"Next time is likely to look much more like a war of manoeuvre than a grit-your-teeth battle in the trenches. There are more seats with tiny majorities than there have been for many, many years. Not only that: under the surface, the composition of the two major parties’ coalitions is changing quite rapidly, shifting on the basis of age, social attitudes and cultural change reflected in, not just caused by, the great Brexit crisis that is still breaking upon us."
"So the two main parties are looking at a grand total of 67 seats precariously placed just a two per cent swing away from them."
Mr. rkrkrk, no, it isn't. I'm advocating leaving now both because we have the strategic integrate/separate decision to make, and because if we just stay in until it collapses that will be worse for us.
Mr. Recidivist, the EU's members vary wildly in terms of culture, economy, scale and demographics, but the EU's approach is to push for conformity and integration. Suppose you have countries of varying life expectancy. Separately, they can set pension ages at a sensible level. Under one rule, whatever age the pension is set at will be difficult for one of those countries.
Then expand that into a slew of other areas. And add in the lack of a European demos. People who see themselves as 'European' as opposed to Spanish or Italian are few and far between.
Unfortunately, I've got to go now, but I don't think the EU's way of doing things will help itself in the long term.
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
The EU Customs Duty is charged only on imports *into* the EU Customs Union. We currently pay this on wine of non-EU origin.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
Excise Duty is what the Chancellor talks about in the Budget, and is charged on all wines sold in the U.K. irrespective of origin. (Including wines produced in the U.K.)
There is a carve out for Chilean and SA wines
I have a colleague who has been ”prescribed “ Chilean Merlot as a means of helping reduce his cholesterol ( bona fide NHS doctor I believe, not a shaman ).
I believe he’s finding the prescription fairly palatable compared to most he’s had.
Sadly he has been poorly advised! alcohol is not protective, indeed increases the risk.
See section 8.1 of the sign guidelines issued this week:
Perhaps but what it does say is that if we get to the point where we have concluded the terms of leaving but run out of time for the framework trade talks and are therefore facing a hard Brexit, Britain would be quite entitled to say, as Davies has already said, that nothing I final until everything is final. If we are going to have a hard Brexit in terms of trade then why bother agreeing to things like a divorce payment.
What the EU seems to be relying on is that anything agreed now on the terms of leaving can be banked and will stand even if trade arrangements are not completed. We need to make it clear that that is not the case.
The EU is banking on getting payments without completed trade agreements and you are right, it won't get the exit fee if we don't agree.
The question is, will we agree? I have to say probably, yes, simply because the shape of the deal which has been apparent all the time - Money + citizen rights + EU border fudge for time limited continuation of benefits after leaving - is almost certainly better for us than losing all 800 treaties on day one. Some of those agreements are with third parties via the EU. We are not always rational, so maybe we say, sod you, to the EU. Then we will just agree it all later.
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted by our lawyer friends as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
The French text has "does negotiate", "does conclude" -1. Tout État membre peut décider, conformément à ses règles constitutionnelles, de se retirer de l'Union. | 2. L'État membre qui décide de se retirer notifie son intention au Conseil européen. À la lumière des orientations du Conseil européen, l'Union négocie et conclut avec cet État un accord fixant les modalités de son retrait, en tenant compte du cadre de ses relations futures avec l'Union. Cet accord est négocié conformément à l'article 188 N, paragraphe 3, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne.
I assume that that is imperative in this context. Life is too short to consider each and every one of the other, equally authentic language versions.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted by our lawyer friends as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
Do you know what, I don’t think that’s a point that’s been raised before.
While there would have been careful legal translations made, does anyone know if there is a legally “definitive” language of the Lisbon Treaty?
23 languages, all equally authentic:
Article 53
1. This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States.
2. This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
That’s bonkers, and could lead to all sorts of confusion in court if there was a translation error, or even just subtly different meanings of words in different languages.
I’m guessing it arises from the equal status given to languages in the EU, but it must have come up before in the ECJ?
In theory a lawyer might think that he has a better chance of having his preferred interpretation of he wording accepted, if he refers to a specific language version of a document, as they all have equal standing before the court?
When I’ve come across this before, for example in sports association rules or aircraft accident reports, there’s usually a note on the first page to the effect of “This document is provided in various translations for convenience, in the event of any discrepancies, errors or omissions the definitive version is in X language” - which would have been the official language of the author or association producing the document, and would have been the base document sent for official translation into other languages.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Yep - it's a point I have made a few times on here. If the UK government had invested a little time and effort in reaching out to voter sin the EU27 member states, the UK might have a bit more leverage. As it is - as AlanBrooke correctly observes - Brexit is a second-tier issue across Europe. Very few people are watching, very few people care. There is no link to Brexit and their futures, as far as they can see. That suits EU27 governments perfectly. If (when) things go wrong, it will just be the British playing games and wanting their cake and eating, yet again - the same old story.
What few commentators, and no PB Brexiters have considered is what our attitude would be if any other EU country decided to leave. We would think...good luck to them...looking forward to being kept in touch....hope we can do some kind of deal...they want WHAT???? NO WAY...How dare they try to dictate terms to us, they are the ones leaving...etc..etc
You're wrong. That woukd be an instinctive rection but there woukd be those calling for calm and hoping our political leaders were reasonable not punitive. How do I know it is wrong? Because such a scenario was possible with Sindy and while there were people calling for near hostile Madrid style reactions in the event yes won , others did say wed hope for reasonable and amicable talk after the initial emotional reaction. The EU is meant to he a noble organisation after all, they can certainly look past emotional hurt.
There is a much stronger bond between Scotland and rUK than between the UK and the EU.
Yes, it would not be to the same extent. However the implication is it would be a universal reaction.
" The Europeans have to be grateful for so many things Britain has brought to Europe, during war, before war after war, everywhere and every time, but now they have to pay. " he said to laughter from the audience."
A50 does not discuss negotiating the future framework of the relationship between the UK and the EU, it takes it into account. This suggests that A50 assumes that the future framework is a given and that the agreement between the UK and the EU, which is solely about withdrawal (note the use of commas) only takes it into account. Can the future framework be a one sided decision?
What happens if there is no future framework? Can it be inferred that A50 can only be exercised legally if a decision to leave the EU has been taken and a future framework decided by the leaving state?
No. The next clause explains there is no requirement for a withdrawal agreement.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
That's yet another oddity. It seems to imply that the two-year period can be extended under QMV, not unanimity, by putting a later date into the withdrawal agreement.
Yeah, that came up somewhere (David Allen Green's blog?). As I understand it, the withdrawal agreement could include an agreement effectively not leave. It would be effective, not legal, membership as we would no longer have voting rights and MEP representation. It's how the UK govt probably wants to do the so-called implementation period (actually a can-kick extension)
" The Europeans have to be grateful for so many things Britain has brought to Europe, during war, before war after war, everywhere and every time, but now they have to pay. " he said to laughter from the audience."
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there? I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
The wording just uses the present tense: 'the Union negotiates and concludes...'
Very interesting, Mr Navabi. Many thanks. That is the French version. I am not a lawyer, but it does seem to me that the strength of the idea is somewhat different. It seems to lack the imperative. I wonder how m`learned friends see this.
How strongly is the idea expressed in the other EU languages?
That is not what the guidelines actually say: they say that "Systematic reviews of cohort and case-control studies show a 'J'-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular risk of mortality and morbidity. However, there are social considerations, individual factors and likely unmeasured covariates that act as confounding variables in these studies." - in essence, correlation is very strong but causation is up for grabs. They do *not* say that light drinking "increases the risk".
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted by our lawyer friends as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
The French text has "does negotiate", "does conclude" -1. Tout État membre peut décider, conformément à ses règles constitutionnelles, de se retirer de l'Union. | 2. L'État membre qui décide de se retirer notifie son intention au Conseil européen. À la lumière des orientations du Conseil européen, l'Union négocie et conclut avec cet État un accord fixant les modalités de son retrait, en tenant compte du cadre de ses relations futures avec l'Union. Cet accord est négocié conformément à l'article 188 N, paragraphe 3, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne.
I assume that that is imperative in this context. Life is too short to consider each and every one of the other, equally authentic language versions.
No, it's indicative not imperative. L'Union is a third person singular subject for which there is no imperative form.
That is not what the guidelines actually say: they say that "Systematic reviews of cohort and case-control studies show a 'J'-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular risk of mortality and morbidity. However, there are social considerations, individual factors and likely unmeasured covariates that act as confounding variables in these studies." - in essence, correlation is very strong but causation is up for grabs. They do *not* say that light drinking "increases the risk".
“A J-Shaped Relationship”
So a glass or two is okay, but if you’re opening your third bottle of the evening then maybe that’s too much medicine?
Perhaps but what it does say is that if we get to the point where we have concluded the terms of leaving but run out of time for the framework trade talks and are therefore facing a hard Brexit, Britain would be quite entitled to say, as Davies has already said, that nothing I final until everything is final. If we are going to have a hard Brexit in terms of trade then why bother agreeing to things like a divorce payment.
What the EU seems to be relying on is that anything agreed now on the terms of leaving can be banked and will stand even if trade arrangements are not completed. We need to make it clear that that is not the case.
The EU is banking on getting payments without completed trade agreements and you are right, it won't get the exit fee if we don't agree.
The question is, will we agree? I have to say probably, yes, simply because the shape of the deal which has been apparent all the time - Money + citizen rights + EU border fudge for time limited continuation of benefits after leaving - is almost certainly better for us than losing all 800 treaties on day one. Some of those agreements are with third parties via the EU. We are not always rational, so maybe we say, sod you, to the EU. Then we will just agree it all later.
Policy is currently being driven by the Tory headbangers for whom leaving the EU asap is not a rational policy, it is an article of faith. Therefore an agreement is by no means certain.
I cannot think of a friend or colleague who voted for Brexit. But here are a few silly examples in my immediate experience:
(1) From an in-law (willy-nilly) : "If the 'world's most powerful man' says we ought to stay in then I'm voting out."
(2) From a friend's first generation immigrant wife: "Because of immigration our (20 year old) house is now being surrounded by new a development. I'm voting out."
(3) From Boris, and others apparently: "We are haemorrhaging 350 million pounds a week to the EU that should be used for the Health Service. I'm voting out"
That is not what the guidelines actually say: they say that "Systematic reviews of cohort and case-control studies show a 'J'-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular risk of mortality and morbidity. However, there are social considerations, individual factors and likely unmeasured covariates that act as confounding variables in these studies." - in essence, correlation is very strong but causation is up for grabs. They do *not* say that light drinking "increases the risk".
“A J-Shaped Relationship”
So a glass or two is okay, but if you’re opening your third bottle of the evening then maybe that’s too much medicine?
Not only is is a glass or two OK, it actually seems to be, if anything, slightly beneficial. It is hilarious watching the logical somersaults of the health killjoys who seem to desperate to find a way to prove that their own figures mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans would support a Jamaica coalition, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
Seehofer is about to get a good kicking from his own party Jamaica is the only game in town and greens and FDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - Merkel has shakier partners than May and the DUP Nobody in the CDU is celebrating an electoral victory The AfD have one seventh of the vote East Germany dislikes Merkel and wont vote for her Diesel scandal
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Merkel is Theresa May with a 6 month delay
I didn't say all is sweetness and light in Germany. You claimed that it is less stable than the UK, which is patent nonsense. Merkel remains a popular leader (certainly compared to May) and most are confident that she'll be able to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. Coalition governments are, of course, the norm in Germany and, while a coalition including both the FDP and Greens will be interesting, both parties have long experience as junior coalition partners and have pragmatists who will be keen to make it work.
That is not what the guidelines actually say: they say that "Systematic reviews of cohort and case-control studies show a 'J'-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular risk of mortality and morbidity. However, there are social considerations, individual factors and likely unmeasured covariates that act as confounding variables in these studies." - in essence, correlation is very strong but causation is up for grabs. They do *not* say that light drinking "increases the risk".
“A J-Shaped Relationship”
So a glass or two is okay, but if you’re opening your third bottle of the evening then maybe that’s too much medicine?
Not only is is a glass or two OK, it actually seems to be, if anything, slightly beneficial. It is hilarious watching the logical somersaults of the health killjoys who seem to desperate to find a way to prove that their own figures mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted by our lawyer friends as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
The French text has "does negotiate", "does conclude" -1. Tout État membre peut décider, conformément à ses règles constitutionnelles, de se retirer de l'Union. | 2. L'État membre qui décide de se retirer notifie son intention au Conseil européen. À la lumière des orientations du Conseil européen, l'Union négocie et conclut avec cet État un accord fixant les modalités de son retrait, en tenant compte du cadre de ses relations futures avec l'Union. Cet accord est négocié conformément à l'article 188 N, paragraphe 3, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne.
I assume that that is imperative in this context. Life is too short to consider each and every one of the other, equally authentic language versions.
No, it's indicative not imperative. L'Union is a third person singular subject for which there is no imperative form.
Yes, I know it's bloody indicative, but it can still be used to convey an instruction. Compare the order of service for weddings where "The minister invites the people to pray, silence is kept and the minister says the Collect" are clearly instructions. It is for all I know standard practice for imperatives to be disguised as indicative in treaty wordings.
That is not what the guidelines actually say: they say that "Systematic reviews of cohort and case-control studies show a 'J'-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular risk of mortality and morbidity. However, there are social considerations, individual factors and likely unmeasured covariates that act as confounding variables in these studies." - in essence, correlation is very strong but causation is up for grabs. They do *not* say that light drinking "increases the risk".
“A J-Shaped Relationship”
So a glass or two is okay, but if you’re opening your third bottle of the evening then maybe that’s too much medicine?
Not only is is a glass or two OK, it actually seems to be, if anything, slightly beneficial. It is hilarious watching the logical somersaults of the health killjoys who seem to desperate to find a way to prove that their own figures mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
But why Chilean?
Probably a Chilean doctor. I understand that French doctors recommend Nuits St George.
Perhaps but what it does say is that if we get to the point where we have concluded the terms of leaving but run out of time for the framework trade talks and are therefore facing a hard Brexit, Britain would be quite entitled to say, as Davies has already said, that nothing I final until everything is final. If we are going to have a hard Brexit in terms of trade then why bother agreeing to things like a divorce payment.
What the EU seems to be relying on is that anything agreed now on the terms of leaving can be banked and will stand even if trade arrangements are not completed. We need to make it clear that that is not the case.
The EU is banking on getting payments without completed trade agreements and you are right, it won't get the exit fee if we don't agree.
The question is, will we agree? I have to say probably, yes, simply because the shape of the deal which has been apparent all the time - Money + citizen rights + EU border fudge for time limited continuation of benefits after leaving - is almost certainly better for us than losing all 800 treaties on day one. Some of those agreements are with third parties via the EU. We are not always rational, so maybe we say, sod you, to the EU. Then we will just agree it all later.
Policy is currently being driven by the Tory headbangers for whom leaving the EU asap is not a rational policy, it is an article of faith. Therefore an agreement is by no means certain.
It's not certain. We crash out and then what? We're not going to say, that's that, then, Stone Age it is, I'm glad it's all settled. We're going to say, EU, can we talk? They will say, sure, we just need to sort out the exit fee we stumbled over earlier and we can talk any time.
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans would support a Jamaica coalition, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
Seehofer is about to get a good kicking from his own party Jamaica is the only game in town and greens and FDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - Merkel has shakier partners than May and the DUP Nobody in the CDU is celebrating an electoral victory The AfD have one seventh of the vote East Germany dislikes Merkel and wont vote for her Diesel scandal
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Merkel is Theresa May with a 6 month delay
I didn't say all is sweetness and light in Germany. You claimed that it is less stable than the UK, which is patent nonsense. Merkel remains a popular leader (certainly compared to May) and most are confident that she'll be able to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. Coalition governments are, of course, the norm in Germany and, while a coalition including both the FDP and Greens will be interesting, both parties have long experience as junior coalition partners and have pragmatists who will be keen to make it work.
May got 9% more votes than Merkel did
Popular vote 15,315,576
Popular vote 13,669,883
Guess which is which?
Germany has almost 20 million more people, it is percentages which matter
That is not what the guidelines actually say: they say that "Systematic reviews of cohort and case-control studies show a 'J'-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular risk of mortality and morbidity. However, there are social considerations, individual factors and likely unmeasured covariates that act as confounding variables in these studies." - in essence, correlation is very strong but causation is up for grabs. They do *not* say that light drinking "increases the risk".
“A J-Shaped Relationship”
So a glass or two is okay, but if you’re opening your third bottle of the evening then maybe that’s too much medicine?
Not only is is a glass or two OK, it actually seems to be, if anything, slightly beneficial. It is hilarious watching the logical somersaults of the health killjoys who seem to desperate to find a way to prove that their own figures mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
But why Chilean?
Probably a Chilean doctor. I understand that French doctors recommend Nuits St George.
if you are on MAOI antidepressants, there is the weirdly specific instruction that you must not drink Chianti with them. Which is why we know that Gordon was on them.
Well, it would be pretty hard to argue that they are going well.
And yet, David Davis.
It's about expectations. I'm not too concerned at this point because I started to expect this when the EU began with 'no talks until A50'. That was so they could create time pressure to gain advantage. But this cannot go on indefinitely, because the nation states with the most to lose will mutiny. At the same time, we can't be certain how much of this is for show, like the Union reps that used to sit in offices with the bosses drinking tea all night trying to pretend the settlement was hard to reach, justifying their own positions to their supporters.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
hip with the Union…"
The content of that agreement is not dictated. "Fine, bye, close the door on the way out" would satisfy it. The fact that Britain might want more doesn't oblige the EU to accommodate Britain or even talk about things that it isn't going to offer.
What the EU seems to be relying on is that anything agreed now on the terms of leaving can be banked and will stand even if trade arrangements are not completed. We need to make it clear that that is not the case.
Davis, the Brexit secretary, said he did not expect the UK to agree a financial payment to the EU for Brexit until the end of the entire negotiating process. He told MPs: My expectation is that the money argument will go on for the full duration of the negotiation. The famous European “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” will apply here absolutely, as anywhere else.
Looking at the "local council" question, Labour come out with 41%, Conservatives on 22% and LDs on 9%. 24% either Don't Know or Won't Say so re-allocating these gives you 53-29-11.
In 2014 Labour got 37%, Conservatives 26% and the LDs 10% so it's not quite what the headlines would suggest.
The swing from Con to Lab is 4% on the raw figures 6.5% on the adjusted numbers. That would probably mean the end of Con control in Barnet but beyond that would the Conservatives lose places like Hillingdon, Bexley and even whisper it quietly the likes of K&C, Wandsworth and Westminster ?
Anecdotally, the East Ham Conservatives have put out a leaflet which doesn't mention their Mayoral candidate (or indeed much else after from having a go at Sadiq Khan over Uber). To say all non-Labour parties in Newham have a mountain to climb wouldn't be an understatement.
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans would support a Jamaica coalition, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
Seehofer is about to get a good kicking from his own party Jamaica is the only game in town and greens and FDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - Merkel has shakier partners than May and the DUP Nobody in the CDU is celebrating an electoral victory The AfD have one seventh of the vote East Germany dislikes Merkel and wont vote for her Diesel scandal
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Merkel is Theresa May with a 6 month delay
I didn't say all is sweetness and light in Germany. You claimed that it is less stable than the UK, which is patent nonsense. Merkel remains a popular leader (certainly compared to May) and most are confident that she'll be able to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. Coalition governments are, of course, the norm in Germany and, while a coalition including both the FDP and Greens will be interesting, both parties have long experience as junior coalition partners and have pragmatists who will be keen to make it work.
May got 9% more votes than Merkel did
Popular vote 15,315,576
Popular vote 13,669,883
Guess which is which?
Germany has almost 20 million more people, it is percentages which matter
If you're going to be a selective, nitpicking comparer of apples & oranges you should at least get the terminology right.
May got 9% more of the total vote in her GE than Merkel did in hers.
Comments
http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/general-election-2022-open-battlefield.html
"Next time is likely to look much more like a war of manoeuvre than a grit-your-teeth battle in the trenches. There are more seats with tiny majorities than there have been for many, many years. Not only that: under the surface, the composition of the two major parties’ coalitions is changing quite rapidly, shifting on the basis of age, social attitudes and cultural change reflected in, not just caused by, the great Brexit crisis that is still breaking upon us."
"So the two main parties are looking at a grand total of 67 seats precariously placed just a two per cent swing away from them."
Mr. Recidivist, the EU's members vary wildly in terms of culture, economy, scale and demographics, but the EU's approach is to push for conformity and integration. Suppose you have countries of varying life expectancy. Separately, they can set pension ages at a sensible level. Under one rule, whatever age the pension is set at will be difficult for one of those countries.
Then expand that into a slew of other areas. And add in the lack of a European demos. People who see themselves as 'European' as opposed to Spanish or Italian are few and far between.
Unfortunately, I've got to go now, but I don't think the EU's way of doing things will help itself in the long term.
Thanks
The question is, will we agree? I have to say probably, yes, simply because the shape of the deal which has been apparent all the time - Money + citizen rights + EU border fudge for time limited continuation of benefits after leaving - is almost certainly better for us than losing all 800 treaties on day one. Some of those agreements are with third parties via the EU. We are not always rational, so maybe we say, sod you, to the EU. Then we will just agree it all later.
I assume that that is imperative in this context. Life is too short to consider each and every one of the other, equally authentic language versions.
I’m guessing it arises from the equal status given to languages in the EU, but it must have come up before in the ECJ?
In theory a lawyer might think that he has a better chance of having his preferred interpretation of he wording accepted, if he refers to a specific language version of a document, as they all have equal standing before the court?
When I’ve come across this before, for example in sports association rules or aircraft accident reports, there’s usually a note on the first page to the effect of “This document is provided in various translations for convenience, in the event of any discrepancies, errors or omissions the definitive version is in X language” - which would have been the official language of the author or association producing the document, and would have been the base document sent for official translation into other languages.
" The Europeans have to be grateful for so many things Britain has brought to Europe, during war, before war after war, everywhere and every time, but now they have to pay. " he said to laughter from the audience."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/13/jean-claude-juncker-tells-britain-thanks-war-now-have-pay/
How strongly is the idea expressed in the other EU languages?
individual factors and likely unmeasured covariates that act as confounding variables in these studies." - in essence, correlation is very strong but causation is up for grabs. They do *not* say that light drinking "increases the risk".
So a glass or two is okay, but if you’re opening your third bottle of the evening then maybe that’s too much medicine?
(1) From an in-law (willy-nilly) : "If the 'world's most powerful man' says we ought to stay in then I'm voting out."
(2) From a friend's first generation immigrant wife: "Because of immigration our (20 year old) house is now being surrounded by new a development. I'm voting out."
(3) From Boris, and others apparently: "We are haemorrhaging 350 million pounds a week to the EU that should be used for the Health Service. I'm voting out"
Popular vote 13,669,883
Guess which is which?
But this cannot go on indefinitely, because the nation states with the most to lose will mutiny. At the same time, we can't be certain how much of this is for show, like the Union reps that used to sit in offices with the bosses drinking tea all night trying to pretend the settlement was hard to reach, justifying their own positions to their supporters.
My expectation is that the money argument will go on for the full duration of the negotiation. The famous European “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” will apply here absolutely, as anywhere else.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/sep/05/efta-would-benefit-from-having-uk-as-a-member-says-icelandic-foreign-minister-politics-live
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5wvdf8tlb8/QueenMary_Results_LondonOmni_170928_1W.pdf
Looking at the "local council" question, Labour come out with 41%, Conservatives on 22% and LDs on 9%. 24% either Don't Know or Won't Say so re-allocating these gives you 53-29-11.
In 2014 Labour got 37%, Conservatives 26% and the LDs 10% so it's not quite what the headlines would suggest.
The swing from Con to Lab is 4% on the raw figures 6.5% on the adjusted numbers. That would probably mean the end of Con control in Barnet but beyond that would the Conservatives lose places like Hillingdon, Bexley and even whisper it quietly the likes of K&C, Wandsworth and Westminster ?
Anecdotally, the East Ham Conservatives have put out a leaflet which doesn't mention their Mayoral candidate (or indeed much else after from having a go at Sadiq Khan over Uber). To say all non-Labour parties in Newham have a mountain to climb wouldn't be an understatement.
May got 9% more of the total vote in her GE than Merkel did in hers.
Not
May got 9% more votes than Merkel did