Re that Mail article - I seriously cannot believe that Messina thought the Tories were going to win 470 seats! Not even the most optimistic predictions on here thought that anything close to that number was likely. Also, it looks like after all of mocking of Momentum (and I'm hardly innocent in this) it looks like they were a pretty effective force in the campaign and that Corbyn's Labour attracting more members really was important after all.
I would imagine that he included a number of scenarios in his analysis and some one has chosen to leak the "rosy with bells on it" scenario to embarrass Messina. I very much doubt it was his central case.
Central case at No. 10 at 9.55pm was 40-70 majority.
It seems the 48% remain the lib dems are banking on doesn't exist
Hard leavers - 45% Re - leavers '- 17%
Hard remainers - 27%
*Re-leavers as defined by not supporting Brexit but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave
Of course not. But I think "reciprocate" is too mild for the scenario @Sandpit suggested: "if the EU were to say they won’t allow our aircraft to transit EU skies".
It is not a case of "allow". Once our slots become vacant they will be sold to other airlines and we simply will have nowhere to land. The competition for slots is intense and oversubscribed and getting worse as air travel grows.
This is what it looks like over the atlantic this morning
This can't go on. Everything now depends on Theresa's Florence speech. If it doesn't conform exactly to Boris's preference of an ultra-hard Brexit, I think he and his allies will make a move.
Why don't more indigenes want to be doctors? It has high social status and the pay is at worst pretty reasonable - not like solicitors and accountants whom everybody hates, and many of whom are working for local authorities for less than a bus driver earns.
They don't like the length of a medical degree.
Have to admit that's one of the reasons I didn't do medicine, that and I go all ponceyboots gay lord at sight of blood.
Clearly we should lower the standards for white applicants, so as to ensure a more representative ethnic mix.
I have a better idea.
Exempt U.K. medical students from university fees if they agree post graduation to work for the N.H.S. for five years.
Yep. If we are going to have high tuition fees, we should be more flexible in our approach to certain areas. Medicine is a good starting point, as would agreements between universities and key employers in other STEM areas.
In commercial aviation, pilots often agree to a “training bond”, whereby an airline agrees to fund specific training (such as an aircraft type conversion, or captain upgrade course) in return for a commitment to length of service - with a pro-rata payment required if you leave before the period.
It’s clear that as we leave the EU, government and employers need to invest much more in training and developing careers than they have done in recent years, and employees should be more accepting of this training and less willing to change jobs every 18 months for a slightly better salary.
Fox jr had the option of 3 separate sciences at GCSE at his comp.
Medical schools are pretty flexible on these now, to help comp students. As long as the candidate has an A at A level chemistry, the other A levels do not matter much by subject at Leicester. Usually they have biology too, but we find other A levels do fine.
For years we have adjusted our entry requirements based upon feedback from the course performance, so we do have an evidence base.
Sounds like I should be selling shares in airlines and buying them in ferry companies.
I sold my holding in EasyJet last week.
I have pretty much stopped using airlines "as is" for short-haul to Europe because the service is just so fucking shocking.
I paid £200 a ticket to fly to Lisbon with Easyjet back in May, excluding the airport parking and car hire, and I'd probably have had a better experience had I posted myself via Amazon.
Why don't more indigenes want to be doctors? It has high social status and the pay is at worst pretty reasonable - not like solicitors and accountants whom everybody hates, and many of whom are working for local authorities for less than a bus driver earns.
They don't like the length of a medical degree.
Have to admit that's one of the reasons I didn't do medicine, that and I go all ponceyboots gay lord at sight of blood.
Clearly we should lower the standards for white applicants, so as to ensure a more representative ethnic mix.
I have a better idea.
Exempt U.K. medical students from university fees if they agree post graduation to work for the N.H.S. for five years.
Yep. If we are going to have high tuition fees, we should be more flexible in our approach to certain areas. Medicine is a good starting point, as would agreements between universities and key employers in other STEM areas.
In commercial aviation, pilots often agree to a “training bond”, whereby an airline agrees to fund specific training (such as an aircraft type conversion, or captain upgrade course) in return for a commitment to length of service - with a pro-rata payment required if you leave before the period.
It’s clear that as we leave the EU, government and employers need to invest much more in training and developing careers than they have done in recent years, and employees should be more accepting of this training and less willing to change jobs every 18 months for a slightly better salary.
Fox jr had the option of 3 separate sciences at GCSE at his comp.
Medical schools are pretty flexible on these now, to help comp students. As long as the candidate has an A at A level chemistry, the other A levels do not matter much by subject at Leicester. Usually they have biology too, but we find other A levels do fine.
For years we have adjusted our entry requirements based upon feedback from the course performance, so we do have an evidence base.
Good to hear about that.
One advantage your son has (in whatever career he chooses) is a middle class family and parents who care about his education and career. For far too many kids that’s sadly not the case, and it’s very difficult to know what best to do about it.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
But is Davis still going to be working for her? Perhaps contrary to the popular perception, it's the cabinet who have been left in place as window dressing, while May takes advantage of their Mexican standoff to centralise power even further.
Sounds like DD hasn't passed muster. I must say that I've not been impressed - too many slanging matches and the impression of slackness. Nevertheless, is his role even meaningful any more? A deal with the EU looks a forlorn hope and Boris especially doesn't want one.
Why don't more indigenes want to be doctors? It has high social status and the pay is at worst pretty reasonable - not like solicitors and accountants whom everybody hates, and many of whom are working for local authorities for less than a bus driver earns.
Because our schools aren’t up to teaching highly academic and specialised subjects in a way that encourages kids to go into them.
How many state schools teach separate sciences before A level, for example, and how many allow the children to actually to the experiments rather than watch the teacher do them?
My childrens' state school does. Finish in the top 70 in year 9 in Science and you do triple sciences (roughly halfway). All experiments are carried out by them. I do not know of anywhere else, but my experience is that top set at a comprehensive is a grammar school by another name.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Boris won't accept anything other than 2. I thought he might keep his head down until some sort of Brexit settlement was in place, but it's clearly gone beyond that now. The moment Theresa does anything that can be portrayed as 'betraying the will of the people' he, and most likely Gove, will move in for the kill.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
It's really astonishing how much the domestic political debate still seems to be divorced from any notion that there are 27 countries on the other side of the table.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
It's really astonishing how much the domestic political debate still seems to be divorced from any notion that there are 27 countries on the other side of the table.
Of whom some are more equal than others. We are negotiating with Germany, with France and a handful of Benelux individuals in supporting roles. Which doesn't of course mean that Germany will not play the "we'd love to do that, but we can't get it past the Maltese" card.
I've been away from this place for a few weeks, pop back in and the same people are squabbling over the same boring things. I'd be interested to see the figures re the number of regular contributors, I'm sure they must have dwindled.
Boring it may be (Boris boring? Shome mistake..) but it is at the very heart of the nation's future so understandable for a politics-orientated website, surely?
As to contributors, well I think they come and go with some degree of regularity.
I just find it strange that adults wish to bicker for months on end about the same tedious things without anybody ever changing their mind or offering an alternative view. Mr Smithson must be concerned at the falling number of hits and new members.
We are in a fallow period betting-wise, despite BoJo's manoeuvres. I don't know about you but I pop in to PB de temps en temps for a bit of light-hearted relief and use it as a stream of consciousness outlet for whatever thoughts are meandering around my head at the time.
But Brexit, that all said, is deadly serious. It will define our nation for the next generation(s). Having had the feelgood fuck you factor of voting Leave, people now understandably want to walk away from the details. But it is in that detail that, well, you know who dwells there.
So each discussion on a seemingly boring, unimportant, arcane bit of Brexitania is actually critical and vitally important to the nation's well-being.
Or at least that's why I'm still here.
It's noteworthy that all the Leavers who thought that Brexit would be awfully fun have decided that it isn't.
No one thinks it is going to be fun extracting ourselves from this bureaucratic, over-reaching, undemocratic mess of an organisation.
It's probably going to be very painful getting out of a situation that no one voted for and no one wanted and it's going to be made worse by our friends in the EU trying to punish us for deciding to go our own way.
But thankfully over time we'll be free of the shambles that is the EU.
Re that Mail article - I seriously cannot believe that Messina thought the Tories were going to win 470 seats! Not even the most optimistic predictions on here thought that anything close to that number was likely. Also, it looks like after all of mocking of Momentum (and I'm hardly innocent in this) it looks like they were a pretty effective force in the campaign and that Corbyn's Labour attracting more members really was important after all.
Comment from here before the Copeland by election.
Copeland and its predecessor, Whitehaven, has only been won once by the Conservatives since 1906. This was in 1931. Therefore a Conservative win would take Labour back to 1931. At the 1931 GE Labour lost 225 seats and dropped to 52. The 52 is generous as it includes 6 breakaway ILP MPs.
That's why I lost £75, betting on Labour to hold Copeland.
In hindsight, the demographic profile of Copeland was perfect for the Conservatives.
The current boundaries would also have delivered the seat to the Tories in both 1983 and 1987. However, had there not been a by-election there in late February I believe Labour would have held on to the seat in June.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Boris won't accept anything other than 2. I thought he might keep his head down until some sort of Brexit settlement was in place, but it's clearly gone beyond that now. The moment Theresa does anything that can be portrayed as 'betraying the will of the people' he, and most likely Gove, will move in for the kill.
"The people" were told that they could vote to have their cake and eat it. Place your cross in the leave box, said Boris, and lo! 2 plus 2 will become 5. That is the greatest betrayal, and it has already taken place.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
It's really astonishing how much the domestic political debate still seems to be divorced from any notion that there are 27 countries on the other side of the table.
yes especially that bit whereby we stay in and everyone thinks its great we're back and slaughters the fatted calf in celebration
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
It's really astonishing how much the domestic political debate still seems to be divorced from any notion that there are 27 countries on the other side of the table.
Most of the 27 countries have exactly zero influence on the EU decision making process. Germany and France have more than the rest of the countries put together.
As a Remainer who never predicted a recession or even a major downturn should Leave win, things are progressing pretty much as I expected on the economic front. What Brexit will lead to is missed opportunities, more red tape and lower growth. Jobs that would have been created in the UK will now be created elsewhere; taxes that would have been paid to HMRC will be paid into foreign governments instead. That will have permanent debilitating consequences for us in terms of wage growth, public spending and inward investment.
I have to admit, though, that I did not anticipate that the British government would be quite so abjectly incompetent in its handling of the Brexit process. I assumed - quite incorrectly - that as the self-proclaimed party of business and patriots the Tories would put the national interest first. But, as we know, they haven't.
It turns out that when you put right wing narcissists with no idea about how the EU works or what drives FTAs in charge of negotiating the UK's departure from the world's largest free trade area and single market they have no clue how to do it. They had years to think the complexities through, but they never bothered - it was far easier and much more fun to label the EUSSR the anti-British heart of darkness. A lesson learned.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
Sounds like I should be selling shares in airlines and buying them in ferry companies.
I sold my holding in EasyJet last week.
I have pretty much stopped using airlines "as is" for short-haul to Europe because the service is just so fucking shocking.
I paid £200 a ticket to fly to Lisbon with Easyjet back in May, excluding the airport parking and car hire, and I'd probably have had a better experience had I posted myself via Amazon.
In future, I would P&O it to Santander.
I don't think P&O do Spanish ferry sailings anymore. It's just Britanny Ferries, who are much better anyway - cheaper, more efficient and a lot more focused on the customer. Post-Brexit, though, ferry timetables will have to factor in long delays at entry points if a deal on customs is not done. That may put the economics of longer-haul journies in peril. Hopefully not.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
Richard, it's time to face facts. The people who matter don't want that. Boris doesn't want it. It's WTO time.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
It's not exactly the same, for the reasons outlined in this article:
As a Remainer who never predicted a recession or even a major downturn should Leave win, things are progressing pretty much as I expected on the economic front. What Brexit will lead to is missed opportunities, more red tape and lower growth. Jobs that would have been created in the UK will now be created elsewhere; taxes that would have been paid to HMRC will be paid into foreign governments instead. That will have permanent debilitating consequences for us in terms of wage growth, public spending and inward investment.
I have to admit, though, that I did not anticipate that the British government would be quite so abjectly incompetent in its handling of the Brexit process. I assumed - quite incorrectly - that as the self-proclaimed party of business and patriots the Tories would put the national interest first. But, as we know, they haven't.
It turns out that when you put right wing narcissists with no idea about how the EU works or what drives FTAs in charge of negotiating the UK's departure from the world's largest free trade area and single market they have no clue how to do it. They had years to think the complexities through, but they never bothered - it was far easier and much more fun to label the EUSSR the anti-British heart of darkness. A lesson learned.
Britain seems to have become the plaything of the Tory Party, the game being who gets to be Prime Minister.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
I don't claim to be an expert in the legal side of it but my understanding is that by giving notice under article 50 the UK will withdraw from the EEA in March 2019 (some people say this requires a separate notice but I thought the government position was that the article 50 notice was sufficient?). In which case remaining in the EEA will require negotiation with the EU.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
I don't claim to be an expert in the legal side of it but my understanding is that by giving notice under article 50 the UK will withdraw from the EEA in March 2019 (some people say this requires a separate notice but I thought the government position was that the article 50 notice was sufficient?). In which case remaining in the EEA will require negotiation with the EU.
Not if we move to EFTA. Unfortunately that seems unlikely at present
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
I don't claim to be an expert in the legal side of it but my understanding is that by giving notice under article 50 the UK will withdraw from the EEA in March 2019 (some people say this requires a separate notice but I thought the government position was that the article 50 notice was sufficient?). In which case remaining in the EEA will require negotiation with the EU.
Not if we move to EFTA. Unfortunately that seems unlikely at present
We can't move to EFTA while still in the EU. The idea that the EU would be a passive player as we executed that manoeuvre against their will was always preposterous.
I raised this point the other week and was roundly told that it was all the EU's fault for forcing our hand. Utterly ridiculous of course, considering even Boris was then advocating a delay to the A50 triggering.
He is wrong because his position is predicated on the idea we would leave the EU and then join EFTA at a later date. If we negotiated rejoicing EFTA as part of the process of leaving the EU that would not apply. Just as it didn't with those countries who went the other way.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
I don't claim to be an expert in the legal side of it but my understanding is that by giving notice under article 50 the UK will withdraw from the EEA in March 2019 (some people say this requires a separate notice but I thought the government position was that the article 50 notice was sufficient?). In which case remaining in the EEA will require negotiation with the EU.
Not if we move to EFTA. Unfortunately that seems unlikely at present
We can't move to EFTA while still in the EU. The idea that the EU would be a passive player as we executed that manoeuvre against their will was always preposterous.
They would have no choice short of actually destroying the EEA treaty since no signatory can be expelled as long as they abide by the terms of the treaty.
The problem of course is that none if the major players on the UK side seem interested in this route as it would maintain freedom of movement.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
I don't claim to be an expert in the legal side of it but my understanding is that by giving notice under article 50 the UK will withdraw from the EEA in March 2019 (some people say this requires a separate notice but I thought the government position was that the article 50 notice was sufficient?). In which case remaining in the EEA will require negotiation with the EU.
Not if we move to EFTA. Unfortunately that seems unlikely at present
We can't move to EFTA while still in the EU. The idea that the EU would be a passive player as we executed that manoeuvre against their will was always preposterous.
They would have no choice short of actually destroying the EEA treaty since no signatory can be expelled as long as they abide by the terms of the treaty.
The problem of course is that none if the major players on the UK side seem interested in this route as it would maintain freedom of movement.
Joining EFTA while a member of the EU would violate the EU treaties.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
I don't claim to be an expert in the legal side of it but my understanding is that by giving notice under article 50 the UK will withdraw from the EEA in March 2019 (some people say this requires a separate notice but I thought the government position was that the article 50 notice was sufficient?). In which case remaining in the EEA will require negotiation with the EU.
Not if we move to EFTA. Unfortunately that seems unlikely at present
We can't move to EFTA while still in the EU. The idea that the EU would be a passive player as we executed that manoeuvre against their will was always preposterous.
They would have no choice short of actually destroying the EEA treaty since no signatory can be expelled as long as they abide by the terms of the treaty.
The problem of course is that none if the major players on the UK side seem interested in this route as it would maintain freedom of movement.
Joining EFTA while a member of the EU would violate the EU treaties.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
I don't claim to be an expert in the legal side of it but my understanding is that by giving notice under article 50 the UK will withdraw from the EEA in March 2019 (some people say this requires a separate notice but I thought the government position was that the article 50 notice was sufficient?). In which case remaining in the EEA will require negotiation with the EU.
Not if we move to EFTA. Unfortunately that seems unlikely at present
We can't move to EFTA while still in the EU. The idea that the EU would be a passive player as we executed that manoeuvre against their will was always preposterous.
They would have no choice short of actually destroying the EEA treaty since no signatory can be expelled as long as they abide by the terms of the treaty.
The problem of course is that none if the major players on the UK side seem interested in this route as it would maintain freedom of movement.
Joining EFTA while a member of the EU would violate the EU treaties.
We would not join EFTA except as part of the process of leaving the EU. They would happen at the same time. It was a suggestion made by Iceland several years ago. And it would not be in violation of the EEA treaty itself.
Joining EFTA while a member of the EU would violate the EU treaties.
We would not join EFTA except as part of the process of leaving the EU. They would happen at the same time. It was a suggestion made by Iceland several years ago. And it would not be in violation of the EEA treaty itself.
The key point is that it would need the connivance of the EU.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50) 2) Leave with no deal 3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
Still the same old rubbish from the Eurofanatics. If we decide we want to stay in the EEA via membership of EFTA then we do not have to ask permission of the EU at all. The permission we need to get is from the other EFTA members since we left that organisation in 1973. So long as we move from the EU to EFTA we remain a member as we are an independent signatory of the deal. It is exactly the same as when EFTA members moved to become EU members. It happened without any need for further treaty revision beyond a footnote in the preamble.
It's not exactly the same, for the reasons outlined in this article:
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
It's really astonishing how much the domestic political debate still seems to be divorced from any notion that there are 27 countries on the other side of the table.
Of whom some are more equal than others. We are negotiating with Germany, with France and a handful of Benelux individuals in supporting roles. Which doesn't of course mean that Germany will not play the "we'd love to do that, but we can't get it past the Maltese" card.
What makes you (and Copper Sulphate too) think that? We don't appear to be negotiating with Germany at all, either officially or unofficially. They have other fish to fry at the moment, and seem content to leave it to Barnier. There are some desultory exchanges with France, but they too are primarily preoccupied with internal issues.
I can't think of any EU country except Eire that is getting much involved, though Spain has a passing interest.
Comments
Hard leavers - 45%
Re - leavers '- 17%
Hard remainers - 27%
*Re-leavers as defined by not supporting Brexit but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave
I am a Re-leaver for clarification
So 62 v 27 for leave
You Gov 13-15 September 2017
This is what it looks like over the atlantic this morning
James II was being a massive tool, and parliament rolled out the red carpet and invited William in. And he wouldn't have bothered had they not.
The fact there was no armed resistance (except in Ireland, and, much later, the Scottish Highlands) but there was much rejoicing shows that.
Medical schools are pretty flexible on these now, to help comp students. As long as the candidate has an A at A level chemistry, the other A levels do not matter much by subject at Leicester. Usually they have biology too, but we find other A levels do fine.
For years we have adjusted our entry requirements based upon feedback from the course performance, so we do have an evidence base.
I paid £200 a ticket to fly to Lisbon with Easyjet back in May, excluding the airport parking and car hire, and I'd probably have had a better experience had I posted myself via Amazon.
In future, I would P&O it to Santander.
One advantage your son has (in whatever career he chooses) is a middle class family and parents who care about his education and career. For far too many kids that’s sadly not the case, and it’s very difficult to know what best to do about it.
Reality seems to be dawning - it's clear the UK has three choices
1) Stay (ie revoke article 50)
2) Leave with no deal
3) EEA
The chances of 1 seem remote so we have 2 or 3. Over the next few months the Tories have to decide which to accept. If it's the EEA they then have to humble themselves before the EU and ask permission for the UK to pay to remain in an economic structure over which it will have no political influence.
And what incentive will there be for the EU to agree a long-term trade deal? Much better to drag things out and keep us in a subservient position for a decade or two.
https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/status/909161244778577921
It's probably going to be very painful getting out of a situation that no one voted for and no one wanted and it's going to be made worse by our friends in the EU trying to punish us for deciding to go our own way.
But thankfully over time we'll be free of the shambles that is the EU.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-britain-desperately-needs-transition-deal-a3637391.html
I wonder who wrote it?
#damagedgoods
See the migrant crisis.
http://tinyurl.com/y7qqpbfy
I have to admit, though, that I did not anticipate that the British government would be quite so abjectly incompetent in its handling of the Brexit process. I assumed - quite incorrectly - that as the self-proclaimed party of business and patriots the Tories would put the national interest first. But, as we know, they haven't.
It turns out that when you put right wing narcissists with no idea about how the EU works or what drives FTAs in charge of negotiating the UK's departure from the world's largest free trade area and single market they have no clue how to do it. They had years to think the complexities through, but they never bothered - it was far easier and much more fun to label the EUSSR the anti-British heart of darkness. A lesson learned.
The man's a legend.
https://esharp.eu/debates/the-uk-and-europe/why-the-uk-will-not-become-an-eea-member-after-brexit
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/909761229115322368
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/909761481234948096
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/909761727272759301
NEW THREAD
The problem of course is that none if the major players on the UK side seem interested in this route as it would maintain freedom of movement.
The key point is that it would need the connivance of the EU.
And the more fictional Richard's preferred "obvious" solution, the more he shouts at you when you point out it is fictional.
I can't think of any EU country except Eire that is getting much involved, though Spain has a passing interest.