Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
To be fair you have been consistent in that.
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.
From recent press coverage it appears the other way round.
Initially I was skeptical of the UK capabilities.
However it appears that by putting themselves in the position whereby the only acceptable UK response appears to be to agree with the EU position, the EU look and are in a weaker position than at the start of the progress.
The EU have sent facilitators and implementers to a negotiation. That is akin to sending a knife to a gunfight.
There seems to be a tendency to see the EU as a separate entity to the 27 remaining member states. This is a mistake, and in any case Barnier has more front line political experience than Davis.
The bill needs to be dressed up as something else. So we commit ourselves to funding programs that we have already agreed in the budget, we agree to continue a contribution to the supervision of the single market in exchange for unimpeded access, we agree to pay subs for those areas where we want to continue to cooperate etc etc. These are all politically sellable and doable.
What is worrying me is the complete unreality of the EU position. We should pay tens of billions because, well we should. Unless they are willing to start being realistic no deal will be possible. There was an interview with Davis a couple of weeks ago when he said that the EU had been completely unable to vouch or justify their claims and were now seeking our proposals as an alternative. This is inevitable, any deal has to be a something for something arrangement and the position of the EU in the negotiations has been absurd.
Despite this I fully expect the EU to announce in October that insufficient progress has been made. It is an obvious negotiation tactic anticipated by Hague yesterday. We need to not panic and carry on but no doubt remainers in the media will have the full meltdown.
There seems to be a tendency to see the EU as a separate entity to the 27 remaining member states. This is a mistake, and in any case Barnier has more front line political experience than Davis.
It is, in the long term, a mistake on the part of the EU. It is a crude but useful negotiating position if you want to stonewall - I think there is a bloke in Dickens who has a business called (something like) Smith and Jones, and negotiates by saying "I would love to agree that but I would never get it past Jones", the gag being that Jones died 20 years ago. In the EU case we know it to be true and it is effective against us because time is against us, but the wider message to the world is: there is no organ-grinder, there are only 27 monkeys - confirming what Kissinger said, that if he wanted to pick up the phone and speak to Europe, he didn't know who to ring.
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.
I agree, but on the other hand Iraq was behaving as if it had such weapons, it had used them in the past against its own civilians and another country (Iran), and had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait). Its treatment of the weapons inspectors was also highly suggestive.
But the point of Blix was that we didn't have to do anything on the basis of "highly suggestive" behaviour on the part of Iraq. It was like a doctor deciding to operate on the basis of patient-described symptoms and not bothering with perfectly good MRI and CT scanners which were at his disposal.
This is key. It wasn't sufficient that Iraq needed dealing with. Tony Blair had to make the case that we had no choice but to invade Iraq NOW. Blix and Chirac wanted more time for inspections; Bush who wasn't bothered about niceties of international law was going to go ahead regardless. Blair was stuck in the middle without a UN resolution or any legal cover, so he fabricated it.
The problem for Blair and Bush was the timing of the invasion. Everybody involved on both sides knew when, a predictable two week period of calm in the weather pattern over Iraq when there were usually no rain (winter) or sand storms (summer). Saddam's intention was to cause the delay till it as too hot for the allied forces to fight in chemical and nuclear gear, which the allies "knew" he had and had used in the past. Then it would have been another year before anything happened. 12 months! In which democratic governments could fall, be replaced or whatever. He spun the coin. Bush and Blair were hung if they didn't authorise invasion, and hung if they did. Any excuse true or false was used, and was, ruthlessly.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
To be fair you have been consistent in that.
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.
From recent press coverage it appears the other way round.
Initially I was skeptical of the UK capabilities.
However it appears that by putting themselves in the position whereby the only acceptable UK response appears to be to agree with the EU position, the EU look and are in a weaker position than at the start of the progress.
The EU have sent facilitators and implementers to a negotiation. That is akin to sending a knife to a gunfight.
There seems to be a tendency to see the EU as a separate entity to the 27 remaining member states. This is a mistake, and in any case Barnier has more front line political experience than Davis.
Absolutely not.
Barnier isn't and can't negotiate. He has to stick to the agreed position of the 27 States. The 27 states are the EU and the EU is the 27 states. They are an inseparable (but not always harmonious and coherent) unit. One can not exist without the other.
The final sentence really will not effect the price of eggs (well it may!). I suspect Davis has more UK frontline political experience, and that may be important when playing to a UK audience.
You have long been wrong, then. In the recent ICM poll 41% said 10 bn was acceptable, up from 15% in June. That's a massive jump. As was pointed out at the time you can manipulate the answers to these questions quite easily by how you frame the question, and as Jonathan Portes said in last night's very good podcast, he is a professional economist and a sum like 30bn is so big as to be meaningless to him, so what chance do the general public have of assessing it? Everyone who has ever moved house or changed job or got divorced knows that you need a final accounting, and will accept the end result provided it is a final accounting transaction, rather than taking the piss.
Leaving aside what we think the public thinks, what I think is that this should be seen as a cost of Brexit. We pay it and move on. It is in our certain interests to get this out of the way. We shouldn't be surprised that the EU are out for what they can get rather than offering "mates rates". It's what people do in this situation. While we have the absolute right to leave the EU, it was our choice not theirs and it damages them. And while people here have complained about what do we get for our fee, our lot haven't spent a nano second thinking about what the EU side might want and come up with any reasons for them to discount off the top line.
None of this means we should just accept whatever figure the EU presents to us. It's something that ideally would be passed onto a professional negotiator who can minimise the price while still getting what the UK wants. Ie it should not be a politician like David Davis who has a political agenda. This is where the EU has the advantage. The politicians are largely kept out of the negotiations.
Barnier isn't and can't negotiate. He has to stick to the agreed position of the 27 States. The 27 states are the EU and the EU is the 27 states. They are an inseparable (but not always harmonious and coherent) unit. One can not exist without the other.
The final sentence really will not effect the price of eggs (well it may!). I suspect Davis has more UK frontline political experience, and that may be important when playing to a UK audience.
So if David Davis doesn't get his own way with Barnier, do you think he'll trigger a by-election?
Barnier isn't and can't negotiate. He has to stick to the agreed position of the 27 States. The 27 states are the EU and the EU is the 27 states. They are an inseparable (but not always harmonious and coherent) unit. One can not exist without the other.
The final sentence really will not effect the price of eggs (well it may!). I suspect Davis has more UK frontline political experience, and that may be important when playing to a UK audience.
We seem to be drifting into the same misunderstandings that led to Cameron's presentational disaster over his own 'renegotiation'. To the extent that we think the secret is to bypass the EU system and start negotiating with individual sovereign entities, we are taking a position that is fundamentally hostile to the EU itself, and therefore hostile to the interests of its remaining member states. They will not indulge this approach for one second.
As for experience playing to the gallery in the UK, Davis failed on the national stage when running against Cameron, and then flounced off in a pointless stunt. His track record of being able to take people with him is shaky.
Barnier isn't and can't negotiate. He has to stick to the agreed position of the 27 States. The 27 states are the EU and the EU is the 27 states. They are an inseparable (but not always harmonious and coherent) unit. One can not exist without the other.
The final sentence really will not effect the price of eggs (well it may!). I suspect Davis has more UK frontline political experience, and that may be important when playing to a UK audience.
So if David Davis doesn't get his own way with Barnier, do you think he'll trigger a by-election?
He won't need that much provocation or reason. If his shoe laces come undone he may call a by-election.
Barnier isn't and can't negotiate. He has to stick to the agreed position of the 27 States. The 27 states are the EU and the EU is the 27 states. They are an inseparable (but not always harmonious and coherent) unit. One can not exist without the other.
The final sentence really will not effect the price of eggs (well it may!). I suspect Davis has more UK frontline political experience, and that may be important when playing to a UK audience.
So if David Davis doesn't get his own way with Barnier, do you think he'll trigger a by-election?
He won't need that much provocation or reason. If his shoe laces come undone he may call a by-election.
Perhaps we should rerun the referendum only in Haltemprice and Howden given their special position in the UK constitution.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
It long pre-dates May and Gove. By way of contrast, the Conservatives typically poll 25-30% among school teachers.
I don't think I can recall meeting a centre-right teacher at all.
But, perhaps they just keep their mouths shut.
My Maths teacher used to conduct impromptu polls in lessons, and we quickly learned that more Labour hands = bad mood = more homework + lecture on bloody socialists destroying the Maths curriculum.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
It long pre-dates May and Gove. By way of contrast, the Conservatives typically poll 25-30% among school teachers.
I don't think I can recall meeting a centre-right teacher at all.
But, perhaps they just keep their mouths shut.
My Maths teacher used to conduct impromptu polls in lessons, and we quickly learned that more Labour hands = bad mood = more homework + lecture on bloody socialists destroying the Maths curriculum.
When doing my degree had a right wing lecturer , he became very passionate if you ever questioned born to be head of state.At school we had a white south African English teacher .I would never describe him as from the liberal left.
Like the Living Dead in a second-rate horror film, the premiership of Theresa May staggers on oblivious. This was not supposed to be in the script.
It was universally acknowledged by Tory MPs after her disastrous, wooden performance in the election campaign that she could never lead them in to an election again. To stave off an immediate execution in June, she adopted two tactics.
First, like King Charles I before her, she offered up the heads of her deeply unpopular advisers instead. “It wasn’t my fault that I’ve alienated my entire Cabinet and produced a vote-destroying manifesto, it was theirs,” she pleaded.
Second, she told Tory MPs: “You don’t have to go to the trouble of getting rid of me, I’ll jump before I’m pushed.” Or at least that’s what the Tory parliamentary party thought they heard when she said to them on the Monday after the election: “I will serve as long as you want me.”
The settled assumption until this week was that Mrs May would soak up all the damage to the party’s reputation coming in the Brexit negotiations and then hand the premiership over in the summer of 2019 to an unsullied successor.
This morning, those MPs have woken up to discover that Mrs May wants to go on and on — an announcement that appropriately came on a visit close to North Korea.
This wasn’t a case of just dodging the awkward question of when she was quitting. “I want to do a lot more in the long term,” she said, and sketched out an agenda based on social justice and restoring Brexit Britain’s standing in the world.
This leaves Conservatives MPs facing the age-old dilemma: do you attempt a mutiny against a bad captain, and risk getting shot — or do you resign yourself to going down with the ship?....
.....For those who want a pragmatic approach to Brexit it means the necessary compromises aren’t forthcoming because leading ministers don’t want to risk alienating the Tory Brexit wing ahead of a future leadership contest.
For the country it means we continue to have a rudderless Government when we face huge challenges beyond Brexit, as our economy falls behind and our place in the world is diminished. Britain deserves a better movie than this.
The bill needs to be dressed up as something else. So we commit ourselves to funding programs that we have already agreed in the budget, we agree to continue a contribution to the supervision of the single market in exchange for unimpeded access, we agree to pay subs for those areas where we want to continue to cooperate etc etc. These are all politically sellable and doable.
What is worrying me is the complete unreality of the EU position. We should pay tens of billions because, well we should. Unless they are willing to start being realistic no deal will be possible. There was an interview with Davis a couple of weeks ago when he said that the EU had been completely unable to vouch or justify their claims and were now seeking our proposals as an alternative. This is inevitable, any deal has to be a something for something arrangement and the position of the EU in the negotiations has been absurd.
Despite this I fully expect the EU to announce in October that insufficient progress has been made. It is an obvious negotiation tactic anticipated by Hague yesterday. We need to not panic and carry on but no doubt remainers in the media will have the full meltdown.
@PolhomeEditor: Michel Barnier says he is "far from being able to say sufficient progress has taken place" on divorce bill, Ireland and citizens' rights.
Like the Living Dead in a second-rate horror film, the premiership of Theresa May staggers on oblivious. This was not supposed to be in the script.
It was universally acknowledged by Tory MPs after her disastrous, wooden performance in the election campaign that she could never lead them in to an election again. To stave off an immediate execution in June, she adopted two tactics.
First, like King Charles I before her, she offered up the heads of her deeply unpopular advisers instead. “It wasn’t my fault that I’ve alienated my entire Cabinet and produced a vote-destroying manifesto, it was theirs,” she pleaded.
Second, she told Tory MPs: “You don’t have to go to the trouble of getting rid of me, I’ll jump before I’m pushed.” Or at least that’s what the Tory parliamentary party thought they heard when she said to them on the Monday after the election: “I will serve as long as you want me.”
The settled assumption until this week was that Mrs May would soak up all the damage to the party’s reputation coming in the Brexit negotiations and then hand the premiership over in the summer of 2019 to an unsullied successor.
This morning, those MPs have woken up to discover that Mrs May wants to go on and on — an announcement that appropriately came on a visit close to North Korea.
This wasn’t a case of just dodging the awkward question of when she was quitting. “I want to do a lot more in the long term,” she said, and sketched out an agenda based on social justice and restoring Brexit Britain’s standing in the world.
This leaves Conservatives MPs facing the age-old dilemma: do you attempt a mutiny against a bad captain, and risk getting shot — or do you resign yourself to going down with the ship?....
.....For those who want a pragmatic approach to Brexit it means the necessary compromises aren’t forthcoming because leading ministers don’t want to risk alienating the Tory Brexit wing ahead of a future leadership contest.
For the country it means we continue to have a rudderless Government when we face huge challenges beyond Brexit, as our economy falls behind and our place in the world is diminished. Britain deserves a better movie than this.
We seem to be drifting into the same misunderstandings that led to Cameron's presentational disaster over his own 'renegotiation'. To the extent that we think the secret is to bypass the EU system and start negotiating with individual sovereign entities, we are taking a position that is fundamentally hostile to the EU itself, and therefore hostile to the interests of its remaining member states. They will not indulge this approach for one second.
That is correct. However, I don't think that the UK is trying to negotiate with individual states. What I think (and hope) it is trying to do is to encourage the various states to understand that it is very much in their own interests to encourage a change of approach within the EU.
Like the Living Dead in a second-rate horror film, the premiership of Theresa May staggers on oblivious. This was not supposed to be in the script.
It was universally acknowledged by Tory MPs after her disastrous, wooden performance in the election campaign that she could never lead them in to an election again. To stave off an immediate execution in June, she adopted two tactics.
First, like King Charles I before her, she offered up the heads of her deeply unpopular advisers instead. “It wasn’t my fault that I’ve alienated my entire Cabinet and produced a vote-destroying manifesto, it was theirs,” she pleaded.
Second, she told Tory MPs: “You don’t have to go to the trouble of getting rid of me, I’ll jump before I’m pushed.” Or at least that’s what the Tory parliamentary party thought they heard when she said to them on the Monday after the election: “I will serve as long as you want me.”
The settled assumption until this week was that Mrs May would soak up all the damage to the party’s reputation coming in the Brexit negotiations and then hand the premiership over in the summer of 2019 to an unsullied successor.
This morning, those MPs have woken up to discover that Mrs May wants to go on and on — an announcement that appropriately came on a visit close to North Korea.
This wasn’t a case of just dodging the awkward question of when she was quitting. “I want to do a lot more in the long term,” she said, and sketched out an agenda based on social justice and restoring Brexit Britain’s standing in the world.
This leaves Conservatives MPs facing the age-old dilemma: do you attempt a mutiny against a bad captain, and risk getting shot — or do you resign yourself to going down with the ship?....
.....For those who want a pragmatic approach to Brexit it means the necessary compromises aren’t forthcoming because leading ministers don’t want to risk alienating the Tory Brexit wing ahead of a future leadership contest.
For the country it means we continue to have a rudderless Government when we face huge challenges beyond Brexit, as our economy falls behind and our place in the world is diminished. Britain deserves a better movie than this.
@PolhomeEditor: Barnier: After this week, it's clear the UK does not feel legally obliged to honour its (financial) obligations after departure." Christ.
@alstewitn: #BrexitTalks Barnier' Tax-payers in the remaining 27 countries can't be expected to pay all the obligations of the 28, post #Brexit'.
The Sunday after the general election Osborne went on telly to say that it would "be all over" for Theresa May on Wednesday 14th June yet here we are, nearly in September and she's still going while the Posh Boy carps like the loser the is from the sidelines...
The Sunday after the general election Osborne went on telly to say that it would "be all over" for Theresa May Wednesday 14th June yet here we are, nearly in September and she's still going while the Posh Boy carps like the loser the is from the sidelines...
He said she was a dead woman walking. He was right.
The Sunday after the general election Osborne went on telly to say that it would "be all over" for Theresa May Wednesday 14th June yet here we are, nearly in September and she's still going while the Posh Boy carps like the loser the is from the sidelines...
He said she was a dead woman walking. He was right.
And he predicted it would be "all over for her" by 14th June (as the Tories would force her resignation)
The bill needs to be dressed up as something else. So we commit ourselves to funding programs that we have already agreed in the budget, we agree to continue a contribution to the supervision of the single market in exchange for unimpeded access, we agree to pay subs for those areas where we want to continue to cooperate etc etc. These are all politically sellable and doable.
What is worrying me is the complete unreality of the EU position. We should pay tens of billions because, well we should. Unless they are willing to start being realistic no deal will be possible. There was an interview with Davis a couple of weeks ago when he said that the EU had been completely unable to vouch or justify their claims and were now seeking our proposals as an alternative. This is inevitable, any deal has to be a something for something arrangement and the position of the EU in the negotiations has been absurd...
Except that at this rate, we'll never get that far. The EU team appear to be insisting on a response to the bill which is 'satisfactory' before they'll deign to talk about what happens next. As I argued in the previous thread, the sensible option might be to counter with what we accept are our actual legal obligations that we are willing to pay without further negotiation (which we have thus far not done... and it won't be a large figure), adding a rider that we are prepared to pay considerably more, but only subject to satisfactory* agreement on market access etc.
While that might offend on or two sensitive souls, it has the benefit of cutting through the crap, and setting out the position as it actually is. And I can't see how it would make the stalemate any worse than it now appears to be.
The Sunday after the general election Osborne went on telly to say that it would "be all over" for Theresa May on Wednesday 14th June yet here we are, nearly in September and she's still going while the Posh Boy carps like the loser the is from the sidelines...
In the Game of Tories, you either win or die cry into your money piles from the Standard offices.
Theresa May says that she wants to fight the next election. She knows that the Tory party will not let her. The Conservatives would never risk losing an election to Corbyn. Yes, she will be PM for the next few years but she will go willingly or be removed the moment that by elections make an early election likely.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
He does indeed. He may have found his true calling. But he is moving from critical, well associate, to outright war. I don't see this as productive. The hackles of many who might have had similar views will be raised.
Like the Living Dead in a second-rate horror film, the premiership of Theresa May staggers on oblivious. This was not supposed to be in the script.
It was universally acknowledged by Tory MPs after her disastrous, wooden performance in the election campaign that she could never lead them in to an election again. To stave off an immediate execution in June, she adopted two tactics.
First, like King Charles I before her, she offered up the heads of her deeply unpopular advisers instead. “It wasn’t my fault that I’ve alienated my entire Cabinet and produced a vote-destroying manifesto, it was theirs,” she pleaded.
Second, she told Tory MPs: “You don’t have to go to the trouble of getting rid of me, I’ll jump before I’m pushed.” Or at least that’s what the Tory parliamentary party thought they heard when she said to them on the Monday after the election: “I will serve as long as you want me.”
The settled assumption until this week was that Mrs May would soak up all the damage to the party’s reputation coming in the Brexit negotiations and then hand the premiership over in the summer of 2019 to an unsullied successor.
This morning, those MPs have woken up to discover that Mrs May wants to go on and on — an announcement that appropriately came on a visit close to North Korea.
This wasn’t a case of just dodging the awkward question of when she was quitting. “I want to do a lot more in the long term,” she said, and sketched out an agenda based on social justice and restoring Brexit Britain’s standing in the world.
This leaves Conservatives MPs facing the age-old dilemma: do you attempt a mutiny against a bad captain, and risk getting shot — or do you resign yourself to going down with the ship?....
.....For those who want a pragmatic approach to Brexit it means the necessary compromises aren’t forthcoming because leading ministers don’t want to risk alienating the Tory Brexit wing ahead of a future leadership contest.
For the country it means we continue to have a rudderless Government when we face huge challenges beyond Brexit, as our economy falls behind and our place in the world is diminished. Britain deserves a better movie than this.
@PolhomeEditor: Barnier: After this week, it's clear the UK does not feel legally obliged to honour its (financial) obligations after departure." Christ.
@alstewitn: #BrexitTalks Barnier' Tax-payers in the remaining 27 countries can't be expected to pay all the obligations of the 28, post #Brexit'.
So, what is he willing to offer in return for our cash?
Like the Living Dead in a second-rate horror film, the premiership of Theresa May staggers on oblivious. This was not supposed to be in the script.
It was universally acknowledged by Tory MPs after her disastrous, wooden performance in the election campaign that she could never lead them in to an election again. To stave off an immediate execution in June, she adopted two tactics.
First, like King Charles I before her, she offered up the heads of her deeply unpopular advisers instead. “It wasn’t my fault that I’ve alienated my entire Cabinet and produced a vote-destroying manifesto, it was theirs,” she pleaded.
Second, she told Tory MPs: “You don’t have to go to the trouble of getting rid of me, I’ll jump before I’m pushed.” Or at least that’s what the Tory parliamentary party thought they heard when she said to them on the Monday after the election: “I will serve as long as you want me.”
The settled assumption until this week was that Mrs May would soak up all the damage to the party’s reputation coming in the Brexit negotiations and then hand the premiership over in the summer of 2019 to an unsullied successor.
This morning, those MPs have woken up to discover that Mrs May wants to go on and on — an announcement that appropriately came on a visit close to North Korea.
This wasn’t a case of just dodging the awkward question of when she was quitting. “I want to do a lot more in the long term,” she said, and sketched out an agenda based on social justice and restoring Brexit Britain’s standing in the world.
This leaves Conservatives MPs facing the age-old dilemma: do you attempt a mutiny against a bad captain, and risk getting shot — or do you resign yourself to going down with the ship?....
.....For those who want a pragmatic approach to Brexit it means the necessary compromises aren’t forthcoming because leading ministers don’t want to risk alienating the Tory Brexit wing ahead of a future leadership contest.
For the country it means we continue to have a rudderless Government when we face huge challenges beyond Brexit, as our economy falls behind and our place in the world is diminished. Britain deserves a better movie than this.
@PolhomeEditor: Barnier: After this week, it's clear the UK does not feel legally obliged to honour its (financial) obligations after departure." Christ.
@alstewitn: #BrexitTalks Barnier' Tax-payers in the remaining 27 countries can't be expected to pay all the obligations of the 28, post #Brexit'.
So, what is he willing to offer in return for our cash?
He won't tell you until you promise to give him all the cash.
The bill needs to be dressed up as something else. So we commit ourselves to funding programs that we have already agreed in the budget, we agree to continue a contribution to the supervision of the single market in exchange for unimpeded access, we agree to pay subs for those areas where we want to continue to cooperate etc etc. These are all politically sellable and doable.
What is worrying me is the complete unreality of the EU position. We should pay tens of billions because, well we should. Unless they are willing to start being realistic no deal will be possible. There was an interview with Davis a couple of weeks ago when he said that the EU had been completely unable to vouch or justify their claims and were now seeking our proposals as an alternative. This is inevitable, any deal has to be a something for something arrangement and the position of the EU in the negotiations has been absurd...
Except that at this rate, we'll never get that far. The EU team appear to be insisting on a response to the bill which is 'satisfactory' before they'll deign to talk about what happens next. As I argued in the previous thread, the sensible option might be to counter with what we accept are our actual legal obligations that we are willing to pay without further negotiation (which we have thus far not done... and it won't be a large figure), adding a rider that we are prepared to pay considerably more, but only subject to satisfactory* agreement on market access etc.
While that might offend on or two sensitive souls, it has the benefit of cutting through the crap, and setting out the position as it actually is. And I can't see how it would make the stalemate any worse than it now appears to be.
*It's time we used that term back at them.
We have repeatedly said we will meet our legal obligations. Its just not clear at the moment that there are any beyond the day we leave.
But they do have things we want and we should be willing to trade. Perhaps we should simply agree that all of their legal claims will be remitted to binding independent arbitration and we can then get on with what we want to buy.
@jonwalker121: Barnier says the UK wants to leave the single market and customs union but also seems nostalgic for the benefits that membership has bought
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
It long pre-dates May and Gove. By way of contrast, the Conservatives typically poll 25-30% among school teachers.
I don't think I can recall meeting a centre-right teacher at all.
But, perhaps they just keep their mouths shut.
I was one and out and proud throughout - I was not alone!
You certainly are not my friend is a teacher and centre right , he says he does not go down to well in the staff room but does not hide his own personal views , and why should he.
He does indeed. He may have found his true calling. But he is moving from critical, well associate, to outright war. I don't see this as productive. The hackles of many who might have had similar views will be raised.
Conservatives need to remember that George Osborne has a new career, one which he is pursuing wholeheartedly and effectively. For so long as he is editor of the Evening Standard, a Prime Minister embarking on a Brexit course is his quarry. That this is a pleasure as well as a duty is a happy coincidence.
Macron's proposed reforms to the labour market and employment law are being well received by the organisations representing small businesses, and by the French equivalent of the CBI. The unions are less keen, although Force Ouvriere, the smaller union group and one which is traditionally less militant, isn't joining in a day of action organised by the CFDT.
The actual reforms seem to be relatively modest - it's not exactly a Thatcherite revolution. The changes include limits to maximum compensation for unfair dismissal, an easing of the bureaucratic hoops that small businesses have to go through on redundancies, allowing small companies not to have to negotiate with unions, and reductions in the time limits for employees to go to tribunals.
So, what is he willing to offer in return for our cash?
A deal to reduce the risk of our economy collapsing
It is not a certainty that the EU has the power to collapse our economy or that so doing would not result in a simultaneous collapse of the EU economies.
So, Barnier's upset we haven't agreed to pay a bill he hasn't presented? Hmm.
F1: repost from yesterday. Bear in mind my recent atrocious form and luck.
Backed Verstappen not to be classified at 3.25 with Betfair Sportsbook. He's got a 50% DNF rate.
Backed Bottas to top FP1 at 7.5 each way (1/5 odds top 3).
Backed Bottas to 'win' qualifying at 6 each way (1/3 odds top 2).
Expecting the track to be fantastic for Mercedes. If that's accurate, those bets will be alright.
I wouldn't automatically assume it's a nailed-on Mercedes track, Mr.D.
Prior to Spa, I would have agreed with you, but the Ferrari has shown rather better than expected. There is some talk that Ferrari's braking energy recovery system is better sorted than that of Mercedes, so although the latter still have (probably) the most outright powerful engine, the savage braking zones at Monza might narrow some of that advantage.
He does indeed. He may have found his true calling. But he is moving from critical, well associate, to outright war. I don't see this as productive. The hackles of many who might have had similar views will be raised.
Conservatives need to remember that George Osborne has a new career, one which he is pursuing wholeheartedly and effectively. For so long as he is editor of the Evening Standard, a Prime Minister embarking on a Brexit course is his quarry. That this is a pleasure as well as a duty is a happy coincidence.
Oh he's certainly enjoying himself there is no doubt about that. I just fear he is becoming a little self indulgent and losing sight of the main prize which is to shape policy in the way he believes to be advantageous for the country.
He does indeed. He may have found his true calling. But he is moving from critical, well associate, to outright war. I don't see this as productive. The hackles of many who might have had similar views will be raised.
Conservatives need to remember that George Osborne has a new career, one which he is pursuing wholeheartedly and effectively. For so long as he is editor of the Evening Standard, a Prime Minister embarking on a Brexit course is his quarry. That this is a pleasure as well as a duty is a happy coincidence.
He's certainly doing an entertaining job of editing the Westminster Standard - whether with acid attacks knife crime and shootings the London readers of the Evening Standard are as entertained, time will tell.
Mr. B, the pace of the Ferrari was in twisty bits, though. With a slipstream and close behind, Vettel couldn't pass the Mercedes on the straight. On a couple of occasions earlier this year, Vettel was steamed past by a Silver Arrow on a straight.
The Mercedes will also benefit from hotter oil burning. Apparently (bit above my head to be honest).
Except that at this rate, we'll never get that far. The EU team appear to be insisting on a response to the bill which is 'satisfactory' before they'll deign to talk about what happens next. As I argued in the previous thread, the sensible option might be to counter with what we accept are our actual legal obligations that we are willing to pay without further negotiation (which we have thus far not done... and it won't be a large figure), adding a rider that we are prepared to pay considerably more, but only subject to satisfactory* agreement on market access etc.
While that might offend on or two sensitive souls, it has the benefit of cutting through the crap, and setting out the position as it actually is. And I can't see how it would make the stalemate any worse than it now appears to be.
*It's time we used that term back at them.
Even though the bill is not the objective legal obligation Barnier makes it out to be, it is not in our interest to take the legal tack. It justs wastes time we don't have. The EU need this to be a set amount because they want to make it the objective legal obligation they claim it to be. They don't trust us to pay it otherwise. So us adding conditionality to the bill may work as a tactical manouevre to get to the next stage but by March 2019 they will want an amount of €X in the withdrawal agreement.
Where I differ from everyone else here is that I assume we will agree the exit bill eventually - not €100 billion, but some haggled amount less than that, probably around €60 billion. Given we will (I think) agree it eventually, it's in our interests to get it out the way now.
Clearer by the day that EU still don't get that we want out. That our membership of it is at best ignored by vast swathes of the population, disliked by a plurality, and actively detested by a significant minority.
They're using the Greek playbook all over again; suggesting we can't get out, so might as well stay in.
With their second biggest budget contributor. Crackers.
So, what is he willing to offer in return for our cash?
A deal to reduce the risk of our economy collapsing
But he won't say what that deal is.
It is something of great advantage but no one is to know what it is
It's a strange negotiating strategy.
It's a very simple negotiating strategy. He's playing "chicken". Since the potential damage to Britain starts much earlier and is more severe than that to the rest of the EU, it's a game of chicken that I expect he thinks he'll win easily.
The Sunday after the general election Osborne went on telly to say that it would "be all over" for Theresa May Wednesday 14th June yet here we are, nearly in September and she's still going while the Posh Boy carps like the loser the is from the sidelines...
He said she was a dead woman walking. He was right.
And he predicted it would be "all over for her" by 14th June (as the Tories would force her resignation)
He was wrong.
It is all shaing up to make the Tory conference rather fun though!
Except that at this rate, we'll never get that far. The EU team appear to be insisting on a response to the bill which is 'satisfactory' before they'll deign to talk about what happens next. As I argued in the previous thread, the sensible option might be to counter with what we accept are our actual legal obligations that we are willing to pay without further negotiation (which we have thus far not done... and it won't be a large figure), adding a rider that we are prepared to pay considerably more, but only subject to satisfactory* agreement on market access etc.
While that might offend on or two sensitive souls, it has the benefit of cutting through the crap, and setting out the position as it actually is. And I can't see how it would make the stalemate any worse than it now appears to be.
*It's time we used that term back at them.
Even though the bill is not the objective legal obligation Barnier makes it out to be, it is not in our interest to take the legal tack. It justs wastes time we don't have. The EU need this to be a set amount because they want to make it the objective legal obligation they claim it to be. They don't trust us to pay it otherwise. So us adding conditionality to the bill may work as a tactical manouevre to get to the next stage but by March 2019 they will want an amount of €X in the withdrawal agreement.
Where I differ from everyone else here is that I assume we will agree the exit bill eventually - not €100 billion, but some haggled amount less than that, probably around €60 billion. Given we will (I think) agree it eventually, it's in our interests to get it out the way now.
I have some magic beans to sell you, how much would you like to pay for them? They're great beans, and they might lead to you getting a preferential deal on future bean transactions.
@PolhomeEditor: Barnier: After this week, it's clear the UK does not feel legally obliged to honour its (financial) obligations after departure." Christ.
Which is utter bollocks. We've merely pointed out how limited we think the firm legal obligations to pay anything are (while holding up the possibility of paying rather more in exchange for a deal).
I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements, while Barnier seems to be turning into a slightly more refined Boris Johnson.
@PolhomeEditor: Barnier: After this week, it's clear the UK does not feel legally obliged to honour its (financial) obligations after departure." Christ.
Which is utter bollocks. We've merely pointed out how limited we think the firm legal obligations to pay anything are (while holding up the possibility of paying rather more in exchange for a deal).
I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements, while Barnier seems to be turning into a slightly more refined Boris Johnson.
It is quite refreshing to hear you say that Mr N - the bewailing from some partisan figures who seem to be enjoying the cult social media status of being a continuity Remainer absolutely baffles me.
Allowing pieces like this to be published suggests to me that we had a very narrow escape with the editor of a freesheet not getting into No. 10.
It suggests to me that Mrs May was unwise to sack Osborne in the manner in which she did. Hopefully she's learnt it's unwise to make enemies out of people cleverer than oneself.
Her latest display of hubris suggests that she could probably do with some time on the backbenches getting to know her party again.
Clearer by the day that EU still don't get that we want out. That our membership of it is at best ignored by vast swathes of the population, disliked by a plurality, and actively detested by a significant minority.
They're using the Greek playbook all over again; suggesting we can't get out, so might as well stay in.
With their second biggest budget contributor. Crackers.
We're the ones using the Greek strategy of thinking that the EU can't afford not to let us have our cake in the form of the benefits of membership, so we just need to face them down and they will give in and give us a bespoke deal will give us both continuity and freedom from obligations.
We want Schrödinger's membership, but the EU is insisting on revealing that our membership is dead.
...I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements,...
DD said something very interesting just now. From the Guardian live blog:
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
Barnier predictable. We're both at the bluffing stage. We hold or raise.
They are refusing to negotiate anything on trade. Fine. Why not start negotiating trade deals with other countries now? Ready to begin on March 2019 if necessary. See how he likes them apples. What can he do? Threaten to fine us? A Gallic 'non' would be our response.
It's looking like the EU are trying to take the piss. Two can play at that game.
Barnier predictable. We're both at the bluffing stage. We hold or raise.
They are refusing to negotiate anything on trade. Fine. Why not start negotiating trade deals with other countries now? Ready to begin on March 2019 if necessary. See how he likes them apples. What can he do? Threaten to fine us? A Gallic 'non' would be our response.
It's looking like the EU are trying to take the piss. Two can play at that game.
They think they can bully Britain into remaining.
They're not used to people standing up to them. They're used to acquiescence.
The Sunday after the general election Osborne went on telly to say that it would "be all over" for Theresa May Wednesday 14th June yet here we are, nearly in September and she's still going while the Posh Boy carps like the loser the is from the sidelines...
He said she was a dead woman walking. He was right.
And he predicted it would be "all over for her" by 14th June (as the Tories would force her resignation)
He was wrong.
It is all shaing up to make the Tory conference rather fun though!
Will George Osborne be let into the Conservative Conference ? Could be like a Labour one when the members howl at The Sun .This time the Tories complaining about the media namely the Standard.
So, what is he willing to offer in return for our cash?
A deal to reduce the risk of our economy collapsing
But he won't say what that deal is.
It is something of great advantage but no one is to know what it is
It's a strange negotiating strategy.
It's a very simple negotiating strategy. He's playing "chicken". Since the potential damage to Britain starts much earlier and is more severe than that to the rest of the EU, it's a game of chicken that I expect he thinks he'll win easily.
Basically, yes. I think he has a case but it is almost irrelevant whether he does. It is up to us to convince the EU why it should back off, by offering something so amazing they say, Yep we want that! We are happy to go easy on the bill. If we can't or won't do that, it will be what we pay.
The Sunday after the general election Osborne went on telly to say that it would "be all over" for Theresa May Wednesday 14th June yet here we are, nearly in September and she's still going while the Posh Boy carps like the loser the is from the sidelines...
He said she was a dead woman walking. He was right.
And he predicted it would be "all over for her" by 14th June (as the Tories would force her resignation)
He was wrong.
It is all shaing up to make the Tory conference rather fun though!
Will George Osborne be let into the Conservative Conference ? Could be like a Labour one when the members howl at The Sun .This time the Tories complaining about the media namely the Standard.
He's attending conference. He's got media accreditation.
He does indeed. He may have found his true calling. But he is moving from critical, well associate, to outright war. I don't see this as productive. The hackles of many who might have had similar views will be raised.
Conservatives need to remember that George Osborne has a new career, one which he is pursuing wholeheartedly and effectively. For so long as he is editor of the Evening Standard, a Prime Minister embarking on a Brexit course is his quarry. That this is a pleasure as well as a duty is a happy coincidence.
Oh he's certainly enjoying himself there is no doubt about that. I just fear he is becoming a little self indulgent and losing sight of the main prize which is to shape policy in the way he believes to be advantageous for the country.
Who says it's his main prize? Plus who says he is not indeed shaping policy? As we have seen with BoJo, people like it when a (non/yet to be/former) politician speaks their mind in print. He is creating a narrative whereby it is a foregone conclusion that May is useless and will go. Perhaps he's the champion of a significant number of Cons MPs who wish they could say what he is saying. Perhaps he is just venting and doesn't care about the UK. Or perhaps he realises that the closer to EU membership Brexit looks like, the better the country will do and is trying to achieve that with his war on hard Brexiters, whoever they are.
Is the ES an influential rag? His presence means it is more influential than it was and as editor on a salary, being influential means higher readership means more advertising revenue so as a day job main prize I think he is succeeding on that count also.
And talking of counts, I feel the hand of history...
So, what is he willing to offer in return for our cash?
A deal to reduce the risk of our economy collapsing
But he won't say what that deal is.
It is something of great advantage but no one is to know what it is
It's a strange negotiating strategy.
It's a very simple negotiating strategy. He's playing "chicken". Since the potential damage to Britain starts much earlier and is more severe than that to the rest of the EU, it's a game of chicken that I expect he thinks he'll win easily.
Basically, yes. I think he has a case but it is almost irrelevant whether he does. It is up to us to convince the EU why it should back off, by offering something so amazing they say, Yep we want that! We are happy to go easy on the bill. If we can't or won't do that, it will be what we pay.
The Commission tweeted this alongside the video of Barnier: "Financial settlement:UK doesn't feel obliged honour their obligations. How can we build trust&start discussing future relationship? "
...I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements,...
DD said something very interesting just now. From the Guardian live blog:
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
The presentation from the 'young wonk' on the legal status of the proposed bill appears to have rattled some in EU.
They even played the man by reference to his tender years, a very ageist attitude.
...I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements,...
DD said something very interesting just now. From the Guardian live blog:
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
The EU evidently has no interest in agreeing this too quickly (I agree that David Davis's approach is entirely reasonable). It wants the pips to squeak a bit first before the terms of trade are discussed in earnest, the better to nail Britain to the floor.
As I said the other day, this looks like a very short-sighted strategy from the EU's perspective but when the British government has spent most of the last year pandering to the tabloids' hatred of the EU, it's not exactly surprising.
...I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements,...
DD said something very interesting just now. From the Guardian live blog:
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
I agree that what Davis is saying now is a sensible negotiating strategy, and if this was the tack the government had used since the Brexit vote then things might be looking rather different now.
The problem is that the moronic and arrogant pronouncements from the government (about two-thirds of them coming from Boris probably) up until the June election seems to have exhausted the patience of those in EU countries who might have been willing to be more reasonable, and to make hardliners like Barnier and Juncker stop being so intransigent. But as things now are, even reasonable EU people don't seem to want to help us out - when even the Irish prime minister is constantly taking pot-shots, you know the government has screwed things up badly.
FF33 - what would be your approach if the next year the EU finds another set of demands? The EU are presenting a bill based on its ideas of 'compensation'. Irish farmers are demanding not only no tariffs on their food but the UK should also maintain the common market tariffs on food from outside the EU - so they remain competitive - if we don't do this there could be a demand for never ending compensation.
If Barnier persists in his Kim Jong Un attitude ... we make the rules, you must obey our rules, or we'll keep making threats ... he's in for a nasty shock. I suspect most people will see him as a jumped-up pipsqueak with a drunken friend egging him on.
Only the most-diehard of Remainers will want us to concede everything he asks for. The kind of people who would want us to agree to anything Kim demands too.
...I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements,...
DD said something very interesting just now. From the Guardian live blog:
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
I agree that what Davis is saying now is a sensible negotiating strategy, and if this was the tack the government had used since the Brexit vote then things might be looking rather different now.
The problem is that the moronic and arrogant pronouncements from the government (about two-thirds of them coming from Boris probably) up until the June election seems to have exhausted the patience of those in EU countries who might have been willing to be more reasonable, and to make hardliners like Barnier and Juncker stop being so intransigent. But as things now are, even reasonable EU people don't seem to want to help us out - when even the Irish prime minister is constantly taking pot-shots, you know the government has screwed things up badly.
Did IT? Tusk was most appreciative of the Lancaster House speech.
Clearer by the day that EU still don't get that we want out. That our membership of it is at best ignored by vast swathes of the population, disliked by a plurality, and actively detested by a significant minority.
They're using the Greek playbook all over again; suggesting we can't get out, so might as well stay in.
With their second biggest budget contributor. Crackers.
We're the ones using the Greek strategy of thinking that the EU can't afford not to let us have our cake in the form of the benefits of membership, so we just need to face them down and they will give in and give us a bespoke deal will give us both continuity and freedom from obligations.
We want Schrödinger's membership, but the EU is insisting on revealing that our membership is dead.
Fine. We've gone through far worse. We'll still be out.
Strikes me we are actually being civil and reasonable here and they are being rigid and inflexible and are stuck on the snag of their own making in that the three things they want progress on are somehow magically sealed off from the deal as a totality. It's irrational nonsense of the highest order from them. No money, no deal is their threat. Works the other way round too as we have zero incentive to pay them a dime if we get no deal.
Maybe Trudeau should become the Kissinger de nos jours?
...I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements,...
DD said something very interesting just now. From the Guardian live blog:
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
I agree that what Davis is saying now is a sensible negotiating strategy, and if this was the tack the government had used since the Brexit vote then things might be looking rather different now.
The problem is that the moronic and arrogant pronouncements from the government (about two-thirds of them coming from Boris probably) up until the June election seems to have exhausted the patience of those in EU countries who might have been willing to be more reasonable, and to make hardliners like Barnier and Juncker stop being so intransigent. But as things now are, even reasonable EU people don't seem to want to help us out - when even the Irish prime minister is constantly taking pot-shots, you know the government has screwed things up badly.
Did IT? Tusk was most appreciative of the Lancaster House speech.
He hadn't yet realised that when May said she wanted to leave the single market and customs union, she expected this to have no practical consequences.
I suspect most people will see him as a jumped-up pipsqueak with a drunken friend egging him on.
Just think how humiliating it would feel if people came to think this jumped-up pipsqueak and his drunken friend had the whip hand over the UK government.
Barnier predictable. We're both at the bluffing stage. We hold or raise.
They are refusing to negotiate anything on trade. Fine. Why not start negotiating trade deals with other countries now?...
Probably because most want to wait for the outcomes of our negotiations with the EU before they start talking about trade with a post Brexit UK. That's certainly the case with (for instance) Japan. It would be rather embarrassing to try that only to find it wasn't getting us anywhere.
So, what is he willing to offer in return for our cash?
A deal to reduce the risk of our economy collapsing
But he won't say what that deal is.
It is something of great advantage but no one is to know what it is
It's a strange negotiating strategy.
It's a very simple negotiating strategy. He's playing "chicken". Since the potential damage to Britain starts much earlier and is more severe than that to the rest of the EU, it's a game of chicken that I expect he thinks he'll win easily.
Basically, yes. I think he has a case but it is almost irrelevant whether he does. It is up to us to convince the EU why it should back off, by offering something so amazing they say, Yep we want that! We are happy to go easy on the bill. If we can't or won't do that, it will be what we pay.
The Commission tweeted this alongside the video of Barnier: "Financial settlement:UK doesn't feel obliged honour their obligations. How can we build trust&start discussing future relationship? "
Because the Commission and Barnier are shining examples of neutral even handed statements? They would say that wouldn't they. Geez.
FF33 - what would be your approach if the next year the EU finds another set of demands? The EU are presenting a bill based on its ideas of 'compensation'. Irish farmers are demanding not only no tariffs on their food but the UK should also maintain the common market tariffs on food from outside the EU - so they remain competitive - if we don't do this there could be a demand for never ending compensation.
In terms of "settling the accounts" that would be unacceptable. But good point. It's in our interest, as well as the objective of the EU, to have a single explicit figure.
There will be ongoing payments as we try to buy influence at the EU. Brexit is going to be expensive and certainly much worse value than membership (get much less for what we pay). The EU will be keen to make membership look like better value.
...I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements,...
DD said something very interesting just now. From the Guardian live blog:
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
Comments
https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/903201856691818496
What is worrying me is the complete unreality of the EU position. We should pay tens of billions because, well we should. Unless they are willing to start being realistic no deal will be possible. There was an interview with Davis a couple of weeks ago when he said that the EU had been completely unable to vouch or justify their claims and were now seeking our proposals as an alternative. This is inevitable, any deal has to be a something for something arrangement and the position of the EU in the negotiations has been absurd.
Despite this I fully expect the EU to announce in October that insufficient progress has been made. It is an obvious negotiation tactic anticipated by Hague yesterday. We need to not panic and carry on but no doubt remainers in the media will have the full meltdown.
Barnier isn't and can't negotiate.
He has to stick to the agreed position of the 27 States.
The 27 states are the EU and the EU is the 27 states. They are an inseparable (but not always harmonious and coherent) unit. One can not exist without the other.
The final sentence really will not effect the price of eggs (well it may!). I suspect Davis has more UK frontline political experience, and that may be important when playing to a UK audience.
Heseltine: I did not kill my mother's Alsatian
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37833381
The only one undermining Theresa May is Theresa May.
Move along. Move along.
None of this means we should just accept whatever figure the EU presents to us. It's something that ideally would be passed onto a professional negotiator who can minimise the price while still getting what the UK wants. Ie it should not be a politician like David Davis who has a political agenda. This is where the EU has the advantage. The politicians are largely kept out of the negotiations.
As for experience playing to the gallery in the UK, Davis failed on the national stage when running against Cameron, and then flounced off in a pointless stunt. His track record of being able to take people with him is shaky.
Britain deserves better than this horror show
Like the Living Dead in a second-rate horror film, the premiership of Theresa May staggers on oblivious. This was not supposed to be in the script.
It was universally acknowledged by Tory MPs after her disastrous, wooden performance in the election campaign that she could never lead them in to an election again. To stave off an immediate execution in June, she adopted two tactics.
First, like King Charles I before her, she offered up the heads of her deeply unpopular advisers instead. “It wasn’t my fault that I’ve alienated my entire Cabinet and produced a vote-destroying manifesto, it was theirs,” she pleaded.
Second, she told Tory MPs: “You don’t have to go to the trouble of getting rid of me, I’ll jump before I’m pushed.” Or at least that’s what the Tory parliamentary party thought they heard when she said to them on the Monday after the election: “I will serve as long as you want me.”
The settled assumption until this week was that Mrs May would soak up all the damage to the party’s reputation coming in the Brexit negotiations and then hand the premiership over in the summer of 2019 to an unsullied successor.
This morning, those MPs have woken up to discover that Mrs May wants to go on and on — an announcement that appropriately came on a visit close to North Korea.
This wasn’t a case of just dodging the awkward question of when she was quitting. “I want to do a lot more in the long term,” she said, and sketched out an agenda based on social justice and restoring Brexit Britain’s standing in the world.
This leaves Conservatives MPs facing the age-old dilemma: do you attempt a mutiny against a bad captain, and risk getting shot — or do you resign yourself to going down with the ship?....
.....For those who want a pragmatic approach to Brexit it means the necessary compromises aren’t forthcoming because leading ministers don’t want to risk alienating the Tory Brexit wing ahead of a future leadership contest.
For the country it means we continue to have a rudderless Government when we face huge challenges beyond Brexit, as our economy falls behind and our place in the world is diminished. Britain deserves a better movie than this.
http://tinyurl.com/PoundShopGordonBrown
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/903209836556554240
@alstewitn: #BrexitTalks Barnier' Tax-payers in the remaining 27 countries can't be expected to pay all the obligations of the 28, post #Brexit'.
I wonder where he got the inspiration for that?
He was wrong.
As I argued in the previous thread, the sensible option might be to counter with what we accept are our actual legal obligations that we are willing to pay without further negotiation (which we have thus far not done... and it won't be a large figure), adding a rider that we are prepared to pay considerably more, but only subject to satisfactory* agreement on market access etc.
While that might offend on or two sensitive souls, it has the benefit of cutting through the crap, and setting out the position as it actually is. And I can't see how it would make the stalemate any worse than it now appears to be.
*It's time we used that term back at them.
And point out how small that figure might be.
F1: repost from yesterday. Bear in mind my recent atrocious form and luck.
Backed Verstappen not to be classified at 3.25 with Betfair Sportsbook. He's got a 50% DNF rate.
Backed Bottas to top FP1 at 7.5 each way (1/5 odds top 3).
Backed Bottas to 'win' qualifying at 6 each way (1/3 odds top 2).
Expecting the track to be fantastic for Mercedes. If that's accurate, those bets will be alright.
But they do have things we want and we should be willing to trade. Perhaps we should simply agree that all of their legal claims will be remitted to binding independent arbitration and we can then get on with what we want to buy.
Cake. Eat it.
Macron's proposed reforms to the labour market and employment law are being well received by the organisations representing small businesses, and by the French equivalent of the CBI. The unions are less keen, although Force Ouvriere, the smaller union group and one which is traditionally less militant, isn't joining in a day of action organised by the CFDT.
The actual reforms seem to be relatively modest - it's not exactly a Thatcherite revolution. The changes include limits to maximum compensation for unfair dismissal, an easing of the bureaucratic hoops that small businesses have to go through on redundancies, allowing small companies not to have to negotiate with unions, and reductions in the time limits for employees to go to tribunals.
Prior to Spa, I would have agreed with you, but the Ferrari has shown rather better than expected. There is some talk that Ferrari's braking energy recovery system is better sorted than that of Mercedes, so although the latter still have (probably) the most outright powerful engine, the savage braking zones at Monza might narrow some of that advantage.
The FP1 bet looks quite tempting, though...
The Mercedes will also benefit from hotter oil burning. Apparently (bit above my head to be honest).
Where I differ from everyone else here is that I assume we will agree the exit bill eventually - not €100 billion, but some haggled amount less than that, probably around €60 billion. Given we will (I think) agree it eventually, it's in our interests to get it out the way now.
They're using the Greek playbook all over again; suggesting we can't get out, so might as well stay in.
With their second biggest budget contributor. Crackers.
I am not happy about any of this, but it does appear to me that David Davis has been pretty restrained in his public statements, while Barnier seems to be turning into a slightly more refined Boris Johnson.
Her latest display of hubris suggests that she could probably do with some time on the backbenches getting to know her party again.
We want Schrödinger's membership, but the EU is insisting on revealing that our membership is dead.
He says the UK will meet its obligations. But those obligations have to be real, he says.
He also says they do not necessarily have to be legal. The government recognises moral obligations too, he says.
That's a good basis for making progress. Basically we need to convince the other side that if they persist with a 'see you in court' approach we'll call their bluff and that there's a very good chance they'll end up with tuppence ha'penny, but that we are willing to be flexible if they are.
It may not work, of course, but it's the right approach to take. As I've said many times, we should as individuals and businesses plan for the risk of it not working.
They are refusing to negotiate anything on trade. Fine. Why not start negotiating trade deals with other countries now? Ready to begin on March 2019 if necessary. See how he likes them apples. What can he do? Threaten to fine us? A Gallic 'non' would be our response.
It's looking like the EU are trying to take the piss. Two can play at that game.
They're not used to people standing up to them. They're used to acquiescence.
Is the ES an influential rag? His presence means it is more influential than it was and as editor on a salary, being influential means higher readership means more advertising revenue so as a day job main prize I think he is succeeding on that count also.
And talking of counts, I feel the hand of history...
They even played the man by reference to his tender years, a very ageist attitude.
You can not fault the above comment from DD.
As I said the other day, this looks like a very short-sighted strategy from the EU's perspective but when the British government has spent most of the last year pandering to the tabloids' hatred of the EU, it's not exactly surprising.
The problem is that the moronic and arrogant pronouncements from the government (about two-thirds of them coming from Boris probably) up until the June election seems to have exhausted the patience of those in EU countries who might have been willing to be more reasonable, and to make hardliners like Barnier and Juncker stop being so intransigent. But as things now are, even reasonable EU people don't seem to want to help us out - when even the Irish prime minister is constantly taking pot-shots, you know the government has screwed things up badly.
Only the most-diehard of Remainers will want us to concede everything he asks for. The kind of people who would want us to agree to anything Kim demands too.
Strikes me we are actually being civil and reasonable here and they are being rigid and inflexible and are stuck on the snag of their own making in that the three things they want progress on are somehow magically sealed off from the deal as a totality. It's irrational nonsense of the highest order from them. No money, no deal is their threat. Works the other way round too as we have zero incentive to pay them a dime if we get no deal.
Maybe Trudeau should become the Kissinger de nos jours?
It would be rather embarrassing to try that only to find it wasn't getting us anywhere.
There will be ongoing payments as we try to buy influence at the EU. Brexit is going to be expensive and certainly much worse value than membership (get much less for what we pay). The EU will be keen to make membership look like better value.