Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Give the unusual circumstances of Brexit, is it worth considering a PM from the HoL?
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Give the unusual circumstances of Brexit, is it worth considering a PM from the HoL?
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
His final couple of years as a minister were not impressive.
Funnily enough I wonder if his pro-euro views were as much a problem for him as his combative and occasionally arrogant behaviour.
Had he tried to make a very patriotic case for joining the Euro so the Brits could lead it, based on wielding more global influence, and tried wooing the sceptics rather than sneering at them, he might have done much better.
I agree with that as it happens. Clarke's ultra leniency as justice secretary was not his finest hour, even for those such as myself who are fans. He was appointed as a sop to the Lib Dems (as, ironically, was May), and to give some counterweight of greybeard experience to the distinctly inexperienced Cameron and Osborne.
Nobody who attended the hustings in the 2001 leadership election could disagree with your final two paragraphs. He went out of his way to be rude to all Eurosceptic and social conservative questioning. He could easily have become leader in 97 or 2001 had he trimmed his views slightly and been more polite.
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Give the unusual circumstances of Brexit, is it worth considering a PM from the HoL?
An unelected PM is surely unacceptable in a modern democracy?
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring. Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished. Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Give the unusual circumstances of Brexit, is it worth considering a PM from the HoL?
An unelected PM is surely unacceptable in a modern democracy?
A useless broken PM is also unacceptable in a modern democracy, but the Conservative Party doesn`t seem to be greatly bothered.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Ken Clarke. A safe pair of hands with a reputation that most people on all sides respect.
For those too young to remember him as Thatcher's health minister
Clarke was the worst health secretary I've ever come across,although Milburn comes a close second.Clarke nearly destroyed the nursing profession through his clinical grading plans which led to 10,000s of appeals which did not get resolved until 7 years after introduction-I personally represented over 300 of them.He also introduced marketisation into the NHS via the "purchaser/provider" split and the creation of health trusts,a process continued by successive governments.Ken Clarke was a walking disaster as health secretary-mention "clinical grading" to any old nurse and it's guaranteed to raise their blood pressure even now.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
Exactly so. And if we piss off we will agree later because there isn't a successful pathway for Britain that doesn't include a close relationship with the EU on their terms. It is simpler and far less painful to recognise that fact up front. It doesn't necessarily mean we will be members but as a membership organisation the EU will always put members before outsiders.
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring. Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished. Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Give the unusual circumstances of Brexit, is it worth considering a PM from the HoL?
An unelected PM is surely unacceptable in a modern democracy?
A useless broken PM is also unacceptable in a modern democracy, but the Conservative Party doesn`t seem to be greatly bothered.
I am no fan of May - quite the opposite - but she was elected by a majority of voters in her constituency and the party she leads got more votes than any other. Plus, she has tenacity.
Then again, I could be influenced by the awfulness of the possible Tory alternatives
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Ken Clarke. A safe pair of hands with a reputation that most people on all sides respect.
For those too young to remember him as Thatcher's health minister
Clarke was the worst health secretary I've ever come across,although Milburn comes a close second.Clarke nearly destroyed the nursing profession through his clinical grading plans which led to 10,000s of appeals which did not get resolved until 7 years after introduction-I personally represented over 300 of them.He also introduced marketisation into the NHS via the "purchaser/provider" split and the creation of health trusts,a process continued by successive governments.Ken Clarke was a walking disaster as health secretary-mention "clinical grading" to any old nurse and it's guaranteed to raise their blood pressure even now.
I thought William Waldegrave was Secretary of State who introduced the Purchaser Provider split. It was introduced in 1991 as far as I know. GP Fundholding was a complete nightmare some GPs demanded an invoice for each patient.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
No opposition that did not lead the governing party in the polls by at least 15 points between elections has ever won a majority at the ensuing general election. I do not expect this rule to change for the next election which is nearly half a decade away.
And no party had ever climbed 15 percentage points over the course of a 6-week campaign until Corbyn, either. Does this not suggest the old supposed "rules" do not necessarily apply?
Well exactly. Ed Miliband had larger leads in the polls over a longer duration than Corbyn has had and yet ultimately, he got a worse result in 2015 than Corbyn did in 2017. I'd have thought that by now, after everything that's happened in the last two years people would know that the old rules do not necessarily apply anymore, otherwise someone as left wing as Corbyn wouldn't have gotten 40% of the vote and wouldn't have won marginals. By the old rules, a candidate like him should have never won over Conservative voters (and Corbyn ended up winning over some Conservative Remainers as we have found out in recent weeks).
And the comment in this thread about May's childlessness lead to her misjudgement on issues such as the Dementia Tax is wrong. George Osborne has children, yet that didn't seem to help his judgement very much in relation to young people seen in his decisions on tuition fees, maintenance grants which are part of the reason why the Conservatives have such issues with younger voters now. It's just May isn't very good at politics - and there are plenty of previous leaders with children who weren't very good at politics either.
I didn't say that, I said a combination of childlessness and total lack of empathy. Obviously you can have children but still screw up; Osborne's problem was lack of understanding of people who are not very, very rich. But Leadsom's remarks, and David Herdson's eve of poll post, were the only signals of the coming disaster in June.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
Indeed so. Yet so far they seem determined to go down the lose-lose path, as they don’t want the UK to be seen to win.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
A phone line to beg for money when penniless that costs 55p a minute isn't just stupid, its cruel.
The phone line was a local ratenumber, unless you want the full nationalisation of mobbile phone companies you can't lay this one at the government's door. OK So they've changed it to freephone (And thats no bad thing) - but using the HEARTLESS 55p line as part of your argument is tribal tripe.
It was worse than cruel, it was a mistake (with apologies to Tallyrand)
I mean, honestly, it was incompetent politics. I'm sure it made sense for a civil servant, but did no SpAd or minister think about it for even a second? Even I can see how bad it looks.
A question to Sean_F, Casino_Royale and other leavers on the Tory/right side...
Ken Clarke & remain in the EU or Corbyn Brexit ?
That's like asking is it preferable to be burned at the stake, or hanged, drawn, and quartered.
Wasn't the drawing part having your bowels drawn and burnt in front of you? That seems a little too close to worst of both worlds.
In 1484 William Collingbourne was executed in that way for his activities against Richard III. Richard wasn't terribly popular, and Collingbourne's execution was well attended. He won even greater fame when after his cutting open, emasculation and he removal of his digestive system, they pulled out his heart and he said, 'Oh Jesus, more trouble!'
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. .
Funny, I thought the EU was an organisation that was able to rise about petty concerns - they would never make things easy, that makes total sense, but obstruction merely to punish, which is precisely what you are suggesting of them, would be very silly of them.
I happen to think better of the EU than you, it seems.
The "no deal" brigade have been busted. When they say "no deal", they mean "apart from the deals that keep the planes flying and so on and so forth..."
Our team are so crap, there is no chance of us negotiating such a "no deal" in the time left.
There will be a vote in Parliament to ask for an extension which the Government will lose.
What do they care if the planes stop flying? They'll just blame johnny foreigner who should have some bloody respect for the people who liberated/defeated them in WWII. Yes I know that the more you look at the practical details the worse hard brexit gets, but to the swivel-eyed they simply couldn't give a monkeys. In their heads we'll probably send a gunship over to put the fear up them. If France will lend us a gunship...
There's also a huge difference between crashing out to WTO / no FTA and not agreeing a work around to - for example - keep the planes flying.
It would be an incredibly hostile act by our neighbours and - hopefully - future partners, and I think very unlikely.
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
For a moment I misread it as defected to Labour.
She did that a long time ago.
If she and Heidi Allen were to defect from the Conservatives, that would leave the government perilously close to no-confidence territory (and thus an early election),
With the DUP they'd still have a bare majority.
I have them both as high defection risks. But not Soubry, Morgan or Clarke all of whom are - I believe - loyal Conservatives.
Surely it's only a matter of time before Heidi Allen joins the Lib Dems?
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring. Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished. Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Give the unusual circumstances of Brexit, is it worth considering a PM from the HoL?
An unelected PM is surely unacceptable in a modern democracy?
A useless broken PM is also unacceptable in a modern democracy, but the Conservative Party doesn`t seem to be greatly bothered.
Speaking of useless remind us how your candidate for PM did in the GE.
Hmm, well next door to us in Tandridge (East Surrey), several such new towns ("garden villages") are proposed, and there are posters opposing them on virtually every street corner. With the Lib Dems leading the charge. John O might know more as he is (was?) a councillor in Surrey.
Tandridge politics is more complex as John O will tell you. There is a powerful well-funded residents group operating in Oxted and Limpsfield which is opposed to the Local Plan and is drumming up support elsewhere in the District.
The OLRP defeated the former Conservative Group leader in the 2016 local elections winning the Oxted North and Tandridge seat.
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
For a moment I misread it as defected to Labour.
She did that a long time ago.
If she and Heidi Allen were to defect from the Conservatives, that would leave the government perilously close to no-confidence territory (and thus an early election),
Given what happened with Mark Reckless why would Soubry, Woolaston and Allen defect to the Lib Dems - just to lose their seats next time.
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
For a moment I misread it as defected to Labour.
She did that a long time ago.
If she and Heidi Allen were to defect from the Conservatives, that would leave the government perilously close to no-confidence territory (and thus an early election),
With the DUP they'd still have a bare majority.
I have them both as high defection risks. But not Soubry, Morgan or Clarke all of whom are - I believe - loyal Conservatives.
Surely it's only a matter of time before Heidi Allen joins the Lib Dems?
Let's see:
General Election 2017: South Cambridgeshire Party Candidate Votes Conservative Heidi Allen 33,631 Labour Dan Greef 17,679 Liberal Democrat Susan van de Ven 12,102 Green Simon Saggers 1,512 Majority 15,952
If she defects, I hope she has other plans post-2022.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
"THE European Council’s ‘Space Egg’ building will not be used for the summit of EU leaders tomorrow due to toxic fumes leaking from the drains." - Express.
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Give the unusual circumstances of Brexit, is it worth considering a PM from the HoL?
To my mind the best way is have a caretaker (someone who is at least slightly competent but who is not interested in fighting a GE) until after Brexit. Then in summer 2019 the Party should pick someone from the backbenches or at best a very junior minister, someone unconnected with the cabinet and all the infighting that has been going on over the last year or so. So none of the names that have to date been considered.
They come in and say, we are where we are, we are out of the EU and now we have to make it work. They can ditch all the policies that have been wrecked by bad management or bad presentation or are just plain bad policies and can prepare to go to the country on a fresh platform. Even better make sure no current cabinet minister is in the cabinet after 2019. Complete clean sweep.
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
In some respects the next election is 1992 for the Tories and if they win narrowly they will lose by a landslide the election after next to a more moderate Labour leader and be out for a generation.
By contrast if Corbyn wins narrowly the Tory opposition leader will have a real chance of preventing his 're election.
From my memory of 1992, most voters didn't blame Major for the recession until Black Wednesday, which was a few months after the election. Had Thatcher stood for a 4th term it would probably have been a different story.
If Brexit goes tits up I don't think the Tories will be able to similarly defer the blame, even under a new leader.
The Tories won because of Labour's tax rise plans.
If Brexit goes 'tits up' Corbyn takes over lumbered with a recession and either has to borrow and increase the deficit and tax more alienating middle class swing voters to spend more or cut spending alienating his base. If he tries to get a deal with the EU he has to pay at least 50 billion alienating Leavers and if he refuses to rejoin the single market as failure to cut free movement would risk losing Labour Leave seats he risks alienating Leavers
you're assuming Corbyn behaves like a normal politician. I suspect he let's spending rip.
A phone line to beg for money when penniless that costs 55p a minute isn't just stupid, its cruel.
The phone line was a local ratenumber, unless you want the full nationalisation of mobbile phone companies you can't lay this one at the government's door. OK So they've changed it to freephone (And thats no bad thing) - but using the HEARTLESS 55p line as part of your argument is tribal tripe.
It was worse than cruel, it was a mistake (with apologies to Tallyrand)
I mean, honestly, it was incompetent politics. I'm sure it made sense for a civil servant, but did no SpAd or minister think about it for even a second? Even I can see how bad it looks.
You can now it has been pointed out to you. But it was not a premium rate number, you have to run out of bundle on a monthly contract to have to pay megabucks, and I was unable to find any contract, in 10-15 minutes desultory googling, where the charge would be as high as 55p/min. But yes, if I were at DWP I would make very sure I was getting constant feedback from the troops on the ground as to this sort of issue.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. .
Funny, I thought the EU was an organisation that was able to rise about petty concerns - they would never make things easy, that makes total sense, but obstruction merely to punish, which is precisely what you are suggesting of them, would be very silly of them.
I happen to think better of the EU than you, it seems.
The EU is warm in friendship; unforgiving in enmity.
@Ishmael_Z I’m trying to say that if people without kids can ‘screw up’ on these kinds of issues than it shouldn’t be assumed that May not having kids contributed to her mistakes in the GE. Andrea Leadsome may be a mother, but it’s likely that she - along with all the other leadership candidates wouldn’t have performed better than May in 2017.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
It would be an incredibly hostile act by our neighbours and - hopefully - future partners, and I think very unlikely.
It's only our headbanging Brexiteers that are talking about it.
Nobody from the EU side is threatening "no deal"
" I am not hearing any whistling, just a clock ticking" - Barnier, July 2017. If you don't construe that as a threat of "no deal" you have a nasty little case of Stockholm syndrome which you want to have looked at.
@Ishmael_Z I’m trying to say that if people without kids can ‘screw up’ on these kinds of issues than it shouldn’t be assumed that May not having kids contributed to her mistakes in the GE. Andrea Leadsome may be a mother, but it’s likely that she - along with all the other leadership candidates wouldn’t have performed better than May in 2017.
Possibly so, but leadsome's remarks look eerily veridical in a way that very little else that was said about May prior to June (see what I did there?) does.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. .
Funny, I thought the EU was an organisation that was able to rise about petty concerns - they would never make things easy, that makes total sense, but obstruction merely to punish, which is precisely what you are suggesting of them, would be very silly of them.
I happen to think better of the EU than you, it seems.
The EU is warm in friendship; unforgiving in enmity.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
What you think are the potential wins and losses for the EU aren't what they think they are. Their big loss is us rejecting EU membership. That's already happened and priced in. The other stuff matters less to them than us. Interestingly there really are bad deals for the EU that are worse than no deals, unlike us. Maybe we shouldn't have come out with that rhetoric because it plays against us. These are deals involving cakes.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
Because it maximises the EU's negotiating leverage
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
Because it maximises the EU's negotiating leverage
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
I agree Charles. However, that is not a good reason for a Brit to be saying that is how it needs to be.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. .
Funny, I thought the EU was an organisation that was able to rise about petty concerns - they would never make things easy, that makes total sense, but obstruction merely to punish, which is precisely what you are suggesting of them, would be very silly of them.
I happen to think better of the EU than you, it seems.
The EU is warm in friendship; unforgiving in enmity.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Leavers told everyone else that it was all going to be trivially easy. It turns out that they expected their supervillain of choice to be defeated by willingly handing over the keys to the volcano lair on request.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
Because it maximises the EU's negotiating leverage
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
I agree Charles. However, that is not a good reason for a Brit to be saying that is how it needs to be.
Every Brit is also a European, and has every right to see the long-term interests of the EU as their interests. Brexit is an aberration; it is not the future.
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
The government should be acting in the best interests of the UK.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Copyright issues.
Article 50 - The Political equivalent of Hotel California.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. .
Funny, I thought the EU was an organisation that was able to rise about petty concerns - they would never make things easy, that makes total sense, but obstruction merely to punish, which is precisely what you are suggesting of them, would be very silly of them.
I happen to think better of the EU than you, it seems.
The EU is warm in friendship; unforgiving in enmity.
The former's OK by me; the latter is something I want no part of.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Because those are the conditions for moving to the next stage.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Copyright issues.
Article 50 - The Political equivalent of Hotel California.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
Correct!
For a more substantive answer - one draftsman is said to have said that Art. 50 was window dressing to fob off objectors who said the treaty was unleavable;
"Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, he had inserted the get-out clause specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
He said: "I wrote Article 50, so I know it well.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened.
"When it comes to the economy they have to lose.” "
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Because those are the conditions for moving to the next stage.
They are the EU's conditions. Do you agree with them?
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Leavers told everyone else that it was all going to be trivially easy. It turns out that they expected their supervillain of choice to be defeated by willingly handing over the keys to the volcano lair on request.
The talks seem to be a combination of incompetence on our side, and self righteous intransigence on the part of the EU.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Leavers told everyone else that it was all going to be trivially easy. It turns out that they expected their supervillain of choice to be defeated by willingly handing over the keys to the volcano lair on request.
The talks seem to be a combination of incompetence on our side, and self righteous intransigence on the part of the EU.
Well yes.
It's good news that British incompetence has got to the point that the Germans are starting to own the problem, but bloody embarrassing.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill - think the government should start placing advertisments in the papers and on tv about this, to collapse eu sales here. I think that will cost the eu 60 billion a year.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
The amount is an inference from the political obligation not to use Brexit as a means to wriggle out of pre-existing funding commitments. The Brexit bill is actually zero - the EU is just insisting that there should be no Brexit windfall.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Why on Earth should we pay £40-£50bn, that’s the equivalent of 2p on the basic rate of income tax for five years? There’s no basis for the payment, it’s a naked attempt to extract what’s little more than a massive bribe to move them on to the trade talks.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Because those are the conditions for moving to the next stage.
They are the EU's conditions. Do you agree with them?
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
It is what it is - a whole lot cheaper than the alternative.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Copyright issues.
Article 50 - The Political equivalent of Hotel California.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
EU membership more like. You can hand in your notice any time you like, but actually leaving appears impossible.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
That's as may be. But SO moaning that it is Tory party refusing to accept something entirely unreasonable doesn't really stand, does it. The country won't accept that level of cost either, according to polling.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t e are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
That's as may be. But SO moaning that it is Tory party refusing to accept something entirely unreasonable doesn't really stand, does it. The country won't accept that level of cost either, according to polling.
The country won’t accept the alternative either. So, the government should decide which of two bad options is best for the country and act accordingly.
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
Deleted.
(youtube link to old Chris Morris jam sketch that is even more messed up than I remember. Too messed up even for PB)
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
That's as may be. But SO moaning that it is Tory party refusing to accept something entirely unreasonable doesn't really stand, does it. The country won't accept that level of cost either, according to polling.
You're using the unreasonable word again. There's nothing unreasonable in negotiations.
It appears that Leavers haven't learned what Thucydides knew over 2000 years ago: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Copyright issues.
Article 50 - The Political equivalent of Hotel California.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
Correct!
For a more substantive answer - one draftsman is said to have said that Art. 50 was window dressing to fob off objectors who said the treaty was unleavable;
"Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, he had inserted the get-out clause specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
He said: "I wrote Article 50, so I know it well.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened.
"When it comes to the economy they have to lose.” "
Which is all well and fine as long as everybody knows that and understands the implications before deciding to leave. Did we? Did we f*ck.
We really did jump over the cliff edge without knowing what the drop was, where we would land and what our chances of surviving were. It was the silliest thing any sovereign nation I can think of has done in my lifetime.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Never mind the Tories, polls show the voters will not pay a penny more than £10 billion, the EU want £60 billion minimum. Whether May or Corbyn agreed to pay it they would face a huge short term backlash in the polls even if longer term it ensured the beginning of trade talks with the EU
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
Because it maximises the EU's negotiating leverage
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
I agree Charles. However, that is not a good reason for a Brit to be saying that is how it needs to be.
Every Brit is also a European, and has every right to see the long-term interests of the EU as their interests. Brexit is an aberration; it is not the future.
The EU is not Europe and Europe is not the EU. The EU is an aberration. Brexit is the start of a return to normality.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ny trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Why on Earth should we pay £40-£50bn, that’s the equivalent of 2p on the basic rate of income tax for five years? There’s no basis for the payment, it’s a naked attempt to extract what’s little more than a massive bribe to move them on to the trade talks.
We should pay because the alternative is worse. Don’t blame me. I did not vote to put us in a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Copyright issues.
Article 50 - The Political equivalent of Hotel California.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
Correct!
For a more substantive answer - one draftsman is said to have said that Art. 50 was window dressing to fob off objectors who said the treaty was unleavable;
"Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, he had inserted the get-out clause specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
He said: "I wrote Article 50, so I know it well.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened.
"When it comes to the economy they have to lose.” "
Which is all well and fine as long as everybody knows that and understands the implications before deciding to leave. Did we? Did we f*ck.
We really did jump over the cliff edge without knowing what the drop was, where we would land and what our chances of surviving were. It was the silliest thing any sovereign nation can think of has done in my lifetime.
No the silliest thing was joining in the first place. This is just the first step in correcting that idiotic error.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
Because it maximises the EU's negotiating leverage
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
I agree Charles. However, that is not a good reason for a Brit to be saying that is how it needs to be.
Every Brit is also a European, and has every right to see the long-term interests of the EU as their interests. Brexit is an aberration; it is not the future.
The EU is not Europe and Europe is not the EU. The EU is an aberration. Brexit is the start of a return to normality.
So you do intend Brexit to be an existential threat to the EU? The cat's out of the bag now.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Because those are the conditions for moving to the next stage.
They are the EU's conditions. Do you agree with them?
Not particularly. But they’re in charge.
They are only in charge if the UK allows them to be. Admittedly there is a large body of Remainer opinion in the UK that wants us to roll over and accept whatever terms the UK offers on the grounds that any "deal" (or rather, in those terms, any imposition) is better than no deal.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t knowill a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Never mind the Tories, polls show the voters will not pay a penny more than £10 billion, the EU want £60 billion minimum. Whether May or Corbyn agreed to pay it they would face a huge short term backlash in the polls even if longer term it ensured the beginning of trade talks with the EU
Yep, it’s all about the politics, not what’s best for the country.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Because those are the conditions for moving to the next stage.
They are the EU's conditions. Do you agree with them?
Not particularly. But they’re in charge.
They are only in charge if the UK allows them to be. Admittedly there is a large body of Remainer opinion in the UK that wants us to roll over and accept whatever terms the UK offers on the grounds that any "deal" (or rather, in those terms, any imposition) is better than no deal.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
Because it maximises the EU's negotiating leverage
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
I agree Charles. However, that is not a good reason for a Brit to be saying that is how it needs to be.
Every Brit is also a European, and has every right to see the long-term interests of the EU as their interests. Brexit is an aberration; it is not the future.
The EU is not Europe and Europe is not the EU. The EU is an aberration. Brexit is the start of a return to normality.
So you do intend Brexit to be an existential threat to the EU? The cat's out of the bag now.
Why shouldn't our 27 friends and allies enjoy the same freedom and sovereignty as the UK in a europe-wide free trade area?
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
That's as may be. But SO moaning that it is Tory party refusing to accept something entirely unreasonable doesn't really stand, does it. The country won't accept that level of cost either, according to polling.
You're using the unreasonable word again. There's nothing unreasonable in negotiations.
It appears that Leavers haven't learned what Thucydides knew over 2000 years ago: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
The mistake the British side made was in not setting the tone in the first place. We should have made an immediate statement that all EU citizens already in the UK would have permanent right to residence, work and benefits which could not be removed and that we expected the EU to reciprocate but would not backtrack on that particular issue even if the EU refused. That would have given the UK a moral position to work from.
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because what is of benefit to them is maintaining the coherence of the EU's current framework. They take the view, rightly or wrongly, that protecting that coherence is of greater benefit than trade with any one nation.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Because those are the conditions for moving to the next stage.
They are the EU's conditions. Do you agree with them?
Not particularly. But they’re in charge.
They are only in charge if the UK allows them to be. Admittedly there is a large body of Remainer opinion in the UK that wants us to roll over and accept whatever terms the UK offers on the grounds that any "deal" (or rather, in those terms, any imposition) is better than no deal.
We are where we are. I accept we’re leaving and I accept that the EU holds the whip hand in the negotiations. No Deal would be a catastrophe for the UK. We should pay the money and get onto the important stuff.
Comments
Google has created an AI that has developed past thousands of years of human knowledge of Go in 3 days tabula rasa
Can someone be kind enough to update me on the chaos that seems to have befallen the government?
Then again, I could be influenced by the awfulness of the possible Tory alternatives
I preferred Clarke to Milburn
Looks like an error and should have been Lab MP with same surname - who isn't recorded as voting.
So Wollaston the only Con or DUP MP to vote with Lab.
I mean, honestly, it was incompetent politics. I'm sure it made sense for a civil servant, but did no SpAd or minister think about it for even a second? Even I can see how bad it looks.
I happen to think better of the EU than you, it seems.
It would be an incredibly hostile act by our neighbours and - hopefully - future partners, and I think very unlikely.
The OLRP defeated the former Conservative Group leader in the 2016 local elections winning the Oxted North and Tandridge seat.
General Election 2017: South Cambridgeshire
Party Candidate Votes
Conservative Heidi Allen 33,631
Labour Dan Greef 17,679
Liberal Democrat Susan van de Ven 12,102
Green Simon Saggers 1,512
Majority 15,952
If she defects, I hope she has other plans post-2022.
I've known him for almost 20 years. He's a really nice, fun guy and great company. But lazy as fuck.
His time has long gone.
They come in and say, we are where we are, we are out of the EU and now we have to make it work. They can ditch all the policies that have been wrecked by bad management or bad presentation or are just plain bad policies and can prepare to go to the country on a fresh platform. Even better make sure no current cabinet minister is in the cabinet after 2019. Complete clean sweep.
Nobody from the EU side is threatening "no deal"
1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us.
2. Citizens’ rights. We are happy to concede mutual settlement rights, but the EU want to be able to have their courts rule on us after we’ve left, and to give EU citizens more ‘rights’ in the UK than RoW citizens post-Brexit, again without reference to any trading relationship.
3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
https://tinyurl.com/yaqde2a4
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
For a more substantive answer - one draftsman is said to have said that Art. 50 was window dressing to fob off objectors who said the treaty was unleavable;
"Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, he had inserted the get-out clause specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
He said: "I wrote Article 50, so I know it well.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened.
"When it comes to the economy they have to lose.” "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/692065/Article-50-NEVER-to-be-used-Europe-Brexit-Italy-Prime-Minister
It's good news that British incompetence has got to the point that the Germans are starting to own the problem, but bloody embarrassing.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-financial_settlement_en_2.pdf
(youtube link to old Chris Morris jam sketch that is even more messed up than I remember. Too messed up even for PB)
It appears that Leavers haven't learned what Thucydides knew over 2000 years ago: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
We really did jump over the cliff edge without knowing what the drop was, where we would land and what our chances of surviving were. It was the silliest thing any sovereign nation I can think of has done in my lifetime.
Until that's assured, other things are secondary.