What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all REMAINERS for 5 years - including yourself?
This is EXACTLY what May needs to do. It is so obvious. But it is the fear of remainers that stops her doing it. Ironic, that the pressure from remainers will mean that Brexit ends up as the disaster they keep predicting. The leavers know what needs to be done, it is the remainers who stop us doing it.
I'm still none the wiser about all this. Are they, in sheer panic, trying to soften us up for the inevitable failure, or is this just the latest phase in ensuring the cliff-edge Brexit they were secretly planning all along?
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
To give the illusion the choice exists.
Article 50 was inserted as an add on to Maastricht in case one of the EU members experienced a coup, or some other calamity that made the membership of the country incompatible with the union. It was never intended to be used for short term political opportunism and so exploited by a group of zealots at the extremes of UK politics.
Swivel eyed loons....that is much too kind an expression to describe those seriously shameful, hateful and despicable ideologues at the heart of Brexit who are causing so much lasting damage to our country.
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
George misunderestimated how brilliant his economic stewardship was.
But the Brexit disaster is coming.
I'm doing a thread for Sunday on the idiot leavers who said WTO was project fear.
Project Fear is turning into Project Reality, within the next two years Leavers will be embarrassed to admit they voted Leave.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
To give the illusion the choice exists.
Article 50 was inserted as an add on to Maastricht in case one of the EU members experienced a coup, or some other calamity that made the membership of the country incompatible with the union. It was never intended to be used for short term political opportunism and so exploited by a group of zealots at the extremes of UK politics.
Swivel eyed loons....that is much too kind an expression to describe those seriously shameful, hateful and despicable ideologues at the heart of Brexit who are causing so much lasting damage to our country.
Why was Eamon de Valera any different then 100 years ago? That worked out in the end.
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
As frustrating as it is for me as a Remainer that we were repeatedly told by Fox and others that we could get a deal easily with the EU and this has led to us facing either a big exit bill or a cliff edge, we really shouldn't blame the decent proportion of Leave voters who wanted a good deal where key markets are protected but we still get controls on immigration.
The blame for the current situation has to be primarily with the government. I genuinely thought HMG of any stripe would be able to get into gear and hammer out a mutually acceptable position behind the scenes and navigate us towards it. As it is we have a barn full of headless chickens wrestling with each other and spitting at the EU side.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
Mate...if you began to understand the sheer derision our county is beginning to face for Brexit.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
George misunderestimated how brilliant his economic stewardship was.
But the Brexit disaster is coming.
I'm doing a thread for Sunday on the idiot leavers who said WTO was project fear.
Project Fear is turning into Project Reality, within the next two years Leavers will be embarrassed to admit they voted Leave.
Yep. Which is why the Tories face a Corn Laws fate for at least the first half of this century.
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
That is the essential paradox of our current situation - just as the EU demonstrates its failings, simultaneously our government demonstrates why the Brexit vote was a huge mistake.
The vote was not the mistake. The way it is being handled by the Government is the mistake.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
George misunderestimated how brilliant his economic stewardship was.
But the Brexit disaster is coming.
I'm doing a thread for Sunday on the idiot leavers who said WTO was project fear.
Project Fear is turning into Project Reality, within the next two years Leavers will be embarrassed to admit they voted Leave.
Yep. Which is why the Tories face a Corn Laws fate for at least the first half of this century.
Remainers who talk about the corn laws should read up on it. Abolishing them was the right and honourable thing to do.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
To give the illusion the choice exists.
Article 50 was inserted as an add on to Maastricht in case one of the EU members experienced a coup, or some other calamity that made the membership of the country incompatible with the union. It was never intended to be used for short term political opportunism and so exploited by a group of zealots at the extremes of UK politics.
Swivel eyed loons....that is much too kind an expression to describe those seriously shameful, hateful and despicable ideologues at the heart of Brexit who are causing so much lasting damage to our country.
So, would it not have been sensible to make it explicit that no democracy would be allowed to exercise A50?
Perhaps, the difficulties stem from the fact that we took A50 at face value?
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
To give the illusion the choice exists.
Article 50 was inserted as an add on to Maastricht in case one of the EU members experienced a coup, or some other calamity that made the membership of the country incompatible with the union. It was never intended to be used for short term political opportunism and so exploited by a group of zealots at the extremes of UK politics.
Swivel eyed loons....that is much too kind an expression to describe those seriously shameful, hateful and despicable ideologues at the heart of Brexit who are causing so much lasting damage to our country.
Ah the hypocritical tosser sticks his head up to vomit over the proceedings.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
To give the illusion the choice exists.
Article 50 was inserted as an add on to Maastricht in case one of the EU members experienced a coup, or some other calamity that made the membership of the country incompatible with the union. It was never intended to be used for short term political opportunism and so exploited by a group of zealots at the extremes of UK politics.
Swivel eyed loons....that is much too kind an expression to describe those seriously shameful, hateful and despicable ideologues at the heart of Brexit who are causing so much lasting damage to our country.
So, would it not have been sensible to make it explicit that no democracy would be allowed to exercise A50?
Perhaps, the difficulties stem from the fact that we took A50 at face value?
Quite. If it’s not a club you can walk out of, it’s a prison.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
George misunderestimated how brilliant his economic stewardship was.
But the Brexit disaster is coming.
I'm doing a thread for Sunday on the idiot leavers who said WTO was project fear.
Project Fear is turning into Project Reality, within the next two years Leavers will be embarrassed to admit they voted Leave.
They won't mate....the Brexit ideologies will blame the EU, Theresa May, whoever for the calamity that is rapidly unfolding. They will pin the blame elsewhere other than on their hateful ideology. Much like Trump.
There was never going to be a post Brexit deal that left the UK in a better position, even if Nelson Mandela was the PM.
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
Still waiting for that immediate recession starting straight after we voted to leave that we were promised by that moron Osborne.
This is EXACTLY what May needs to do. It is so obvious. But it is the fear of remainers that stops her doing it. Ironic, that the pressure from remainers will mean that Brexit ends up as the disaster they keep predicting. The leavers know what needs to be done, it is the remainers who stop us doing it.
Can't wait for lower tariffs on parsnips. Terrific #GlobalOpportunities.
Wonder how much paper/plastic money fits in our wheelbarrow in the hyperinflation scenario.
As frustrating as it is for me as a Remainer that we were repeatedly told by Fox and others that we could get a deal easily with the EU and this has led to us facing either a big exit bill or a cliff edge, we really shouldn't blame the decent proportion of Leave voters who wanted a good deal where key markets are protected but we still get controls on immigration.
The blame for the current situation has to be primarily with the government. I genuinely thought HMG of any stripe would be able to get into gear and hammer out a mutually acceptable position behind the scenes and navigate us towards it. As it is we have a barn full of headless chickens wrestling with each other and spitting at the EU side.
This just does not make any sense. Even Labour accepted that immigration cannot be controlled in the SM so we had to leave. HMG have tried to do exactly what you suggested by hammering out a deal, even offering cash that we had no legal liability to pay. It is the EU that have refused to talk trade. And, the EU would have demanded the Brexit Bill EVEN IF we had asked to move to the EEA.
What exactly do you think the Government should do? Pay the Brexit Bill? Well, get your cheque book out.
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Still: our negotiation tactics have been appalling. There is no worse strategy than to talk tough (No Surrender!) while acting weak (no preparations made for cliff edge Brexit). You get your opposite number's back up, while - to any outside observer - being completely unprepared for a no deal scenario.
The correct strategy would have been the absolute opposite. To act nice, while simultaenously building customs facilities at Dover and Folkstone, to put someone competent in the International Trade job (and to secure heads of terms with the many countries the EU has existing trade relationships with). In other words, to talk up why we want a deal, and our willingness to compromise and make it happen. But to demonstrate with our actions that we're willing to walk away.
It is almost - but not quite - too late to make it clear that we're willing to walk away. There has been next to zero progress at the Department for International Trade. (Worse, existing partners of the the EU, like South Korea, feel spurned in favour of deals with countries like the US that will simply never happen on the time scales demanded by Brexit.) This needs to change, and this means Dr Fox must go. We need to demonstrate an ability to go it alone.
And we need to continue with our softer tone. I think this is happening already. It will be all the more effective if we have a viable fall back plan.
Without a viable alternative, we will have to accept the EU's terms. (Or see a government fall.)
Talk softly and carry a big stick. Don't shout your mouth off while obviously naked.
Do they really not see the contradiction in "ordering" people to have "free speech"?
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Ah yes, it was all squared off with Alain Juppé months ago...
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
George misunderestimated how brilliant his economic stewardship was.
But the Brexit disaster is coming.
I'm doing a thread for Sunday on the idiot leavers who said WTO was project fear.
Project Fear is turning into Project Reality, within the next two years Leavers will be embarrassed to admit they voted Leave.
They won't mate....the Brexit ideologies will blame the EU, Theresa May, whoever for the calamity that is rapidly unfolding. They will pin the blame elsewhere other than on their hateful ideology. Much like Trump.
There was never going to be a post Brexit deal that left the UK in a better position, even if Nelson Mandela was the PM.
Fun fact about Mandela: he never spoke out against his appalling wife's call for necklacing: "With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country".
Fun fact about necklacing: it takes about 20 minutes for the victim to die.
Mandela was a small-time careerist creep who got lucky.
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Still: our negotiation tactics have been appalling. There is no worse strategy than to talk tough (No Surrender!) while acting weak (no preparations made for cliff edge Brexit). You get your opposite number's back up, while - to any outside observer - being completely unprepared for a no deal scenario.
The correct strategy would have been the absolute opposite. To act nice, while simultaenously building customs facilities at Dover and Folkstone, to put someone competent in the International Trade job (and to secure heads of terms with the many countries the EU has existing trade relationships with). In other words, to talk up why we want a deal, and our willingness to compromise and make it happen. But to demonstrate with our actions that we're willing to walk away.
It is almost - but not quite - too late to make it clear that we're willing to walk away. There has been next to zero progress at the Department for International Trade. (Worse, existing partners of the the EU, like South Korea, feel spurned in favour of deals with countries like the US that will simply never happen on the time scales demanded by Brexit.) This needs to change, and this means Dr Fox must go. We need to demonstrate an ability to go it alone.
And we need to continue with our softer tone. I think this is happening already. It will be all the more effective if we have a viable fall back plan.
Without a viable alternative, we will have to accept the EU's terms. (Or see a government fall.)
Talk softly and carry a big stick. Don't shout your mouth off while obviously naked.
As frustrating as it is for me as a Remainer that we were repeatedly told by Fox and others that we could get a deal easily with the EU and this has led to us facing either a big exit bill or a cliff edge, we really shouldn't blame the decent proportion of Leave voters who wanted a good deal where key markets are protected but we still get controls on immigration.
The blame for the current situation has to be primarily with the government. I genuinely thought HMG of any stripe would be able to get into gear and hammer out a mutually acceptable position behind the scenes and navigate us towards it. As it is we have a barn full of headless chickens wrestling with each other and spitting at the EU side.
This just does not make any sense. Even Labour accepted that immigration cannot be controlled in the SM so we had to leave. HMG have tried to do exactly what you suggested by hammering out a deal, even offering cash that we had no legal liability to pay. It is the EU that have refused to talk trade. And, the EU would have demanded the Brexit Bill EVEN IF we had asked to move to the EEA.
What exactly do you think the Government should do? Pay the Brexit Bill? Well, get your cheque book out.
Read RCS' post for a critique of the tactics.
What we should do now is carry on negotiating for a comprehensive trade deal and then put it to the British people for a vote. 3 options on an AV system (YES TSE) between Stop Brexit, Trade Deal and Hard Brexit.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
Deal?
Are today's unemployment figures indicative of the economic damage caused by the vote to leave? And when's Osborne's immediate recession going to turn up? You must be getting tired of repeating the same old scaremongering.
George misunderestimated how brilliant his economic stewardship was.
But the Brexit disaster is coming.
I'm doing a thread for Sunday on the idiot leavers who said WTO was project fear.
Project Fear is turning into Project Reality, within the next two years Leavers will be embarrassed to admit they voted Leave.
Yep. Which is why the Tories face a Corn Laws fate for at least the first half of this century.
Remainers who talk about the corn laws should read up on it. Abolishing them was the right and honourable thing to do.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
To give the illusion the choice exists.
Article 50 was inserted as an add on to Maastricht in case one of the EU members experienced a coup, or some other calamity that made the membership of the country incompatible with the union. It was never intended to be used for short term political opportunism and so exploited by a group of zealots at the extremes of UK politics.
Swivel eyed loons....that is much too kind an expression to describe those seriously shameful, hateful and despicable ideologues at the heart of Brexit who are causing so much lasting damage to our country.
So, would it not have been sensible to make it explicit that no democracy would be allowed to exercise A50?
Perhaps, the difficulties stem from the fact that we took A50 at face value?
I think that could be right..the EU kind of took their democratic legitimacy for granted. There again Cameron thought that he could take the support of the UK electorate granted too.
We are where we are. Without mincing my words, it's a pretty fucking crap place to be in to be honest. It's not just the economic loss, it's sad go to see the UK at the periphery of world affairs.
I personally cannot see anyway out for us. Our best hope is for another EU player to get gripped by populism and pull the plug on the project, but Brexit has made that a whole lot less likely.
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Still: our negotiation tactics have been appalling. There is no worse strategy than to talk tough (No Surrender!) while acting weak (no preparations made for cliff edge Brexit). You get your opposite number's back up, while - to any outside observer - being completely unprepared for a no deal scenario.
The correct strategy would have been the absolute opposite. To act nice, while simultaenously building customs facilities at Dover and Folkstone, to put someone competent in the International Trade job (and to secure heads of terms with the many countries the EU has existing trade relationships with). In other words, to talk up why we want a deal, and our willingness to compromise and make it happen. But to demonstrate with our actions that we're willing to walk away.
It is almost - but not quite - too late to make it clear that we're willing to walk away. There has been next to zero progress at the Department for International Trade. (Worse, existing partners of the the EU, like South Korea, feel spurned in favour of deals with countries like the US that will simply never happen on the time scales demanded by Brexit.) This needs to change, and this means Dr Fox must go. We need to demonstrate an ability to go it alone.
And we need to continue with our softer tone. I think this is happening already. It will be all the more effective if we have a viable fall back plan.
Without a viable alternative, we will have to accept the EU's terms. (Or see a government fall.)
Talk softly and carry a big stick. Don't shout your mouth off while obviously naked.
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Still: our negotiation tactics have been appalling. There is no worse strategy than to talk tough (No Surrender!) while acting weak (no preparations made for cliff edge Brexit). You get your opposite number's back up, while - to any outside observer - being completely unprepared for a no deal scenario.
The correct strategy would have been the absolute opposite. To act nice, while simultaenously building customs facilities at Dover and Folkstone, to put someone competent in the International Trade job (and to secure heads of terms with the many countries the EU has existing trade relationships with). In other words, to talk up why we want a deal, and our willingness to compromise and make it happen. But to demonstrate with our actions that we're willing to walk away.
It is almost - but not quite - too late to make it clear that we're willing to walk away. There has been next to zero progress at the Department for International Trade. (Worse, existing partners of the the EU, like South Korea, feel spurned in favour of deals with countries like the US that will simply never happen on the time scales demanded by Brexit.) This needs to change, and this means Dr Fox must go. We need to demonstrate an ability to go it alone.
And we need to continue with our softer tone. I think this is happening already. It will be all the more effective if we have a viable fall back plan.
Without a viable alternative, we will have to accept the EU's terms. (Or see a government fall.)
Talk softly and carry a big stick. Don't shout your mouth off while obviously naked.
Do they really not see the contradiction in "ordering" people to have "free speech"?
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Still: our negotiation tactics have been appalling. There is no worse strategy than to talk tough (No Surrender!) while acting weak (no preparations made for cliff edge Brexit). You get your opposite number's back up, while - to any outside observer - being completely unprepared for a no deal scenario.
The correct strategy would have been the absolute opposite. To act nice, while simultaenously building customs facilities at Dover and Folkstone, to put someone competent in the International Trade job (and to secure heads of terms with the many countries the EU has existing trade relationships with). In other words, to talk up why we want a deal, and our willingness to compromise and make it happen. But to demonstrate with our actions that we're willing to walk away.
It is almost - but not quite - too late to make it clear that we're willing to walk away. There has been next to zero progress at the Department for International Trade. (Worse, existing partners of the the EU, like South Korea, feel spurned in favour of deals with countries like the US that will simply never happen on the time scales demanded by Brexit.) This needs to change, and this means Dr Fox must go. We need to demonstrate an ability to go it alone.
And we need to continue with our softer tone. I think this is happening already. It will be all the more effective if we have a viable fall back plan.
Without a viable alternative, we will have to accept the EU's terms. (Or see a government fall.)
Talk softly and carry a big stick. Don't shout your mouth off while obviously naked.
Good points.
This would have been a better strategy. To be fair however, after the election the whole political elite was screaming that 'no deal' was now off the table and unthinkable.
The point is that the Brexit Bill issue would not have gone away no matter what happened.
And there can't be a last minute deal. The EU will ultimately insist that the Brexit Bill is paid as part of the A50 agreement. But legally, the EU cannot deliver the FTA as part of the A50 agreement.
Are you really suggesting we pay 50bn in return for an FTA that the EU may never deliver? Do you actually think the EU will make payment contingent on delivery, given their stance to date?
There is no way this can be resolved. If we continue, we will be forced to pay, accept a transition and have another 2 years where the EU renege on their FTA promises.
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
And they would earn our lasting hostility. There will come a time for payback.
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Still: our negotiation tactics have been appalling. There is no worse strategy than to talk tough (No Surrender!) while acting weak (no preparations made for cliff edge Brexit). You get your opposite number's back up, while - to any outside observer - being completely unprepared for a no deal scenario.
The correct strategy would have been the absolute opposite. To act nice, while simultaenously building customs facilities at Dover and Folkstone, to put someone competent in the International Trade job (and to secure heads of terms with the many countries the EU has existing trade relationships with). In other words, to talk up why we want a deal, and our willingness to compromise and make it happen. But to demonstrate with our actions that we're willing to walk away.
It is almost - but not quite - too late to make it clear that we're willing to walk away. There has been next to zero progress at the Department for International Trade. (Worse, existing partners of the the EU, like South Korea, feel spurned in favour of deals with countries like the US that will simply never happen on the time scales demanded by Brexit.) This needs to change, and this means Dr Fox must go. We need to demonstrate an ability to go it alone.
And we need to continue with our softer tone. I think this is happening already. It will be all the more effective if we have a viable fall back plan.
Without a viable alternative, we will have to accept the EU's terms. (Or see a government fall.)
Talk softly and carry a big stick. Don't shout your mouth off while obviously naked.
I don't disagree with the analysis, but I think you underestimate the real chance that there will be a failure to reach a deal. Rationally, you are right - but there is an obvious emotional element on both sides of the negotiation which cannot wholly be discounted. Either, or both sides having a fit of pique at a crucial late point is entirely conceivable.
After a dire election, a dire conference and a dire PMQs, you have to wonder how much more of this Tory backbenchers will be willing to sit quietly through.
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
Still waiting for that immediate recession starting straight after we voted to leave that we were promised by that moron Osborne.
Do they really not see the contradiction in "ordering" people to have "free speech"?
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without "
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?". Who judges what is "intimidation and disruption?" What if I use my freedom of speech to disagree with the Minister's orders?
Do they really not see the contradiction in "ordering" people to have "free speech"?
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?".
But legally, the EU cannot deliver the FTA as part of the A50 agreement.
"the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
Tsipras had an alternative. He could have left the Euro.
Just as we can opt to trade on WTO terms.
Neither is without a downside, but both are quite credible.
Do they really not see the contradiction in "ordering" people to have "free speech"?
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?".
The Courts?
Indeed they do. Long after the fact, and at great expense. Until then someone has to make a call. Who is better placed? A responsible person at the scene, or an unnamed blowhard Minister who doesn't even have the decency to give his or her name to the Times?
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
Tsipras had an alternative. He could have left the Euro.
Just as we can opt to trade on WTO terms.
Neither is without a downside, but both are quite credible.
But Tsipras also failed to have an alternative. You can't talk tough unless you have an alternative.
And the best option of all is to appear incredibly reasonable, while always having a backup plan.
Do they really not see the contradiction in "ordering" people to have "free speech"?
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?".
The Courts?
Indeed they do. Long after the fact, and at great expense. Until then someone has to make a call. Who is better placed? A responsible person at the scene, or an unnamed blowhard Minister who doesn't even have the decency to give his or her name to the Times?
Too often "the responsible person at the scene" is someone who just wants a quiet life.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
Tsipras had an alternative. He could have left the Euro.
Just as we can opt to trade on WTO terms.
Neither is without a downside, but both are quite credible.
But Tsipras also failed to have an alternative. You can't talk tough unless you have an alternative.
And the best option of all is to appear incredibly reasonable, while always having a backup plan.
How would the financial markets and businesses interpret the sight of diggers in Dover?
But legally, the EU cannot deliver the FTA as part of the A50 agreement.
"the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
Your view contradicts the text of Article 50.
No, you need to read the legal opinions. The EU can possibly agree transitional provisions under A50 (as long as there is a clear destination) but cannot agree an FTA. A50 does not overrule the EU requirements for a ratification of an FTA.
The sooner people realise that the EU cannot and will not deliver an FTA in return for cash, the quicker we can move forward. Even if we make an agreement on destination under A50, there is nothing we can do to enforce it.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
This is just guff. Other than ignoring the result of the referendum, I have never seen you actually state what you think should be happening. You just resort to the 'we upset them' line.
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
I'll agree to that if you Leavers offer to pay a 10p income tax increase on the economic damage caused by Leave?
But legally, the EU cannot deliver the FTA as part of the A50 agreement.
"the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
Your view contradicts the text of Article 50.
No, you need to read the legal opinions. The EU can possibly agree transitional provisions under A50 (as long as there is a clear destination) but cannot agree an FTA. A50 does not overrule the EU requirements for a ratification of an FTA.
The sooner people realise that the EU cannot and will not deliver an FTA in return for cash, the quicker we can move forward. Even if we make an agreement on destination under A50, there is nothing we can do to enforce it.
I'm sorry, but you and that article are incorrect.
The UK government's legal advice - and negotiating strategy - are completely correct in this matter: "Nothing is settled until everything is settled". A view which was accepted early on by the EU negotiators.
But legally, the EU cannot deliver the FTA as part of the A50 agreement.
"the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
Your view contradicts the text of Article 50.
No, you need to read the legal opinions. The EU can possibly agree transitional provisions under A50 (as long as there is a clear destination) but cannot agree an FTA. A50 does not overrule the EU requirements for a ratification of an FTA.
The sooner people realise that the EU cannot and will not deliver an FTA in return for cash, the quicker we can move forward. Even if we make an agreement on destination under A50, there is nothing we can do to enforce it.
I'm sorry, but you and that article are incorrect.
The UK government's legal advice - and negotiating strategy - are completely correct in this matter: "Nothing is settled until everything is settled". A view which was accepted early on by the EU negotiators.
'Everything' does not include an FTA, particularly one that is without precedent anywhere in the world.
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
Still waiting for that immediate recession starting straight after we voted to leave that we were promised by that moron Osborne.
I think it would be fair to say that neither an economic boom, nor economic horror, have materialised.
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
Tsipras had an alternative. He could have left the Euro.
Just as we can opt to trade on WTO terms.
Neither is without a downside, but both are quite credible.
Leaving on WTO terms is as credible as saying - we want a good deal with you; it is in our mutual interest; but if we don't get it we will shoot ourselves in the foot. It will be bloody to start with, and you may get sprayed with blood, but you'd better believe us because we are buying bandages and crutches as a contingency plan. So you'd better take us seriously.
PS We are good at negotiation and have to have this threat as a fall back.
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
Tsipras had an alternative. He could have left the Euro.
Just as we can opt to trade on WTO terms.
Neither is without a downside, but both are quite credible.
Leaving on WTO terms is as credible as saying - we want a good deal with you; it is in our mutual interest; but if we don't get it we will shoot ourselves in the foot. It will be bloody to start with, and you may get sprayed with blood, but you'd better believe us because we are buying bandages and crutches as a contingency plan. So you'd better take us seriously.
PS We are good at negotiation and have to have this threat as a fall back.
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
But legally, the EU cannot deliver the FTA as part of the A50 agreement.
"the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
Your view contradicts the text of Article 50.
It was always a shock to me that you backed leave. Still happy with that decision?
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
Still waiting for that immediate recession starting straight after we voted to leave that we were promised by that moron Osborne.
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?".
The Courts?
Indeed they do. Long after the fact, and at great expense. Until then someone has to make a call. Who is better placed? A responsible person at the scene, or an unnamed blowhard Minister who doesn't even have the decency to give his or her name to the Times?
Too often "the responsible person at the scene" is someone who just wants a quiet life.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
This is true. But the entire issue is more nuanced than often portrayed. We have no right of free speech. We also have no right to be given a platform for our views. That is why supporters of ISIS and the IRA were (quite rightly in my view) prevented from speaking on TV. If you want total free speech, fine. Argue for it. I contend a line is drawn somewhere. Diktats from unnamed Ministers is no place to do it. Too often the complaints of "silencing" come from self-styled "controversialists" who want a quiet life by spouting off in the absence of protesting voices. The right to protest against a speaker is equally as important as the right of the speaker to speak. (Indeed if Mrs May had exposed herself to more of this she may have come across better, as Major did). Universities also have to look at the bottom line. If the costs of allowing an event, in terms of security, outweigh the benefits of publicity, is it not a rational decision simply to cancel the event. Or are they not businesses? Or are they, by extension Organs of the State? ie, Would you be happy with a future Corbyn PM dictating to Universities who can and cannot speak? What could be taught? By whom? I wouldn't. Which is why Ministers should stay out of issuing orders to Universities.
My reading of A50 is that the A50 agreement does not create a FTA. All the A50 agreement has to do is take in account the future framework - it does not put into effect the future framework. The A50 agreement is only mindful of the potential future arrangements.
However, I am not a specialist in EU jurisprudence.
We could always refer to meaning of A50 to the ECJ?
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Simply not true. There were and are plenty of positive visions. They are just not being pursued by our Government not least because they are led by someone who is both incompetent and ignorant.
Positive visions of Vote Leave like this you mean?
Still waiting for that immediate recession starting straight after we voted to leave that we were promised by that moron Osborne.
Well, Britain has descended into flamewar, and Ireland could yet get worse than that.
I'm feeling more and more positive leave isn't happening. May can't deliver it.
Leave is the default position, until Parliament repeals the decision to withdraw, applies to rejoin the EU, and until all 27 EU member States agree to accept the UK's application to rejoin.
Edited and repeated due to blockquote trauma. Will retreat to my safe space!
@Seanf Too often "the responsible person at the scene" is someone who just wants a quiet life.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
@dixiedean This is true. But the entire issue is more nuanced than often portrayed. We have no right of free speech. We also have no right to be given a platform for our views. That is why supporters of ISIS and the IRA were (quite rightly in my view) prevented from speaking on TV. If you want total free speech, fine. Argue for it. I contend a line is drawn somewhere. Diktats from unnamed Ministers is no place to do it. Too often the complaints of "silencing" come from self-styled "controversialists" who want a quiet life by spouting off in the absence of protesting voices. The right to protest against a speaker is equally as important as the right of the speaker to speak. (Indeed if Mrs May had exposed herself to more of this she may have come across better, as Major did). Universities also have to look at the bottom line. If the costs of allowing an event, in terms of security, outweigh the benefits of publicity, is it not a rational decision simply to cancel the event. Or are they not businesses? Or are they, by extension Organs of the State? ie, Would you be happy with a future Corbyn PM dictating to Universities who can and cannot speak? What could be taught? By whom? I wouldn't. Which is why Ministers should stay out of issuing orders to Universities.
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?".
The Courts?
Indeed they do. Long after the fact, and at great expense. Until then someone has to make a call. Who is better placed? A responsible person at the scene, or an unnamed blowhard Minister who doesn't even have the decency to give his or her name to the Times?
Too often "the responsible person at the scene" is someone who just wants a quiet life.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
This is true. But the entire issue is more nuanced than often portrayed. We have no right of free speech. We also have no right to be given a platform for our views. That is why supporters of ISIS and the IRA were (quite rightly in my view) prevented from speaking on TV. If you want total free speech, fine. Argue for it. I contend a line is drawn somewhere. Diktats from unnamed Ministers is no place to do it. Too often the complaints of "silencing" come from self-styled "controversialists" who want a quiet life by spouting off in the absence of protesting voices. The right to protest against a speaker is equally as important as the right of the speaker to speak. (Indeed if Mrs May had exposed herself to more of this she may have come across better, as Major did). Universities also have to look at the bottom line. If the costs of allowing an event, in terms of security, outweigh the benefits of publicity, is it not a rational decision simply to cancel the event. Or are they not businesses? Or are they, by extension Organs of the State? ie, Would you be happy with a future Corbyn PM dictating to Universities who can and cannot speak? What could be taught? By whom? I wouldn't. Which is why Ministers should stay out of issuing orders to Universities.
We have no right to a platform. But, if someone wishes to give us a platform, they should not be prevented from doing so.
Agreed. But other people have an equal right to oppose. Interestingly, the QT in Leeds(?) during the election played very well for Corbyn, I feel. 5 or 6 ruddy faced blunt-speaking Yorkshiremen demanded he say he would launch themo-nuclear Armageddon. They shouted him down. At the time I thought it was a disaster for his prospects. Many people, however, saw it the other way. Someone being reasonable and nuanced being barracked by people for whom the matter was one of black and white. So it can work both ways. Anyways off to bed. Thank you for your respectful tone in disagreement.
Comments
In fact, it is the UK who have been reasonable and the EU utterly unreasonable in the talks.
It means you don't have to face up to real decisions, such as whether the UK should submit to blackmail and pay 70bn for which there is no legal entitlement, and which gets us nothing other than a conversation about an FTA which may never in fact be delivered.
So, can we have your support for my proposal that any Brexit Bill be financed by a 3p income tax rise on all UK citizens for 5 years - including yourself?
Deal?
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/744908829901611008
(Just teasing)
Swivel eyed loons....that is much too kind an expression to describe those seriously shameful, hateful and despicable ideologues at the heart of Brexit who are causing so much lasting damage to our country.
But the Brexit disaster is coming.
I'm doing a thread for Sunday on the idiot leavers who said WTO was project fear.
Project Fear is turning into Project Reality, within the next two years Leavers will be embarrassed to admit they voted Leave.
The blame for the current situation has to be primarily with the government. I genuinely thought HMG of any stripe would be able to get into gear and hammer out a mutually acceptable position behind the scenes and navigate us towards it. As it is we have a barn full of headless chickens wrestling with each other and spitting at the EU side.
Perhaps, the difficulties stem from the fact that we took A50 at face value?
There was never going to be a post Brexit deal that left the UK in a better position, even if Nelson Mandela was the PM.
Wonder how much paper/plastic money fits in our wheelbarrow in the hyperinflation scenario.
What exactly do you think the Government should do? Pay the Brexit Bill? Well, get your cheque book out.
There will be an EU-UK deal. And it'll be pretty comprehensive.
But it will only be agreed at the very last minute.
Why? Because it is (and has always been) in the EU's interests for there to be a deal. But they benefit from delays, while we do not. It is in their interests to repeatedly stall and prevaricate, but ultimately settle.
This has always been the case.
Still: our negotiation tactics have been appalling. There is no worse strategy than to talk tough (No Surrender!) while acting weak (no preparations made for cliff edge Brexit). You get your opposite number's back up, while - to any outside observer - being completely unprepared for a no deal scenario.
The correct strategy would have been the absolute opposite. To act nice, while simultaenously building customs facilities at Dover and Folkstone, to put someone competent in the International Trade job (and to secure heads of terms with the many countries the EU has existing trade relationships with). In other words, to talk up why we want a deal, and our willingness to compromise and make it happen. But to demonstrate with our actions that we're willing to walk away.
It is almost - but not quite - too late to make it clear that we're willing to walk away. There has been next to zero progress at the Department for International Trade. (Worse, existing partners of the the EU, like South Korea, feel spurned in favour of deals with countries like the US that will simply never happen on the time scales demanded by Brexit.) This needs to change, and this means Dr Fox must go. We need to demonstrate an ability to go it alone.
And we need to continue with our softer tone. I think this is happening already. It will be all the more effective if we have a viable fall back plan.
Without a viable alternative, we will have to accept the EU's terms. (Or see a government fall.)
Talk softly and carry a big stick.
Don't shout your mouth off while obviously naked.
Fun fact about necklacing: it takes about 20 minutes for the victim to die.
Mandela was a small-time careerist creep who got lucky.
What we should do now is carry on negotiating for a comprehensive trade deal and then put it to the British people for a vote. 3 options on an AV system (YES TSE) between Stop Brexit, Trade Deal and Hard Brexit.
We are where we are. Without mincing my words, it's a pretty fucking crap place to be in to be honest. It's not just the economic loss, it's sad go to see the UK at the periphery of world affairs.
I personally cannot see anyway out for us. Our best hope is for another EU player to get gripped by populism and pull the plug on the project, but Brexit has made that a whole lot less likely.
"Leave the EU with no deal and trade on WTO rules, and spend the £50bn we save on the NHS?"
Everything will be ok!
So, Tyson, Brexit =
http://www.coppolacomment.com/2017/03/game-theory-in-brexitland.html
The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
The game will play out for the UK just as it did for Greece and Cyprus. And if any other governments are thinking of playing chicken with the EU - be warned. You will end up as roadkill.
The point is that the Brexit Bill issue would not have gone away no matter what happened.
And there can't be a last minute deal. The EU will ultimately insist that the Brexit Bill is paid as part of the A50 agreement. But legally, the EU cannot deliver the FTA as part of the A50 agreement.
Are you really suggesting we pay 50bn in return for an FTA that the EU may never deliver? Do you actually think the EU will make payment contingent on delivery, given their stance to date?
There is no way this can be resolved. If we continue, we will be forced to pay, accept a transition and have another 2 years where the EU renege on their FTA promises.
OMG How good was Jezza
How bad was TM
Even The Sun says
After a dire election, a dire conference and a dire PMQs, you have to wonder how much more of this Tory backbenchers will be willing to sit quietly through.
FINAL SCORE: Theresa May 1 – 5 Jeremy Corbyn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/08/cameron-brexit-will-increase-risk-of-europe-descending-into-war/
Who judges what is "intimidation and disruption?"
What if I use my freedom of speech to disagree with the Minister's orders?
Canada, Israel, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, large chunks of Africa, the EFTA countries, and a bunch of others.
Plus we lose the mutual recognition of standards treaties with the US and Japan.
Our trade with the rest of the world would be negatively affected by cliff edge Brexit.
Your view contradicts the text of Article 50.
Just as we can opt to trade on WTO terms.
Neither is without a downside, but both are quite credible.
And the best option of all is to appear incredibly reasonable, while always having a backup plan.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
Der Speigel seem to think there is a whole world of pain heading in the direction of Airbus and their CEO.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/airbus-corruption-scandal-threatens-ceo-tom-enders-a-1171533.html
The sooner people realise that the EU cannot and will not deliver an FTA in return for cash, the quicker we can move forward. Even if we make an agreement on destination under A50, there is nothing we can do to enforce it.
http://brexitcentral.com/legal-ins-outs-implementation-periods-avoiding-negotiation-noose/
The UK government's legal advice - and negotiating strategy - are completely correct in this matter: "Nothing is settled until everything is settled". A view which was accepted early on by the EU negotiators.
PS We are good at negotiation and have to have this threat as a fall back.
You might be able to lay both Labour and National below evens if you fancy it
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.133262888
Winston to announce this afternoon.
Tomorrow is another day to look forward to of Brexit debate!
Goodnight!
I'm feeling more and more positive leave isn't happening. May can't deliver it.
There is no contradiction. The government can and should uphold freedom of speech as should the judicial system.
So do you think "freedom of speech" is government handing down diktats to student societies at random universities about who they should invite to speak to them?
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?".
The Courts?
Indeed they do. Long after the fact, and at great expense. Until then someone has to make a call. Who is better placed? A responsible person at the scene, or an unnamed blowhard Minister who doesn't even have the decency to give his or her name to the Times?
Too often "the responsible person at the scene" is someone who just wants a quiet life.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
This is true. But the entire issue is more nuanced than often portrayed. We have no right of free speech. We also have no right to be given a platform for our views. That is why supporters of ISIS and the IRA were (quite rightly in my view) prevented from speaking on TV.
If you want total free speech, fine. Argue for it.
I contend a line is drawn somewhere.
Diktats from unnamed Ministers is no place to do it.
Too often the complaints of "silencing" come from self-styled "controversialists" who want a quiet life by spouting off in the absence of protesting voices.
The right to protest against a speaker is equally as important as the right of the speaker to speak.
(Indeed if Mrs May had exposed herself to more of this she may have come across better, as Major did).
Universities also have to look at the bottom line.
If the costs of allowing an event, in terms of security, outweigh the benefits of publicity, is it not a rational decision simply to cancel the event.
Or are they not businesses? Or are they, by extension Organs of the State?
ie, Would you be happy with a future Corbyn PM dictating to Universities who can and cannot speak? What could be taught? By whom?
I wouldn't.
Which is why Ministers should stay out of issuing orders to Universities.
However, I am not a specialist in EU jurisprudence.
We could always refer to meaning of A50 to the ECJ?
I expect Winston will pick the Nationals - I can't see a government involving him and the Greens lasting long. But who can say.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/10/19/new-zealand-government-decision-looming.html
How is Mrs Merkel getting on with her 'Jamaica' coalition plans?
@Seanf
Too often "the responsible person at the scene" is someone who just wants a quiet life.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
@dixiedean
This is true. But the entire issue is more nuanced than often portrayed. We have no right of free speech. We also have no right to be given a platform for our views. That is why supporters of ISIS and the IRA were (quite rightly in my view) prevented from speaking on TV.
If you want total free speech, fine. Argue for it.
I contend a line is drawn somewhere.
Diktats from unnamed Ministers is no place to do it.
Too often the complaints of "silencing" come from self-styled "controversialists" who want a quiet life by spouting off in the absence of protesting voices.
The right to protest against a speaker is equally as important as the right of the speaker to speak.
(Indeed if Mrs May had exposed herself to more of this she may have come across better, as Major did).
Universities also have to look at the bottom line.
If the costs of allowing an event, in terms of security, outweigh the benefits of publicity, is it not a rational decision simply to cancel the event.
Or are they not businesses? Or are they, by extension Organs of the State?
ie, Would you be happy with a future Corbyn PM dictating to Universities who can and cannot speak? What could be taught? By whom?
I wouldn't.
Which is why Ministers should stay out of issuing orders to Universities.
No, it means preventing some students preventing someone from speaking. I agree that banning speakers and meetings that clearly and directly incite hatred and violence is justifiable. Beyond that there must be a free exchange of ideas without intimidation and disruption.
So. Who judges what is "clearly and directly incite hatred and violence?".
The Courts?
Indeed they do. Long after the fact, and at great expense. Until then someone has to make a call. Who is better placed? A responsible person at the scene, or an unnamed blowhard Minister who doesn't even have the decency to give his or her name to the Times?
Too often "the responsible person at the scene" is someone who just wants a quiet life.
Free speech has to be strongly defended in every generation, against those who wish to impose orthodoxy.
This is true. But the entire issue is more nuanced than often portrayed. We have no right of free speech. We also have no right to be given a platform for our views. That is why supporters of ISIS and the IRA were (quite rightly in my view) prevented from speaking on TV.
If you want total free speech, fine. Argue for it.
I contend a line is drawn somewhere.
Diktats from unnamed Ministers is no place to do it.
Too often the complaints of "silencing" come from self-styled "controversialists" who want a quiet life by spouting off in the absence of protesting voices.
The right to protest against a speaker is equally as important as the right of the speaker to speak.
(Indeed if Mrs May had exposed herself to more of this she may have come across better, as Major did).
Universities also have to look at the bottom line.
If the costs of allowing an event, in terms of security, outweigh the benefits of publicity, is it not a rational decision simply to cancel the event.
Or are they not businesses? Or are they, by extension Organs of the State?
ie, Would you be happy with a future Corbyn PM dictating to Universities who can and cannot speak? What could be taught? By whom?
I wouldn't.
Which is why Ministers should stay out of issuing orders to Universities.
We have no right to a platform. But, if someone wishes to give us a platform, they should not be prevented from doing so.
http://www.politico.eu/article/merkel-launches-pre-coalition-talks-with-fdp-free-democractic-party-and-greens/
Who said the Germans were punctual and efficient!
@SeanF:
We have no right to a platform. But, if someone wishes to give us a platform, they should not be prevented from doing so.
@dixiedean
Agreed. But other people have an equal right to oppose.
Interestingly, the QT in Leeds(?) during the election played very well for Corbyn, I feel. 5 or 6 ruddy faced blunt-speaking Yorkshiremen demanded he say he would launch themo-nuclear Armageddon.
They shouted him down.
At the time I thought it was a disaster for his prospects. Many people, however, saw it the other way. Someone being reasonable and nuanced being barracked by people for whom the matter was one of black and white.
So it can work both ways.
Anyways off to bed.
Thank you for your respectful tone in disagreement.