying we would be able to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transitional period, but that they would only come into effect at the end of the transition. That seems entirely reasonable.
Yes that seems much more sensible. But your "They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified" perhaps I mis-read.
Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).
That would be....er....a bit childish?
That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
No offence taken, Free, but if I'd voted Leave (and I thought about it) and was sure I'd got it right, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Diehards who won't accept the result. I would just sit back and let events unfold. As they see the benefits Brexit brings, they will either change their views, or (more likely) appear increasingly foolish as their denial becomes increasingly untenable.
If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.
Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
That, however, leads onto another point. Since the referendum, Leavers have conspicuously failed to persuade Remainers to their cause. They seem oddly uninterested in why that might be. It's almost as if it hasn't worked out as they'd expected.
That's the key problem.
Given that a minority of vocal continuity Remainers, like Meeks, refuse to even try to be open to persuasion, how can it be a surprise?
It's not the minority of Remainers but almost all of them. If it were a minority, the consensus for Brexit would be there after the vote. Alastair is right.
Typically high 70s in polls accepting that the result needs to be implemented.
I am one of the 70%+ but absolutely nothing has happened since the referendum to make me believe it was the right decision.
Watching this government flounder around trying to find a solution that suits internal Tory party politics without any concern as to whether it will be accepted by the EU27, I think it's going to turn out worse than I feared.
I'd encourage those who are not Guardianistas to read it in the spirit of hearing the other viewpoint
It's the same article she writes every week, simply exhibiting her irrational prejudice against Conservatives - which seems to be the driving force of her life. She wrote similar articles about David Cameron, for example.
I note they are not allowing comments on it. It is particularly nasty, even by her own standards "ludicrous names for his six children".
From someone so privileged that she got into Oxford on one A level.
If any proof were needed that a pass grade at A-level was dead easy in the 60s...
Incidentally this is a very interesting and nuanced article on her:
Hahaha, well the subject of my post was actually JRM but you all seem much more interested in Polly T. I'm no great fan of hers tbh - I just thought she had nailed it on this occasion.
But what the hell - JRM will rise or fall on his own merits or failings, regardless of Polly.
I think because Polly sums up all that people hate about the left in one unsavoury package. Particularly, she is a hypocrite, which I don't think anyone can accuse Rees-Mogg of being.
However, if he is to rise on his own merits it is hard to see how he rises beyond PPS to the Department for International Development.
This morning there didn't seem to be any question of the negotiated trade deals coming into force before the end of the transition/customs union agreement. The former EU trade commissioner seemed to confirm that.
How could they?
As I understand it, DD is saying we would be able to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transitional period, but that they would only come into effect at the end of the transition. That seems entirely reasonable.
Yes that seems much more sensible. But your "They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified" perhaps I mis-read.
This morning there didn't seem to be any question of the negotiated trade deals coming into force before the end of the transition/customs union agreement. The former EU trade commissioner seemed to confirm that.
How could they?
As I understand it, DD is saying we would be able to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transitional period, but that they would only come into effect at the end of the transition. That seems entirely reasonable.
Yes that seems much more sensible. But your "They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified" perhaps I mis-read.
The counterparties we try to negotiate trade deals with that will never come into force will have more right to bitch than anyone else. They might even wonder if we're working in cahoots with the Commission.
And back in the real world, which is more likely? The policy of the government, the two Major parties and the people of this country, or the fantasy of an anonymous poster on a website who isn't used to losing.
Scanning a few of the pro-Brexit twitter accounts none of them are happy, across the spectrum. The idea of a transition deal of any description seems to be regarded as insane because it prevents us reaping the benefits of being unchained from the EU...
No. The Great Central was not, and is not, a rival for HS2.
The last twenty or thirty miles into London Marylebone is still in heavy use, with little spare capacity. This is one of the areas that requires extra capacity. It was also not in any way high speed.
It was also relatively little used throughout its life, partially because it had been built more or less standalone and had few connections with the rest of the network (something that became critical in BR times). In fact, the part of the network that survives into London was not actually built by the GCR, but the Metropolitan.
Finally, the route was systematically ripped up in Leicester (and particularly Nottingham) the moment it was closed. Work started on the Victoria Centre in Nottingham (on the site of Victoria station) the year it closed, blocking the route. Claims that the bottom storey was left to allow a station to be rebuilt later are apparently bogus. BR was in indecent haste to render the route unusable for the same reason the Midalnd route between Matlock and Buxton was closed - internal rivalries vying for reducing traffic levels.
The undoubted success of the railways since privatisation have led to them facing a problem that they'd never planned for: growing traffic. It's unfair to expect the BR of thirty years before to predict that growth.
I will bow to your superior knowledge on the GCML.
However, I flatly disagree with your final sentence. Substantial growth in traffic with the right management could and should have been foreseen, simply by looking at demographic trends and the rapid growth of dormer towns in the 1950s. Admittedly, increased freight is a different matter and I don't think rail freight has increased overall anyway although I haven't checked the figures.
The problem with Beeching was that he was unable to grasp what could be done, settling instead for what he thought might be profitable. With the net result that what could be done was not done, and what had been profitable ceased to be so.
Kent & East Sussex done today - longest standard gauge heritage railway in the South East.
Is that the one that goes to Bodiam, along the Rother valley? I used to go fishing there as a kid.
Will they ever re-open up the connection to Robertsbridge?
They just got the planning permission a few months ago. Sadly, had to make do with stopping at Bodiam today!
There are surely worse places in the world to have to stop at!
Once the link to Roberstbridge is open the line will presumably connect to national rail network - Beeching will be turning in his grave. Oh the waste!
If the stupid bugger hadn't closed the Great Central line to Sheffield from Aylesbury then we wouldn't be fielding about with HS2 either.
That said, if some even stupider bugger hadn't sold off half a mile of track bed for housing (under Thatcher, I think?) it could easily have been put back anyway.
Now probably not possible due to redevelopment in Leicester. Tragic waste of a line that was a century ahead of its time - and therefore naturally a dinosaur - but would now really come into its own.
No. The Great Central was not, and is not, a rival for HS2.
The last twenty or thirty miles into London Marylebone is still in heavy use, with little spare capacity. This is one of the areas that requires extra capacity. It was also not in any way high speed.
It was also relatively little used throughout its life, partially because it had been built more or less standalone and had few connections with the rest of the network (something that became critical in BR times). In fact, the part of the network that survives into London was not actually built by the GCR, but the Metropolitan.
Finally, the route was systematically ripped up in Leicester (and particularly Nottingham) the moment it was closed. Work started on the Victoria Centre in Nottingham (on the site of Victoria station) the year it closed, blocking the route. Claims that the bottom storey was left to allow a station to be rebuilt later are apparently bogus. BR was in indecent haste to render the route unusable for the same reason the Midalnd route between Matlock and Buxton was closed - internal rivalries vying for reducing traffic levels.
The undoubted success of the railways since privatisation have led to them facing a problem that they'd never planned for: growing traffic. It's unfair to expect the BR of thirty years before to predict that growth.
Well the Beeching cuts are certainly a prime example of an idea that seems expedient at the time turning out to be a major mistake.
Scanning a few of the pro-Brexit twitter accounts none of them are happy, across the spectrum. The idea of a transition deal of any description seems to be regarded as insane because it prevents us reaping the benefits of being unchained from the EU...
Most people who voted LEAVE are comfortable with a time-limited Brexit transition IMO.
Cause if we got to the end of the two years and the government tried to move to goal posts to keep us in "transition" for a further two years the position would change.
Train has derailed at Waterloo after hitting an engineering train.
Looks as though someone set the points to the wrong track.
And the Cambridge to Peterborough line is blocked due to a derailed train at Queen Adelaide north of Ely.
RAIB are gong to be busy.
This isn't possible. After all, we all know Network rail has eliminated derailments by the sheer brilliance of its public sector ownership model. Christian Wolmar says so.
(His name autocorrected to Christian Walmart, amusingly!)
A Conservative MP will go on trial in May next year on charges over his 2015 general election expenses.
Craig Mackinlay, who faces a jury trial, is accused of offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983, alongside campaign director Marion Little and Nathan Gray, an election agent.
The South Thanet MP, from Ramsgate in Kent, is charged with two counts of knowingly making a false election expenses declaration, while Gray, from Hawkhurst, Kent, faces one.
Little, from Ware in Hertfordshire, is accused of three counts related to aiding Mackinlay and Gray in making false declarations....
....Mr Justice Edis told the three defendants at Southwark crown court on Tuesday that their trial would begin on 14 May, and was estimated to last six weeks.
OK. So we will be in a customs union with the EU with everything that implies. Why not say so?
A Customs Union but not the Customs Union. It is a critical difference. One is a bilateral arrangement between 2 parties of equal standing if not size that can be reviewed, changed and even terminated at the instance of either party. The other is a key element of the Single Market binding its participants into an entire legal system and regulation by the Court of one of the parties.
I think has been the obvious solution since June 23rd.
Yes, the phrase I heard was "a customs union with the Customs Union".
I can understand his frustration with NRF. The one time I had dealings with them they bungled a simple mortgage on the lease of my solar panels. Fortunately I was only the landlord not the lessee so not directly affected.
Scanning a few of the pro-Brexit twitter accounts none of them are happy, across the spectrum. The idea of a transition deal of any description seems to be regarded as insane because it prevents us reaping the benefits of being unchained from the EU...
Most people who voted LEAVE are comfortable with a time-limited Brexit IMO.
Cause if we got to the end of the two years and the government tried to move to goal posts to keep us in "transition" for a further two years the position would change.
Most of the people who voted Leave don't care about it one way or the other. The momentum for Brexit is not drive by those people, but by the true believers, and as Brexit starts to take form, they are not getting behind the government. The Cabinet will end up pursuing a Brexit policy wanted by nobody, least of all themselves.
The election was bad for May and the Tories. We get it. Time for the PB editorial narrative to move on perhaps?
Well, the general election was bad for the Tories. The 2015 election was bad for the Tories. Everything they have done or tried to do since then has been bad for the Tories.
OK. So we will be in a customs union with the EU with everything that implies. Why not say so?
A Customs Union but not the Customs Union. It is a critical difference. One is a bilateral arrangement between 2 parties of equal standing if not size that can be reviewed, changed and even terminated at the instance of either party. The other is a key element of the Single Market binding its participants into an entire legal system and regulation by the Court of one of the parties.
It's a distinction that is designed to confuse than to inform. Membership of the EU comes with free internal trade and a common external customs tariff and set of trade agreements with third parties. There is no standalone Customs Union as part of the membership. Those arrangements lapse automatically on loss of membership. Any replacement will as you say will necessarily be a bilateral agreement between the EU and the UK. While the agreement will stay the same until it is periodically amended, the actual tariffs applied and the product regulation etc will under any plausible agreement be decided by the EU unilaterally and will constantly change. The agreement will also be enforced by EU law if not, probably, by an EU court.
That's the deal. It's now up to the UK to push for the best arrangement it can get. If you pretend it's something it's not because you are fightened of acquainting part of your electorate with reality, and try to muddy the waters through "constructive ambiguity", you will get a mush of a negotiation.
The election was bad for May and the Tories. We get it. Time for the PB editorial narrative to move on perhaps?
Well, the general election was bad for the Tories. The 2015 election was bad for the Tories. Everything they have done or tried to do since then has been bad for the Tories.
Why do you want us all to move on?
Everything has been terrrrrrrrrrrible for the Tories since the Corn Laws!!!!!!!
I think Eire will play a very important role in this. The position of the EU that they want this discussed first allows us to address all the issues we want to address on trade and freedom of movement right now, not when we have agreed what needs to be paid.
If we find a frictionless solution for the border with Eire why would we not copy it over to the rest of the EU in due course, possibly with the smallest of tweaks? The Customs Paper should form the basis for those discussions about Eire which everyone can pretend are not really about everyone else as well.
Yes, Eire is absolutely crucial. They seem to be well ahead of the other EU27 governments in understanding the issues and dangers. Of course, they've got more to lose than anyone else.
I've heard second hand that Ireland have come to the negotiations incredibly prepared. They've wargamed every eventuality and have a clear plan of what they want and need from Brexit more than any other EU nation and as a result they are a ket driver of the talks.
Well the Beeching cuts are certainly a prime example of an idea that seems expedient at the time turning out to be a major mistake.
Reminds me of Brexit tbh!
Why were the Beeching Cuts a major mistake? They were just part of a long-standing consolidation of the network that had been going on for decades. Many of the lines would be massively loss-making even with today's increased traffic. Also remember that many routes were duplicates built by different pre-grouping companies that were always going to have problems post-nationalisation.
IMO the debate's on the wrong area. Whilst some line closures were probably a mistake - the Great Central, the Matlock to Buxton, the Waverley to name three - most were wise.
The biggest mistake was not the closures; it was the indecent sale of parcels of land that meant many routes are nearly impossible to reopen. Closed lines should have been kept as strategic corridors for reuse later, either as railways, roads (where possible) or walking / cycle paths.
The election was back for May and the Tories. We get it.
Time for the PB editorial narrative to move on perhaps?
Not really, it's one of the few active betting markets, Mrs May's crapness and when she goes.
Oddly none of the Tories complained when Mike and myself did regular threads on Ed's crapness or Mike did lots of threads on Gordon Brown's crapness.
You surely remember the febrile atmosphere on here during the Cash For Honours scandal? The markets were alive with punters betting on just exactly when Blair would go. Guido was leading the charge, as I recall.
Nobody complained, least of all me. I laid every single date and it proved one of my most successful political markets ever.
The election was bad for May and the Tories. We get it. Time for the PB editorial narrative to move on perhaps?
Well, the general election was bad for the Tories. The 2015 election was bad for the Tories. Everything they have done or tried to do since then has been bad for the Tories.
Why do you want us all to move on?
I once had a conductor who told me that breathing is very bad for you. Everyone who breathes dies. He then pointedly remarked that the next person who breathed in the wrong place might die rather suddenly.
Speaking of which, I am off for a walk to enjoy the fine weather. Have a good morning.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcIkIz98zXU
There are daily reports, semi-reports and rumours and the Government's own position, for all your cheerleading, appears to this observer to be confused and contradictory.
Yes, we are leaving but the manner of the departure and the not inconsiderable issue of the country's economic relationship with the EU and the rest of the world isn't as clear as you try to portray.
Simply shouting "Global Britain" isn't convincing anyone.
NOBODY LISTENED TO YOU AND THEY STILL AREN'T
I especially enjoyed this line:
'Sublime self-love and self-confidence will carry a man a long way – but to the very top?'
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/remain-and-leave-voter
But it appears that he fell into the trap that the Indie explains. Since he's an Oxford PPE graduate with a diploma in Investigative Journalism, you'd expect a bit better when it comes to critical analysis of surveys!
they're tax havens and look after other peoples' money (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)
they 'got lucky' and have $1 trillion of their own oil money in the bank (Norway)
or they're located in a cold northern ocean stuffed full of fish (Iceland).
'Mainstream' northern European countries lacking such features (from the Netherlands to Sweden) all joined the EU, some early, others after the UK (Sweden and Finland). Their GDP/capita is 15-25% above the UK average. It is somewhat more evenly distributed (both geographically and from top to bottom.) That has rather good results for social cohesion and 'happiness'; read the Spirit Level.
Once the link to Roberstbridge is open the line will presumably connect to national rail network - Beeching will be turning in his grave. Oh the waste!
The response to 'democracy must be respected and we must leave the EU, but I'm a bit concerned about how that's going to happen' is 'we won, suck it up'.
A surprisingly similar attitude to that of the Labour spokesman on R4 this morning who refused to answer simple questions about Labour's Brexit policy, while insisting that Labour should be put in charge of the negotiations.
"Don't imagine that this will make Britain like Hong Kong was in the 70s. It's going to make Britain like Britain was in the 70s."
That said, if some even stupider bugger hadn't sold off half a mile of track bed for housing (under Thatcher, I think?) it could easily have been put back anyway.
Now probably not possible due to redevelopment in Leicester. Tragic waste of a line that was a century ahead of its time - and therefore naturally a dinosaur - but would now really come into its own.
It is particularly nasty, even by her own standards "ludicrous names for his six children".
Watching this government flounder around trying to find a solution that suits internal Tory party politics without any concern as to whether it will be accepted by the EU27, I think it's going to turn out worse than I feared.
An optimist would hope that the position papers now being published will start to address this but the realist should recognise that these position papers will be produced in a negative and hostile atmosphere where the agenda has already been set. Having heard DD on Today this morning I am not sure that "constructive ambiguity" and crafty little chuckles is much of an answer.
What could have been done? Well I still regret the government's lack of interest in involving Peter Mandelson when he offered to do so. Very few if any Brits have a better understanding of how the EU works and thinks. I think the government should have been much more open about involving opposition MPs such as Starmer. This is a time of major national importance and I think a more national effort would have been appropriate, especially after the election result. But that would have required a politician with a lot more imagination and vision than Mrs May.
There are things in this proposal which our EU friends will bridle at, notably the role or otherwise of the ECJ. They will also bitch about the suggestion that we should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals, but not implement them until the transitional period is over. The latter objection is of course completely unjustified - it would just be damaging the UK for the sake of it, with no benefit to them - so I'd expect them to back down on that. The former is a matter of quasi-religious ideology, so is likely to prove trickier.
But what choice do they have?
- They say a high priority is avoiding disruption at the Irish border; this can't be achieved any other way than along the lines of what DD proposes.
- They want loads of dosh from us - in fact, they need loads of dosh from us to cover their budget commitments. None of the net contributor countries is prepared to cough it up, and we'd be off our heads to pay them loads of money for nothing in return.
- They are totally unprepared for a hard Brexit - the BBC and other news sources keep up the usual barrage of negativity about the UK government's alleged incompetence and lack of preparation, but where are new customs systems in France, Belgium and Holland? There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that our continental friends could have something set up in time for March 2019, let alone the Irish. There may not be a snowflake's chance in hell that we could, either, but that supports the point that DD's plan is the only viable one. Sales of German cars and French champagne to us are important for their economies - can they really contemplate a scenario where they get seriously disrupted?
- More than that, the strength of the UK economy in general is important to them. It's not just the big exporting countries such as Germany who have a lot to lose, it's even more the small tourist economies such as Malta, Greece, Cyprus, as well as Spain, Portugal, Italy and even France.
Expect much bitching from the EU and from the usual suspects here in the UK, but DD is on the right lines. Hopefully sense will prevail over Euroreligion.
LabourList @LabourList
Keith Vaz beats Momentum candidate to retain place on Labour’s NEC http://bit.ly/2vXXRNv
Photo published for Keith Vaz beats Momentum candidate to retain place on Labour's NEC | LabourList
Keith Vaz beats Momentum candidate to retain place on Labour's NEC
But you've also just named one of the most controversial and tribal politicians currently active, as well as one of the most disliked. How many Conservatives would be happy with a man who bullied them for years, calling them racist, lazy, stupid, corrupt (ironically) and incompetent having a lead role in their pet policy? It would be like that famous time the Australian PM offered Clive Lloyd the post of national cricket coach. How many non-Conservative voters would worry that such a Europhile would sell them out? If anything could make UKIP relevant again while they are debating how grave a threat homosexual donkeys are to civilisation, that would.
As for Starmer, he talks well enough but there's no substance to him. Remember this is a man who was a pretty poor and highly partisan DPP who is only in shadow cabinet because of the desperate paucity of talent willing to serve Corbyn. Labour's position on the EU is considerably more muddled than the Tories'. They are fortunate not to be in government where thatwould be cruelly exposed.
If we find a frictionless solution for the border with Eire why would we not copy it over to the rest of the EU in due course, possibly with the smallest of tweaks? The Customs Paper should form the basis for those discussions about Eire which everyone can pretend are not really about everyone else as well.
How many times will Scott_P share Faisal's tweets's about the Eurocrats reaction and threats to DD's proposals in the next 48hrs?
Leave the EU. Leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Leave the customs union and single market. All after a transition the length of which to be negotiated. To be be replaced with a trade deal, likely free trade in goods, the details of which to be discussed.
Incidentally this is a very interesting and nuanced article on her:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/polly-toynbee-reborn-as-a-lady-of-the-right-425833.html
Nowt on here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/announcements
Or here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-exiting-the-european-union
Brexit was always going to be very bad, due largely to the way in which it was secured, but the government has played a poor hand really badly. Blaming those who were previously sceptical is a bit rich.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/22/jacob-rees-mogg-cold-reactionary
Rattled.
As Gove and Andrew Neil reminded us, there is free trade from Iceland to Turkey - why would we be the exception, especially when we consume so much European product.
https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/897093123465072641
Looks as though someone set the points to the wrong track.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/897394428016562176
But what the hell - JRM will rise or fall on his own merits or failings, regardless of Polly.
How could they?
The last twenty or thirty miles into London Marylebone is still in heavy use, with little spare capacity. This is one of the areas that requires extra capacity. It was also not in any way high speed.
It was also relatively little used throughout its life, partially because it had been built more or less standalone and had few connections with the rest of the network (something that became critical in BR times). In fact, the part of the network that survives into London was not actually built by the GCR, but the Metropolitan.
Finally, the route was systematically ripped up in Leicester (and particularly Nottingham) the moment it was closed. Work started on the Victoria Centre in Nottingham (on the site of Victoria station) the year it closed, blocking the route. Claims that the bottom storey was left to allow a station to be rebuilt later are apparently bogus. BR was in indecent haste to render the route unusable for the same reason the Midalnd route between Matlock and Buxton was closed - internal rivalries vying for reducing traffic levels.
The undoubted success of the railways since privatisation have led to them facing a problem that they'd never planned for: growing traffic. It's unfair to expect the BR of thirty years before to predict that growth.
https://twitter.com/WestmonsterUK/status/897356037065498625
More to the point, if the EU hadn't been so pig-headed about the mythical sacredness of the schedule they invented, we could have started planning the substantive discussions a year ago.
However, if he is to rise on his own merits it is hard to see how he rises beyond PPS to the Department for International Development.
RAIB are gong to be busy.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/873978710038388737
Major parties and the people of this country, or the fantasy of an anonymous poster on a website who isn't used to losing.
Time for the PB editorial narrative to move on perhaps?
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/897396196385280000
However, I flatly disagree with your final sentence. Substantial growth in traffic with the right management could and should have been foreseen, simply by looking at demographic trends and the rapid growth of dormer towns in the 1950s. Admittedly, increased freight is a different matter and I don't think rail freight has increased overall anyway although I haven't checked the figures.
The problem with Beeching was that he was unable to grasp what could be done, settling instead for what he thought might be profitable. With the net result that what could be done was not done, and what had been profitable ceased to be so.
Oddly none of the Tories complained when Mike and myself did regular threads on Ed's crapness or Mike did lots of threads on Gordon Brown's crapness.
Reminds me of Brexit tbh!
The Internet of Tat Things strikes once again:
https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/08/500-smart-locks-arent-so-smart-anymore-thanks-to-botched-update/
Cause if we got to the end of the two years and the government tried to move to goal posts to keep us in "transition" for a further two years the position would change.
(His name autocorrected to Christian Walmart, amusingly!)
Craig Mackinlay, who faces a jury trial, is accused of offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983, alongside campaign director Marion Little and Nathan Gray, an election agent.
The South Thanet MP, from Ramsgate in Kent, is charged with two counts of knowingly making a false election expenses declaration, while Gray, from Hawkhurst, Kent, faces one.
Little, from Ware in Hertfordshire, is accused of three counts related to aiding Mackinlay and Gray in making false declarations....
....Mr Justice Edis told the three defendants at Southwark crown court on Tuesday that their trial would begin on 14 May, and was estimated to last six weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/date-set-for-conservative-mp-craig-mackinlay-trial-over-election-expenses?CMP=twt_gu
Then someone comes in to oversee the transitional period (2019-2021) and we have an election in either Spring 2021 or 2022.
Why do you want us all to move on?
That's the deal. It's now up to the UK to push for the best arrangement it can get. If you pretend it's something it's not because you are fightened of acquainting part of your electorate with reality, and try to muddy the waters through "constructive ambiguity", you will get a mush of a negotiation.
IMO the debate's on the wrong area. Whilst some line closures were probably a mistake - the Great Central, the Matlock to Buxton, the Waverley to name three - most were wise.
The biggest mistake was not the closures; it was the indecent sale of parcels of land that meant many routes are nearly impossible to reopen. Closed lines should have been kept as strategic corridors for reuse later, either as railways, roads (where possible) or walking / cycle paths.
Nobody complained, least of all me. I laid every single date and it proved one of my most successful political markets ever.
Speaking of which, I am off for a walk to enjoy the fine weather. Have a good morning.