We agree. Brexit will lead to a much worse arrangement with the EU, which is by far our most important partner, and somewhat worse arrangements with everyone else. We are where we are and have to limit the damage. We can only do that if we face up to the fact that there is damage to be limited.
While this kind of damage limitation makes sense in the short term, in the long term it risks fuelling the same cycle of dysfunctional politics that got us here in the first place, possibly with even more self-destructive results. Therefore a 'mediocre' Brexit, whilst it might seem like making the best of a bad job, would actually be very dangerous and should be avoided.
Somehow we need events to intervene in a way that makes it impossible for any of the leading Brexiteer protagonists to continue to pretend that there are any sunlit uplands in the terra incognita outside the EU.
On that we disagree. I don't see us going back into the EU in any timeframe. Therefore mediocre is better than failure. I voted Remain, but I don't want failure. One of several things that concerns me is that Leavers aren't worried about failure to the extent of owning the project and taking steps and making the necessary compromises to avoid it.
A lot depends on how you define failure and whether political failure can be quarantined so that it doesn't damage real people's lives. In a sense this is exactly what you're describing as your Brexit implementation goal.
Would it be a failure if we don't start full trade talks after the German elections? Probably. Should we roll over on the three issues the EU wants to focus on to get to that point? I don't think so. So how will the people who've always based their strategy on German carmakers react to that situation?
There will be a lot of twists and turns before we get to a point of no return and it would be almost incredible if political opinion doesn't shift decisively before we get there as we continue to be confronted with new realities.
I am a huge fan of Obama (and I think that is Bush Senior and Clinton there with him as well) but I do wonder whether having various senior politicians turning up on the front line with all the incumbent security concerns is really 'helping out'.
I agree with you, but that tweet is specifically in response to the sudden and not at all co-ordinated flood of peeps on Twitter trying to rewrite history which suddenly pushes the Obama presidency back into 2005
"@ConorBurnsUK: @MichelBarnier UK pays her obligations. Why don't you publish what you think they are based on law ie Treaty obligations and directives?"
"@ConorBurnsUK: @MichelBarnier UK pays her obligations. Why don't you publish what you think they are based on law ie Treaty obligations and directives?"
No, that doesn't look like the work of a hacker.
On the other hand, the EU position paper makes no attempt to justify the legal basis of the demands; it merely lists a bunch of stuff without explaining where any obligation to pay them might arise. The original tweet was perfectly correct to point this out, if perhaps not the ideal medium in which to make the point.
For example: they go on about the 'Reste à liquider', a vague concept relating to stuff they've said they'd like to finance some day. However, where's the treaty provision where we've agreed to pay towards this on exit?
Edit: Fwiw Findlay has just announced he won't be standing.
What a poor state SLAB has become. I have literally never heard of a single candidate in this list, except vague feeling Findlay rings a bell. And I'm a bit of a political anorak.
Comments
Would it be a failure if we don't start full trade talks after the German elections? Probably. Should we roll over on the three issues the EU wants to focus on to get to that point? I don't think so. So how will the people who've always based their strategy on German carmakers react to that situation?
There will be a lot of twists and turns before we get to a point of no return and it would be almost incredible if political opinion doesn't shift decisively before we get there as we continue to be confronted with new realities.
@AidanKerrTweets: @jimwaterson @LadPolitics Just trust me - lump, lump and lump some more
@LadPolitics: @AidanKerrTweets @jimwaterson Refreshingly unambiguous betting advice.
I have more sympathy with words wrongly used after buying a smart phone as my autocorrect seems to have a positive fetish for changing what I type.
Does this look like the work of a hacker?
"@ConorBurnsUK: @MichelBarnier UK pays her obligations. Why don't you publish what you think they are based on law ie Treaty obligations and directives?"
On the other hand, the EU position paper makes no attempt to justify the legal basis of the demands; it merely lists a bunch of stuff without explaining where any obligation to pay them might arise. The original tweet was perfectly correct to point this out, if perhaps not the ideal medium in which to make the point.
For example: they go on about the 'Reste à liquider', a vague concept relating to stuff they've said they'd like to finance some day. However, where's the treaty provision where we've agreed to pay towards this on exit?
@euanmccolm: got caught leaving waitrose with my pockets full of chorizo. fucking hackers, eh?
On the other hand, it does communicate a sense of incoherent menace, which was probably intended...
but the fans will follow anyone who promises them success!
NEW THREAD