Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
Dr. Foxinsox, I do appreciate the link, but don't have the time to read a report Any chance of a concise summary?
The conclusions are at the beginning.
Essentially the authors did a constituency level multivariate logistic regression analysis (thereby attempting to get past the age vs education debate), and looked at patterns by social makers at a micro level.
They conclude that markets of social conservatism were the strongest predictors, with education level the next most significant.
The interesting finding for me was that highly educated people in low skill areas were more Leave inclined, and lower educated people in high skill areas more Remain inclined. In other words, people seemed to vote not just on their own circumstances, but those of their neighbours.
The final paragraph sums it up:
"The more disadvantaged voters that turned out for Brexit are also united by values that encourage support for more socially conservative, authoritarian and nativist responses. On the whole, Leave voters have far more in common with each other than they have things that divide them. Over three-quarters of Leave voters feel disillusioned with politicians; two-thirds support the death penalty; and well over half feel very strongly English. Over one third of Leave supporters hold all three of these attitudes, compared to just 6 percent who do not hold any of them. This more liberal group of Brexit voters, therefore, constituted a very small part of the coalition for leaving the EU."
So I do not expect liberal, free trading globalists to be the beneficiaries of the Brexit vote.
Borders, strong national identities, and different regulatory systems, act as barriers to trade. By seeking to break them down, the EU promotes free trade.
But, on the other hand, Borders, strong national identities, and different regulatory systems are valued by people, and they also promote innovation, and economic advances.
Good article DH, but I would question your conclusion
"I'd say it’s odds-on that no final agreement will be reached by 29 March 2021"
My reasoning is that a transition/implementation period only exists as part of an agreed deal. If that has not been signed off then the default hard Brexit to WTO happens on 30th March 2019. Negotiations on a separate freestanding trade deal with us as a third party could begin but this would not be part of the Brexit talks.
In order to start these there would have to be an agreed A50 deal of "WTO terms plus transition". This would avoid a cliff edge, but would require all other issues such as Ireland, exit payments and citizens status to be agreed on the existing timescale.
I don't think there's time to agree that kind of deal - and more importantly, I the EU and UK think there is either - which is why I've reached the conclusion I have. There are no real restrictions on what an A50 agreement can contain so it ought to be able to set both the transitional arrangement and the framework for the further negotiations.
I think that the only way to ask for that is to formally extend the A50 period by a couple of years*.
I believe that the EU negotiators have said that transition needs a known destination, not uncertainty. Negotiation on exit terms have to be complete first.
*In which case @WilliamGlenn can afford a round for the house courtesy of SeanT
It looks like we either crash out in 2019 or we start on a path to some kind if Swiss solution that will take to beyond 2021 to finalise. Most voters would accept the latter, but will the Conservative party?
No, and while 'most' voters might accept a Swiss style settlement, I'd guess that 30-40% wouldn't - and that more of that group will feel strongly about it than the Soft Brexit Club.
I doubt it once the consequences of crashing out become known. The real obstacle to a less than destructive Brexit is the Conservative party. It is incapable of delivering what most of the country would settle for.
The real losers from yesterday are Labour. The PM has basically adopted Labour's transition policy. So how does Labour oppose now without opposing Brexit? As we know, the leadership is pro-Brexit, the membership is anti.
The situation is fluid. The idea that May has found the definitive, final approach is absurd. Labour chalks this up as a win and Starmer finds the next place he wants to nudge them.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
Yes. Trade deals with the USA are a benefit to us a lot more than Italy or Slovakia or Finland for obvious reasons, and having things held up or watered down so we can get waffle quotas through the Walloon assembly or arty French govt sponsored films put on prime time CBS so the citizens of Fort Wayne Indiana have to enjoy them is emphatically not in our interests.
I have to agree with David Herdson that no deal is looking increasingly likely, and odds-on may, now, be right.
EU leaders want nothing less than the very public humiliation of the UK, forcibly caving in to all their demands, egged on by their serf-like fan base here.
Some of us are despairing at Britains diminished status. Brexit might have worked, but this governments half arsed execution of it is humiliating.
I don't doubt that the government could have done some things better but so far it has been juch more flexible than the EU. What worries me is that that these concessions have simultaneously left the government close to its red lines while leaving the EU with the impression that all it has to do is stand firm and Britain will fold.
The government keeps changing its position. Why?
Fundamentally it does not know where it wants to go. So the Brexit negotiations are all tactics and headline grabbing. May talks of duty and responsibility because she does not have a plan.
We won't make progress until we decide what we want.
Simply not true. The government has been clear about what it wants: outside the SM, CU and CJEU jurisdiction, while aiming for the freest trade consistent with that. I don't know why that's difficult to see.
No, that’s what the Tory right wants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want that, for example.
It's what the whole cabinet signed up to this week, including Hammond.
There are many ways of not being in the single market: see Switzerland and North Korea, for example. And how do we solve the Northern Ireland customs union issue? Is there an agreed Cabinet line on that?
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
The EU is about much more than free trade. It's the political aspects of the EU, as well as free migration, that British voters dislike.
Well if you say "I don't care about the economics, I'd rather go it alone" - then fair enough. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am sure I could put a powerpoint presentation together justifying why Eire would be better off back in the UK. I doubt it would convince anyone in Dublin to rejoin. I was frankly astonished that Article 50 wasn't invoked the day after the result came in. If we were out we were out. Once you start delaying things, calling for transition periods and thinking up creative ways of staying in in reality you have sold the pass. We will not leave the EU in any meaningful way and will be back in just as soon as the dust has settled.
Dr. Foxinsox, I do appreciate the link, but don't have the time to read a report Any chance of a concise summary?
The conclusions are at the beginning.
Essentially the authors did a constituency level multivariate logistic regression analysis (thereby attempting to get past the age vs education debate), and looked at patterns by social makers at a micro level.
They conclude that markets of social conservatism were the strongest predictors, with education level the next most significant.
The interesting finding for me was that highly educated people in low skill areas were more Leave inclined, and lower educated people in high skill areas more Remain inclined. In other words, people seemed to vote not just on their own circumstances, but those of their neighbours.
The final paragraph sums it up:
"The more disadvantaged voters that turned out for Brexit are also united by values that encourage support for more socially conservative, authoritarian and nativist responses. On the whole, Leave voters have far more in common with each other than they have things that divide them. Over three-quarters of Leave voters feel disillusioned with politicians; two-thirds support the death penalty; and well over half feel very strongly English. Over one third of Leave supporters hold all three of these attitudes, compared to just 6 percent who do not hold any of them. This more liberal group of Brexit voters, therefore, constituted a very small part of the coalition for leaving the EU."
So I do not expect liberal, free trading globalists to be the beneficiaries of the Brexit vote.
Borders, strong national identities, and different regulatory systems, act as barriers to trade. By seeking to break them down, the EU promotes free trade.
But, on the other hand, Borders, strong national identities, and different regulatory systems are valued by people, and they also promote innovation.
I wouldn't disagree. That is the sovereignty vs prosperity argument. Britain (or more accurately 52% of the Britons who voted on Brexit) voted to prioritise sovereignty.
It is getting that sovereignty to deliver for the voters in the marginalised areas that the JRF describes that is the hard part. Are they going to be agitated about tariff free access? Or about judicial jurisdiction? Methinks not. It is why the £350 million per week was such a potent tagline.
I see nothing in May's approach that will benefit these people, and that is why Corbyn and Labour are pushing at an open door.
As has been reported one of PB's most longstanding posters, Mark Senior, has died. I'm in the referendum obsessed city of Barcelona at the moment but will do a full post on him when I return. His last comment here was on August 18th and his final visit to the site was on September 1st.
He is one of those who have added immensely to PB over 13 years and in 2007 was voted LD Poster of the Year. He's also a previous PB competition winner
Looking forward to seeing your tribute thread when you return from Barcelona.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
Yes. Trade deals with the USA are a benefit to us a lot more than Italy or Slovakia or Finland for obvious reasons, and having things held up or watered down so we can get waffle quotas through the Walloon assembly or arty French govt sponsored films put on prime time CBS so the citizens of Fort Wayne Indiana have to enjoy them is emphatically not in our interests.
A trade deal with the US will be dictated by the US. That will not necessarily benefit us. The single market is, of course, a lot more than a free trade area.
A trade deal with the US will be dictated by the US. That will not necessarily benefit us. The single market is, of course, a lot more than a free trade area.
You're such a cynic not to have faith in Liam Fox and David Davis. Global titans of trade and politics.
A trade deal with the US will be dictated by the US. That will not necessarily benefit us. The single market is, of course, a lot more than a free trade area.
You're such a cynic not to have faith in Liam Fox and David Davis. Global titans of trade and politics.
If Mrs May gets the transition she wants, Liam Fox will never negotiate a single free trade deal for the UK. Not one. If she doesn't, Liam Fox will be told by various countries the terms of FTAs the UK can have. He holds an utterly pointless post.
As has been reported one of PB's most longstanding posters, Mark Senior, has died. I'm in the referendum obsessed city of Barcelona at the moment but will do a full post on him when I return. His last comment here was on August 18th and his final visit to the site was on September 1st.
He is one of those who have added immensely to PB over 13 years and in 2007 was voted LD Poster of the Year. He's also a previous PB competition winner
Very sad to hear that. His relentless positivity and enthusiasm were infectious and cheered me up many times when my head was down and I lost heart in coalition. Indeed as our politics as a whole has become increasingly negative and cynical, I can't help thinking that a healthy dose of Mark Seniors might just be what we need.
He's contributed a lot to this site and will be missed here - I'm sure it's much more true of his family and friends and thinking of them today.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
The EU is about much more than free trade. It's the political aspects of the EU, as well as free migration, that British voters dislike.
Well if you say "I don't care about the economics, I'd rather go it alone" - then fair enough. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am sure I could put a powerpoint presentation together justifying why Eire would be better off back in the UK. I doubt it would convince anyone in Dublin to rejoin. I was frankly astonished that Article 50 wasn't invoked the day after the result came in. If we were out we were out. Once you start delaying things, calling for transition periods and thinking up creative ways of staying in in reality you have sold the pass. We will not leave the EU in any meaningful way and will be back in just as soon as the dust has settled.
I think that the only way to extend the negotiating period is to request an A50 extension (EU27 unanimity required). That may well happen, and would be a major climb down by our government. The EU would probably agree, but our government may well fall as a result.
An extension would tend to call into question the Brexit referendum. How long is it valid for?
Dr. Foxinsox, I do appreciate the link, but don't have the time to read a report Any chance of a concise summary?
The conclusions are at the beginning.
Essentially the authors did a constituency level multivariate logistic regression analysis (thereby attempting to get past the age vs education debate), and looked at patterns by social makers at a micro level.
They conclude that markets of social conservatism were the strongest predictors, with education level the next most significant.
The interesting finding for me was that highly educated people in low skill areas were more Leave inclined, and lower educated people in high skill areas more Remain inclined. In other words, people seemed to vote not just on their own circumstances, but those of their neighbours.
The final paragraph sums it up:
"The more disadvantaged voters that turned out for Brexit are also united by values that encourage support for more socially conservative, authoritarian and nativist responses. On the whole, Leave voters have far more in common with each other than they have things that divide them. Over three-quarters of Leave voters feel disillusioned with politicians; two-thirds support the death penalty; and well over half feel very strongly English. Over one third of Leave supporters hold all three of these attitudes, compared to just 6 percent who do not hold any of them. This more liberal group of Brexit voters, therefore, constituted a very small part of the coalition for leaving the EU."
So I do not expect liberal, free trading globalists to be the beneficiaries of the Brexit vote.
Borders, strong national identities, and different regulatory systems, act as barriers to trade. By seeking to break them down, the EU promotes free trade.
But, on the other hand, Borders, strong national identities, and different regulatory systems are valued by people, and they also promote innovation.
I wouldn't disagree. That is the sovereignty vs prosperity argument. Britain (or more accurately 52% of the Britons who voted on Brexit) voted to prioritise sovereignty.
It is getting that sovereignty to deliver for the voters in the marginalised areas that the JRF describes that is the hard part. Are they going to be agitated about tariff free access? Or about judicial jurisdiction? Methinks not. It is why the £350 million per week was such a potent tagline.
I see nothing in May's approach that will benefit these people, and that is why Corbyn and Labour are pushing at an open door.
But then, as the report implies, their objections to the EU are based more on their values than on economics.
I have to agree with David Herdson that no deal is looking increasingly likely, and odds-on may, now, be right.
EU leaders want nothing less than the very public humiliation of the UK, forcibly caving in to all their demands, egged on by their serf-like fan base here.
Some of us are despairing at Britains diminished status. Brexit might have worked, but this governments half arsed execution of it is humiliating.
I don't doubt that the government could have done some things better but so far it has been juch more flexible than the EU. What worries me is that that these concessions have simultaneously left the government close to its red lines while leaving the EU with the impression that all it has to do is stand firm and Britain will fold.
The government keeps changing its position. Why?
Fundamentally it does not know where it wants to go. So the Brexit negotiations are all tactics and headline grabbing. May talks of duty and responsibility because she does not have a plan.
We won't make progress until we decide what we want.
Simply not true. The government has been clear about what it wants: outside the SM, CU and CJEU jurisdiction, while aiming for the freest trade consistent with that. I don't know why that's difficult to see.
No, that’s what the Tory right wants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want that, for example.
It's what the whole cabinet signed up to this week, including Hammond.
There are many ways of not being in the single market: see Switzerland and North Korea, for example. And how do we solve the Northern Ireland customs union issue? Is there an agreed Cabinet line on that?
Not yet, and it's a serious stumbling block. My suggestion would be to simply leave it as an anomalous open border. Yes, it upsets the 'integrity' of the Single Market but I'm sure the Irish would be up for it, on both sides of the border, and it's remote enough from the rest of the EU to have little practical impact as a back-door route, particularly if barriers to trade generally between the UK and EU are kept low.
When the Greeks are major recipients of EU largesse rather than net payers then why would they want to drop out?
If the Greeks were to drop out there's no way the EU would insist upon continuing to make payments to the Greeks for years because otherwise they'd have a large unexpected surplus in their budget in the same way as they are wanting us to make payments to them to prevent a black hole.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
There is no deal that could be done with the USA in its current mood. It'd be damn hard to agree one acceptable to both sides even if there was serious desire in both parliaments and governments.
It'd be a negotiation, and as you rightly say depends too on where we are with others. Can we let in unrestricted Wisconsin cheese without upsetting a deal we've got elsewhere for instance? Though why anyone would buy it is beyond me! Yes they are bigger, but we are bigger than others we would do deals with, and size isn't everything. Clearly we would not be encumbered by worrying about olive quotas, to use one agricultural example, whereas club Med EU members might be to the detriment of other areas we are more interested in like media where our "fit" with the US is probably very good indeed.
I have to agree with David Herdson that no deal is looking increasingly likely, and odds-on may, now, be right.
EU leaders want nothing less than the very public humiliation of the UK, forcibly caving in to all their demands, egged on by their serf-like fan base here.
Some of us are despairing at Britains diminished status. Brexit might have worked, but this governments half arsed execution of it is humiliating.
I don't doubt that the government could have done some things better but so far it has been juch more flexible than the EU. What worries me is that that these concessions have simultaneously left the government close to its red lines while leaving the EU with the impression that all it has to do is stand firm and Britain will fold.
The government keeps changing its position. Why?
Fundamentally it does not know where it wants to go. So the Brexit negotiations are all tactics and headline grabbing. May talks of duty and responsibility because she does not have a plan.
We won't make progress until we decide what we want.
I think it is because we have a PM who is not commited to Brexit, did not support it and does not understand it. Like so many Remain voters she has latched onto one specific idea - that of immigration - and has decided that is the overriding feature of Brexit. This then informs every other aspect of her policy and leads inevitably to the confusion and inarticulate policies we are seeing.
It's not just immigration. May does seem, however, to be looking at Brexit talks through Home Office glasses.
I have to agree with David Herdson that no deal is looking increasingly likely, and odds-on may, now, be right.
EU leaders want nothing less than the very public humiliation of the UK, forcibly caving in to all their demands, egged on by their serf-like fan base here.
Some of us are despairing at Britains diminished status. Brexit might have worked, but this governments half arsed execution of it is humiliating.
I don't doubt that the government could have done some things better but so far it has been juch more flexible than the EU. What worries me is that that these concessions have simultaneously left the government close to its red lines while leaving the EU with the impression that all it has to do is stand firm and Britain will fold.
The government keeps changing its position. Why?
Fundamentally it does not know where it wants to go. So the Brexit negotiations are all tactics and headline grabbing. May talks of duty and responsibility because she does not have a plan.
We won't make progress until we decide what we want.
Simply not true. The government has been clear about what it wants: outside the SM, CU and CJEU jurisdiction, while aiming for the freest trade consistent with that. I don't know why that's difficult to see.
No, that’s what the Tory right wants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want that, for example.
It's what the whole cabinet signed up to this week, including Hammond.
There are many ways of not being in the single market: see Switzerland and North Korea, for example. And how do we solve the Northern Ireland customs union issue? Is there an agreed Cabinet line on that?
Not yet, and it's a serious stumbling block. My suggestion would be to simply leave it as an anomalous open border. Yes, it upsets the 'integrity' of the Single Market but I'm sure the Irish would be up for it, on both sides of the border, and it's remote enough from the rest of the EU to have little practical impact as a back-door route, particularly if barriers to trade generally between the UK and EU are kept low.
The problem with just leaving it is that it depends on ongoing goodwill and trust. That won't happen without a formalised, orderly UK departure from the EU. It doesn't work if we crash out and it also makes it almost impossible for the UK to do FTAs.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
The EU is about much more than free trade. It's the political aspects of the EU, as well as free migration, that British voters dislike.
Well if you say "I don't care about the economics, I'd rather go it alone" - then fair enough. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am sure I could put a powerpoint presentation together justifying why Eire would be better off back in the UK. I doubt it would convince anyone in Dublin to rejoin. I was frankly astonished that Article 50 wasn't invoked the day after the result came in. If we were out we were out. Once you start delaying things, calling for transition periods and thinking up creative ways of staying in in reality you have sold the pass. We will not leave the EU in any meaningful way and will be back in just as soon as the dust has settled.
It's not a question of saying "I don't care about economics.". It's a question of working out what degree of political integration one is willing to accept in return for economic advantage. I think that for most voters, the degree of political integration had gone further than they could tolerate.
I think that, without us to slow it down, political integration within the EU will accelerate, making it virtually impossible for us to return.
A trade deal with the US will be dictated by the US. That will not necessarily benefit us. The single market is, of course, a lot more than a free trade area.
You're such a cynic not to have faith in Liam Fox and David Davis. Global titans of trade and politics.
If Mrs May gets the transition she wants, Liam Fox will never negotiate a single free trade deal for the UK. Not one. If she doesn't, Liam Fox will be told by various countries the terms of FTAs the UK can have. He holds an utterly pointless post.
You're almost monomaniacal about this. The transition will likely allow for FTA negotiations to occur but the actual FTA not to be implemented until after we leave the single market. It's not rocket science.
I have to agree with David Herdson that no deal is looking increasingly likely, and odds-on may, now, be right.
EU leaders want nothing less than the very public humiliation of the UK, forcibly caving in to all their demands, egged on by their serf-like fan base here.
Some of us are despairing at Britains diminished status. Brexit might have worked, but this governments half arsed execution of it is humiliating.
I don't doubt that the government could have done some things better but so far it has been juch more flexible than the EU. What worries me is that that these concessions have simultaneously left the government close to its red lines while leaving the EU with the impression that all it has to do is stand firm and Britain will fold.
The government keeps changing its position. Why?
Fundamentally it does not know where it wants to go. So the Brexit negotiations are all tactics and headline grabbing. May talks of duty and responsibility because she does not have a plan.
We won't make progress until we decide what we want.
Simply not true. The government has been clear about what it wants: outside the SM, CU and CJEU jurisdiction, while aiming for the freest trade consistent with that. I don't know why that's difficult to see.
No, that’s what the Tory right wants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want that, for example.
It's what the whole cabinet signed up to this week, including Hammond.
There are many ways of not being in the single market: see Switzerland and North Korea, for example. And how do we solve the Northern Ireland customs union issue? Is there an agreed Cabinet line on that?
Not yet, and it's a serious stumbling block. My suggestion would be to simply leave it as an anomalous open border. Yes, it upsets the 'integrity' of the Single Market but I'm sure the Irish would be up for it, on both sides of the border, and it's remote enough from the rest of the EU to have little practical impact as a back-door route, particularly if barriers to trade generally between the UK and EU are kept low.
In practice we may well have a period of a theoretically hard border with the entirety of the EU, but with an absence of enforcement for practical reasons post Brexit. We already have immigration control, so that would be less of an issue. It wouldn't be tenable for long though.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
The EU is about much more than free trade. It's the political aspects of the EU, as well as free migration, that British voters dislike.
Well if you say "I don't care about the economics, I'd rather go it alone" - then fair enough. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am sure I could put a powerpoint presentation together justifying why Eire would be better off back in the UK. I doubt it would convince anyone in Dublin to rejoin. I was frankly astonished that Article 50 wasn't invoked the day after the result came in. If we were out we were out. Once you start delaying things, calling for transition periods and thinking up creative ways of staying in in reality you have sold the pass. We will not leave the EU in any meaningful way and will be back in just as soon as the dust has settled.
I think that the only way to extend the negotiating period is to request an A50 extension (EU27 unanimity required). That may well happen, and would be a major climb down by our government. The EU would probably agree, but our government may well fall as a result.
An extension would tend to call into question the Brexit referendum. How long is it valid for?
March 2021 has to be "it". I get the impression the Tory back benches will stomach two years of "implementation" as a "needs must ". 2 extra years to get us out of a 48 year bind is livable with. Beyond that I can't see it, and you are then just ignoring what the people voted for and we are off to the races that point, as why bother respecting any vote?
It'd be a negotiation, and as you rightly say depends too on where we are with others. Can we let in unrestricted Wisconsin cheese without upsetting a deal we've got elsewhere for instance? Though why anyone would buy it is beyond me! Yes they are bigger, but we are bigger than others we would do deals with, and size isn't everything. Clearly we would not be encumbered by worrying about olive quotas, to use one agricultural example, whereas club Med EU members might be to the detriment of other areas we are more interested in like media where our "fit" with the US is probably very good indeed.
It would also be a forced choice. It would be difficult to have single market access to both NAFTA and EU without customs controls for checks on origins and product standards.
So the election was supposedly called to enable the deal to be done and dusted by the time of the next one. What a colossal waste of £140 million just like the thousands it cost to pack everyone of to Florence for a jolly yesterday. The Tories don't half know how to waste public money
Some of us are despairing at Britains diminished status. Brexit might have worked, but this governments half arsed execution of it is humiliating.
I don't doubt that the government could have done some things better but so far it has been juch more flexible than the EU. What worries me is that that these concessions have simultaneously left the government close to its red lines while leaving the EU with the impression that all it has to do is stand firm and Britain will fold.
The government keeps changing its position. Why?
Fundamentally it does not know where it wants to go. So the Brexit negotiations are all tactics and headline grabbing. May talks of duty and responsibility because she does not have a plan.
We won't make progress until we decide what we want.
Simply not true. The government has been clear about what it wants: outside the SM, CU and CJEU jurisdiction, while aiming for the freest trade consistent with that. I don't know why that's difficult to see.
No, that’s what the Tory right wants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want that, for example.
It's what the whole cabinet signed up to this week, including Hammond.
There are many ways of not being in the single market: see Switzerland and North Korea, for example. And how do we solve the Northern Ireland customs union issue? Is there an agreed Cabinet line on that?
Not yet, and it's a serious stumbling block. My suggestion would be to simply leave it as an anomalous open border. Yes, it upsets the 'integrity' of the Single Market but I'm sure the Irish would be up for it, on both sides of the border, and it's remote enough from the rest of the EU to have little practical impact as a back-door route, particularly if barriers to trade generally between the UK and EU are kept low.
The problem with just leaving it is that it depends on ongoing goodwill and trust. That won't happen without a formalised, orderly UK departure from the EU. It doesn't work if we crash out and it also makes it almost impossible for the UK to do FTAs.
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
The EU is about much more than free trade. It's the political aspects of the EU, as well as free migration, that British voters dislike.
Well if you say "I don't care about the economics, I'd rather go it alone" - then fair enough. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am sure I could put a powerpoint presentation together justifying why Eire would be better off back in the UK. I doubt it would convince anyone in Dublin to rejoin. I was frankly astonished that Article 50 wasn't invoked the day after the result came in. If we were out we were out. Once you start delaying things, calling for transition periods and thinking up creative ways of staying in in reality you have sold the pass. We will not leave the EU in any meaningful way and will be back in just as soon as the dust has settled.
I think that the only way to extend the negotiating period is to request an A50 extension (EU27 unanimity required). That may well happen, and would be a major climb down by our government. The EU would probably agree, but our government may well fall as a result.
An extension would tend to call into question the Brexit referendum. How long is it valid for?
It's advisory only so it's probably subject to the Wilson rule: 'A week is a long time in politics' and he said that 40-50 years ago.
Besides, public opinion changes - that's why all democracies have general elections every 4-5 years.
Good summary. There are two realistic long term relationships available to us: a limited trade arrangement ("Canada" - no plus) and associated membership with no direct influence (EEA or "Norway" - no minus). Interestingly, Theresa May rejected both feasible options in her speech and instead said she wanted a relationship that was creative, dynamic, ambitious and ten other adjectives, which is a long way of saying she has no idea. It's smart in the short term because her cabinet agree on their dislike for at least one of the options. She or her successor will have to start real negotiations on the final settlement after we leave in 2019. This feels to me like Theresa May trying to get through to exit day without a disaster and then pass on the challenge of how do we actually resolve this to her successor.
The presumably Conservative PM (ie no early election) will nominally aim for a comprehensive free trade agreement, but that will take a decade or so to negotiate and it's a pretty miserable outcome anyway. The clock will start counting down on the extended transition, assuming it happens, from day 1. The only ways to avoid prolonged uncertainty and to resolve this by the next election are consensuses for the EEA (no control and very limited influence) or full membership of the EU. Neither are on the cards at the moment.
Also. Any transition agreement will be entirely on EU terms. I don't feel people have fully absorbed this point. It goes beyond accepting ECJ and FoM. It means agreeing the other Article 50 requirements and other stuff that the EU may come up with in the meantime.
So the election was supposedly called to enable the deal to be done and dusted by the time of the next one. What a colossal waste of £140 million just like the thousands it cost to pack everyone of to Florence for a jolly yesterday. The Tories don't half know how to waste public money
Well the EU moves Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month at vast expense and hassle just to tickle France's ego under the chin so they can sit on a cushion a purr happily for another four and a bit weeks knowing that they are really at the centre of things, honest, really, cross my heart. So a few Easy Jet flights to Italy seem a bargain. Could've gone cheaper on Ryan Air maybe I'll grant you but there may be issues there.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
There is no deal that could be done with the USA in its current mood. It'd be damn hard to agree one acceptable to both sides even if there was serious desire in both parliaments and governments.
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
So the election was supposedly called to enable the deal to be done and dusted by the time of the next one. What a colossal waste of £140 million just like the thousands it cost to pack everyone of to Florence for a jolly yesterday. The Tories don't half know how to waste public money
It's mildly interesting to imagine where we'd be if Tessy had got her 50+ majority. Boris stomping around like an over indulged toddler & rousing choruses of 'they need us more than we need them' dlusional bollox I'd guess.
A trade deal with the US will be dictated by the US. That will not necessarily benefit us. The single market is, of course, a lot more than a free trade area.
You're such a cynic not to have faith in Liam Fox and David Davis. Global titans of trade and politics.
If Mrs May gets the transition she wants, Liam Fox will never negotiate a single free trade deal for the UK. Not one. If she doesn't, Liam Fox will be told by various countries the terms of FTAs the UK can have. He holds an utterly pointless post.
You're almost monomaniacal about this. The transition will likely allow for FTA negotiations to occur but the actual FTA not to be implemented until after we leave the single market. It's not rocket science.
The transition happens on the EU's terms. No country will negotiate a deal until our final relationship with the EU is sorted. After all, a UK with a Swiss-style relationship is a very different prospect to one with a Canada style one.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
did we leave it or did it leave us ?
we joined for the trade not the politics
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptions in 1975. At the time - nearly two decades from the establishment of the Community, it'd made little progress towards the Single Market beyond what had been achieved at the creation in 1958, and projects like the Snake, which were supposed to lead to EMU by 1980, had collapsed under international pressures. In terms of political development, apart from the coalescing of the institutions of the EEC, ECSC and Euratom, virtually nothing was done at all between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s.
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
What is the biggest and richest free trade area in the world?
So the election was supposedly called to enable the deal to be done and dusted by the time of the next one. What a colossal waste of £140 million just like the thousands it cost to pack everyone of to Florence for a jolly yesterday. The Tories don't half know how to waste public money
It's mildly interesting to imagine where we'd be if Tessy had got her 50+ majority. Boris stomping around like an over indulged toddler & rousing choruses of 'they need us more than we need them' dlusional bollox I'd guess.
If she'd got a large majority then Boris threatening to quit would have been met with "the door's over there"
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
What is the biggest and richest free trade area in the world?
NAFTA.
The USA alone is bigger than the EU, especially the EU without us which is comparing like for like.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
did we leave it or did it leave us ?
we joined for the trade not the politics
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptions in 1975. At the time - nearly two decades from the establishment of the Community, it'd made little progress towards the Single Market beyond what had been achieved at the creation in 1958, and projects like the Snake, which were supposed to lead to EMU by 1980, had collapsed under international pressures. In terms of political development, apart from the coalescing of the institutions of the EEC, ECSC and Euratom, virtually nothing was done at all between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s.
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
What is the biggest and richest free trade area in the world?
NAFTA.
The USA alone is bigger than the EU, especially the EU without us which is comparing like for like.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
By PPP the biggest three are:
1 China 23,194,411 2 European Union 20,852,702 3 United States 19,417,144
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
There is no deal that could be done with the USA in its current mood. It'd be damn hard to agree one acceptable to both sides even if there was serious desire in both parliaments and governments.
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
Personally I think a deal is achievable.
A deal is absolutely achievable. All we have to do is agree to the US's terms. The EU has not done this, of course, which is why there is no US/EU FTA.
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
What is the biggest and richest free trade area in the world?
NAFTA.
The USA alone is bigger than the EU, especially the EU without us which is comparing like for like.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
By PPP the biggest three are:
1 China 23,194,411 2 European Union 20,852,702 3 United States 19,417,144
Plus, if you're going to talk about NAFTA, you should be using the EEA (which is more integrated than NAFTA) as the European bloc.
That still doesn't make the EU biggest it makes China biggest. But trade doesn't happen in PPP it happens with real currency, ie nominal dollars. So America is dramatically bigger. Plus that's including the UK in the EU's figures.
Including the EEA figures makes no real difference and NAFTA is still massively bigger than EEA.
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
What is the biggest and richest free trade area in the world?
NAFTA.
The USA alone is bigger than the EU, especially the EU without us which is comparing like for like.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
By PPP the biggest three are:
1 China 23,194,411 2 European Union 20,852,702 3 United States 19,417,144
Why would we need an extension to our EU membership in 2019 but not need one in 2021?
I think it is based on the idea that whilst inside the EU formally - up to 2019 - we are forbidden from doing things like making trade deals but during the transition period this would be allowed a we would no longer be proper members of the EU.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
Why do people keep repeating this outright lie that the EU is the biggest? It's simply not true! The EU is not the biggest and richest free trade area in the world, NAFTA is. The USA alone is bigger than the EU.
NAFTA $22.6 tn USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK) EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
There is no deal that could be done with the USA in its current mood. It'd be damn hard to agree one acceptable to both sides even if there was serious desire in both parliaments and governments.
It may be difficult but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that the EU is "the biggest and richest free trade area in the world" is completely and demonstrably false.
Personally I think a deal is achievable.
A deal is absolutely achievable. All we have to do is agree to the US's terms. The EU has not done this, of course, which is why there is no US/EU FTA.
Indeed and I see no reason why we couldn't agree to TPP style terms. Probably have to happen under the next President but I see no problem with that either and fingers crossed there'll be a new President before our transition period ends.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
did we leave it or did it leave us ?
we joined for the trade not the politics
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptions in 1975. At the time - nearly two decades from the establishment of the Community, it'd made little progress towards the Single Market beyond what had been achieved at the creation in 1958, and projects like the Snake, which were supposed to lead to EMU by 1980, had collapsed under international pressures. In terms of political development, apart from the coalescing of the institutions of the EEC, ECSC and Euratom, virtually nothing was done at all between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s.
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
Ted Heath wanted a United States of Europe and joined for the reason, in the process leaving EFTA which the UK had set up. Ken Clarke who was working for Heath has said this was Heath's goal.
Italy is far more likely to leave the Eurozone than Greece, especially if Grillo and Berlusconi combined have a majority in the Italian general election next year, Berlusconi wants a parallel currency to the Euro for Italy and Grillo has opposed the Euro before
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Surely national psyche is the point here? Do we see ourselves as British or European primarily? Pretty much all else flows from that. I don't see myself first and foremost as European so I have deep issues with anything involving being part of a "European democracy " because I don't accept the premiss in the first place.
So the election was supposedly called to enable the deal to be done and dusted by the time of the next one. What a colossal waste of £140 million just like the thousands it cost to pack everyone of to Florence for a jolly yesterday. The Tories don't half know how to waste public money
It's mildly interesting to imagine where we'd be if Tessy had got her 50+ majority. Boris stomping around like an over indulged toddler & rousing choruses of 'they need us more than we need them' dlusional bollox I'd guess.
If she'd got a large majority then Boris threatening to quit would have been met with "the door's over there"
Wouldn't he be positioning himself as the figurehead for the brave, new, buccaneering world of Global UK, with additional bellowing about 'punishment beatings' & the like?
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Surely national psyche is the point here? Do we see ourselves as British or European primarily? Pretty much all else flows from that. I don't see myself first and foremost as European so I have deep issues with anything involving being part of a "European democracy " because I don't accept the premiss in the first place.
The key is to be able to replace 'or' with 'and'. Welsh and British *and* European.
We've been part of meaningful European political institutions since 1973 so it seems like a denial of reality to reject the final part of this, and no threat to national identity to accept it.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
And this process of leaving will alienate people further from the EU. it makes ever rejoicing an impossible pipe dream for the Europhiles.
New Zealand general election results with 81% in, voteshare and projected seats (changes from 2014 in brackets)
National 46% (-1%) 58 seats (-2) Labour 36% (+11%) 45 seats (+13) NZ First 7% (-1%) 9 seats (-2) Greens 6% (-5%) 7 seats (-7)
So Jacinda Ardern has made as big a voteshare gain as Corbyn did in June but like him her gains came mainly from minor parties rather than the main Conservative Party with National's voteshare only fractionally down from a higher base than the UK Tories started from. http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/
It looks like English will have to do a deal with NZ First to be assured of a majority in Parliament but he should stay PM. Like May he is more of a traditional conservative than his predecessor, the more Cameroon John Key
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
did we leave it or did it leave us ?
we joined for the trade not the politics
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptions in 1975. At the time - nearly two decades from the establishment of the Community, it'd made little progress towards the Single Market beyond
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
Ted Heath wanted a United States of Europe and joined for the reason, in the process leaving EFTA which the UK had set up. Ken Clarke who was working for Heath has said this was Heath's goal.
I don't doubt it, but both then and now, I doubt if more than 10% of the voters share that goal.
Whether we like it or not European geo politics and power is conducted within the framework of the EU. We have absented ourselves from that and left other powers to dominate the block in a way that does not suit our interests.
The EU was increasingly dominated by the Eurozone countries and acting in their, not our, interests
We now have freedom of action as a significant medium sized power vs part of a sclerotic medium sized power with little interest in force projection
One example being Russia: German politicians personal interests (yes, Schroeder I'm looking at you) meant that Europe was silent at a time where a robust response would have been optimal
Has our influence on our neighbours gone up or down?
Our influence on the world has gone up.
Really?
What makes you say that?
More correctly, once we are out, our potential to have influence on the world will have gone up.
European interests are much more insular, Germany in particular is not interested in much that happens outside its hinterland (except for Russia which it is emollient towards). The UK is much more global in outlook.
You can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but increased freedom of action means our potential for influence has gone up
It could also means it goes down.
Cameon had influence as PM. All those levers of power, people taking his calls. But lots of contraints, compromise and demands on his time.
After he resigned he had a lot more freedom. Potentially his influence could go up with all that time. He was freed of contraints. Instead he has a nice shed.
Doesn't work as an analogy
It does. You just don't like it.
Nope. Difference between PM and exPM far greater than UKin and UKout
Interesting for us long-standing posters - who did you used to be, as it were, if you don't mind saying?
Hi Nick. For a long time I posted here under my real name of "Steven Whaley"... However, I left the site in the wake of the EU referendum campaign which left me feeling politically deflated. So when I decided to return I opted for a fresh start under a new name but I've no problem with people knowing who I am.
So far as my personal political journey has gone it's taken me from rather damp (if not wet) Conservative voter to Cleggite Liberal Democrat... it may not sound like a huge jump but realising that I'm more a natural Liberal than a Conservative was quite a revelation to me. I started to get the first inklings of this during the coalition years but 2017 was my first GE voting Liberal Democrat after 5 GEs voting Conservative.
New Zealand general election results with 81% in, voteshare and projected seats (changes from 2014 in brackets)
National 46% (-1%) 58 seats (-2) Labour 36% (+11%) 45 seats (+13) NZ First 7% (-1%) 9 seats (-2) Greens 6% (-5%) 7 seats (-7)
So Jacinda Ardern has made as big a voteshare gain as Corbyn did in June but like him her gains came mainly from minor parties rather than the main Conservative Party with National's voteshare only fractionally down from a higher base than the UK Tories started from. http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/
It looks like English will have to do a deal with NZ First to be assured of a majority in Parliament but he should stay PM. Like May he is more of a traditional conservative than his predecessor, the more Cameroon John Key
I believe English and Peters strongly dislike each other, although I don't think a Labour/GreenNZ First Coalition would be viable.
Brexit will not determine how long May is PM, but 7 by elections. So far she is lucky. No Tory MP deaths or departures in 4 months. At that rate it will take 30 months -assuming she loses them. The Tories will not allow her to fight another general election -unless there is an event which massively boosts her popularity.
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
I can just imagine Irish customs officials looking through all the Tesco shopping bags as people return South.
New Zealand general election results with 81% in, voteshare and projected seats (changes from 2014 in brackets)
National 46% (-1%) 58 seats (-2) Labour 36% (+11%) 45 seats (+13) NZ First 7% (-1%) 9 seats (-2) Greens 6% (-5%) 7 seats (-7)
So Jacinda Ardern has made as big a voteshare gain as Corbyn did in June but like him her gains came mainly from minor parties rather than the main Conservative Party with National's voteshare only fractionally down from a higher base than the UK Tories started from. http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/
It looks like English will have to do a deal with NZ First to be assured of a majority in Parliament but he should stay PM. Like May he is more of a traditional conservative than his predecessor, the more Cameroon John Key
I believe English and Peters strongly dislike each other, although I don't think a Labour/GreenNZ First Coalition would be viable.
Peters has said he will support the largest party so it will likely be confidence and supply in return for a tougher line from the government on immigration and more money for pensioners and other NZ First pet projects
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
did we leave it or did it leave us ?
we joined for the trade not the politics
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptions in 1975. At the time - nearly two decades from the establishment of the Community, it'd made little progress towards the Single Market beyond
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
Ted Heath wanted a United States of Europe and joined for the reason, in the process leaving EFTA which the UK had set up. Ken Clarke who was working for Heath has said this was Heath's goal.
I don't doubt it, but both then and now, I doubt if more than 10% of the voters share that goal.
And many of that 10% assumed that Britain would dominate such a political union.
I've heard it all now... Borders and regulations promote innovation?
The theory is that competition between different states, each pursuing different policies and regulations, enable different avenues to be explored and the results compared. And you can't have states without borders (otherwise you have tribes and the Law Of The Big Man).
Ferguson bangs on about this, although I prefer the cuckoo clock speech myself...
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
Under WTO rules there is no choice, is there? Both sides have to.
So the election was supposedly called to enable the deal to be done and dusted by the time of the next one. What a colossal waste of £140 million just like the thousands it cost to pack everyone of to Florence for a jolly yesterday. The Tories don't half know how to waste public money
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
And this process of leaving will alienate people further from the EU. it makes ever rejoicing an impossible pipe dream for the Europhiles.
Leaving seemed like an impossible pipe dream not so long ago. Support for leaving has held up so far, but it was a slim majority. It is very easy to imagine the Labour Party coming round to supporting rejoining. Businesses are generally pro-EU. The only pro-Brexit institutions are the media, the BBC and the Conservative Party. The first two could easily swing back. Basically staying in relies on the Tories maintaining their hold on Westminster.
Whether we like it or not European geo politics and power is conducted within the framework of the EU. We have absented ourselves from that and left other powers to dominate the block in a way that does not suit our interests.
The EU was increasingly dominated by the Eurozone countries and acting in their, not our, interests
We now have freedom of action as a significant medium sized power vs part of a sclerotic medium sized power with little interest in force projection
One example being Russia: German politicians personal interests (yes, Schroeder I'm looking at you) meant that Europe was silent at a time where a robust response would have been optimal
Has our influence on our neighbours gone up or down?
Our influence on the world has gone up.
Really?
What makes you say that?
More correctly, once we are out, our potential to have influence on the world will have gone up.
European interests are much more insular, Germany in particular is not interested in much that happens outside its hinterland (except for Russia which it is emollient towards). The UK is much more global in outlook.
You can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but increased freedom of action means our potential for influence has gone up
It could also means it goes down.
Cameon had influence as PM. All those levers of power, people taking his calls. But lots of contraints, compromise and demands on his time.
After he resigned he had a lot more freedom. Potentially his influence could go up with all that time. He was freed of contraints. Instead he has a nice shed.
Doesn't work as an analogy
It does. You just don't like it.
Nope. Difference between PM and exPM far greater than UKin and UKout
We don't know that.
How many armies does the exPM have?
The security card has been played and withdrawn already. It won't help us.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Surely national psyche is the point here? Do we see ourselves as British or European primarily? Pretty much all else flows from that. I don't see myself first and foremost as European so I have deep issues with anything involving being part of a "European democracy " because I don't accept the premiss in the first place.
I think surveys say that we see ourselves as English, Scots or Welsh primarily (special considerations apply to NI as always). I wouldn't argue against British being next in line, but the strength of that Britishness will vary in the 'nations'.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
And this process of leaving will alienate people further from the EU. it makes ever rejoicing an impossible pipe dream for the Europhiles.
Leaving seemed like an impossible pipe dream not so long ago. Support for leaving has held up so far, but it was a slim majority. It is very easy to imagine the Labour Party coming round to supporting rejoining. Businesses are generally pro-EU. The only pro-Brexit institutions are the media, the BBC and the Conservative Party. The first two could easily swing back. Basically staying in relies on the Tories maintaining their hold on Westminster.
The BBC is anything but pro Brexit, nor is the Times, the Evening Standard and most of the centre left press. Though more likely would be EEA/EFTA than a full rejoining of the EU
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
Under WTO rules there is no choice, is there? Both sides have to.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
From the point of view of the national pysche, perhaps, but from the point of view of national strategy we very much joined for the politics.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Given that people remain hostile to the politics after 45 years of membership, that's unlikely.
And this process of leaving will alienate people further from the EU. it makes ever rejoicing an impossible pipe dream for the Europhiles.
Leaving seemed like an impossible pipe dream not so long ago. Support for leaving has held up so far, but it was a slim majority. It is very easy to imagine the Labour Party coming round to supporting rejoining. Businesses are generally pro-EU. The only pro-Brexit institutions are the media, the BBC and the Conservative Party. The first two could easily swing back. Basically staying in relies on the Tories maintaining their hold on Westminster.
Neither the BBC nor any other part of the Broadcast media is pro-Brexit. Three of the four broadsheets are anti-Brexit and it is only the comics and the rags that have been pro-Brexit.
And yet in spite of all of this Leave not only won but have maintained or increased support for us to Leave.
Your whole hypothesis is predicated on exactly the same myths and misreading that resulted in Remain losing in 2016.
So, could I ask therefore, if that does happen, do we get a final set of Euros of 2019 (or does the UK withdraw from the European Parliament in March 2019)?
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
I can just imagine Irish customs officials looking through all the Tesco shopping bags as people return South.
Whether we like it or not European geo politics and power is conducted within the framework of the EU. We have absented ourselves from that and left other powers to dominate the block in a way that does not suit our interests.
The EU was increasingly dominated by the Eurozone countries and acting in their, not our, interests
We now have freedom of action as a significant medium sized power vs part of a sclerotic medium sized power with little interest in force projection
One example being Russia: German politicians personal interests (yes, Schroeder I'm looking at you) meant that Europe was silent at a time where a robust response would have been optimal
Has our influence on our neighbours gone up or down?
Our influence on the world has gone up.
Really?
What makes you say that?
More correctly, once we are out, our potential to have influence on the world will have gone up.
European interests are much more insular, Germany in particular is not interested in much that happens outside its hinterland (except for Russia which it is emollient towards). The UK is much more global in outlook.
You can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but increased freedom of action means our potential for influence has gone up
It could also means it goes down.
Cameon had influence as PM. All those levers of power, people taking his calls. But lots of contraints, compromise and demands on his time.
After he resigned he had a lot more freedom. Potentially his influence could go up with all that time. He was freed of contraints. Instead he has a nice shed.
Doesn't work as an analogy
It does. You just don't like it.
Nope. Difference between PM and exPM far greater than UKin and UKout
We don't know that.
How many armies does the exPM have?
Same as the PM, none. It's HM Armed Forces, as any fule kno.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
did we leave it or did it leave us ?
we joined for the trade not the politics
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptions in 1975. At the time - nearly two decades from the establishment of the Community, it'd made little progress towards the Single Market beyond what had been achieved at the creation in 1958, and projects like the Snake, which were supposed to lead to EMU by 1980, had collapsed under international pressures. In terms of political development, apart from the coalescing of the institutions of the EEC, ECSC and Euratom, virtually nothing was done at all between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s.
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
Ted Heath wanted a United States of Europe and joined for the reason, in the process leaving EFTA which the UK had set up. Ken Clarke who was working for Heath has said this was Heath's goal.
However, Macmillan and Wilson, both of whom submitted applications for the UK to join, were not federalists. It is possible for different people to want to join for different reasons, or for more than one reason.
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptions in 1975. At the time - nearly two decades from the establishment of the Community, it'd made little progress towards the Single Market beyond what had been achieved at the creation in 1958, and projects like the Snake, which were supposed to lead to EMU by 1980, had collapsed under international pressures. In terms of political development, apart from the coalescing of the institutions of the EEC, ECSC and Euratom, virtually nothing was done at all between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s.
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
Ted Heath wanted a United States of Europe and joined for the reason, in the process leaving EFTA which the UK had set up. Ken Clarke who was working for Heath has said this was Heath's goal.
I've always been irritated by people who claim that European integration was never mentioned in 1975, but I think the above are all fair comments. They also account for the switch in Labour's view to being predominently pro-membership, because the untrammeled original free trade model wasn't very interesting for us, but free trade plus social guarantees much more so.
Whether we like it or not European geo politics and power is conducted within the framework of the EU. We have absented ourselves from that and left other powers to dominate the block in a way that does not suit our interests.
The EU was increasingly dominated by the Eurozone countries and acting in their, not our, interests
We now have freedom of action as a significant medium sized power vs part of a sclerotic medium sized power with little interest in force projection
One example being Russia: German politicians personal interests (yes, Schroeder I'm looking at you) meant that Europe was silent at a time where a robust response would have been optimal
Has our influence on our neighbours gone up or down?
Our influence on the world has gone up.
Really?
What makes you say that?
More correctly, once we are out, our potential to have influence on the world will have gone up.
European interests are much more insular, Germany in particular is not interested in much that happens outside its hinterland (except for Russia which it is emollient towards). The UK is much more global in outlook.
You can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but increased freedom of action means our potential for influence has gone up
It could also means it goes down.
Cameon had influence as PM. All those levers of power, people taking his calls. But lots of contraints, compromise and demands on his time.
After he resigned he had a lot more freedom. Potentially his influence could go up with all that time. He was freed of contraints. Instead he has a nice shed.
Doesn't work as an analogy
It does. You just don't like it.
Nope. Difference between PM and exPM far greater than UKin and UKout
We don't know that.
How many armies does the exPM have?
The security card has been played and withdrawn already. It won't help us.
You're missing the point.
This is a discussion as to whether an exPM is more influential than the UK State. I say not.
And many of that 10% assumed that Britain would dominate such a political union.
Yep. So much pro EEC support amongst that faction was based on those who had never reconciled the loss of Empire and had the arrogance ti helueve we coukd rulecEurope instead.
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
Under WTO rules there is no choice, is there? Both sides have to.
Good point. What do you think will happen?
The UK and/or the EU will be subject to a complaint, the case will be heard by the WTO and the UK and/or the EU will be told to apply the relevant tariffs. If they don't they will face action. Not imposing tariffs discriminates against other WTO member states who do have to pay them.
But we could make trade deals straight away if we left immediately.
But in doing so we would clearly have a period of trade outside any FTAs. This is the cliff edge peoplecare talking about wanting to avoid and a transition period helps that.
So we have decided to leave the biggest and richest free trade area in the world. But we don't want to be without free trade deals with other markets. We need to stay in the one we are leaving until we have sorted out the alternative. And working through how long it will take, that comes to 2 years. And this plan took over a year to come up with.
did we leave it or did it leave us ?
we joined for the trade not the politics
The politics was always an inherent part of the project. However, the country decided that either the EEC would only pay lip service to that project, or if it did get serious, it'd fail to deliver. They weren't unreasonable assumptionsof the institutions of the EEC, ECSC and Euratom, virtually nothing was done at all between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s.
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put Britain's membership.
Ted Heath wanted a United States of Europe and joined for the reason, in the process leaving EFTA which the UK had set up. Ken Clarke who was working for Heath has said this was Heath's goal.
In retrospect we should probably never have left EFTA for the EEC. Of the original EFTA members from its foundation in 1960 (the UK, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland) 5/7 are not in the Eurozone and 3 are not in or are leaving the EU.
Of the original 6 members of the EEC from its foundation in 1957 (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany) all are in both the EU and the Eurozone.
I would not be surprised if over the next decade or two Europe splits again along EEC/EU and EFTA lines
I wonder if we'll see quite significant shifts in voting intention polls durin the conference season? May's speech has had broadly positive reviews so she should get a bump. The two party conferences should shake things around as usual. Overall I wouldn't be too surprised to see a small Tory lead when they've settled but it's really hard to predict.
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
Under WTO rules there is no choice, is there? Both sides have to.
Good point. What do you think will happen?
The UK and/or the EU will be subject to a complaint, the case will be heard by the WTO and the UK and/or the EU will be told to apply the relevant tariffs. If they don't they will face action. Not imposing tariffs discriminates against other WTO member states who do have to pay them.
Not if the tariffs are removed for everyone in a particular sector.
Brexit will not determine how long May is PM, but 7 by elections. So far she is lucky. No Tory MP deaths or departures in 4 months. At that rate it will take 30 months -assuming she loses them. The Tories will not allow her to fight another general election -unless there is an event which massively boosts her popularity.
Resignations from parliament are a more statistically worrying problem for her than deaths. Since the 1997 general election, only four Tory MPs have died in office. In that same period, 24 by-elections were caused by Labour MPs dying (and another would have been had Marsha Singh not resigned before he died later in 2012).
The security card has been played and withdrawn already. It won't help us.
You're missing the point.
This is a discussion as to whether an exPM is more influential than the UK State. I say not.
Well I agree with that, but your original assertion that, 'we now have freedom of action as a significant medium sized power vs part of a sclerotic medium sized power with little interest in force projection', is premature and doesn't reflect the balance of forces.
Comments
NAFTA $22.6 tn
USA $18.5 tn
EU $16.1 tn (but that includes the UK)
EU27 $13.5 tn
UK $2.6 tn
Now what trade deal do we have with the USA? The French farmers aren't willing to sign one, if we can sign a deal independently with the USA at a stroke that gives us a deal to a market nearly 50% bigger than the one you mistakenly call "the biggest".
In other news, congratulations SeanT! Wishing you and your wife every happiness.
But, on the other hand, Borders, strong national identities, and different regulatory systems are valued by people, and they also promote innovation, and economic advances.
New Zealand First don't look like particularly natural bedfellows for a "Labour" named party....
It is getting that sovereignty to deliver for the voters in the marginalised areas that the JRF describes that is the hard part. Are they going to be agitated about tariff free access? Or about judicial jurisdiction? Methinks not. It is why the £350 million per week was such a potent tagline.
I see nothing in May's approach that will benefit these people, and that is why Corbyn and Labour are pushing at an open door.
He's contributed a lot to this site and will be missed here - I'm sure it's much more true of his family and friends and thinking of them today.
https://twitter.com/yannikouts/status/911512949919043585
An extension would tend to call into question the Brexit referendum. How long is it valid for?
Personally, I suspect di Resta might get it. Just a guess, though.
Ahem. Back to work.
I've heard it all now... Borders and regulations promote innovation?
If the Greeks were to drop out there's no way the EU would insist upon continuing to make payments to the Greeks for years because otherwise they'd have a large unexpected surplus in their budget in the same way as they are wanting us to make payments to them to prevent a black hole.
@SouthamObserver
It'd be a negotiation, and as you rightly say depends too on where we are with others. Can we let in unrestricted Wisconsin cheese without upsetting a deal we've got elsewhere for instance? Though why anyone would buy it is beyond me! Yes they are bigger, but we are bigger than others we would do deals with, and size isn't everything. Clearly we would not be encumbered by worrying about olive quotas, to use one agricultural example, whereas club Med EU members might be to the detriment of other areas we are more interested in like media where our "fit" with the US is probably very good indeed.
I think that, without us to slow it down, political integration within the EU will accelerate, making it virtually impossible for us to return.
we joined for the trade not the politics
Besides, public opinion changes - that's why all democracies have general elections every 4-5 years.
The presumably Conservative PM (ie no early election) will nominally aim for a comprehensive free trade agreement, but that will take a decade or so to negotiate and it's a pretty miserable outcome anyway. The clock will start counting down on the extended transition, assuming it happens, from day 1. The only ways to avoid prolonged uncertainty and to resolve this by the next election are consensuses for the EEA (no control and very limited influence) or full membership of the EU. Neither are on the cards at the moment.
Also. Any transition agreement will be entirely on EU terms. I don't feel people have fully absorbed this point. It goes beyond accepting ECJ and FoM. It means agreeing the other Article 50 requirements and other stuff that the EU may come up with in the meantime.
Personally I think a deal is achievable.
Indeed, for more than a decade of Britain's membership, those assumptions proved valid: progress was made towards completing the Single Market (though gaps still remain) but the political side was left largely as designed. The first major treaty change after 1957 was the Single European Act. However, that was necessary, both to facilitate the functioning of the SM and to cope with the larger Community, which had doubled in membership since its founding. All the same, the economics were still driving the politics.
That changed under Delors, who put the politics back centre stage and understood that not only could the politics drive the economics but that EMU would have a feedback effect and require further political union. His promotion of the social agenda also, for the first time, ensured that the EC developed an explicit political agenda independent of free trade.
So yes, it left us but it always had the potential to do so, which was probably not properly appreciated during the first 15 years of Britain's membership.
The USA alone is bigger than the EU, especially the EU without us which is comparing like for like.
1 China 23,194,411
2 European Union 20,852,702
3 United States 19,417,144
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
Plus, if you're going to talk about NAFTA, you should be using the EEA (which is more integrated than NAFTA) as the European bloc.
We will simply relearn all the same lessons about why we joined in the first place before coming to the same conclusion that we need to get to the heart of the EU and stay there.
Including the EEA figures makes no real difference and NAFTA is still massively bigger than EEA.
1
United States
18,569,100
2
European Union
16,408,364
3
China
11,218,281
4
Japan
4,938,644
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
We've been part of meaningful European political institutions since 1973 so it seems like a denial of reality to reject the final part of this, and no threat to national identity to accept it.
National 46% (-1%) 58 seats (-2)
Labour 36% (+11%) 45 seats (+13)
NZ First 7% (-1%) 9 seats (-2)
Greens 6% (-5%) 7 seats (-7)
So Jacinda Ardern has made as big a voteshare gain as Corbyn did in June but like him her gains came mainly from minor parties rather than the main Conservative Party with National's voteshare only fractionally down from a higher base than the UK Tories started from.
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/
It looks like English will have to do a deal with NZ First to be assured of a majority in Parliament but he should stay PM. Like May he is more of a traditional conservative than his predecessor, the more Cameroon John Key
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
So far as my personal political journey has gone it's taken me from rather damp (if not wet) Conservative voter to Cleggite Liberal Democrat... it may not sound like a huge jump but realising that I'm more a natural Liberal than a Conservative was quite a revelation to me.
https://capx.co/can-the-tories-save-themselves-from-demographic-disaster/
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/brexit-uebergangsphase-theresa-may-hat-ein-erstaunlich-mutiges-angebot-unterbreitet-1.3678759
"Theresa May's in a pitiful position. Like a beetle, she lies on her back and struggles desperately but she can't get back on her feet alone."
Ferguson bangs on about this, although I prefer the cuckoo clock speech myself...
And yet in spite of all of this Leave not only won but have maintained or increased support for us to Leave.
Your whole hypothesis is predicated on exactly the same myths and misreading that resulted in Remain losing in 2016.
Every Conservative leader from Disraeli to Howard knew that.
I am tempted to say "a coach and horses" ...
This is a discussion as to whether an exPM is more influential than the UK State. I say not.
Of the original 6 members of the EEC from its foundation in 1957 (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany) all are in both the EU and the Eurozone.
I would not be surprised if over the next decade or two Europe splits again along EEC/EU and EFTA lines