The only way this gets resolved is by sending a very contrite Boris to Tehran to negotiate her release - almost anything else we do, including headlines like that in the Times, are likely to only make the situation worse.
There are a couple of problems with that plan.
Boris, and Boris...
I'd have thought you'd be happy to see Boris in Tehran.
Even if it still seems far fetched, we do now seem to have a technical route to Remain.
But public opinion has barely budged. Unless we can see a fixed majority against Brexit in polling over the next 12 months, will Parliament really vote down a Brexit agreement?
It's still a Paarliamentary approved agreement - or no agreement. We leave the EU either way. Thems the options.
Except there are two other options. We could remain. Or we could choose to leave over a longer timescale.
Both require 27 other nations to unanimously agree. Which if we've either rejected a deal they've reached with us or failed to reach one they may not be happy to agree with.
Even if it still seems far fetched, we do now seem to have a technical route to Remain.
But public opinion has barely budged. Unless we can see a fixed majority against Brexit in polling over the next 12 months, will Parliament really vote down a Brexit agreement?
It's still a Paarliamentary approved agreement - or no agreement. We leave the EU either way. Thems the options.
Except there are two other options. We could remain. Or we could choose to leave over a longer timescale.
Both require 27 other nations to unanimously agree. Which if we've either rejected a deal they've reached with us or failed to reach one they may not be happy to agree with.
That's debatable - extension definitely requires unanimity. Withdrawal of art 50 might be a different beast altogether.
Still think a second referendum is a plausible option. If I were betting on the market in the threadstarter, I'd look at the rules carefully to see how a transition arrangement would be settled.
The only way this gets resolved is by sending a very contrite Boris to Tehran to negotiate her release - almost anything else we do, including headlines like that in the Times, are likely to only make the situation worse.
There are a couple of problems with that plan.
Boris, and Boris...
I'd have thought you'd be happy to see Boris in Tehran.
I was going to make a flippant joke that maybe we should leave him there if we get our prisoner back, but it’s a little serious to be making jokes about it. Boris and a team of negotiators need to get over there and help our ambassador do whatever we can to undo the mistakes.
The only way this gets resolved is by sending a very contrite Boris to Tehran to negotiate her release - almost anything else we do, including headlines like that in the Times, are likely to only make the situation worse.
There are a couple of problems with that plan.
Boris, and Boris...
We now have a truly bizarre situation.
On one side of this culture war are a bunch of media bubble sore loser remainers who hope an Iranian woman stays in jail in Iran as they think it damages the understudy to the chap and the bus who masterminded their defeat.
On the other side the rest of the nation hear Iran and think - “meh”.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
@PolhomeEditor: Asked a senior Tory MP if just getting to Christmas was the Government’s new aim. “Let’s focus on getting to Thursday first,” they replied.
This is great. As long as Donald doesn't believe fake polls, then he wont be persuaded by the adults to change and therefore is likely to get a total shellacking come the mid-terms.
The only way this gets resolved is by sending a very contrite Boris to Tehran to negotiate her release - almost anything else we do, including headlines like that in the Times, are likely to only make the situation worse.
There are a couple of problems with that plan.
Boris, and Boris...
We now have a truly bizarre situation.
On one side of this culture war are a bunch of media bubble sore loser remainers who hope an Iranian woman stays in jail in Iran as they think it damages the understudy to the chap and the bus who masterminded their defeat.
On the other side the rest of the nation hear Iran and think - “meh”.
The issue for the first time received some comments at my work yesterday.
A rough approximation:
"She's an Iranian women in Iran, what's it to do with us ... she should have known better than to have gone back there ... she was probably doing something wrong in any case ... the media are just trying to cause trouble ... they wouldn't be bothered if it was someone like me locked up out there"
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
The only way this gets resolved is by sending a very contrite Boris to Tehran to negotiate her release - almost anything else we do, including headlines like that in the Times, are likely to only make the situation worse.
There are a couple of problems with that plan.
Boris, and Boris...
I'd have thought you'd be happy to see Boris in Tehran.
I was going to make a flippant joke that maybe we should leave him there if we get our prisoner back, but it’s a little serious to be making jokes about it. Boris and a team of negotiators need to get over there and help our ambassador do whatever we can to undo the mistakes.
Last night May said he was going to Tehran before the end of the year.....
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
I hold no brief for Boris.
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
Boris continues to hold briefs because many in your party regard his Leaver credentials as more important than his capacity to do the job.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
Trump probably polls above the GOP as a whole as his supporters are more motivated and he also cleverly endorsed Roy Moore's opponent in the Republican primary so if Moore loses next month he can say, like he did in Virginia, he was not associated enough with the Trump brand and if he wins it was because of the Trump vote turning out.
Though even on that poll 54% still disapprove of Trump
I do wonder if the odds are being influenced by bad wording. Although from the rules it's clear that Yes will win if the UK leaves on 29/3/19, from the title of the market, you could be forgiven for thinking that it'll be settled on whether Britain leaves before that date.
Cheers. Maybe an email to Betfair to clarify is in order.
So PBers with the inflation figures to be released in an hour how about we make a list of people who claim 3% CPI is the greatest disaster since the ten plagues but who are silent about 5% HPI.
The people who regard 5p on a packet of fishfingers as more important than £15k on the price of a new house.
Extra points if anyone moaning about CPI is in receipt of a triple lock pension.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The inability of some fervent Remainer MPs to accept that they have no influence on the negotiations would be hilarious, if it weren't entirely expected.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
There is a huge bone because Blair never imposed the transition controls France and Germany etc did on migration from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011. Had Cameron got concessions to reflect that in the negotiations in the run up to the EU referendum it would probably have been a narrow Remain rather than a narrow Leave win.
Even if it still seems far fetched, we do now seem to have a technical route to Remain.
But public opinion has barely budged. Unless we can see a fixed majority against Brexit in polling over the next 12 months, will Parliament really vote down a Brexit agreement?
It's still a Paarliamentary approved agreement - or no agreement. We leave the EU either way. Thems the options.
Not necessarily.
As discussed above, it's likely the EU27 would agree to cancel A50 should we wish to communicate it.
I don't think think it's likely.
But it's now possible.
The odds are slight, but improving.
The political fallout from the MPs over-riding the stated intent of the voters would be huge. We know better than you do say the MPs. Wanna bet? the voters will say - at the earliest opportunity.....
The odds on the MPs doing that are tiny. And it would just mean a whole new raft would put themselves forward, determined to deliver Brexit come what may. Which is why at least one of the 27 will say "What's the point? They are going - this year, next year, five years down the road...."
The only way Brexit gets defeated is by rejoining.
What you continually forget is how much the 'will of the people' was exaggerated. What you're really scared of is the fallout in the Conservative and Unionist Party.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers.. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
I hold no brief for Boris.
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
The fact that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy does not excuse Boris being a totally incompetent foreign secretary who consistently damages the UK's interests and international reputation.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers.. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
We're obviously gutted to hear that.
I don't think someone who treats the EU as analogous with Nazi Germany can claim to be a moderate.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Remainers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Leavers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Remainers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Remainers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Leavers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Remainers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
I was expecting someone to attempt that substitution. It doesn't work. It is the responsibility of the victors to make a go of it. Leavers did not.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers.. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
We're obviously gutted to hear that.
I don't think someone who treats the EU as analogous with Nazi Germany can claim to be a moderate.
Unspoofable. You can see now why we don't care a jot for your sympathy....
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
I hold no brief for Boris.
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
The fact that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy does not excuse Boris being a totally incompetent foreign secretary who consistently damages the UK's interests and international reputation.
Looking at its 'achievements' I would have thought damaging the UK's interests and international reputation was the purpose of the foreign office.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
I hold no brief for Boris.
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
The fact that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy does not excuse Boris being a totally incompetent foreign secretary who consistently damages the UK's interests and international reputation.
Looking at its 'achievements' I would have thought damaging the UK's interests and international reputation was the purpose of the foreign office.
Even if it still seems far fetched, we do now seem to have a technical route to Remain.
But public opinion has barely budged. Unless we can see a fixed majority against Brexit in polling over the next 12 months, will Parliament really vote down a Brexit agreement?
It's still a Paarliamentary approved agreement - or no agreement. We leave the EU either way. Thems the options.
Not necessarily.
As discussed above, it's likely the EU27 would agree to cancel A50 should we wish to communicate it.
I don't think think it's likely.
But it's now possible.
The odds are slight, but improving.
The political fallout from the MPs over-riding the stated intent of the voters would be huge. We know better than you do say the MPs. Wanna bet? the voters will say - at the earliest opportunity.....
The odds on the MPs doing that are tiny. And it would just mean a whole new raft would put themselves forward, determined to deliver Brexit come what may. Which is why at least one of the 27 will say "What's the point? They are going - this year, next year, five years down the road...."
The only way Brexit gets defeated is by rejoining.
What you continually forget is how much the 'will of the people' was exaggerated. What you're really scared of is the fallout in the Conservative and Unionist Party.
It is surely unlikely to the point of impossible that the Commons will vote down any deal the government does unless there is significant and sustained evidence of a change of public mood. Right now that does not exist.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Remainers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Leavers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Remainers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
I was expecting someone to attempt that substitution. It doesn't work. It is the responsibility of the victors to make a go of it. Leavers did not.
It is why they are sinking beneath the waves now.
Remainers, or rather EverCloserUnioners, had control of British policy for decades.
Their unwillingness to find a consensus, deceit and general incompetence is the reason why they sank beneath the waves.
I know this is something you don't like to recognise.
Perhaps you might like to consider whether the narrow minded bigotry you display on this issue was a factor in the Leave win.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
I hold no brief for Boris.
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
The fact that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy does not excuse Boris being a totally incompetent foreign secretary who consistently damages the UK's interests and international reputation.
No. But only idiots 'blame Boris' for her plight. You don't think they might have an ulterior motive?
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
I hold no brief for Boris.
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
The fact that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy does not excuse Boris being a totally incompetent foreign secretary who consistently damages the UK's interests and international reputation.
'It's not Neville's fault that those Nazi chappies are such bounders.'
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
And what concessions have you made to Leavers ie 52% of the electorate?
There is a huge bone because Blair never imposed the transition controls France and Germany etc did on migration from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011. Had Cameron got concessions to reflect that in the negotiations in the run up to the EU referendum it would probably have been a narrow Remain rather than a narrow Leave win.
And one of May's few political assets is that she is trusted on immigration.
A concrete gesture from the EU on transition controls, and a serious reform of our tax credit system, which subsidises cheap labour to move here --- could transform the argument.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
That the country may understand Boris and co were fibbing does not excuse the fibs that Boris and co told. Of course, there is always the option to embrace the country's realism and tell the truth about Brexit - that it will involve significant sacrifices - but no-one seems to be doing this. Instead, the search for excuses and Remain supporters to blame for it not all going swimmingly seems to be the order of the day.
Even if it still seems far fetched, we do now seem to have a technical route to Remain.
But public opinion has barely budged. Unless we can see a fixed majority against Brexit in polling over the next 12 months, will Parliament really vote down a Brexit agreement?
It's still a Paarliamentary approved agreement - or no agreement. We leave the EU either way. Thems the options.
Except there are two other options. We could remain. Or we could choose to leave over a longer timescale.
Both require 27 other nations to unanimously agree. Which if we've either rejected a deal they've reached with us or failed to reach one they may not be happy to agree with.
That's debatable - extension definitely requires unanimity. Withdrawal of art 50 might be a different beast altogether.
Might or might not but we are over the barrel in that we will never know the answer to that until after we've already made the decision to withdraw it and it ends up before the ECJ if we can't get unanimity. At which point we are absolutely stuffed if we need to grovel to be allowed to stay.
Plus our rebate expires (as standard) at the end of the current budget and would have to be negotiated again and that would require unanimity. There is no chance now if we chicken out of leaving that the other 27 nations would possibly unanimously allow us to stay with a rebate anymore.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
How quaint; you're taking heed of the polls. As to the content, it is the equivalent of Leavers sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU. It is the very definition of the "something will turn up" strategy the best example of which being the large number of people, for example, who play the lottery at odds of many millions to one of a win.
The Iranians put her in jail. The narcissistic manoeuvrings of Laurel and Hardy have not improved her lot.
But they have not made her their “victim' as the useful idiots who spoke to the Times claim. All this detracts from the culpability of the Iranian regime and their apologists (I'm looking at you Mr Corbyn...)
The abject incompetence of Boris Johnson is forgiven because Brexit.
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
I hold no brief for Boris.
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
The fact that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy does not excuse Boris being a totally incompetent foreign secretary who consistently damages the UK's interests and international reputation.
No. But only idiots 'blame Boris' for her plight. You don't think they might have an ulterior motive?
No-one is blaming Boris for her arrest and imprisonment. He is being blamed for not reading his brief and for making her position even worse than it was. I am all for people whose motive is to remove the worst foreign secretary this country has had for decades, quite possibly ever, from his post. My issue is with people who are happy for him to stay in place - harming UK interests - solely because he backs Brexit.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Remainers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Leavers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Remainers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
I was expecting someone to attempt that substitution. It doesn't work. It is the responsibility of the victors to make a go of it. Leavers did not.
It is why they are sinking beneath the waves now.
Remainers, or rather EverCloserUnioners, had control of British policy for decades.
Their unwillingness to find a consensus, deceit and general incompetence is the reason why they sank beneath the waves.
I know this is something you don't like to recognise.
Perhaps you might like to consider whether the narrow minded bigotry you display on this issue was a factor in the Leave win.
You lined up behind a xenophobic campaign. You don't have the right to accuse anyone of narrow-minded bigotry.
I have never been a fan of the EU. I voted Remain last year because the alternative being offered by the Leave campaign as run was destined to leave Britain weaker and nastier. So it is proving.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
The only way this gets resolved is by sending a very contrite Boris to Tehran to negotiate her release - almost anything else we do, including headlines like that in the Times, are likely to only make the situation worse.
There are a couple of problems with that plan.
Boris, and Boris...
I'd have thought you'd be happy to see Boris in Tehran.
I was going to make a flippant joke that maybe we should leave him there if we get our prisoner back, but it’s a little serious to be making jokes about it. Boris and a team of negotiators need to get over there and help our ambassador do whatever we can to undo the mistakes.
Last night May said he was going to Tehran before the end of the year.....
Good to hear. The situation is difficult, and the dual nationality issue makes it more so,
Rather like with our negotiations with the EU, groups of people in the UK playing petty politics don’t help the situation - and can make it a lot worse if they’re not careful.
Will May last until March 2019, that is what the deadline the govt have imposed says to me? A line in the (shifting) sand such as this one has got me scratching my head, does it make an election more or less likely?
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
How quaint; you're taking heed of the polls. As to the content, it is the equivalent of Leavers sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU. It is the very definition of the "something will turn up" strategy the best example of which being the large number of people, for example, who play the lottery at odds of many millions to one of a win.
I think the 'Something will Turn Up' bandwagon is inhabited mainly by Remainers, who prefer to ignore polls - least of all the one in June 2016......
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
How convenient that becoming 'more realistic' aligns with your desires, those of multinational corporations and the European elite.
Senior EU figures have said several times that they'd suspend A50 in a heartbeat if we asked them to. .
That's not enough, though. They may well say that - but how on earth can they be sure that some minor (or indeed major) EU country won't block it? What's more, the UK couldn't know in advance: there's no mechanism for getting a binding commitment, and, failing such a commitment, we could find ourselves crashing out under Article 50(3) despite say, 26 out of 27 countries wanting us to stay in.
From what I have been told by EU law academics, I believe that the Lisbon Treaty was written on the basis that it recognises the validity of the Vienna Convention on the Law if Treaties. It did so as to reduce its size and complexity, and because this is and was the prevailing convention on treaty law. Of course, this could be open to argument, as all things are.
But Article 68 : A Notification or Instrument provided for in Article 65 or 67 (these deal with termination or withdrawal from treaties) may be revoked at any time before it takes effect.
Article 26 defines the idea of 'Good Faith' in treaty law. Reading the two together then one might revoke unilaterally so long as it is not an attempt to circumvent the process of the treaty in question.
24 By way of a preliminary observation, it should be noted that even though the Vienna Convention does not bind either the Community or all its Member States, a series of its provisions, including Article 62, reflect the rules of international law which lay down, subject to certain conditions, the principle that a change of circumstances may entail the lapse or suspension of a treaty.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
That the country may understand Boris and co were fibbing does not excuse the fibs that Boris and co told. Of course, there is always the option to embrace the country's realism and tell the truth about Brexit - that it will involve significant sacrifices - but no-one seems to be doing this. Instead, the search for excuses and Remain supporters to blame for it not all going swimmingly seems to be the order of the day.
I would have grudgingly supported May et al if they had conceded the road would be long and tough, and if she pursued a conciliatory tone to the EU, starting with a gracious no-strings offer to EU residents in the UK as at June 2016.
There is a huge bone because Blair never imposed the transition controls France and Germany etc did on migration from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011. Had Cameron got concessions to reflect that in the negotiations in the run up to the EU referendum it would probably have been a narrow Remain rather than a narrow Leave win.
And one of May's few political assets is that she is trusted on immigration.
A concrete gesture from the EU on transition controls, and a serious reform of our tax credit system, which subsidises cheap labour to move here --- could transform the argument.
Anyone proposing to scrap tax credits will get my vote. Nakedly bribing people with their own money, worst government policy of my lifetime.
Even if it still seems far fetched, we do now seem to have a technical route to Remain.
But public opinion has barely budged. Unless we can see a fixed majority against Brexit in polling over the next 12 months, will Parliament really vote down a Brexit agreement?
It's still a Paarliamentary approved agreement - or no agreement. We leave the EU either way. Thems the options.
Not necessarily.
As discussed above, it's likely the EU27 would agree to cancel A50 should we wish to communicate it.
I don't think think it's likely.
But it's now possible.
The odds are slight, but improving.
The political fallout from the MPs over-riding the stated intent of the voters would be huge. We know better than you do say the MPs. Wanna bet? the voters will say - at the earliest opportunity.....
The odds on the MPs doing that are tiny. And it would just mean a whole new raft would put themselves forward, determined to deliver Brexit come what may. Which is why at least one of the 27 will say "What's the point? They are going - this year, next year, five years down the road...."
The only way Brexit gets defeated is by rejoining.
The key determinant is public opinion.
The MPs will largely (not completely) follow the voters on this.
And I suspect, so would the EU.
If the EU were smart (about us staying) they would be throwing a bone on FOM after Christmas.
They couldn't do that, even if they wanted to (which I'm sure they don't) because it'd go counter to the treaties. And similarly, while a lot of people want to simply wish this point away, the European Council does not have the sovereignty to make an agreement counter to the treaties that govern the running of the EU.
Put simply, no-one knows whether the EU - even all 28 members and the Commission and EP - could cancel Brexit by agreement because there's no provision within the treaties and an 'indefinite extension of the exit period' could be considered to run counter to the spirit of the treaties. Basically, everyone would be taking a massive flyer that the ECJ would endorse the Council agreement - because if it didn't, all hell would break loose.
But then, if Brexit were cancelled without a new mandate in Britain (for which there's getting to be precious little time), all hell would break loose here.
Nor would the EU wish to establish a precedent that A50 can be used to extract concessions from them.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
I could envisage a protocol dealing with some of these issues. It's a lot easier making amendments to an existing treaty than creating a comprehensive set of treaties from scratch within a couple of weeks to support a time limited arrangement.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of the deal line by line. It seemed to me that this was completely and utterly deluded. The underlying premise was what the House of Commons wants, the HoC gets. Which is of course nonsense when negotiating with a third party who are not in any way bound by or even interested in the decisions of the HoC.
We are at a real risk here of makimake a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
How quaint; you're taking heed of the polls. As to the content, it is the equivalent of Leavers sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU. It is the very definition of the "something will turn up" strategy the best example of which being the large number of people, for example, who play the lottery at odds of many millions to one of a win.
I think the 'Something will Turn Up' bandwagon is inhabited mainly by Remainers, who prefer to ignore polls - least of all the one in June 2016......
Leavers wanted this, they told us how it would be fantastic (admittedly Remainers warned of disruption instantly - their timing was out in certain cases). Now Leavers say it will be sh&t. For 10 years. Or 20. They hope (because of course if the estimate for GDP diminution by 2030 was criticsed for the unknowns involved, we are supposed to think that rational people can forecast the sun coming out over those uplands in 2037?
The government have laid themselves a bear trap. We are getting nowhere with regards to any kind of deal, business won't hesitate to start pulling investment and planning to shed jobs as soon as 2018 starts, the pressure on the government from their natural allies in business will be immense.
However, the batshit crazy wing of the Tory party led by Somerset Sex-Bomb Jacob Moggmentum is convinced that (a) no deal is required and (b) business will continue to back the Tories regardless. "DD of the SS" as Gyles Brandreth described him has stated that whilst parliament will have a vote the government will leave with no deal if whatever their deal is gets rejected.
So, the bear trap. This time next year, there is no deal of substance. There have been substantial job losses enacted and promised, with very hard data about what no deal hard brexit will do the following March. Business and the City have largely abandoned the Tories, decrying them as working against their interests. The mood in the country has shifted fairly sharply as only the "foreigners go home" brigade have any enthusiasm left for the calamity that awaits. Will the government really then go to the Commons and say "vote how you like, we're throwing the country onto the spikes anyway"? Laura Kuenssberg has it right - all thats left is a confidence vote. The Tory MPs will be faced with Hobson's choice - bring down their government or bring down the party.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
How convenient that becoming 'more realistic' aligns with your desires, those of multinational corporations and the European elite.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
Brexit is an extreme position. Eurosceptics who don’t yet regret rejecting Dave’s deal are still living in a dreamworld.
EverCloserUnion is by definition an extreme position.
It’s the status quo of the post-war political development of the major powers of free Europe. Just because a bunch of sovereignty obsessed zealots convinced themselves that it was all a nefarious plot rather than the reality upon which their country’s position stood does not make it so.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of
We are at a real risk here of makimake a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
How quaint; you're taking heed of the polls. As to the content, it is the equivalent of Leavers sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU. It is the very definition of the "something will turn up" strategy the best example of which being the large number of people, for example, who play the lottery at odds of many millions to one of a win.
I think the 'Something will Turn Up' bandwagon is inhabited mainly by Remainers, who prefer to ignore polls - least of all the one in June 2016......
Leavers wanted this, they told us how it would be fantastic (admittedly Remainers warned of disruption instantly - their timing was out in certain cases). Now Leavers say it will be sh&t. For 10 years. Or 20. They hope (because of course if the estimate for GDP diminution by 2030 was criticsed for the unknowns involved, we are supposed to think that rational people can forecast the sun coming out over those uplands in 2037?
And yet, for all the predictions of horrors, for the first time in a quarter of a century, we've seen industrial output grow for six months in a row.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
Brexit is an extreme position. Eurosceptics who don’t yet regret rejecting Dave’s deal are still living in a dreamworld.
EverCloserUnion is by definition an extreme position.
It’s the status quo of the post-war political development of the major powers of free Europe. Just because a bunch of sovereignty obsessed zealots 52% of the British voting public convinced themselves that it was all a nefarious plot rather than the reality upon which their country’s position stood does not make it so.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
That's always been the deal. The question is whether we want instant chaos or damage limitation. €60 billion buys us damage limitation.
If we can't negotiate and sign new deals during the transition period, even if they come in to force at the end of the period, there is no transition, and no damage limitation, its just a prolonged period of uncertainty for business.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
I can understand the status quo prevailing with respect to the Single Market, Customs Union, ECJ and Freedom of Movement during the transition period. Similarly new trade deals should not be able to commence during the transition period.
However we should be able to sign trade deals etc with a commencement date and time that matches the expiry of our transition.
EG We leave the EU at 23:00 on 29/3/19 (0:00 CET 30/3/19) and start a 2 year transition period.
During the transition all obligations w.r.t. freedom of movement apply but we can sign deals we need to sign with the WTO, third party nations etc - though these don't commence yet.
23:00 on 29/3/19 (0:00 CET 30/3/19) transition ends, signed deals commence including final trade deal with the EU.
There is a huge bone because Blair never imposed the transition controls France and Germany etc did on migration from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011. Had Cameron got concessions to reflect that in the negotiations in the run up to the EU referendum it would probably have been a narrow Remain rather than a narrow Leave win.
And one of May's few political assets is that she is trusted on immigration.
A concrete gesture from the EU on transition controls, and a serious reform of our tax credit system, which subsidises cheap labour to move here --- could transform the argument.
That is the only move the EU could make that might change things but I can't see them doing it
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
That's always been the deal. The question is whether we want instant chaos or damage limitation. €60 billion buys us damage limitation.
Britain doesn’t pay ransom demands.
It's not a slam dunk. Some people prefer the chaos route. I would take issue with the "ransom" term however. No-one kidnapped us. We narrowly, but willingly, voted for chaos. If someone offers us a "transition" agreement and an outline of an eventual relationship, neither of which are mentioned in Article 50, for a consideration, we get to decide whether we want them or not.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of
We are at a real risk here of makimake a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data points to have emerged recently is Opinium’s poll in late October which showed a majority of those surveyed thought Brexit would be bad for the UK in the next few years, but that a much larger majority thought it would be good in the next 10 to 20 years. It seems that the country understands that Brexit entails disruption and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
How quaint; you're taking heed of the polls. As to the content, it is the equivalent of Leavers sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU. It is the very definition of the "something will turn up" strategy the best example of which being the large number of people, for example, who play the lottery at odds of many millions to one of a win.
I think the 'Something will Turn Up' bandwagon is inhabited mainly by Remainers, who prefer to ignore polls - least of all the one in June 2016......
Leavers wanted this, they told us how it would be fantastic (admittedly Remainers warned of disruption instantly - their timing was out in certain cases). Now Leavers say it will be sh&t. For 10 years. Or 20. They hope (because of course if the estimate for GDP diminution by 2030 was criticsed for the unknowns involved, we are supposed to think that rational people can forecast the sun coming out over those uplands in 2037?
And yet, for all the predictions of horrors, for the first time in a quarter of a century, we've seen industrial output grow for six months in a row.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
Brexit is an extreme position. Eurosceptics who don’t yet regret rejecting Dave’s deal are still living in a dreamworld.
EverCloserUnion is by definition an extreme position.
It’s the status quo of the post-war political development of the major powers of free Europe. Just because a bunch of sovereignty obsessed zealots convinced themselves that it was all a nefarious plot rather than the reality upon which their country’s position stood does not make it so.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
The political fallout from the MPs over-riding the stated intent of the voters would be huge. We know better than you do say the MPs. Wanna bet? the voters will say - at the earliest opportunity.....
The odds on the MPs doing that are tiny. And it would just mean a whole new raft would put themselves forward, determined to deliver Brexit come what may. Which is why at least one of the 27 will say "What's the point? They are going - this year, next year, five years down the road...."
The only way Brexit gets defeated is by rejoining.
The obvious way to do it would be with a new referendum, which could go either way. Nobody would need to override the stated intent of the voters if the voters stated a new intent.
Whether such a referendum could happen is mostly a question about internal Conservative party politics. But it would serve May well to hold one, not least because the leavers would have to go easy on demagoguing her deal as a betrayal of Britain etc etc for fear of losing the referendum.
You are just result shopping.... How very EU.
Sorry, are we talking about what could happen or what you think should happen?
You said the only way Brexit gets defeated is by rejoining. This is obviously wrong: Another way Brexit gets defeated is by having another referendum. The probability of this isn't very high, and how high it is depends on the obscure internal workings of the Conservative Party, but it's probably higher than the probability of leaving then rejoining, at least in the next decade or so.
There was Labour MP from some remainer organisation on R5 last night complaining that the vote being offered by Davis was meaningless and that the Commons should perhaps see a draft of the agreement so they could go through the minutiae of
We are at a real risk here of makimake a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
Hmmm - We were promised sunlit uplands and no downsides, as well as dozens of trade deals ready for signature the day after Brexit. It will not be the fault of a few recalcitrant MPs if these are not delivered.
One of the most significant data pon and part of that is the messy process of untangling ourselves from Brussels after decades of membership.
How quaint; you're taking heed of the polls. As to the content, it is the equivalent of Leavers sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU. It is the very definition of the "something will turn up" strategy the best example of which being the large number of people, for example, who play the lottery at odds of many millions to one of a win.
I think the 'Something will Turn Up' bandwagon is inhabited mainly by Remainers, who prefer to ignore polls - least of all the one in June 2016......
Leavers wanted this, they told us how it would be fantastic (admittedly Remainers warned of disruption instantly - their timing was out in certain cases). Now Leavers say it will be sh&t. For 10 years. Or 20. They hope (because of course if the estimate for GDP diminution by 2030 was criticsed for the unknowns involved, we are supposed to think that rational people can forecast the sun coming out over those uplands in 2037?
And yet, for all the predictions of horrors, for the first time in a quarter of a century, we've seen industrial output grow for six months in a row.
Nothing has happened yet. I'm delighted that industrial production has grown. But we really haven't left yet and, unless there is some movement before Christmas on talks, there will be a lot of contingency plan execution.
Picking one aggregate and saying: "look, look" is facile, frankly.
Imagine what Labour’s reaction would have been if her words had been spoken by a Conservative candidate? Racist comments shouldn’t be compatible with holding the Labour Whip.
TBF politicians do the same as ordinary people. Very few, I find, are capable of saying a simple "I'm sorry." The normal thing is to go off into an explanation of why you did it, which ends up close to a justification.
The obsessive Leavers are capable of making a sensible deal impossible without any outside assistance.
But they are getting it anyway. And it is not helping.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Leavers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Remainers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Leavers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
I have no sympathy with self-identifying moderate Remainers. They have at no point sought to build a consensus or compromise with reachable Leavers and instead have cringed cravenly before the loony Remainers, never challenging even their most extreme pronouncements. The consequences were entirely predictable.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
I was expecting someone to attempt that substitution. It doesn't work. It is the responsibility of the victors to make a go of it. Leavers did not.
It is why they are sinking beneath the waves now.
Remainers, or rather EverCloserUnioners, had control of British policy for decades.
Their unwillingness to find a consensus, deceit and general incompetence is the reason why they sank beneath the waves.
I know this is something you don't like to recognise.
Perhaps you might like to consider whether the narrow minded bigotry you display on this issue was a factor in the Leave win.
You lined up behind a xenophobic campaign. You don't have the right to accuse anyone of narrow-minded bigotry.
I have never been a fan of the EU. I voted Remain last year because the alternative being offered by the Leave campaign as run was destined to leave Britain weaker and nastier. So it is proving.
You're the person who was calling Leave supporters 'carrot crunchers' before the Referendum.
And getting called out for doing so by Remain supporters.
As we have seen since the Referendum there has been no shortage of bigotry towards and fake news about Leave voters.
You lined up behind a bigoted campaign which supported uncontrolled immigration to shift wealth up the socioeconomic scale.
BTW we're still waiting for that recession you confidently predicted after the Referendum - you know the one with skeletal fingers, a dark cloak and which speaks in block capitals.
Still congratulations for avoiding the word 'but' in your second paragraph but Benjen Stark's theory still applies.
People seem to have been brainwashed to believe that they didn't get anything from the EU. Which is why places like Cornwall voted to leave and are now demanding that their EU cash continue from the UK government. Same with South Wales. Same with Grimsby wanting its industry protecting from "and its gone".
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
That's always been the deal. The question is whether we want instant chaos or damage limitation. €60 billion buys us damage limitation.
Britain doesn’t pay ransom demands.
It's not a slam dunk. Some people prefer the chaos route. I would take issue with the "ransom" term however. No-one kidnapped us. We narrowly, but willingly, voted for chaos. If someone offers us a "transition" agreement and an outline of an eventual relationship, neither of which are mentioned in Article 50, for a consideration, we get to decide whether we want them or not.
The way the EU side has framed the negotiations is not in good faith. They’re asking us for a large cheque which has no legal basis before they will discuss trade arrangements - while continually pointing to the clock on the wall and saying how bad things will be if we don’t sign the cheque.
IMO they’ve massively overplayed what was a good hand, and they’re in danger of us walking away and spending the next 18 months preparing to leave the EU with no money changing hands after 29th March 2019.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
That's always been the deal. The question is whether we want instant chaos or damage limitation. €60 billion buys us damage limitation.
Britain doesn’t pay ransom demands.
It's not a slam dunk. Some people prefer the chaos route. I would take issue with the "ransom" term however. No-one kidnapped us. We narrowly, but willingly, voted for chaos. If someone offers us a "transition" agreement and an outline of an eventual relationship, neither of which are mentioned in Article 50, for a consideration, we get to decide whether we want them or not.
The way the EU side has framed the negotiations is not in good faith. They’re asking us for a large cheque which has no legal basis before they will discuss trade arrangements - while continually pointing to the clock on the wall and saying how bad things will be if we don’t sign the cheque.
IMO they’ve massively overplayed what was a good hand, and they’re in danger of us walking away and spending the next 18 months preparing to leave the EU with no money changing hands after 29th March 2019.
The single biggest example of bad faith in the whole Article 50 process has been May saying we will leave the single market and customs union, and daring the EU to make that position mean something.
People seem to have been brainwashed to believe that they didn't get anything from the EU. Which is why places like Cornwall voted to leave and are now demanding that their EU cash continue from the UK government. Same with South Wales. Same with Grimsby wanting its industry protecting from "and its gone".
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
It should be remembered that not everyone received the same amount of EU money.
I suspect that upper-middle class quangocrats in Cardiff and Bristol who knew how to play the subsidy rules did rather better than those up the Welsh valleys or down in deepest Cornwall.
we have exhaustively gone through the EU’s external agreements and cannot find any instance in which a non-Member State has accepted direct ECJ jurisdiction over itself or its relations with EU. Even the EU’s agreements with the tiny statelets of Andorra and San Marino to not accept ECJ jurisdiction and instead contain balanced bilateral arbitration arrangements.
Imagine what Labour’s reaction would have been if her words had been spoken by a Conservative candidate? Racist comments shouldn’t be compatible with holding the Labour Whip.
Sounds like he referred to himself as being from "the ghetto"
Comments
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/930340972042641408
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/798156364631732224
Still think a second referendum is a plausible option. If I were betting on the market in the threadstarter, I'd look at the rules carefully to see how a transition arrangement would be settled.
On one side of this culture war are a bunch of media bubble sore loser remainers who hope an Iranian woman stays in jail in Iran as they think it damages the understudy to the chap and the bus who masterminded their defeat.
On the other side the rest of the nation hear Iran and think - “meh”.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/930346433177378817
In a halfway functioning government he would be spending more time with his family already.
A rough approximation:
"She's an Iranian women in Iran, what's it to do with us ... she should have known better than to have gone back there ... she was probably doing something wrong in any case ... the media are just trying to cause trouble ... they wouldn't be bothered if it was someone like me locked up out there"
We are at a real risk here of making meaningful negotiation with the EU, and hence any deal, impossible. As a deal is undoubtedly in our interests that would be very unfortunate. But it is not hard to see a scenario where obsessive remainers in the HoC make a sensible deal impossible and then turn around to say, "we told you leaving was a bad idea" when the absence of a deal causes disruption.
https://twitter.com/eddiemair/status/930327700404875264
I hold less of a brief for Iran.
Though even on that poll 54% still disapprove of Trump
The people who regard 5p on a packet of fishfingers as more important than £15k on the price of a new house.
Extra points if anyone moaning about CPI is in receipt of a triple lock pension.
Perhaps this is an issue where people are drawn to the extremes.
It is why they are sinking beneath the waves now.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/henry-newman-voters-know-brexit-might-be-messy-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-want-it-called-off.html
Their unwillingness to find a consensus, deceit and general incompetence is the reason why they sank beneath the waves.
I know this is something you don't like to recognise.
Perhaps you might like to consider whether the narrow minded bigotry you display on this issue was a factor in the Leave win.
The complexity of Brexit would try even the giants of politics. For this current crop, well...
Only idiots claim otherwise...
A concrete gesture from the EU on transition controls, and a serious reform of our tax credit system, which subsidises cheap labour to move here --- could transform the argument.
Plus our rebate expires (as standard) at the end of the current budget and would have to be negotiated again and that would require unanimity. There is no chance now if we chicken out of leaving that the other 27 nations would possibly unanimously allow us to stay with a rebate anymore.
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
I have never been a fan of the EU. I voted Remain last year because the alternative being offered by the Leave campaign as run was destined to leave Britain weaker and nastier. So it is proving.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
Rather like with our negotiations with the EU, groups of people in the UK playing petty politics don’t help the situation - and can make it a lot worse if they’re not careful.
24 By way of a preliminary observation, it should be noted that even though the Vienna Convention does not bind either the Community or all its Member States, a series of its provisions, including Article 62, reflect the rules of international law which lay down, subject to certain conditions, the principle that a change of circumstances may entail the lapse or suspension of a treaty.
Instead we got Dacre-baiting.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/930357539841171456
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/930358786564468737
https://order-order.com/2017/11/14/top-cameron-aide-touched-my-breast-in-number-10/
However, the batshit crazy wing of the Tory party led by Somerset Sex-Bomb Jacob Moggmentum is convinced that (a) no deal is required and (b) business will continue to back the Tories regardless. "DD of the SS" as Gyles Brandreth described him has stated that whilst parliament will have a vote the government will leave with no deal if whatever their deal is gets rejected.
So, the bear trap. This time next year, there is no deal of substance. There have been substantial job losses enacted and promised, with very hard data about what no deal hard brexit will do the following March. Business and the City have largely abandoned the Tories, decrying them as working against their interests. The mood in the country has shifted fairly sharply as only the "foreigners go home" brigade have any enthusiasm left for the calamity that awaits. Will the government really then go to the Commons and say "vote how you like, we're throwing the country onto the spikes anyway"? Laura Kuenssberg has it right - all thats left is a confidence vote. The Tory MPs will be faced with Hobson's choice - bring down their government or bring down the party.
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
http://brexitcentral.com/meeting-michel-barnier-guy-verhofstadt-ive-concluded-no-deal-will-better-deal/
I can understand the status quo prevailing with respect to the Single Market, Customs Union, ECJ and Freedom of Movement during the transition period. Similarly new trade deals should not be able to commence during the transition period.
However we should be able to sign trade deals etc with a commencement date and time that matches the expiry of our transition.
EG
We leave the EU at 23:00 on 29/3/19 (0:00 CET 30/3/19) and start a 2 year transition period.
During the transition all obligations w.r.t. freedom of movement apply but we can sign deals we need to sign with the WTO, third party nations etc - though these don't commence yet.
23:00 on 29/3/19 (0:00 CET 30/3/19) transition ends, signed deals commence including final trade deal with the EU.
But the reality is that we either pay the "ransom demand" or we will be economically killed.
You said the only way Brexit gets defeated is by rejoining. This is obviously wrong: Another way Brexit gets defeated is by having another referendum. The probability of this isn't very high, and how high it is depends on the obscure internal workings of the Conservative Party, but it's probably higher than the probability of leaving then rejoining, at least in the next decade or so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41980425
"If [Mr Bailey] is offended, I apologise."
*If*.
Picking one aggregate and saying: "look, look" is facile, frankly.
And getting called out for doing so by Remain supporters.
As we have seen since the Referendum there has been no shortage of bigotry towards and fake news about Leave voters.
You lined up behind a bigoted campaign which supported uncontrolled immigration to shift wealth up the socioeconomic scale.
BTW we're still waiting for that recession you confidently predicted after the Referendum - you know the one with skeletal fingers, a dark cloak and which speaks in block capitals.
Still congratulations for avoiding the word 'but' in your second paragraph but Benjen Stark's theory still applies.
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
But if we're to become the independent trading nation of Leavers' dreams, isn't it time we started learning how to do deals ?
(...& just a gentle reminder that we no longer have an Empire we can impose such deals on...)
IMO they’ve massively overplayed what was a good hand, and they’re in danger of us walking away and spending the next 18 months preparing to leave the EU with no money changing hands after 29th March 2019.
I suspect that upper-middle class quangocrats in Cardiff and Bristol who knew how to play the subsidy rules did rather better than those up the Welsh valleys or down in deepest Cornwall.
http://brexitcentral.com/sir-keir-starmers-obsessive-love-affair-european-court-justice-needs-end/