This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.
The endgame is approaching...
Source please
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.
I got the idea from Davis' speech earlier today (reported on BBC WATO) that he doesn't intend to concede anything that he hasn't already compromised over, which as I recall appears to be the sum total of zip!
This morning the FT carried a story claiming the republic would block any deal that saw NI removed from the Single Market which is a)brave calling into question the territorial integrity of a member state and b) daft as NI does four times as much trade with GB as RI.
It's even more bonkers than that, given that the effect of blocking a deal would be to ensure that NI leaves the Single Market with no mitigation from WTO terms.
I think the Irish tactics at the moment are to throw as many spanners in the works as possible in the hope of delaying/reversing Brexit altogether.
is that the Irish might be willing to sabotage a deal on Brexit unless it accommodates their concerns.
Quite right too, from their point of view. They are suffering already.
Meanwhile, back at the negotiations, it seems that reports that May has privately promised the EU more cash are wrong. And now she has two weeks to arrange a very public and humiliating climb down or risk a collapse of the talks.
The endgame is approaching...
Source please
The FT reported yesterday that there had been a private climb down but at lunchtime Barnier said unless more dosh was on the table in two weeks there would be no further progress. So either there has not been a climb down or whatever offer has been made is not large enough. Which means May is now completely boxed in - she can either concede more cash or see her hopes of a trade deal dashed. Within the next fortnight.
I got the idea from Davis' speech earlier today (reported on BBC WATO) that he doesn't intend to concede anything that he hasn't already compromised over, which as I recall appears to be the sum total of zip!
The FT is very remain and it may or may not be true but reports today inferred TM is consulting her backbenches on an increased offer, so lets just see. Bloomberg reported earlier today that the pound was strengthened on the expectation of progress but again lets see
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
Whether or not it's Brexit-biased, Mr Chope has a vote in Parliament and if he is indicative of others, Theresa May may struggle to get any deal through.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Certainly there is debate. Which is why the certainty expressed in your earlier contribution is misplaced. The almost total absence of Celtic stones and inscriptions in SE England coupled with barely any place names (other than principal rivers) having Celtic roots is difficult to explain if indeed a few elite Saxons took over a Celtic population.
Not really. There is a distinct lack of post Roman Celtic inscription in any of the areas that had previously been occupied by the Romans. More importantly there is a distinct lack of such inscriptions dating from the Roman period either. If they didn't survive 400 years of Roman occupation they ate hardly likely to.pop up again afterwards.
So the Celts and the Romano-Celts didn't particularly go in for stones and inscriptions, then.
It is interesting how early inscriptions of any sort disappear in Roman Britain. I don't have the sources to hand at the moment but from memory the last RB monumental inscriptions in southern Britain are 3rd century.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
It must be wonderful living in a world where every possible outcome reinforces the correctness of your view.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
It must be wonderful living in a world where every possible outcome reinforces the correctness of your view.
Brexit is a religion, not an evidence-based policy. It's tenets are the revealed truth and any suggestion that they are wrong is apostasy.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
It must be wonderful living in a world where every possible outcome reinforces the correctness of your view.
Go to the BBC article about this, scroll down to the comments and choose highest rated. The top ten are variations of "Send 'em £0".
The EU acting like bullies is bound to harden attitudes.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politically
Some of us consider that it is acceptable politically. A very good idea -probably inevitable if we want to save the economy and public services.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
We don’t know what will be implemented. That’s the problem. The worse case scenario is a lot worse than the Swiss border, which is as it is thanks to a deal with the EU the government has explicitly rejected.
And with the greatest respect, the thought of Irish lorry drivers filling in manifests, electronic or otherwise before crossing the border is entirely fantastical........
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
In fact, the EU would be pining to deal with us because we were their biggest market. We would still be their biggest market after Brexit except we will be paying duties on our imports.
Historically, this has to go down as one of the worst economic decisions for many a year. Economic textbooks for a 100 years will be full of it.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
What in the name of heaven is 'post-imperial' about offering a choice of two deals?
If they want more dosh, then they need to offer more in return. That's pretty basic deal-making. If they don't, then that's less good for both sides, but it's up to them
I do agree with your last point - we should never have conceded their bonkers sequencing, which makes no sense and which directly contradicts what the treaty says.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
I am confident we will pay the €60 billion or so and go for a transition/extension. We need flights, trade and working power stations. But it is stressful and the argument creates a lot of damage in the meantime.
I also don't think people have taken on board yet that the default isn't the status quo; it's nothing at all. The EU can't and won't offer us a deal that is as good as what we have now. But it will be better than nothing. Better than nothing but worse than what we have is a big negotiating space.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
We don’t know what will be implemented. That’s the problem. The worse case scenario is a lot worse than the Swiss border, which is as it is thanks to a deal with the EU the government has explicitly rejected.
And with the greatest respect, the thought of Irish lorry drivers filling in manifests, electronic or otherwise before crossing the border is entirely fantastical........
I can't see any other way out. Unless there is a FTA that is what it would be.
Another subject of current debate. Personally I find that the theory that the people living in the SE before the Angles and Saxons pitched up here were themselves of Germanic rather than 'Celtic' origin does resolve many of the mysteries being debated when I studied Anglo-Saxon history as a student.
Shame it doesn't match the evidence from the Sub-RB sites I have been excavating for the last 30 years.
One thing I've always found intriguing is that the first rulers of Wessex had British, rather than Anglo-Saxon names. Was Wessex originally a British kingdom that later adopted Saxon culture?
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
It must be wonderful living in a world where every possible outcome reinforces the correctness of your view.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Do you have any favourite articles you'd recommend reading on this?
One example of this is the excavations at West Heslerton in Yorkshire. Another would be the excavations at Wally Corner in Oxfordshire. In both cases these are early migration period cemeteries which, from their grave goods and burial orientations, had been assumed to be Anglo-Saxon, but which actually proved to have very few individuals who originated outside of the British Isles. I am working away at the moment so don't have access to my files but there is plenty of information and papers about Isotope analysis from these sites on the internet.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
It must be wonderful living in a world where every possible outcome reinforces the correctness of your view.
Brexit is a religion, not an evidence-based policy. It's tenets are the revealed truth and any suggestion that they are wrong is apostasy.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
They don't hold all the cards. They hold a great many, it's true, but they have objectives which will be harder to reach without the UK - and that is based largely on not being able to replace the funding that the UK delivers (and that includes the guarantee for the Reste a liquider - about £300Bn outstanding).
The Germans don't want to be left with the basket case southern states without another big 'market economy' voice. Also, they fear that the pressure for debt consolidation will grow without the UK to provide a second voice against it. At present, they are of the impression that we will change our minds, and that is instructing their approach, both to trade and Northern Ireland. Note the statements from Lord Kerr, Andrew Duff etc. The strategy in the EU and in the UK parliament ( in large parts) is still remain, not soft Brexit.
My current mid point expectations are as follows: 1. Standstill tansition deal until 2021 confirmed. 2. Limited 'keep the lights on' bilaterals agreed by March 2019 to take effect after transition. 3. An FTA ready to ratify between Q1 2022 and Q1 2024. Ratification exposes Labour divisions. 4. £20bn for transition. Creative accounting lets parties claim total bill anywhere from 25-55bn. 5. Despite transition helping, queues at ports become the enduring image of Brexit. 6. Ireland gets more gradual implementation of remote from land border customs, but no special deal. 7. The first quarter of a 1.5-3% recession occurs between Q3 2019 and Q1 2021. 8. Recovery from the recession is once again very sluggish. 9. 2022 elections give Labour minority. If they form government, another election by end 2024.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
Yep - we need to get on the front foot, if only to demonstrate to voters in the EU27 member states that we are not completely stupid and do want a good relationship with the EU after we have left. The only way to get any kind of leverage in these talks is if those on the other side of the table begin to feel at least a bit of pressure at home.
I do not see how a trade war will work, though. It would make the government here immensely unpopular as it would entail even less public spending and lower standards of regulation.
With EU agreement it is clear that anything is possible. Even taking the wording literally, they can extend the period indefinitely.
Sure, of course, it is always true that anything is possible if both sides agree. However, in this particular case the agreement of 'both sides' might require the unanimous consent of the UK plus 27 other countries plus a few grandstanding parliaments, and maybe some referendums as well, depending on what exactly is to be agreed.
In practice, I think this is pie-in-the-sky: we're leaving, on the 29th March 2019, for better or worse.
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
Leavers were adamant before the referendum vote that agreeing a deal would be a doddle. The fact that their expectations have been completely confounded doesn't seem to have given them any pause for thought.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
The cognitive dissonance on both sides is staggering.
From Remainers: If we'd got a good deal easily: see, it shows how reasonable the EU are and that we should have stayed Or: see, it goes to show that staying in would have been better. it was always obvious that leaving would land us with a bad deal
From Leavers: we said we're too important, and we'd get a good deal. shows we were right to leave or see how unreasonable they are. proof, as ever, that leaving was right
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
We don’t know what will be implemented. That’s the problem. The worse case scenario is a lot worse than the Swiss border, which is as it is thanks to a deal with the EU the government has explicitly rejected.
And with the greatest respect, the thought of Irish lorry drivers filling in manifests, electronic or otherwise before crossing the border is entirely fantastical........
Why? They fill in cargo manifests for safety reasons before lorries are loaded onto ships to cross the Irish channel.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
And what’s the position of Northern Ireland in the three scenarios?
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
Yep - we need to get on the front foot, if only to demonstrate to voters in the EU27 member states that we are not completely stupid and do want a good relationship with the EU after we have left. The only way to get any kind of leverage in these talks is if those on the other side of the table begin to feel at least a bit of pressure at home.
I do not see how a trade war will work, though. It would make the government here immensely unpopular as it would entail even less public spending and lower standards of regulation.
Tax war? Corp tax at 12% ought to do the trick....
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
They don't hold all the cards. They hold a great many, it's true, but they have objectives which will be harder to reach without the UK - and that is based largely on not being able to replace the funding that the UK delivers (and that includes the guarantee for the Reste a liquider - about £300Bn outstanding).
The Germans don't want to be left with the basket case southern states without another big 'market economy' voice. Also, they fear that the pressure for debt consolidation will grow without the UK to provide a second voice against it. At present, they are of the impression that we will change our minds, and that is instructing their approach, both to trade and Northern Ireland. Note the statements from Lord Kerr, Andrew Duff etc. The strategy in the EU and in the UK parliament ( in large parts) is still remain, not soft Brexit.
I see absolutely no evidence that the EU27 think that the UK will change its mind.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
And what’s the position of Northern Ireland in the three scenarios?
It's mostly nonsense. The structure of Celtic languages is significantly different from Germanic ones, and insofar as there are similarities we are of course talking about Indo-European languages that all share a common root (which was significantly closer back then, given subsequent linguistic divergence). The dramatic scarcity of celtic inscriptions and Celtic place names in England (outside some border areas) - not much more than a few rivers - doesn't suggest we are simply talking about a handful of elite Saxons taking control of an indigenous Celtic population. Settlement patterns are very different also - simplistically, celts liked living on hilltops and saxons in river valleys and woodland clearings.
Indeed it is quite possible that a Germanic language was being spoken in south east England before the Saxons arrived.
Such nonsense that it has been an ongoing debate in academic linguistic circles and archaeology for the last 4 decades at least
And your additional claims about settlement patterns are completely wrong. The evidence for elite takeover is there in settlements, in DNA evidence, in tooth enamel isotope analysis, in burials, and in place names. Almost every major river in England has a name derived from Brythonic not AS origins.
Archaeologists have not believed the ' Celts lived on hilltops' rubbish since before the war.
Do you have any favourite articles you'd recommend reading on this?
One example of this is the excavations at West Heslerton in Yorkshire. Another would be the excavations at Wally Corner in Oxfordshire. In both cases these are early migration period cemeteries which, from their grave goods and burial orientations, had been assumed to be Anglo-Saxon, but which actually proved to have very few individuals who originated outside of the British Isles. I am working away at the moment so don't have access to my files but there is plenty of information and papers about Isotope analysis from these sites on the internet.
Do you have a view on my question about Wessex?
As an aside, it's infuriating that we have so little hard evidence about was happening in Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries AD.
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politically
Democracy means any decision can be reversed.
Indeed. I really hope common sense prevails. The referendum was won on a pack of lies and a tide of bigotry.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
Yep - we need to get on the front foot, if only to demonstrate to voters in the EU27 member states that we are not completely stupid and do want a good relationship with the EU after we have left. The only way to get any kind of leverage in these talks is if those on the other side of the table begin to feel at least a bit of pressure at home.
I do not see how a trade war will work, though. It would make the government here immensely unpopular as it would entail even less public spending and lower standards of regulation.
Tax war? Corp tax at 12% ought to do the trick....
We already have some of the lowest corporation tax rates of any major economy, and I think the benefits of further cuts (as far as improving the attractiveness of the UK) are relatively minor.
She specialises in International Trade Law so she was discussing that.
She was highly political and part of today's remain campaign that the process can be reversed. Whether or not that is true it is not acceptable politically
Democracy means any decision can be reversed.
The referendum was won on a pack of lies and a tide of bigotry.
On that basis every GE in history should be overturned.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
Yep - we need to get on the front foot, if only to demonstrate to voters in the EU27 member states that we are not completely stupid and do want a good relationship with the EU after we have left. The only way to get any kind of leverage in these talks is if those on the other side of the table begin to feel at least a bit of pressure at home.
I do not see how a trade war will work, though. It would make the government here immensely unpopular as it would entail even less public spending and lower standards of regulation.
Tax war? Corp tax at 12% ought to do the trick....
That means a significantly reduced income for the government, on top of the reduced tax take that leaving will cause in and of itself; and that means even more public spending cuts, which will further erode living standards for many millions of people. That's how elections are lost.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
Yep - we need to get on the front foot, if only to demonstrate to voters in the EU27 member states that we are not completely stupid and do want a good relationship with the EU after we have left. The only way to get any kind of leverage in these talks is if those on the other side of the table begin to feel at least a bit of pressure at home.
I do not see how a trade war will work, though. It would make the government here immensely unpopular as it would entail even less public spending and lower standards of regulation.
Tax war? Corp tax at 12% ought to do the trick....
We already have some of the lowest corporation tax rates of any major economy, and I think the benefits of further cuts (as far as improving the attractiveness of the UK) are relatively minor.
Oh I don't disagree. I'm actually against the recent cut in Corp tax, and especially the removal of the differentiation between small and big businesses.
But, if needs must, it would surely scare the bejesus out of the EU....
£60Bn exit fee to avoid being part of a federal superstate.
Cheap if anything.
There you go!
Compared to the alternative, £60 billion is chicken feed. Voters chose to the leave the EU and they did it on the basis of being told it would be simple and pain free. If the will of the people is to be respected these things have to be borne in mind, and we have to approach Brexit accordingly. Whatever form of words it takes, I am all for them.
JRM looking very Prime Ministerial on Sky - you may not like him but he is very engaging
I do like him.
My concern is about whether he has the managerial temperament to take on the very highest office of state. Give him a ministry, and let's see how he does.
Unfortunately, instead of giving Penny Morduant Defence (where she would have been eminently qualified), and JRM DfID, she promoted her mate to the former job, and then tried to keep the Leave/Remain, Man/Woman balance with the second.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
And what’s the position of Northern Ireland in the three scenarios?
(1) A problem for them, especially as regards agriculture
(2) Not too bad
(3) By far the worst of the three.
Same for Eire, of course. The EU would no doubt take account of that in their response.
"‘I feel I’m winning because I’m beating others. It’s a zero-sum game’
The government has “gamified” the tax system, and I have no choice but to play. In our neo-capitalist society, I feel that I’m winning because I’m beating others. The economic system is unsustainable, and it feels like chaos – a major economic crash, social unrest – isn’t far away. In such an insecure climate I have to get as much as I can, while I can. It’s a zero-sum game.
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
Yep - we need to get on the front foot, if only to demonstrate to voters in the EU27 member states that we are not completely stupid and do want a good relationship with the EU after we have left. The only way to get any kind of leverage in these talks is if those on the other side of the table begin to feel at least a bit of pressure at home.
I do not see how a trade war will work, though. It would make the government here immensely unpopular as it would entail even less public spending and lower standards of regulation.
Tax war? Corp tax at 12% ought to do the trick....
That means a significantly reduced income for the government, on top of the reduced tax take that leaving will cause in and of itself; and that means even more public spending cuts, which will further erode living standards for many millions of people. That's how elections are lost.
I was quite surprised to find that Corp tax is only c.7% of the total tax take. And set to decline as a % over the coming years, apparently:
£60Bn exit fee to avoid being part of a federal superstate.
Cheap if anything.
There you go!
Compared to the alternative, £60 billion is chicken feed. Voters chose to the leave the EU and they did it on the basis of being told it would be simple and pain free. If the will of the people is to be respected these things have to be borne in mind, and we have to approach Brexit accordingly. Whatever form of words it takes, I am all for them.
Am pretty comfortable with a one off payment even if large. But the one off aspect is pretty important.
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
As an aside, it's infuriating that we have so little hard evidence about was happening in Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries AD.
I was just writing a long answer referencing a wonderful but entirely wrong book written in 1913 called The Early Wars of Wessex. I refreshed the screen and lost the message.
Anyway, This book set out to identify all the battles mentioned in the ASC using archaeological, topographic and place name evidence. I do think this is mostly rubbish but the author - Albany Major - does mention that Dorset supposedly held out against the Saxons for more than a century after the rest of the country had fallen (if you accept the invasion model).
I have no idea if he is right or not and am more inclined to think that the existence of Celtic leaders in Saxon England is more likely to be due to their being pre-existing Saxon presence in the area prior to the end of the RB occupation (perhaps as foederati) which prevented migrating Saxons from taking over the area during the initial phases.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
They don't hold all the cards. They hold a great many, it's true, but they have objectives which will be harder to reach without the UK - and that is based largely on not being able to replace the funding that the UK delivers (and that includes the guarantee for the Reste a liquider - about £300Bn outstanding).
The Germans don't want to be left with the basket case southern states without another big 'market economy' voice. Also, they fear that the pressure for debt consolidation will grow without the UK to provide a second voice against it. At present, they are of the impression that we will change our minds, and that is instructing their approach, both to trade and Northern Ireland. Note the statements from Lord Kerr, Andrew Duff etc. The strategy in the EU and in the UK parliament ( in large parts) is still remain, not soft Brexit.
I see absolutely no evidence that the EU27 think that the UK will change its mind.
There has been no negotiation. Those close to the EU are pressing the idea that Art 50 can unilaterally withdrawn. I think that's a pretty clear indication that they think there is a possibility.
JRM looking very Prime Ministerial on Sky - you may not like him but he is very engaging
I do like him.
My concern is about whether he has the managerial temperament to take on the very highest office of state. Give him a ministry, and let's see how he does.
Unfortunately, instead of giving Penny Morduant Defence (where she would have been eminently qualified), and JRM DfID, she promoted her mate to the former job, and then tried to keep the Leave/Remain, Man/Woman balance with the second.
He is so assured and answers the question directly and is so polite. After his interview my wife commented 'quite brilliant'.
If I was betting I would be putting money on him as I believe the more he is exposed to the media the more impressed people will be. A real new face
£60Bn exit fee to avoid being part of a federal superstate.
Cheap if anything.
There you go!
Compared to the alternative, £60 billion is chicken feed. Voters chose to the leave the EU and they did it on the basis of being told it would be simple and pain free. If the will of the people is to be respected these things have to be borne in mind, and we have to approach Brexit accordingly. Whatever form of words it takes, I am all for them.
Am pretty comfortable with a one off payment even if large. But the one off aspect is pretty important.
Interestingly, I'm almost the opposite. I baulk at the idea of a large one off payment, but am perfectly happy to pay to play re: certain European agencies.
The annual hole in the EU budget caused by us leaving is... about £10bn.
Which is large. But it's not that massive in the context of a Eurozone (alone) GDP of $13 trillion in 2017.
Would a €3bn increase in Germany's EU bill be politically unpopular in Germany? Possibly, but it needs be put in context of German government spending of slightly more than €1,400bn per annum. That's a 0.2% increase. Annoying, yes. But not really that big.
"‘I feel I’m winning because I’m beating others. It’s a zero-sum game’
The government has “gamified” the tax system, and I have no choice but to play. In our neo-capitalist society, I feel that I’m winning because I’m beating others. The economic system is unsustainable, and it feels like chaos – a major economic crash, social unrest – isn’t far away. In such an insecure climate I have to get as much as I can, while I can. It’s a zero-sum game.
Data scientist, earns about £150,000 per year"
I don't follow his argument. Making money and paying tax is not zero-sum, so far as I can see.
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
Would pro-Brexit MP's vote against it, because it's not quite the Brexit they want? I hope not.
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
He's right on the first two points. He's wrong on the last but it does no harm to talk up one's position (after all our EU friends are doing that with gusto).
I'm not sure I quite follow your last point, though. Whilst a few Tory rebels might vote against a deal on the grounds that it's not as pure a head-banging Brexit as they'd like, they'd have to ally themselves to opposition MPs wanting the diametric opposite of what they want. That sort of unholy alliance does sometimes happen, but are pro-EU MPs really going to sabotage a deal so we crash out in chaos?
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
He's right on the first two points. He's wrong on the last but it does no harm to talk up one's position (after all our EU friends are doing that with gusto).
I'm not sure I quite follow your last point, though. Whilst a few Tory rebels might vote against a deal on the grounds that it's not as pure a head-banging Brexit as they'd like, they'd have to ally themselves to opposition MPs wanting the diametric opposite of what they want. That sort of unholy alliance does sometimes happen, but are pro-EU MPs really going to sabotage a deal so we crash out in chaos?
It's easier to find a majority to assemble against a government position (eg payment of £500 gajillion pounds to the EU) than it is to herd MPs of multiple stripes through the government lobby on a key point.
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
Would pro-Brexit MP's vote against it, because it's not quite the Brexit they want? I hope not.
I fully expect the question that is put to Parliament be between a deal and no deal, crash out etc etc.
Some MPs (the most extreme Remainers and Leavers ) might vote for the latter, perhaps even in significant numbers, but only if they were sure it would not actually lead us to crashing out.
Which is why putting the leaving date on the statute book, although it seems to tie the government's hands, is eminently sensible.
The annual hole in the EU budget caused by us leaving is... about £10bn.
Which is large. But it's not that massive in the context of a Eurozone (alone) GDP of $13 trillion in 2017.
Would a €3bn increase in Germany's EU bill be politically unpopular in Germany? Possibly, but it needs be put in context of German government spending of slightly more than €1,400bn per annum. That's a 0.2% increase. Annoying, yes. But not really that big.
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
Bearing in mind that the Reste a liquider is so large, then I thin the real question is ' if we pay our share of it then which of the shared institutions and projects will the UK continue to benefit from?'
Erasmus, SES, Gallileo, ECRIS, EACEA - there are many areas where continued co-operation comes with a price tag. Negotiate the cost on RAL, but negotiate the continued access at the same time - offsetting the costs of projects. They aren't trying to secure the money by using a common sense approach. Why not?
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
They don't hold all the cards. They hold a great many, it's true, but they have objectives which will be harder to reach without the UK - and that is based largely on not being able to replace the funding that the UK delivers (and that includes the guarantee for the Reste a liquider - about £300Bn outstanding).
The Germans don't want to be left with the basket case southern states without another big 'market economy' voice. Also, they fear that the pressure for debt consolidation will grow without the UK to provide a second voice against it. At present, they are of the impression that we will change our minds, and that is instructing their approach, both to trade and Northern Ireland. Note the statements from Lord Kerr, Andrew Duff etc. The strategy in the EU and in the UK parliament ( in large parts) is still remain, not soft Brexit.
I see absolutely no evidence that the EU27 think that the UK will change its mind.
There has been no negotiation. Those close to the EU are pressing the idea that Art 50 can unilaterally withdrawn. I think that's a pretty clear indication that they think there is a possibility.
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
It's certainly, as described, very odd behaviour, and one can quite understand that it made the women feel uncomfortable. 'Inappropriate' seems to be the right description. He sounds like a very immature and rather sad chap TBH.
£60Bn exit fee to avoid being part of a federal superstate.
Cheap if anything.
There you go!
Compared to the alternative, £60 billion is chicken feed. Voters chose to the leave the EU and they did it on the basis of being told it would be simple and pain free. If the will of the people is to be respected these things have to be borne in mind, and we have to approach Brexit accordingly. Whatever form of words it takes, I am all for them.
Am pretty comfortable with a one off payment even if large. But the one off aspect is pretty important.
Interestingly, I'm almost the opposite. I baulk at the idea of a large one off payment, but am perfectly happy to pay to play re: certain European agencies.
Which is, of course, another way to fudge the numbers. If we are paying (say) €3bn/year to be a member of Erasmus, the ESA, Gallileo, the EMA and a few other things, then you can be a lot more persuasive...
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
He's right on the first two points. He's wrong on the last but it does no harm to talk up one's position (after all our EU friends are doing that with gusto).
I'm not sure I quite follow your last point, though. Whilst a few Tory rebels might vote against a deal on the grounds that it's not as pure a head-banging Brexit as they'd like, they'd have to ally themselves to opposition MPs wanting the diametric opposite of what they want. That sort of unholy alliance does sometimes happen, but are pro-EU MPs really going to sabotage a deal so we crash out in chaos?
It's easier to find a majority to assemble against a government position (eg payment of £500 gajillion pounds to the EU) than it is to herd MPs of multiple stripes through the government lobby on a key point.
That's true, and there's certainly a significant political risk here as a result of the GE result. All the same, on balance it's probably manageable.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
They don't hold all the cards. They hold a great many, it's true, but they have objectives which will be harder to reach without the UK - and that is based largely on not being able to replace the funding that the UK delivers (and that includes the guarantee for the Reste a liquider - about £300Bn outstanding).
The not soft Brexit.
I see absolutely no evidence that the EU27 think that the UK will change its mind.
There has been no negotiation. Those close to the EU are pressing the idea that Art 50 can unilaterally withdrawn. I think that's a pretty clear indication that they think there is a possibility.
There has been no negotiation because we triggered Article 50 and then agreed to the EU's timetable, which precludes negotiation until there is sufficient progress on an exit payment, citizens' rights and the Irish border.
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
Has it got to the point where just asking for a date is counted as harassment?
If it was I'd not be married, I'd be sitting in a cell. If you're only allowed to ask a woman once for a date then that would probably apply to lots of us!
The annual hole in the EU budget caused by us leaving is... about £10bn.
Which is large. But it's not that massive in the context of a Eurozone (alone) GDP of $13 trillion in 2017.
Would a €3bn increase in Germany's EU bill be politically unpopular in Germany? Possibly, but it needs be put in context of German government spending of slightly more than €1,400bn per annum. That's a 0.2% increase. Annoying, yes. But not really that big.
Especially as Germany tends to run a surplus.
Depends if you think the cost of transfers to the EU is just about the € to the German government.
The political cost is much higher than spending it on internal German projects.
£60Bn exit fee to avoid being part of a federal superstate.
Cheap if anything.
There you go!
Compared to the alternative, £60 billion is chicken feed. Voters chose to the leave the EU and they did it on the basis of being told it would be simple and pain free. If the will of the people is to be respected these things have to be borne in mind, and we have to approach Brexit accordingly. Whatever form of words it takes, I am all for them.
Am pretty comfortable with a one off payment even if large. But the one off aspect is pretty important.
Interestingly, I'm almost the opposite. I baulk at the idea of a large one off payment, but am perfectly happy to pay to play re: certain European agencies.
Would you baulk and accept, or baulk and seek to bring down the Tory leader who agreed it?
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO aft...... payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
They don't hold all the cards. They hold a great many, it's true, but they have objectives which will be harder to reach without the UK - and that is based largely on not being able to replace the funding that the UK delivers (and that includes the guarantee for the Reste a liquider - about £300Bn outstanding).
The not soft Brexit.
I see absolutely no evidence that the EU27 think that the UK will change its mind.
There has been no negotiation. Those close to the EU are pressing the idea that Art 50 can unilaterally withdrawn. I think that's a pretty clear indication that they think there is a possibility.
There has been no negotiation because we triggered Article 50 and then agreed to the EU's timetable, which precludes negotiation until there is sufficient progress on an exit payment, citizens' rights and the Irish border.
But anyone with half a brain knows that if you don't know what the trade position is (re customs and tariffs and regulation) you can't decide NI. Plus, unless you know what you're paying for, in terms of shared procedures, you don;t know what the cost is.
We agreed because unless we did, there would be no commencement of any talks at all.
The annual hole in the EU budget caused by us leaving is... about £10bn.
Which is large. But it's not that massive in the context of a Eurozone (alone) GDP of $13 trillion in 2017.
Would a €3bn increase in Germany's EU bill be politically unpopular in Germany? Possibly, but it needs be put in context of German government spending of slightly more than €1,400bn per annum. That's a 0.2% increase. Annoying, yes. But not really that big.
Especially as Germany tends to run a surplus.
Depends if you think the cost of transfers to the EU is just about the € to the German government.
The political cost is much higher than spending it on internal German projects.
£60Bn exit fee to avoid being part of a federal superstate.
Cheap if anything.
There you go!
Compared to the alternative, £60 billion is chicken feed. Voters chose to the leave the EU and they did it on the basis of being told it would be simple and pain free. If the will of the people is to be respected these things have to be borne in mind, and we have to approach Brexit accordingly. Whatever form of words it takes, I am all for them.
Am pretty comfortable with a one off payment even if large. But the one off aspect is pretty important.
Interestingly, I'm almost the opposite. I baulk at the idea of a large one off payment, but am perfectly happy to pay to play re: certain European agencies.
Which is, of course, another way to fudge the numbers. If we are paying (say) €3bn/year to be a member of Erasmus, the ESA, Gallileo, the EMA and a few other things, then you can be a lot more persuasive...
A50 extension helps reduce the Brexit bill too, as it takes close to the end of the EU budget cycle.
We need the time, and if paying in then may as well use the facilities.
"‘I feel I’m winning because I’m beating others. It’s a zero-sum game’
The government has “gamified” the tax system, and I have no choice but to play. In our neo-capitalist society, I feel that I’m winning because I’m beating others. The economic system is unsustainable, and it feels like chaos – a major economic crash, social unrest – isn’t far away. In such an insecure climate I have to get as much as I can, while I can. It’s a zero-sum game.
Data scientist, earns about £150,000 per year"
I don't follow his argument. Making money and paying tax is not zero-sum, so far as I can see.
It is an irritatingly vapid expression which probably meant something useful, once. I think he means that once his earnings for the year have been crystallised at 150,000, every pound lost by him in tax is a gain for the exchequer and vv.
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
It's certainly, as described, very odd behaviour, and one can quite understand that it made the women feel uncomfortable. 'Inappropriate' seems to be the right description. He sounds like a very immature and rather sad chap TBH.
One characteristic if these cases is the bewilderment that the accused suffer. They cannot see what they have done is wrong.
I think that the UK should offer two options to the EU:
(1) WTO aft...... payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
I would not have thought that you too were in that post-imperial delusion that the world quakes in front of us.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
"Give us your money or else!" - EU negotiating strategy
It's great holding all the cards. You decide the rules.
They don't hold all the cards. They hold a great many, it's true, but they have objectives which will be harder to reach without the UK - and that is based largely on not being able to replace the funding that the UK delivers (and that includes the guarantee for the Reste a liquider - about £300Bn outstanding).
The not soft Brexit.
I see absolutely no evidence that the EU27 think that the UK will change its mind.
But anyone with half a brain knows that if you don't know what the trade position is (re customs and tariffs and regulation) you can't decide NI. Plus, unless you know what you're paying for, in terms of shared procedures, you don;t know what the cost is.
We agreed because unless we did, there would be no commencement of any talks at all.
We do not need decisions at this stage, we need progress. That's actually pretty easy for citizens' rights and money, if the will is there; though it's nigh on impossible for the Irish border, I agree. I imagine that if there were sufficient progress on the first two, the latter will be kicked down the path a little. All the mood music suggest we are heading to a deal on citizens, but the money is a big problem politically because of the splits it would cause inside the Conservative party.
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
It's certainly, as described, very odd behaviour, and one can quite understand that it made the women feel uncomfortable. 'Inappropriate' seems to be the right description. He sounds like a very immature and rather sad chap TBH.
That’s a bit weird, but I don’t understand why she’s bringing it up now having never said anything to him in the meantime. I’m sure if she’d said stop he would have stopped, they were equals in the party.
Is clumsily asking someone for a date two decades ago reason to have your name in the papers today, I bloody well hope not!
Is anyone keeping a tally of headbanger Europhobe MPs coming out with these pronouncements? It can't be far from the point where Theresa May has lost her majority even if she can still count on DUP support.
Bearing in mind that the Reste a liquider is so large, then I thin the real question is ' if we pay our share of it then which of the shared institutions and projects will the UK continue to benefit from?'
Erasmus, SES, Gallileo, ECRIS, EACEA - there are many areas where continued co-operation comes with a price tag. Negotiate the cost on RAL, but negotiate the continued access at the same time - offsetting the costs of projects. They aren't trying to secure the money by using a common sense approach. Why not?
I think most of us would have no problem with subscribing to these projects and paying a reasonable amount towards the costs of running them.
The problem is that from the other side the EU see this as a “have cake and eat cake” approach, and would want to charge us pretty much what we’re paying now into the general EU budget, rather than a reasonable proportion of the costs of these projects. It’s really important to them that Britain is seen to lose out, and this appears to be overriding their own best interest at the moment.
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
It's certainly, as described, very odd behaviour, and one can quite understand that it made the women feel uncomfortable. 'Inappropriate' seems to be the right description. He sounds like a very immature and rather sad chap TBH.
That’s a bit weird, but I don’t understand why she’s bringing it up now having never said anything to him in the meantime. I’m sure if she’d said stop he would have stopped, they were equals in the party.
Is clumsily asking someone for a date two decades ago reason to have your name in the papers today, I bloody well hope not!
She did it in support of the Junior activist who made the initial complaint. Kerry also said she believed others were also targetted.
This was not a rebuffed request for a date, it was repeated inappropriate correspondence over an extended period of time. The man does not understand boundaries.
"The Euro however is the time bomb that will likely blow up the European institutions in a single cataclysmic event. I am convinced it will do so during the next German government’s term in office."
Whatever you're position that's absolutely terrifying.
Where I'm concerned about Citizens rights, it's that they will try to insert the ECJ into the UK legal process post Brexit. That will not be politically acceptable to any one in the UK - it would be like saying we aren't a member, but we're still a vassal.
Again, I think there's a degree to which the EU negotiators know this, and that is why they want it. Ask the impossible, then pretend that we are unreasonable not to grant it. The EU seems not to be happy with 'Progress' - it wants absolute commitments.
They know the voting numbers were close, and the political class were no aligned with the voters. Create a disaster, then rescue it with 'reform' - associate membership a la Duff's proposal. Every day I'm by remainers that 'Brexiteers are dying' and 'remainers are turning 18'. Hard to think that it's only Twitter that thinks this way.
"The Euro however is the time bomb that will likely blow up the European institutions in a single cataclysmic event. I am convinced it will do so during the next German government’s term in office."
Whatever you're position that's absolutely terrifying.
The problem for us is that being in or out of the EU will make no difference in that respect. Our neighbours imploding will only be detrimental to us.
The notes posted on that twitter account, and the statement by Hopkins, are just saddening. Seems like petty stuff so far to destroy somebody over, but we'll see.
There seems to be almost nothing to this story at all. It’s damn close to defamation if she’s never said anything to him or anyone else, then goes goes to a newspaper and says the guy has been after her for 20 years in a bad way. Kerry was born in 1965, so would have been in her thirties 20 years ago
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
"The Euro however is the time bomb that will likely blow up the European institutions in a single cataclysmic event. I am convinced it will do so during the next German government’s term in office."
Whatever you're position that's absolutely terrifying.
The problem for us is that being in or out of the EU will make no difference in that respect. Our neighbours imploding will only be detrimental to us.
Comments
"You're too fat!
"Cheque, please!"
http://brexitcentral.com/meeting-michel-barnier-guy-verhofstadt-ive-concluded-no-deal-will-better-deal/
It may well be Brexit biased
Is Shami available?
I think it's becoming clear that the EU are taking a "Crush the Saboteurs" approach to the UK. The only deal will be the same as being in the EU but worse.
I think that the country will survive (and indeed prosper) after the initial shock of hard Brexit, and the government will survive as long as the EU get the blame, which at the moment it appears they are.
There was always a risk that the EU would act like this, but that only reinforces Leavers' views that we were right to Leave them.
Go to the BBC article about this, scroll down to the comments and choose highest rated. The top ten are variations of "Send 'em £0".
The EU acting like bullies is bound to harden attitudes.
(1) WTO after a transition period, to include a £20bn payment to cover the two-year transition and maybe a bit more as a sweetener for their cooperation in dealing with cliff-edge issues such as aviation, and to include a generous deal on rights of citizens, or:
(2) A larger payment, possibly with an on-going element, for a closer arrangement including an FTA on manufactured goods, close cooperation on customs, special arrangements for the Irish border, and (if we can get it) some kind of equivalence deal for the City.
Alternatively, it's no payment at all and a trade war, but we needn't be too crude about making that threat.
Why would they accept either of them ? They have outwitted us in the negotiations throughout. First, by insisting that no discussions without triggering Art.50.
Our counter should have been: OK but divorce and future relationship could go hand in hand. We fell for it. The moment Art.50 was invoked, the cards were with them. As Barnier put it to Boris: "I can't hear any whistling, but I can hear the clock ticking"
Historically, this has to go down as one of the worst economic decisions for many a year. Economic textbooks for a 100 years will be full of it.
If they want more dosh, then they need to offer more in return. That's pretty basic deal-making. If they don't, then that's less good for both sides, but it's up to them
I do agree with your last point - we should never have conceded their bonkers sequencing, which makes no sense and which directly contradicts what the treaty says.
I also don't think people have taken on board yet that the default isn't the status quo; it's nothing at all. The EU can't and won't offer us a deal that is as good as what we have now. But it will be better than nothing. Better than nothing but worse than what we have is a big negotiating space.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-7
The Germans don't want to be left with the basket case southern states without another big 'market economy' voice. Also, they fear that the pressure for debt consolidation will grow without the UK to provide a second voice against it. At present, they are of the impression that we will change our minds, and that is instructing their approach, both to trade and Northern Ireland. Note the statements from Lord Kerr, Andrew Duff etc. The strategy in the EU and in the UK parliament ( in large parts) is still remain, not soft Brexit.
1. Standstill tansition deal until 2021 confirmed.
2. Limited 'keep the lights on' bilaterals agreed by March 2019 to take effect after transition.
3. An FTA ready to ratify between Q1 2022 and Q1 2024. Ratification exposes Labour divisions.
4. £20bn for transition. Creative accounting lets parties claim total bill anywhere from 25-55bn.
5. Despite transition helping, queues at ports become the enduring image of Brexit.
6. Ireland gets more gradual implementation of remote from land border customs, but no special deal.
7. The first quarter of a 1.5-3% recession occurs between Q3 2019 and Q1 2021.
8. Recovery from the recession is once again very sluggish.
9. 2022 elections give Labour minority. If they form government, another election by end 2024.
Easier to leave the mafia.
I do not see how a trade war will work, though. It would make the government here immensely unpopular as it would entail even less public spending and lower standards of regulation.
From Remainers:
If we'd got a good deal easily: see, it shows how reasonable the EU are and that we should have stayed
Or: see, it goes to show that staying in would have been better. it was always obvious that leaving would land us with a bad deal
From Leavers:
we said we're too important, and we'd get a good deal. shows we were right to leave
or
see how unreasonable they are. proof, as ever, that leaving was right
£60Bn exit fee to avoid being part of a federal superstate.
Cheap if anything.
As an aside, it's infuriating that we have so little hard evidence about was happening in Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries AD.
But, if needs must, it would surely scare the bejesus out of the EU....
Compared to the alternative, £60 billion is chicken feed. Voters chose to the leave the EU and they did it on the basis of being told it would be simple and pain free. If the will of the people is to be respected these things have to be borne in mind, and we have to approach Brexit accordingly. Whatever form of words it takes, I am all for them.
My concern is about whether he has the managerial temperament to take on the very highest office of state. Give him a ministry, and let's see how he does.
Unfortunately, instead of giving Penny Morduant Defence (where she would have been eminently qualified), and JRM DfID, she promoted her mate to the former job, and then tried to keep the Leave/Remain, Man/Woman balance with the second.
(2) Not too bad
(3) By far the worst of the three.
Same for Eire, of course. The EU would no doubt take account of that in their response.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/10/its-a-game-i-play-to-win-how-the-top-1-really-feel-about-paying-tax
"‘I feel I’m winning because I’m beating others. It’s a zero-sum game’
The government has “gamified” the tax system, and I have no choice but to play. In our neo-capitalist society, I feel that I’m winning because I’m beating others. The economic system is unsustainable, and it feels like chaos – a major economic crash, social unrest – isn’t far away. In such an insecure climate I have to get as much as I can, while I can. It’s a zero-sum game.
Data scientist, earns about £150,000 per year"
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN_182.pdf
Kerry McCarthy alleges she has received unwanted attention from fellow party MP since mid-1990s:
“None of it is very tangible. If I had told anyone, it would have just been like gossip, instead of a complaint – you’ve seen what it is. But it is really inappropriate.”
Kelvin made overtures to her which were not rude, lewd or physical, just unwanted.
https://order-order.com/2017/11/10/kelvin-hopkins-kerry-mccarthy-story-coming/
Anyway, This book set out to identify all the battles mentioned in the ASC using archaeological, topographic and place name evidence. I do think this is mostly rubbish but the author - Albany Major - does mention that Dorset supposedly held out against the Saxons for more than a century after the rest of the country had fallen (if you accept the invasion model).
I have no idea if he is right or not and am more inclined to think that the existence of Celtic leaders in Saxon England is more likely to be due to their being pre-existing Saxon presence in the area prior to the end of the RB occupation (perhaps as foederati) which prevented migrating Saxons from taking over the area during the initial phases.
This might be an insight into the German mindset on Brexit
http://globalbritain.co.uk/a-german-perspective-on-the-brexit-negotiations/
If I was betting I would be putting money on him as I believe the more he is exposed to the media the more impressed people will be. A real new face
Which is large. But it's not that massive in the context of a Eurozone (alone) GDP of $13 trillion in 2017.
Would a €3bn increase in Germany's EU bill be politically unpopular in Germany? Possibly, but it needs be put in context of German government spending of slightly more than €1,400bn per annum. That's a 0.2% increase. Annoying, yes. But not really that big.
I'm not sure I quite follow your last point, though. Whilst a few Tory rebels might vote against a deal on the grounds that it's not as pure a head-banging Brexit as they'd like, they'd have to ally themselves to opposition MPs wanting the diametric opposite of what they want. That sort of unholy alliance does sometimes happen, but are pro-EU MPs really going to sabotage a deal so we crash out in chaos?
Some MPs (the most extreme Remainers and Leavers ) might vote for the latter, perhaps even in significant numbers, but only if they were sure it would not actually lead us to crashing out.
Which is why putting the leaving date on the statute book, although it seems to tie the government's hands, is eminently sensible.
Erasmus, SES, Gallileo, ECRIS, EACEA - there are many areas where continued co-operation comes with a price tag. Negotiate the cost on RAL, but negotiate the continued access at the same time - offsetting the costs of projects. They aren't trying to secure the money by using a common sense approach. Why not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/labour-mp-accuses-kelvin-hopkins-of-inappropriate-behaviour
It's certainly, as described, very odd behaviour, and one can quite understand that it made the women feel uncomfortable. 'Inappropriate' seems to be the right description. He sounds like a very immature and rather sad chap TBH.
The political cost is much higher than spending it on internal German projects.
We agreed because unless we did, there would be no commencement of any talks at all.
We need the time, and if paying in then may as well use the facilities.
Is clumsily asking someone for a date two decades ago reason to have your name in the papers today, I bloody well hope not!
The problem is that from the other side the EU see this as a “have cake and eat cake” approach, and would want to charge us pretty much what we’re paying now into the general EU budget, rather than a reasonable proportion of the costs of these projects. It’s really important to them that Britain is seen to lose out, and this appears to be overriding their own best interest at the moment.
This was not a rebuffed request for a date, it was repeated inappropriate correspondence over an extended period of time. The man does not understand boundaries.
Whatever you're position that's absolutely terrifying.
Where I'm concerned about Citizens rights, it's that they will try to insert the ECJ into the UK legal process post Brexit. That will not be politically acceptable to any one in the UK - it would be like saying we aren't a member, but we're still a vassal.
Again, I think there's a degree to which the EU negotiators know this, and that is why they want it. Ask the impossible, then pretend that we are unreasonable not to grant it. The EU seems not to be happy with 'Progress' - it wants absolute commitments.
They know the voting numbers were close, and the political class were no aligned with the voters. Create a disaster, then rescue it with 'reform' - associate membership a la Duff's proposal. Every day I'm by remainers that 'Brexiteers are dying' and 'remainers are turning 18'. Hard to think that it's only Twitter that thinks this way.