Like the ICM poll yesterday which had the Tories and Labour tied you mean? The BMG poll this month which had the Tories 3 points ahead you mean? The Survation last month which had May doing better than Davis, Hammond and Rudd v Corbyn with only Boris doing fractionally better?
Though I think she will still go after Brexit, probably to be succeeded by Boris, she knows that if she confirms now she is going before the next general election she becomes an immediate lame duck throughout the Brexit talks
BMG is a good poll to quote. On June 7th it found that the Tories had a 13% lead.
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
So Mrs May intends to fight the 2022 general election.
Ugh, she really wants to destroy the Tory party.
Has she said that? And she thinks it's her decision?
Unsarcastically, if the Conservative party do not have the cojones to force her out, she can stay as long as she likes (or loses an election)
Well she lost the Tories their hard-earned majority and sought to carry on. Maybe after GE2022 she'll still strive to be there even if LAB wins
She also won 42%, the highest Tory voteshare for 25 years and according to ICM yesterday the Tories are still on 42%. If the Tories had fallen to 32% it might be a different matter but the Tory vote is holding firm
Like the ICM poll yesterday which had the Tories and Labour tied you mean? The BMG poll this month which had the Tories 3 points ahead you mean? The Survation last month which had May doing better than Davis, Hammond and Rudd v Corbyn with only Boris doing fractionally better?
Though I think she will still go after Brexit, probably to be succeeded by Boris, she knows that if she confirms now she is going before the next general election she becomes an immediate lame duck throughout the Brexit talks
BMG is a good poll to quote. On June 7th it found that the Tories had a 13% lead.
Like the ICM poll yesterday which had the Tories and Labour tied you mean? The BMG poll this month which had the Tories 3 points ahead you mean? The Survation last month which had May doing better than Davis, Hammond and Rudd v Corbyn with only Boris doing fractionally better?
Though I think she will still go after Brexit, probably to be succeeded by Boris, she knows that if she confirms now she is going before the next general election she becomes an immediate lame duck throughout the Brexit talks
BMG is a good poll to quote. On June 7th it found that the Tories had a 13% lead.
It is now back to 2015 methods
Survation got the election spot on, as I said Survation had May doing better than all potential alternatives bar Boris, who did better than her by just 0.1%
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
People might want to hold their horses. Given the question, may could hardly say funny you should ask, I am off in 2 years.
Precisely. It's a non-story. Politicians asked questions like that have no choice but to say they have no intention of quitting. It's so much part of Standard Operating Procedure that it doesn't even count as disingenuous. (And even if she did want to stay that long, there ain't a snowflake's chance in hell that she'll be given the option of doing so).
Have people already forgotten Cameron's promise to stay on if the referendum result was Leave?
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
Given Corbyn is now promising uncontrolled immigration and free movement for years, billions more to the EU for years and the Tories have scrapped the dementia tax while Corbyn wants to raise inheritance tax I would not count on that
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
And now she's relying on the votes of a slightly weird fringe party. And the DUP.
When I saw the notification on my phone that May thought she could lead the Tories into 2022 I seriously couldn't believe it. I'm very intrigued to see the response to this among Tories.
However, in some ways I can understand why May feels this way. Her opponents/potential successors are all unappealing and pretty underwhelming - Boris, David Davis, JRM....
Fortunes change.
I don't think she will stay until 2022, but it's a good line for party stability, for European consumption,and leads probably to a compromise 2020 departure.
Do people really think May can get to June 2018 in one piece, never mind March 2019? All prejudices aside I genuinely don't. There are too many factions and too many opportunities for ambush.
She will be there until the end of Brexit and possibly longer.
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Probably not but not now impossible especially with latest polls showing virtually no net movement since June all to play for
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
Given Corbyn is now promising uncontrolled immigration and free movement for years, billions more to the EU for years and the Tories have scrapped the dementia tax while Corbyn wants to raise inheritance tax I would not count on that
That's sound advice - I wouldn't count on anything given the last two and half years in politics!
Like the ICM poll yesterday which had the Tories and Labour tied you mean? The BMG poll this month which had the Tories 3 points ahead you mean? The Survation last month which had May doing better than Davis, Hammond and Rudd v Corbyn with only Boris doing fractionally better?
I was making a joke.
Ishmael_Z made a reference to "Westworld", a 1970's movie about malfunctioning androids. The movie was recently remade into a TV series where the androids were programmed not to see anything upsetting: when faced with an unpalatable fact they dismiss it with the phrase "Doesn't look like anything to me". The phrase plays a key role in a later scene revealing that one of the main characters is, unbeknownst to the audience and himself, also an android. By using the phrase in respect to May I was riffing on the theme introduced by Ishmael_Z and expanded it by using the key phrase, thereby pushing the May-as-malfunctioning-android analogy further and trying it into the program mythos, giving the analogy a solid foundation for further expansion and inviting another poster to participate.
Pause.
Next week: the fart joke in the films of Mel Brooks: we discuss...
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Probably not but not now impossible especially with latest polls showing virtually no net movement since June all to play for
We are in the bizarre situation where neither of the leaders of the main two parties has the fulsome support of their MPs but neither can be shifted!
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
Given Corbyn is now promising uncontrolled immigration and free movement for years, billions more to the EU for years and the Tories have scrapped the dementia tax while Corbyn wants to raise inheritance tax I would not count on that
Just a thought but perhaps what May has been waiting for is for Labour to commit themselves to a soft Brexit that would change nothing before outflanking them by dropping the whole thing.
People might want to hold their horses. Given the question, may could hardly say funny you should ask, I am off in 2 years.
Precisely. It's a non-story. Politicians asked questions like that have no choice but to say they have no intention of quitting. It's so much part of Standard Operating Procedure that it doesn't even count as disingenuous. (And even if she did want to stay that long, there ain't a snowflake's chance in hell that she'll be given the option of doing so).
Have people already forgotten Cameron's promise to stay on if the referendum result was Leave?
She had a choice when she kept ruling out a snap election , why did she not keep the option open by some use of words.
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Like the ICM poll yesterday which had the Tories and Labour tied you mean? The BMG poll this month which had the Tories 3 points ahead you mean? The Survation last month which had May doing better than Davis, Hammond and Rudd v Corbyn with only Boris doing fractionally better?
I was making a joke.
Ishmael_Z made a reference to "Westworld", a 1970's movie about malfunctioning androids. The movie was recently remade into a TV series where the androids were programmed not to see anything upsetting: when faced with an unpalatable fact they dismiss it with the phrase "Doesn't look like anything to me". The phrase plays a key role in a later scene revealing that one of the main characters is, unbeknownst to the audience and himself, also an android. By using the phrase in respect to May I was riffing on the theme introduced by Ishmael_Z and expanded it by using the key phrase, thereby pushing the May-as-malfunctioning-android analogy further and trying it into the program mythos, giving the analogy a solid foundation for further expansion and inviting another poster to participate.
Pause.
Next week: the fart joke in the films of Mel Brooks: we discuss...
Speaking of androids (well IOS actually)...
I just asked Siri, "Surely it's not going to rain again tomorrow?"
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Probably not but not now impossible especially with latest polls showing virtually no net movement since June all to play for
So you personally would be ok with her leading the party at the next election?
I appreciate what the polls say now, but remind again what they said earlier this year?
Anyway, its all irelevant, the Tory mps can and will get rid of her if they want. I suspect they will in 2019
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
Given Corbyn is now promising uncontrolled immigration and free movement for years, billions more to the EU for years and the Tories have scrapped the dementia tax while Corbyn wants to raise inheritance tax I would not count on that
Just a thought but perhaps what May has been waiting for is for Labour to commit themselves to a soft Brexit that would change nothing before outflanking them by dropping the whole thing.
Like the ICM poll yesterday which had the Tories and Labour tied you mean? The BMG poll this month which had the Tories 3 points ahead you mean? The Survation last month which had May doing better than Davis, Hammond and Rudd v Corbyn with only Boris doing fractionally better?
I was making a joke.
Ishmael_Z made a reference to "Westworld", a 1970's movie about malfunctioning androids. The movie was recently remade into a TV series where the androids were programmed not to see anything upsetting: when faced with an unpalatable fact they dismiss it with the phrase "Doesn't look like anything to me". The phrase plays a key role in a later scene revealing that one of the main characters is, unbeknownst to the audience and himself, also an android. By using the phrase in respect to May I was riffing on the theme introduced by Ishmael_Z and expanded it by using the key phrase, thereby pushing the May-as-malfunctioning-android analogy further and trying it into the program mythos, giving the analogy a solid foundation for further expansion and inviting another poster to participate.
Pause.
Next week: the fart joke in the films of Mel Brooks: we discuss...
Speaking of androids (well IOS actually)...
I just asked Siri, "Surely it's not going to rain again tomorrow?"
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
Given Corbyn is now promising uncontrolled immigration and free movement for years, billions more to the EU for years and the Tories have scrapped the dementia tax while Corbyn wants to raise inheritance tax I would not count on that
That's sound advice - I wouldn't count on anything given the last two and half years in politics!
Yes one thing is for certain, we cannot be certain!
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Probably not but not now impossible especially with latest polls showing virtually no net movement since June all to play for
We are in the bizarre situation where neither of the leaders of the main two parties has the fulsome support of their MPs but neither can be shifted!
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
Given Corbyn is now promising uncontrolled immigration and free movement for years, billions more to the EU for years and the Tories have scrapped the dementia tax while Corbyn wants to raise inheritance tax I would not count on that
That's sound advice - I wouldn't count on anything given the last two and half years in politics!
Yes one thing is for certain, we cannot be certain!
Like the ICM poll yesterday which had the Tories and Labour tied you mean? The BMG poll this month which had the Tories 3 points ahead you mean? The Survation last month which had May doing better than Davis, Hammond and Rudd v Corbyn with only Boris doing fractionally better?
I was making a joke.
Ishmael_Z made a reference to "Westworld", a 1970's movie about malfunctioning androids. The movie was recently remade into a TV series where the androids were programmed not to see anything upsetting: when faced with an unpalatable fact they dismiss it with the phrase "Doesn't look like anything to me". The phrase plays a key role in a later scene revealing that one of the main characters is, unbeknownst to the audience and himself, also an android. By using the phrase in respect to May I was riffing on the theme introduced by Ishmael_Z and expanded it by using the key phrase, thereby pushing the May-as-malfunctioning-android analogy further and trying it into the program mythos, giving the analogy a solid foundation for further expansion and inviting another poster to participate.
Pause.
Next week: the fart joke in the films of Mel Brooks: we discuss...
'Strong and stable',..'Strong and stable'....'Strong and stable'....
For everyone talking about 6% interest and parents remortgaging to pay off student debt please read Martin Lewis's guide on student loans. The vast majority of students will never pay any interest and would be considerably worse off if they made overpayments to clear the debt.
Martin Lewis was played for a fool by the conservatives.
The government decided to retrospectively add £6k to the amount median earning Plan2 graduates pay back, just like that.
Naive wannabe students trusted Martin Lewis, who naively trusted the tories to play fair.
If the tory party are ever going to win over young people, they'll need to stop picking their pockets.
So you haven't read what Lewis has written then that says the total amount owed is irre for the vast majority of students?
Freezing the repayment threshold DOES impact how much is paid back, because it effectively increases the annual repayment in real terms. Lewis is quite right to complain - no commercial lender would have been allowed to do this.
Agreed that is lousy, however does this necessitate the destruction of the current student loan system in retribution... No. The "screwing over an entire generation" meme is based on a flawed depiction of the system as a whole not just the recent changes.
Fraser Nelson on the radio points out that she could hardly say anything else given the question she was asked.
A politician who is nimble on her feet never answers such a question!
But we know may isn't.
Indeed.
I'm inclined to believe she had planned the answer for the anticipated question.
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
Given Corbyn is now promising uncontrolled immigration and free movement for years, billions more to the EU for years and the Tories have scrapped the dementia tax while Corbyn wants to raise inheritance tax I would not count on that
Just a thought but perhaps what May has been waiting for is for Labour to commit themselves to a soft Brexit that would change nothing before outflanking them by dropping the whole thing.
Well I doubt many Tory voters, members and MPs will be too happy with that but if it keeps you happy I will leave you to your conspiracy of May the Remainer trying to sabotage Brexit with her cunning plan
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Probably not but not now impossible especially with latest polls showing virtually no net movement since June all to play for
So you personally would be ok with her leading the party at the next election?
I appreciate what the polls say now, but remind again what they said earlier this year?
Anyway, its all irelevant, the Tory mps can and will get rid of her if they want. I suspect they will in 2019
They should, for sure... but I just can't see how it will play out if she digs her heels in. Plus, as Viewcode pointed out none of the possible challengers seem to have the cojones for tha task.
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Probably not but not now impossible especially with latest polls showing virtually no net movement since June all to play for
So you personally would be ok with her leading the party at the next election?
I appreciate what the polls say now, but remind again what they said earlier this year?
Anyway, its all irelevant, the Tory mps can and will get rid of her if they want. I suspect they will in 2019
They should, for sure... but I just can't see how it will play out if she digs her heels in. Plus, as Viewcode pointed out none of the possible challengers seem to have the cojones for tha task.
I think they will after 2019. They will blame her for a bad brexit deal
Agreed - she's proven herself to be a crap campaigner but she's still easily able to run rings around Johnson, Davis, Gove, JRM, Hammond and co... which tells you all you need to know about their collective talent.
She also won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn which tells you all you need to know about his!
Depends how you look at it - you could equally say she lost 22 seats to Labour.
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
Probably not but not now impossible especially with latest polls showing virtually no net movement since June all to play for
So you personally would be ok with her leading the party at the next election?
I appreciate what the polls say now, but remind again what they said earlier this year?
Anyway, its all irelevant, the Tory mps can and will get rid of her if they want. I suspect they will in 2019
They should, for sure... but I just can't see how it will play out if she digs her heels in. Plus, as Viewcode pointed out none of the possible challengers seem to have the cojones for tha task.
I think they will after 2019. They will blame her for a bad brexit deal
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
Expect UK to publically reject the EU commission negotiators tomorrow escalating a crisis to National Government level
If this is an attempt to bypass the EU negotiators and appeal to the national heads of government, then that's been tried three times in the past two years and failed each time: Cameron tried it during the negotiation in 2015/6, Davis did it earlier this year, and the Trump administration tried it by going straight to Berlin, just to be turned back.
Conversely, if this is another step in negotiation theatre by taking a step known to fail in an attempt to gain domestic sympathy by blaming the EU for the failure, then congratulations! It'll work.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Incapable of being able is a sensible phrase. It means exactly what they intend it to mean.
The capacity to be able to negotiate has been removed from them (they have to agree to the predetermined position agreed by the 27 and handed down to them so they have no negotiating space), but they do have the ability to negotiate if they are allowed any flexibility in their position.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
“It was the plan to advance to a new phase of negotiations in October,” Nikolaus Meyer-Landrut, Germany’s ambassador to France and previously chief European affairs adviser to the chancellor, Angela Merkel, told an audience in Paris on Tuesday.
“Honestly, from what we see of the UK’s positions today we will not be moving to the next phase in October. To be clear: the crisis in these talks is not behind us but ahead of us. I don’t know when it will come, or what its outcome will be.”
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Incapable of being able is a sensible phrase. It means exactly what they intend it to mean.
The capacity to be able to negotiate has been removed from them (they have to agree to the predetermined position agreed by the 27 and handed down to them so they have no negotiating space), but they do have the ability to negotiate if they are allowed any flexibility in their position.
Nope, it's a tautology. They're incapable or they're unable, nothing added by using both.
In fairness, I expect the phrase is Sky's not the UK Brexit officials.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
And if that's the case, they're facing a £10bn/year hole in their budget and an angry business community.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Incapable of being able is a sensible phrase. It means exactly what they intend it to mean.
The capacity to be able to negotiate has been removed from them (they have to agree to the predetermined position agreed by the 27 and handed down to them so they have no negotiating space), but they do have the ability to negotiate if they are allowed any flexibility in their position.
Nope, it's a tautology. They're incapable or they're unable, nothing added by using both.
In fairness, I expect the phrase is Sky's not the UK Brexit officials.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
It's an inelegant tautology but, as I said earlier, almost certainly from Sky not from the officials 'quoted'.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
If we get on with it now, we can have all the trade arrangements in place that we need for March 2019 - as May has said, most countries will happily accept the UK duplicating the existing EU trade deal and the US, Aus, NZ could probably be added very quickly. The problem is that, to avoid upsetting the EU, the UK are not actively negotiating trade deals at the moment. The thinking is that if we are after a transition period, signing deals now is not required and will undermine these negotiations.
We need to decide very quickly if these talks are going anywhere - if not, time to plan for hard Brexit.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Incapable of being able is a sensible phrase. It means exactly what they intend it to mean.
The capacity to be able to negotiate has been removed from them (they have to agree to the predetermined position agreed by the 27 and handed down to them so they have no negotiating space), but they do have the ability to negotiate if they are allowed any flexibility in their position.
Nope, it's a tautology. They're incapable or they're unable, nothing added by using both.
In fairness, I expect the phrase is Sky's not the UK Brexit officials.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
It's an inelegant tautology but, as I said earlier, almost certainly from Sky not from the officials 'quoted'.
I'm sure the section in quotation marks is not a direct quotation from the source. Shoddy journalism to even suggest such a thing. Doh!
This is going to sound sexist, but it isn't. Theresa May needs a decent hairdo. Then stick to it. She should have someone with her who's able to do her hair at all times. The mouth is saying strong and stable but the hairdo is saying all over the place. Male politicians are just as susceptible to bad hair - Cameron got endless stick when he did PMQs with a dodgy middle parting.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
If we get on with it now, we can have all the trade arrangements in place that we need for March 2019 - as May has said, most countries will happily accept the UK duplicating the existing EU trade deal and the US, Aus, NZ could probably be added very quickly. The problem is that, to avoid upsetting the EU, the UK are not actively negotiating trade deals at the moment. The thinking is that if we are after a transition period, signing deals now is not required and will undermine these negotiations.
We need to decide very quickly if these talks are going anywhere - if not, time to plan for hard Brexit.
I don't think so. Some countries might be happy to replicate the EU trade deal with us (though some would worry about upsetting the EU). But not the US - they want to screw us for a better deal.
Plus, I can think of 27 countries not so far away that would certainly not allow the same terms as we have as EU members.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
It's an inelegant tautology but, as I said earlier, almost certainly from Sky not from the officials 'quoted'.
I'm sure the section in quotation marks is not a direct quotation from the source. Shoddy journalism to even suggest such a thing. Doh!
I can't tell wether you're being ironic - I'll assume you are
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
It's an inelegant tautology but, as I said earlier, almost certainly from Sky not from the officials 'quoted'.
no it is not. One means you are currently unable, the other means that you don't have the capacity ever to be able. That is not a tautology.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
Nitpicking the Brexit bill for a legal basis or requiring an itemisation is missing the point. Ultimately the bill is the initial price for the future relationship going forward, not for services committed to in the past. There is no bluff: the UK either pays or it doesn't. If you buy a tin of beans from Tesco, standing at the till and going "there is no legal basis for this price!" then stalking out in a huff isn't genius negotiation, it's a Viz cartoon strip.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
If we get on with it now, we can have all the trade arrangements in place that we need for March 2019 - as May has said, most countries will happily accept the UK duplicating the existing EU trade deal and the US, Aus, NZ could probably be added very quickly. The problem is that, to avoid upsetting the EU, the UK are not actively negotiating trade deals at the moment. The thinking is that if we are after a transition period, signing deals now is not required and will undermine these negotiations.
We need to decide very quickly if these talks are going anywhere - if not, time to plan for hard Brexit.
I don't think so. Some countries might be happy to replicate the EU trade deal with us (though some would worry about upsetting the EU). But not the US - they want to screw us for a better deal.
Plus, I can think of 27 countries not so far away that would certainly not allow the same terms as we have as EU members.
It will be fun negotiating that bit, getting the EU implementing the part of article 50 that directes the EU to have a good relationship with the departing state.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
Nitpicking the Brexit bill for a legal basis or requiring an itemisation is missing the point. Ultimately the bill is the initial price for the future relationship going forward, not for services committed to in the past. There is no bluff: the UK either pays or it doesn't. If you buy a tin of beans from Tesco, standing at the till and going "there is no legal basis for this price!" then stalking out in a huff isn't genius negotiation, it's a Viz cartoon strip.
But paying $500 for a can of beans because it is mislabeled is also stupid.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
Nitpicking the Brexit bill for a legal basis or requiring an itemisation is missing the point. Ultimately the bill is the initial price for the future relationship going forward, not for services committed to in the past. There is no bluff: the UK either pays or it doesn't. If you buy a tin of beans from Tesco, standing at the till and going "there is no legal basis for this price!" then stalking out in a huff isn't genius negotiation, it's a Viz cartoon strip.
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
If "incapable" is limited to the present moment and allows for the possibility of being "capable" in the future, then "incapable of being able" must also be limited to the present moment and allow for the possibility of being "capable of being able" in the future.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
And if that's the case, they're facing a £10bn/year hole in their budget and an angry business community.
£10bn a year is ~£200million a week. I seem to remember a bus with a different figure...
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
It's an inelegant tautology but, as I said earlier, almost certainly from Sky not from the officials 'quoted'.
no it is not. One means you are currently unable, the other means that you don't have the capacity ever to be able. That is not a tautology.
To acquire the meaning you ascribe it would have to say something like "...incapable of becoming able..." Even then it would be pretty inelegant. Why not say "... will never be able..." if that's what is meant.
According to Collins definition "Someone who is incapable of doing something is unable to do it" so "incapable of being able" seems like a clear tuatology to me.
Anyway, I suspect we'll not agree and in the great scheme of things it's not important. Plus It's way past my bedtime, so I'll let you have the last word
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
And if that's the case, they're facing a £10bn/year hole in their budget and an angry business community.
£10bn a year is ~£200million a week. I seem to remember a bus with a different figure...
... it's £8.6bn actually which is <0.1% of EU GDP - how will they possibly manage!
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
Nitpicking the Brexit bill for a legal basis or requiring an itemisation is missing the point. Ultimately the bill is the initial price for the future relationship going forward, not for services committed to in the past. There is no bluff: the UK either pays or it doesn't. If you buy a tin of beans from Tesco, standing at the till and going "there is no legal basis for this price!" then stalking out in a huff isn't genius negotiation, it's a Viz cartoon strip.
But paying $500 for a can of beans because it is mislabeled is also stupid.
So don't buy the beans. Why all the drama?
It does boil down to that. I've used the divorce analogy before and we are now in the stage of looking at the demands from the (soon-to-be) ex-wife and going "A PONY! WHAT THE F***!". And we're spending time saying "but she's just so unreasonable" and expecting sympathy, but it's just timewasting and displacement activity: in the end, we pay or don't pay, and it's solely up to us.
If we were sensible, we'd come up with some kind of cost of a WTO Brexit, compare it to the amount demanded, and decide accordingly. Instead we spent time investigating the legal basis for the demand, like that made any difference.
Nitpicking the Brexit bill for a legal basis or requiring an itemisation is missing the point. Ultimately the bill is the initial price for the future relationship going forward, not for services committed to in the past. There is no bluff: the UK either pays or it doesn't. If you buy a tin of beans from Tesco, standing at the till and going "there is no legal basis for this price!" then stalking out in a huff isn't genius negotiation, it's a Viz cartoon strip.
But paying $500 for a can of beans because it is mislabeled is also stupid.
So don't buy the beans. Why all the drama?
It does boil down to that. I've used the divorce analogy before and we are now in the stage of looking at the demands from the (soon-to-be) ex-wife and going "A PONY! WHAT THE F***!". And we're spending time saying "but she's just so unreasonable" and expecting sympathy, but it's just timewasting and displacement activity: in the end, we pay or don't pay, and it's solely up to us.
If we were sensible, we'd come up with some kind of cost of a WTO Brexit, compare it to the amount demanded, and decide accordingly. Instead we spent time investigating the legal basis for the demand, like that made any difference.
Surely this is exactly what the UK Govt are trying to do - however, the EU are asking for agreement to the bill WITHOUT saying what we get for it. DD is doing exactly what you suggest - trying to work out what we have to pay in return for what benefit. It is the EU refusing to talk about this.
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
And if that's the case, they're facing a £10bn/year hole in their budget and an angry business community.
£10bn a year is ~£200million a week. I seem to remember a bus with a different figure...
... it's £8.6bn actually which is <0.1% of EU GDP - how will they possibly manage!</p>
Well, it had to happen. DD has been very smart, refusing to issue a position paper on this that would totally humiliate the EU and he has been trying to tell them nicely that their argument does not stack up. By suggesting to them that they include the Brexit bill in the trade talks, he was actually trying to help them out since the UK could have conceded something in that case. But, as usual, the EU won't listen so they finally delivered the inevitable deconstruction of the EU's legal case.
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
The EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner? Reminds me of the 'fog in the Channel, continent cut-off' line.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
And if that's the case, they're facing a £10bn/year hole in their budget and an angry business community.
£10bn a year is ~£200million a week. I seem to remember a bus with a different figure...
... it's £8.6bn actually which is <0.1% of EU GDP - how will they possibly manage!</p>
Surely this is exactly what the UK Govt are trying to do - however, the EU are asking for agreement to the bill WITHOUT saying what we get for it. DD is doing exactly what you suggest - trying to work out what we have to pay in return for what benefit. It is the EU refusing to talk about this.
Fair point, but we again loop back to the same position: we either pay or we don't. And I suspect we will be here several times again...
Surely this is exactly what the UK Govt are trying to do - however, the EU are asking for agreement to the bill WITHOUT saying what we get for it. DD is doing exactly what you suggest - trying to work out what we have to pay in return for what benefit. It is the EU refusing to talk about this.
Fair point, but we again loop back to the same position: we either pay or we don't. And I suspect we will be here several times again...
So (and this is a question for all the Remainers) do you agree to pay a large figure now for which there is no legal basis just so we can start discussions on trade, or do we insist that they have to be linked and take the risk that the talks collapse?
"...incapable of being able..." ? Next the EU negotiators will be giving our lot some English usage lessons.
Actually, 'incapable of being able' means something entirely different, and worse, than 'incapable of'. 'Incapable of' simply means you don't currently have the capacity. 'Incapable of being able to' implies you don't have the intelligence or other capacity to ever acquire the capacity, no matter the training, education etc... you receive.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
If "incapable" is limited to the present moment and allows for the possibility of being "capable" in the future, then "incapable of being able" must also be limited to the present moment and allow for the possibility of being "capable of being able" in the future.
Surely this is exactly what the UK Govt are trying to do - however, the EU are asking for agreement to the bill WITHOUT saying what we get for it. DD is doing exactly what you suggest - trying to work out what we have to pay in return for what benefit. It is the EU refusing to talk about this.
Fair point, but we again loop back to the same position: we either pay or we don't. And I suspect we will be here several times again...
So (and this is a question for all the Remainers) do you agree to pay a large figure now for which there is no legal basis just so we can start discussions on trade, or do we insist that they have to be linked and take the risk that the talks collapse?
Sorry, my PC glitched. Okay, where are we. Leaving aside the "...there is no legal basis..." bit (see previous posts), I would insist on linkage and take the risks that the talks collapse. Professional negotiators advise in the event of an impasse the parties talk about a side issue and leave the locus of dispute to ripen in the background. I am not a professional negotiator so I can only resort to my natural caution and give nothing without a quid-pro-quo.
There is absolutely no way they are going to finish all this shit in the 18 months remaining to them. DD might have to get sacked to get things moving.
There is absolutely no way they are going to finish all this shit in the 18 months remaining to them. DD might have to get sacked to get things moving.
How will sacking DD help the EU get THEIR act together on THEIR exit bill which according to THEM is what is holding everything else up?
There is absolutely no way they are going to finish all this shit in the 18 months remaining to them. DD might have to get sacked to get things moving.
You want to sack DD for telling the truth and standing up for UK interests?
There is absolutely no way they are going to finish all this shit in the 18 months remaining to them. DD might have to get sacked to get things moving.
You want to sack DD for telling the truth and standing up for UK interests?
Because he's fucking it all up. In these situations the only certainty is that somebody is going to have to get the blame. It's clearly beyond him and if it's left to him we're heading for cliff edge Brexit. Also, he seems to made of ham.
Since the EU is keen on transparency, perhaps the U.K. should publish their critique of the EU's BREXIT bill?
DD has been trying to avoid doing that in public because he is not trying to humiliate them, and also he knows he will end up paying something so if he publishes the paper it will make it hard to get the deal approved at home. But if the EU remain in denial then I suppose he will publish it.
By mid-July, Jeremy Corbyn was arguing (incorrectly – with reference to Norway, for example), on the Marr show, that being in “the Single Market is dependent on membership of the EU”. Marr pressed the matter, asking: “let me be absolutely crystal clear, we leave the single European market because we leave the EU?”. The Labour leader replied that EU membership and the Single Market are “inextricably linked”. Marr tried again: “so we have to leave the single market?” and Corbyn answered “yes”. That “yes” has now become “no”.
The British team thinks the EU is trying to extract more than it is legally entitled to, on the basis of an “unsatisfactory” paper that runs to less than four sides of text and some tables.
“The UK has made it clear that it finds the EU position paper on the money unsatisfactory and nobody would sign a cheque on the basis of the commission’s paper,” said a source familiar with the UK’s position. “It is also clear that they have an issue with the current view around town that ‘serious’ means agreeing with the commission. The UK doesn’t agree with it.”
Surely this is exactly what the UK Govt are trying to do - however, the EU are asking for agreement to the bill WITHOUT saying what we get for it. DD is doing exactly what you suggest - trying to work out what we have to pay in return for what benefit. It is the EU refusing to talk about this.
Fair point, but we again loop back to the same position: we either pay or we don't. And I suspect we will be here several times again...
So (and this is a question for all the Remainers) do you agree to pay a large figure now for which there is no legal basis just so we can start discussions on trade, or do we insist that they have to be linked and take the risk that the talks collapse?
Sorry, my PC glitched. Okay, where are we. Leaving aside the "...there is no legal basis..." bit (see previous posts), I would insist on linkage and take the risks that the talks collapse. Professional negotiators advise in the event of an impasse the parties talk about a side issue and leave the locus of dispute to ripen in the background. I am not a professional negotiator so I can only resort to my natural caution and give nothing without a quid-pro-quo.
There is also the option - which for some reason we have not yet taken - of publishing what we believe our minimum legal obligations to add up to, and say that anything in excess of that figure has to be agreed as part of the trade negotiation progress.
That would also have the merit of reflecting reality, as we've already conceded that we don't owe nothing, and it's entirely clear that we're not going to pay more than that minimum unless we reach some agreement.
By mid-July, Jeremy Corbyn was arguing (incorrectly – with reference to Norway, for example), on the Marr show, that being in “the Single Market is dependent on membership of the EU”. Marr pressed the matter, asking: “let me be absolutely crystal clear, we leave the single European market because we leave the EU?”. The Labour leader replied that EU membership and the Single Market are “inextricably linked”. Marr tried again: “so we have to leave the single market?” and Corbyn answered “yes”. That “yes” has now become “no”.
Oh dear; what a shame; never mind. Jeremy Corbyn is not negotiating Brexit so it does not really matter very much what he thinks or thought from one day to the next five years ago come the next election. It will all be ancient history. Brexit will have happened and that, and its consequences, is what will change votes.
Comments
She's got the Tory party over a barrel hasn't she? No one wants to precipitate a leadership election because a) it will damage the Tories further and b) they are likely to lose the next GE... and who wants to be an even shorter office holder than May and Brown?
The closer we get to the next GE the harder it will be for someone to challenge. The likely candidates basicially screwed up by not ousting her in June.
http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-sets-out-bid-to-lead-tories-in-2022-general-election-11012965
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41093516
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-08-30/im-not-a-quitter-theresa-may-rules-out-standing-down-as-prime-minister/
Survation got the election spot on, as I said Survation had May doing better than all potential alternatives bar Boris, who did better than her by just 0.1%
Have people already forgotten Cameron's promise to stay on if the referendum result was Leave?
Anyhow, what odds on the next GE being fought by the same PM & Leader of the Opposition as GE 2017?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/30/theresa-may-sees-future-leading-tories-britains-common-ground/
Ishmael_Z made a reference to "Westworld", a 1970's movie about malfunctioning androids. The movie was recently remade into a TV series where the androids were programmed not to see anything upsetting: when faced with an unpalatable fact they dismiss it with the phrase "Doesn't look like anything to me". The phrase plays a key role in a later scene revealing that one of the main characters is, unbeknownst to the audience and himself, also an android. By using the phrase in respect to May I was riffing on the theme introduced by Ishmael_Z and expanded it by using the key phrase, thereby pushing the May-as-malfunctioning-android analogy further and trying it into the program mythos, giving the analogy a solid foundation for further expansion and inviting another poster to participate.
Pause.
Next week: the fart joke in the films of Mel Brooks: we discuss...
I just asked Siri, "Surely it's not going to rain again tomorrow?"
She said "It will, and don't call me Shirley"
... Forgot to take my phone off Airplane mode.
I appreciate what the polls say now, but remind again what they said earlier this year?
Anyway, its all irelevant, the Tory mps can and will get rid of her if they want. I suspect they will in 2019
Can we resurrect the 'Bojo to say Brexit was a mistake' rumour for tomorrow night's entertainment? It's got such an air of plausibility
(* As a investor, not a company lol!)
The problem is not the Commission's mandate - they wrote it themselves, then got the Council to agree it. It was that the EU totally misjudged the situation thinking that if they demanded the Brexit bill upfront the UK would concede and that nobody would notice that there was zero legal basis for the demand. Their bluff has been called.
It was always fun to see the Remainers telling us all how the EU negotiators were geniuses and the UK were idiots. But the EU have completely boxed themselves into a corner with the talks structure, which was a grave strategic error. Did it never occur to them to get a non-EU lawyer to review the position? Very probably not.
Conversely, if this is another step in negotiation theatre by taking a step known to fail in an attempt to gain domestic sympathy by blaming the EU for the failure, then congratulations! It'll work.
The capacity to be able to negotiate has been removed from them (they have to agree to the predetermined position agreed by the 27 and handed down to them so they have no negotiating space), but they do have the ability to negotiate if they are allowed any flexibility in their position.
We're the ones facing a hard Brexit with no trade deals, with anyone.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/30/uk-confusion-and-hesitation-means-brexit-talks-unlikely-to-move-on
“It was the plan to advance to a new phase of negotiations in October,” Nikolaus Meyer-Landrut, Germany’s ambassador to France and previously chief European affairs adviser to the chancellor, Angela Merkel, told an audience in Paris on Tuesday.
“Honestly, from what we see of the UK’s positions today we will not be moving to the next phase in October. To be clear: the crisis in these talks is not behind us but ahead of us. I don’t know when it will come, or what its outcome will be.”
In fairness, I expect the phrase is Sky's not the UK Brexit officials.
Strikes me the British side need no English language lessons.
We need to decide very quickly if these talks are going anywhere - if not, time to plan for hard Brexit.
Plus, I can think of 27 countries not so far away that would certainly not allow the same terms as we have as EU members.
Pause.
I really need to get out more...
Stick it up your Juncker!
According to Collins definition "Someone who is incapable of doing something is unable to do it" so "incapable of being able" seems like a clear tuatology to me.
Anyway, I suspect we'll not agree and in the great scheme of things it's not important. Plus It's way past my bedtime, so I'll let you have the last word
It does boil down to that. I've used the divorce analogy before and we are now in the stage of looking at the demands from the (soon-to-be) ex-wife and going "A PONY! WHAT THE F***!". And we're spending time saying "but she's just so unreasonable" and expecting sympathy, but it's just timewasting and displacement activity: in the end, we pay or don't pay, and it's solely up to us.
If we were sensible, we'd come up with some kind of cost of a WTO Brexit, compare it to the amount demanded, and decide accordingly. Instead we spent time investigating the legal basis for the demand, like that made any difference.
http://notreeurope.elteg8.net/media/brexiteubudget-haasrubio-jdi-jan17.pdf
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/903015048100098048
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/903018980205625344
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/903014484058439681
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/libs-put-secession-back-on-the-table-ng-b88583509z
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/08/unlike-labours-brexit-this-autumn-2-henry-newman-when-can-we-expect-the-next-verse-of-corbyns-hokey-cokey.html
“The UK has made it clear that it finds the EU position paper on the money unsatisfactory and nobody would sign a cheque on the basis of the commission’s paper,” said a source familiar with the UK’s position. “It is also clear that they have an issue with the current view around town that ‘serious’ means agreeing with the commission. The UK doesn’t agree with it.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/30/uk-tells-brussels-negotiators-their-brexit-bill-sums-do-not-add-up
That would also have the merit of reflecting reality, as we've already conceded that we don't owe nothing, and it's entirely clear that we're not going to pay more than that minimum unless we reach some agreement.