Given that we have not had a government with such drift and lack of obvious purpose since at least the Brown regime the opposition is making a truly shockingly poor effort at opposing it. I have had the distinct impression in the last week or so that the concerns about Corbyn which were so evident before the election are slowly starting to resurface. He remains in a much stronger position than he was then but the cracks are definitely reappearing.
The way he has dealt or not dealt with the obnoxious buffoons in his own party, the equal lack of certainty about Brexit in the Labour position, the delusional claims that he was to be PM before Christmas and the failure to obtain any lead on a chronically inept and divided government, there are definitely straws in the wind again. He didn't need a PMQ performance like this was reported to be (I haven't seen it).
fpt Labour and Tories both on 41% in latest Guardian/ICM poll
And here are the latest ICM state-of-the-party polling figures.
Labour: 41% (down 1 from Guardian/ICM three weeks ago)
Conservatives: 41% (down 1)
Lib Dems: 7% (no change)
Ukip: 4% (up 1)
Greens: 2% (no change)
Guardian
On those numbers it would be Tories 304 and Labour 276 so Tories would still be largest party surprisingly despite their abysmal few weeks. Labour would likely need SNP +LD+PC+Green support to form a government and have a majority in Parliament
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
I have no idea what they mean by this. I thought it was a consequence of our rules which say that someone who had joint citizenship is not entitled to consular assistance whilst in the country of her other citizenship. That seems reasonable but surely we can't go beyond this and appoint her as a diplomat with some kind of immunity? How could we possibly do that?
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
If she's an Iranian citizen and was in Iran on holiday then how would she be entitled to diplomatic protection and how would Iran be obliged to respect it?
I thought diplomatic protection applied to those on official state diplomatic business etc which the whole argument is that she was not doing.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
I have no idea what they mean by this. I thought it was a consequence of our rules which say that someone who had joint citizenship is not entitled to consular assistance whilst in the country of her other citizenship. That seems reasonable but surely we can't go beyond this and appoint her as a diplomat with some kind of immunity? How could we possibly do that?
In international law, diplomatic protection (or diplomatic espousal) is a means for a State to take diplomatic and other action against another State on behalf of its national whose rights and interests have been injured by the other State.
Diplomatic protection, which has been confirmed in different cases of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice, is a discretionary right of a State and may take any form that is not prohibited by international law.
It can include consular action, negotiations with the other State, political and economic pressure, judicial or arbitral proceedings or other forms of peaceful dispute settlement.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
Undoubtedly, but is it going to be on the table? I have to say that some of Richard Nabavi's observations are starting to concern me and this report hardly helps.
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
If she's an Iranian citizen and was in Iran on holiday then how would she be entitled to diplomatic protection and how would Iran be obliged to respect it?
I thought diplomatic protection applied to those on official state diplomatic business etc which the whole argument is that she was not doing.
Yes. There's an outside chance that if the government did that, she'd then be arrested as a spy. it's a stupid idea which, apart from anything else, would be such a blatant abuse of the system, it could jeopardise our existing diplomats and open the possibility of other states reacting in kind when their citizens are arrested here.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
Undoubtedly, but is it going to be on the table? I have to say that some of Richard Nabavi's observations are starting to concern me and this report hardly helps.
Provided May pays up which it looks like she will do
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
When is the last time you interacted with someone in the trade directorate of the European Commission? On Monday (see my posts upthread) I got the distinct impression they are not thinking in any way like you say they are. They are doing no serious preparation for any kind of bespoke arrangement. The choice will be to stay or go, nothing more nothing less.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
I tend to agree. And it'd be the latter, unless there's a change of government here first.
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
If she's an Iranian citizen and was in Iran on holiday then how would she be entitled to diplomatic protection and how would Iran be obliged to respect it?
I thought diplomatic protection applied to those on official state diplomatic business etc which the whole argument is that she was not doing.
Indeed so. If we try and pull a stunt like diplomatic immunity the Iranians are probably going to think she’s MI6 or a serious British ‘asset’, rather than someone on holiday who’s proved politically embarrassing for one of our ministers.
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
If she's an Iranian citizen and was in Iran on holiday then how would she be entitled to diplomatic protection and how would Iran be obliged to respect it?
I thought diplomatic protection applied to those on official state diplomatic business etc which the whole argument is that she was not doing.
Yes. There's an outside chance that if the government did that, she'd then be arrested as a spy. it's a stupid idea which, apart from anything else, would be such a blatant abuse of the system, it could jeopardise our existing diplomats and open the possibility of other states reacting in kind when their citizens are arrested here.
It would be an appalling precedent, advanced solely to try and save the FS's political skin.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a w years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
When is the last time you interacted with someone in the trade directorate of the European Commission? On Monday (see my posts upthread) I got the distinct impression they are not thinking in any way like you say they are. They are doing no serious preparation for any kind of bespoke arrangement. The choice will be to stay or go, nothing more nothing less.
fpt Labour and Tories both on 41% in latest Guardian/ICM poll
And here are the latest ICM state-of-the-party polling figures.
Labour: 41% (down 1 from Guardian/ICM three weeks ago)
Conservatives: 41% (down 1)
Lib Dems: 7% (no change)
Ukip: 4% (up 1)
Greens: 2% (no change)
Guardian
On those numbers it would be Tories 304 and Labour 276 so Tories would still be largest party surprisingly despite their abysmal few weeks. Labour would likely need SNP +LD+PC+Green support to form a government and have a majority in Parliament
SNP + LD should be enough, shouldn't it?
No, that gets to 322, Labour need 326 for a majority
Ok, cheers. 322 might be a functional majority once SF are excluded.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
Undoubtedly, but is it going to be on the table? I have to say that some of Richard Nabavi's observations are starting to concern me and this report hardly helps.
Provided May pays up which it looks like she will do
I am not sure she will be willing/able to pay enough. There is an air of unreality about both sides at the moment that is troubling. The clock is ticking.
fpt Labour and Tories both on 41% in latest Guardian/ICM poll
And here are the latest ICM state-of-the-party polling figures.
Labour: 41% (down 1 from Guardian/ICM three weeks ago)
Conservatives: 41% (down 1)
Lib Dems: 7% (no change)
Ukip: 4% (up 1)
Greens: 2% (no change)
Guardian
On those numbers it would be Tories 304 and Labour 276 so Tories would still be largest party surprisingly despite their abysmal few weeks. Labour would likely need SNP +LD+PC+Green support to form a government and have a majority in Parliament
SNP + LD should be enough, shouldn't it?
No, that gets to 322, Labour need 326 for a majority
Ok, cheers. 322 might be a functional majority once SF are excluded.
Still pretty dicey reliant on at least 3 parties even then
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
FWIW I think we will get to the very edge of the cliff, the point at which airlines warn about cancelled flights, panic buying begins as supermarkets warn of food shortages and sterling drops sharply. This will cause a major political and economic crisis the result of which will be a de facto reversal of Brexit - acceptance of an EEA "transition" or even perhaps revocation of article 50. The nature of the crisis will be such that finding a way out - any way out - will be an overriding political imperative and in that situation almost anything could happen.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
Undoubtedly, but is it going to be on the table? I have to say that some of Richard Nabavi's observations are starting to concern me and this report hardly helps.
Provided May pays up which it looks like she will do
I am not sure she will be willing/able to pay enough. There is an air of unreality about both sides at the moment that is troubling. The clock is ticking.
How many armed coups have ever made things better? it must be a short list, certainly compared against those which didn't.
Suggestion, given your interest in British history: the Glorious Revolution of 1688? More recently the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal that ushered in democracy for that country. But rare.
Suggesting the Glorious revolution is stretching the definition of a coup, given that it was an invasion followed by a sustained military campaign. But if it is allowed, despite that, then yes.
If we're looking at British/English examples, probably James I is a better case. He didn't have legal title and was never named heir but his consolidation of power (via Robert Cecil and others) on Elizabeth I's death was so effective that few ever noticed. The alternative would almost certainly have involved some, and quite possibly a great deal of, bloodshed.
But Cecil's support for James VI/I was a political coup surely? Possibly to head off a military one.
I wouldn't agree that Sisi's coup against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has made things better. It overthrew a government that, whatever its faults, was democratically elected. Human rights violations under the Sisi regime are worse than they ever have been, even by the dismal standards of Mubarak. The regime has imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents and committed thousands of judicial murders. Meanwhile the economy is as mismanaged as ever.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
How many armed coups have ever made things better? it must be a short list, certainly compared against those which didn't.
Suggestion, given your interest in British history: the Glorious Revolution of 1688? More recently the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal that ushered in democracy for that country. But rare.
Suggesting the Glorious revolution is stretching the definition of a coup, given that it was an invasion followed by a sustained military campaign. But if it is allowed, despite that, then yes.
If we're looking at British/English examples, probably James I is a better case. He didn't have legal title and was never named heir but his consolidation of power (via Robert Cecil and others) on Elizabeth I's death was so effective that few ever noticed. The alternative would almost certainly have involved some, and quite possibly a great deal of, bloodshed.
But Cecil's support for James VI/I was a political coup surely? Possibly to head off a military one.
I wouldn't agree that Sisi's coup against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has made things better. It overthrew a government that, whatever its faults, was democratically elected. Human rights violations under the Sisi regime are worse than they ever have been, even by the dismal standards of Mubarak. The regime has imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents and committed thousands of judicial murders. Meanwhile the economy is as mismanaged as ever.
Sisi's coup made things better (or less bad) if one is a Christian or a woman, but it's a choice of evils.
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
If she's an Iranian citizen and was in Iran on holiday then how would she be entitled to diplomatic protection and how would Iran be obliged to respect it?
I thought diplomatic protection applied to those on official state diplomatic business etc which the whole argument is that she was not doing.
Indeed so. If we try and pull a stunt like diplomatic immunity the Iranians are probably going to think she’s MI6 or a serious British ‘asset’, rather than someone on holiday who’s proved politically embarrassing for one of our ministers.
Seems to be some confusion on here between "diplomatic protection" and "diplomatic immunity"!!!
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a w years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
When is the last time you interacted with someone in the trade directorate of the European Commission? On Monday (see my posts upthread) I got the distinct impression they are not thinking in any way like you say they are. They are doing no serious preparation for any kind of bespoke arrangement. The choice will be to stay or go, nothing more nothing less.
TMay said "Compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies."
I am not sure she will be willing/able to pay enough. There is an air of unreality about both sides at the moment that is troubling. The clock is ticking.
Ultimately reality will impose itself and our government will deal with the situation as it is, rather than as it was falsely painted by Leave campaign rhetoric. The problem is that ticking clock. We may never face reality before we are out.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a w years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
When is the last time you interacted with someone in othing more nothing less.
TMay said "Compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies."
She of course wants Canada Plus but in real terms it is a Canada style FTA both sides are working towards
@SkyEnda: The issue of diplomatic protection for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now being discussed by lawyers
If she's an Iranian citizen and was in Iran on holiday then how would she be entitled to diplomatic protection and how would Iran be obliged to respect it?
I thought diplomatic protection applied to those on official state diplomatic business etc which the whole argument is that she was not doing.
Indeed so. If we try and pull a stunt like diplomatic immunity the Iranians are probably going to think she’s MI6 or a serious British ‘asset’, rather than someone on holiday who’s proved politically embarrassing for one of our ministers.
Seems to be some confusion on here between "diplomatic protection" and "diplomatic immunity"!!!
There’s a difference in practice? Her whole defence is that she was just someone on holiday, if the UK gov try and say she’s a diplomat then Iran are going to assume she’s a British spy and keep her in the prison for even longer.
That she’s a dual citizen of Iran complicates things even more, there’s basically nothing we can do for her except have Boris apologise for his comments and ask nicely that they let her go.
A particular problem is that Iran doesn’t recognise dual citizenship, so there is very little that foreign governments can do in cases like this.
The British government’s advice to its own dual nationals – not just British-Iranians but dual with anywhere – is, as you say, that they won’t get consular assistance etc in the same way if they are arrested in another country that they are also citizens of. But that doesn’t, and shouldn’t, mean the government can't/won’t/shouldn't exert diplomatic pressure in individual cases, particularly if there are human rights issues at stake. After all, they will even call out unfair jailing of opposition activists who have no connection to Britain, so it’s not surprising they’ll pull some stops out for dual nationals in cases like this. But options are limited, despite the "special humanitarian protection reasons" claus in the advice below, from https://www.gov.uk/help-if-you-are-arrested-abroad/y/iran
What the FCO and British consulate can’t do
The FCO and British consulate won’t be able to: get someone out of prison or detention help someone get special treatment offer legal advice, start legal proceedings or investigate a crime pay for any costs as a result of being arrested forward packages sent by friends or family to an arrested person or prisoner prevent authorities from deporting a British national after release
Dual nationals
The FCO and British consulate can help a dual British national (with a valid British passport) as long as they’re arrested in a country other than the one they hold dual nationality with.
They won’t get involved if someone’s arrested in a country for which they hold a valid passport, unless there’s a special humanitarian reason to do so.
I am not sure she will be willing/able to pay enough. There is an air of unreality about both sides at the moment that is troubling. The clock is ticking.
Ultimately reality will impose itself and our government will deal with the situation as it is, rather than as it was falsely painted by Leave campaign rhetoric. The problem is that ticking clock. We may never face reality before we are out.
The interesting question from that perspective is what is the last possible theoretical date the government could ask for a A50 extension and have a realistic chance of getting it. Even if we take as read that all the rEU states are happy to acquiesce, not as certain I would suggest as we have been told so far. The request still needs to be unanimously approved by all those states in accordance with their normal procedure, which is some states will require scheduling of legislative time and possibly passage of an act, and in other states might require the scheduling and conduct of referenda.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either waymes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
The latest poll in Alabama has Roy Moore leading 49-43%. 35% of voters say that the allegations make it more likely that they will vote for him.
Thank feck for that, my bet will be a winner.
Haven't dug into the polling yet but I wonder if the same aggressive likely to vote filter that was used in the Presidential election that hid he trump lead in the rustbelt states is in play again.
I doubt whether there’s much in the FO arsenal that would satisfy the family, given that Iran doesn’t recognise her UK citizenship and shows no signs of wanting to play ball.
Diplomatic protection allows a country to take up the cause of a national whose rights/interests have been injured by another state (I repeat: this is not the same as "diplomatic immunity"), but this can only apply once the local appeals process is exhausted – has it been yet? Even then there are still issues with the Master Nationality Rule: Article 4 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws of 1930 means that "a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also possesses."
It would take some cunning legal work to demonstrate she was even eligible for diplomatic protection, and I can’t see the Iranians accepting such an argument. And even diplomatic protection isn’t a get-out-of-jail card. It seems to me the sad truth is that she’s stuffed, and is likely to remain so until such a point as the Iranian government might find it convenient to unstuff her.
Note that the Master Nationality Rule is one reason some governments encourage citizens to consider dropping their other nationalities – because retaining them renders them more vulnerable in situations like this. (I believe this is the official advice of the USA for example.)
Diplomatic protection is not especially powerful. It's generally been seen as desirable for the scope of diplomatic protection to be limited because it stops strong states bullying weak ones. See e.g. the Calvo Doctrine – Latin American countries being less than keen for the USA to exercise its power on disputes involving U.S. investments in the region, so hold "that jurisdiction in international investment disputes lies with the country in which the investment is located" rather than with the nationality of the investor. To combine this with another theme of today, several of Russia’s neighbours have for years been alarmed at how it has been handing out dual Russian citizenship to Kremlin-friendly inhabitants of their border areas, providing a pretext of “protecting Russian nationals” when the time is ripe (as has been exercised in Georgia and Ukraine).
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either waymes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or ars first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
The latest poll in Alabama has Roy Moore leading 49-43%. 35% of voters say that the allegations make it more likely that they will vote for him.
Thank feck for that, my bet will be a winner.
Haven't dug into the polling yet but I wonder if the same aggressive likely to vote filter that was used in the Presidential election that hid he trump lead in the rustbelt states is in play again.
That was not the case in Virginia last Tuesday, if anything the reverse
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either waymes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or ars first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
As you are not even a Tory but little more than a fountain of factless abuse, I could not really give a toss what you think
It's not factless abuse it is searingly insightful political commentary.
No it is diehard Remainary portrayed as searingly insightful political commentary
Oh no it isn't. It is being driven bonkers by some random poster (whom I should ignore, granted) spouting all kind of bollocks about what Tories/Leavers/Theresa May/Arsenal fans really want.
Harare resident Denissa Moyannahas told the BBC that she travelled into the city centre, known as the central business district (CBD), from her home in the upmarket suburb of Borrowdale this morning.
"Armoured vehicles were all over the CBD, stopping cars at intersections." "Police were getting beaten up by soldiers." "The state TV Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation has been playing liberation struggle songs."
The atmosphere in the Zimbabwean capital is reported to be calm."
If police are being beaten by soldiers in the streets, it doesn't sound like the calmest place to me...
Right, I'm off for the day. Hope everyone is doing well, haven't been checking in for a while. Particular best wishes for antifrank's partner, hope the recovery is going well. Also some contrition on my part: according to Guido the twitter feed I linked to in the last thread is decidedly "unofficial", though the drama and politics of it is essentially correct.
Or it might be that even the most ghastly candidate cannot lose if he's a Republican, in this State.
There was a line I cut from my piece on Sunday.
'People might like to draw comparisons to the results in Virginia, but Alabama isn't in the South, it is in the Deep South, which should help any GOP candidate'
TMay said "Compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies."
There are two problems with the FTA option.
Firstly there probably is no transition available to one. Preferential Trade Agreements take years to negotiate and may never even happen. The EU has more PTAs than anyone else but even so they don't yet have them with some very important economies, including the United States, China, India and Japan. While we are negotiating this agreement we will be in the outer orbit of WTO.
The second problem is that the agreement is unlikely to be favourable to us, if and when we do negotiate one. They tend to be stronger on goods, where the EU has the advantage, and weaker on services where we have the advantage. The EU with its stronger negotiating position will be able to cast the agreement to favour them.
WTO Hard Brexit might be where we end up, but it is not a solution. It's the absence of one. Sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, there will be pressure to find something better.
EEA/Single Market has the problem of having to take all our rules while losing all influence over them. It gives us less than what we had as a member, even if a lot more than a PTA.
Having rejected EU membership the UK has no good options remaining, but it has to do something. My expectation is that we end up with the EEA or equivalent. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, the EEA is a nonsense outcome. But it creates the least additional damage. I think that's what will count.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either waymes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or ars first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
As you are not even a Tory but little more than a fountain of factless abuse, I could not really give a toss what you think
It's not factless abuse it is searingly insightful political commentary.
No it is diehard Remainary portrayed as searingly insightful political commentary
Oh no it isn't. It is being driven bonkers by some random poster (whom I should ignore, granted) spouting all kind of bollocks about what Tories/Leavers/Theresa May/Arsenal fans really want.
If I am driving you bonkers I must be doing something right
I doubt whether there’s much in the FO arsenal that would satisfy the family, given that Iran doesn’t recognise her UK citizenship and shows no signs of wanting to play ball.
Diplomatic protection allows a country to take up the cause of a national whose rights/interests have been injured by another state (I repeat: this is not the same as "diplomatic immunity"), but this can only apply once the local appeals process is exhausted – has it been yet? Even then there are still issues with the Master Nationality Rule: Article 4 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws of 1930 means that "a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also possesses."
It would take some cunning legal work to demonstrate she was even eligible for diplomatic protection, and I can’t see the Iranians accepting such an argument. And even diplomatic protection isn’t a get-out-of-jail card. It seems to me the sad truth is that she’s stuffed, and is likely to remain so until such a point as the Iranian government might find it convenient to unstuff her.
Note that the Master Nationality Rule is one reason some governments encourage citizens to consider dropping their other nationalities – because retaining them renders them more vulnerable in situations like this. (I believe this is the official advice of the USA for example.)
Diplomatic protection is not especially powerful. It's generally been seen as desirable for the scope of diplomatic protection to be limited because it stops strong states bullying weak ones. See e.g. the Calvo Doctrine – Latin American countries being less than keen for the USA to exercise its power on disputes involving U.S. investments in the region, so hold "that jurisdiction in international investment disputes lies with the country in which the investment is located" rather than with the nationality of the investor. To combine this with another theme of today, several of Russia’s neighbours have for years been alarmed at how it has been handing out dual Russian citizenship to Kremlin-friendly inhabitants of their border areas, providing a pretext of “protecting Russian nationals” when the time is ripe (as has been exercised in Georgia and Ukraine).
Really the only way forward is to request release on compassionate grounds, and not unreasonably so. Building bridges is better than lobbing rocks.
I am not sure she will be willing/able to pay enough. There is an air of unreality about both sides at the moment that is troubling. The clock is ticking.
Ultimately reality will impose itself and our government will deal with the situation as it is, rather than as it was falsely painted by Leave campaign rhetoric. The problem is that ticking clock. We may never face reality before we are out.
The interesting question from that perspective is what is the last possible theoretical date the government could ask for a A50 extension and have a realistic chance of getting it. Even if we take as read that all the rEU states are happy to acquiesce, not as certain I would suggest as we have been told so far. The request still needs to be unanimously approved by all those states in accordance with their normal procedure, which is some states will require scheduling of legislative time and possibly passage of an act, and in other states might require the scheduling and conduct of referenda.
Not sure. I think these things can be decided quickly, even in the middle of the night, as the Greek melodrama has shown.
There has been no destruction of the Death Star, and the Emperor remains alive and well. Do not believe the rebel scum who report otherwise. There are no bloody annoying teddy bears on Endor.
TMay said "Compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies."
There are two problems with the FTA option.
Firstly there probably is no transition available to one. Preferential Trade Agreements take years to negotiate and may never even happen. The EU has more PTAs than anyone else but even so they don't yet have them with some very important economies, including the United States, China, India and Japan. While we are negotiating this agreement we will be in the outer orbit of WTO.
The second problem is that the agreement is unlikely to be favourable to us, if and when we do negotiate one. They tend to be stronger on goods, where the EU has the advantage, and weaker on services where we have the advantage. The EU with its stronger negotiating position will be able to cast the agreement to favour them.
WTO Hard Brexit might be where we end up, but it is not a solution. It's the absence of one. Sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, there will be pressure to find something better.
EEA/Single Market has the problem of having to take all our rules while losing all influence over them. It gives us less than what we had as a member, even if a lot more than a PTA.
Having rejected EU membership the UK has no good options remaining, but it has to do something. My expectation is that we end up with the EEA or equivalent. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, the EEA is a nonsense outcome. But it creates the least additional damage. I think that's what will count.
The issue of WTO MFN suspension during talks on an FTA is dealt with in 24.5: The "reasonable length of time" referred to in paragraph 5(c) of Article XXIV should exceed 10 years only in exceptional cases. In cases where Members parties to an interim agreement believe that 10 years would be insufficient they shall provide a full explanation to the Council for Trade in Goods of the need for a longer period.
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
I didn't think too bad. Concentrating on austerity ahead of the budget.
Brexit rumblings are better left for the Tory backbenches. Jezza would prefer a weak May to a number of other potential PMs.
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
Didn’t Neil Kinnock famously miss an open goal over Westland?
IIRC Mrs Thatcher beforehand thought her Premiership might soon be over but Kinnock managed to unite the Tory party behind Mrs T.
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
Didn’t Neil Kinnock famously miss an open goal over Westland?
IIRC Mrs Thatcher beforehand thought her Premiership might soon be over but Kinnock managed to unite the Tory party behind Mrs T.
Iain Duncan Smith's inability to hold Tony Blair to account when he overlooked during a reshuffle that he couldn't abolish the role of Lord Chancellor springs to mind.
I remember Lord Tebbit holding his head in his hands with disbelief at how bad he was.
There has been no destruction of the Death Star, and the Emperor remains alive and well. Do not believe the rebel scum who report otherwise. There are no bloody annoying teddy bears on Endor.
Firstly there probably is no transition available to one. Preferential Trade Agreements take years to negotiate and may never even happen. The EU has more PTAs than anyone else but even so they don't yet have them with some very important economies, including the United States, China, India and Japan. While we are negotiating this agreement we will be in the outer orbit of WTO.
The second problem is that the agreement is unlikely to be favourable to us, if and when we do negotiate one. They tend to be stronger on goods, where the EU has the advantage, and weaker on services where we have the advantage. The EU with its stronger negotiating position will be able to cast the agreement to favour them.
WTO Hard Brexit might be where we end up, but it is not a solution. It's the absence of one. Sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, there will be pressure to find something better.
EEA/Single Market has the problem of having to take all our rules while losing all influence over them. It gives us less than what we had as a member, even if a lot more than a PTA.
Having rejected EU membership the UK has no good options remaining, but it has to do something. My expectation is that we end up with the EEA or equivalent. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, the EEA is a nonsense outcome. But it creates the least additional damage. I think that's what will count.
The issue of WTO MFN suspension during talks on an FTA is dealt with in 24.5: The "reasonable length of time" referred to in paragraph 5(c) of Article XXIV should exceed 10 years only in exceptional cases. In cases where Members parties to an interim agreement believe that 10 years would be insufficient they shall provide a full explanation to the Council for Trade in Goods of the need for a longer period.
I have changed my expectations somewhat. My original expectation was that there would be a couple of short term "transition" extensions while they negotiated a PTA and they would likely give up before they got there and instead go for some sort of EEA arrangement. I now don't think either side would wear these transition extensions, which prolong the uncertainty.
Thinking about it, it's not really different.The PTA option would be excluded earlier.
I am not hugely confident about this prediction. It's possible we will take the time to get a normal PTA and it's also possible we will quickly agree a massively unfavourable PTA by accepting every one of the EU's negotiating lines. But there is no doubt it is easier to go off-the-shelf. You know where you are with the Single Market and it's OK as long as you accept you will do what you are told.
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
Didn’t Neil Kinnock famously miss an open goal over Westland?
IIRC Mrs Thatcher beforehand thought her Premiership might soon be over but Kinnock managed to unite the Tory party behind Mrs T.
Iain Duncan Smith's inability to hold Tony Blair to account when he overlooked during a reshuffle that he couldn't abolish the role of Lord Chancellor springs to mind.
I remember Lord Tebbit holding his head in his hands with disbelief at how bad he was.
I tend to repress all memories of when IDS was party leader.
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
I didn't think too bad. Concentrating on austerity ahead of the budget.
Brexit rumblings are better left for the Tory backbenches. Jezza would prefer a weak May to a number of other potential PMs.
Yesterday's shenanigans by Bill Cash and others in the Union Jack club could only have looked less attractive if Farage been in parliament. The Remainers needed a Robin Cook at his wittiest to take command. What we got was Corbyn doing an IDS impersonation
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
I didn't think too bad. Concentrating on austerity ahead of the budget.
Brexit rumblings are better left for the Tory backbenches. Jezza would prefer a weak May to a number of other potential PMs.
He was hit for six today as commented on by the media
Today's poll showing both parties level yet again are prompting media questions on why Corbyn is not way ahead
He should be out of sight and in view of all TM's problems that is really surprising. He may not turn out to be the Messiah you were looking for
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
I didn't think too bad. Concentrating on austerity ahead of the budget.
Brexit rumblings are better left for the Tory backbenches. Jezza would prefer a weak May to a number of other potential PMs.
And anyway only a small number of political obsessives like us know or care what happens at PMQs.
Firstly there..... But it creates the least additional damage. I think that's what will count.
The issue of WTO MFN suspension during talks on an FTA is dealt with in 24.5: The "reasonable length of time" referred to in paragraph 5(c) of Article XXIV should exceed 10 years only in exceptional cases. In cases where Members parties to an interim agreement believe that 10 years would be insufficient they shall provide a full explanation to the Council for Trade in Goods of the need for a longer period.
I have changed my expectations somewhat. My original expectation was that there would be a couple of short term "transition" extensions while they negotiated a PTA and they would likely give up before they got there and instead go for some sort of EEA arrangement. I now don't think either side would wear these transition extensions, which prolong the uncertainty.
Thinking about it, it's not really different.The PTA option would be excluded earlier.
I am not hugely confident about this prediction. It's possible we will take the time to get a normal PTA and it's also possible we will quickly agree a massively unfavourable PTA by accepting every one of the EU's negotiating lines. But there is no doubt it is easier to go off-the-shelf. You know where you are with the Single Market and it's OK as long as you accept you will do what you are told.
The EEA agreement is what it is now - the right of reservation does allow the EFTA members to slow its progress. But that for me is why it made sense as a temporary solution rather than a permanent one. I think the real opportunity is an EFTA - EU FTA that removes the political elements of the EEA, regulation that steps from the economic into the social sphere.
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
I didn't think too bad. Concentrating on austerity ahead of the budget.
Brexit rumblings are better left for the Tory backbenches. Jezza would prefer a weak May to a number of other potential PMs.
And anyway only a small number of political obsessives like us know or care what happens at PMQs.
So when Jeremy tanks no one will be watching or see or hear it in the media
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
Which is why a reversal of the process, if and when it happens, will not cause the sky to fall in or threaten the future of democracy - most people do not feel strongly about the issue either way. I work in a non-political environment and it hardly ever comes up in office conversation. At board level people are very worried but everyone else is much more interested in Strictly. Brexit has not impacted. Yet.
I had a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. Though about a dry and mostly unrelated issue (future framework for assessing dumping of steel), it was with officials from the trade directorate who are therefore probably quite clued up about what's going on in Brexit talks. The overwhelming sense I got was that there's no expectation of Brexit happening in any meaningful sense. If not a total reversal then they may be expecting some kind of Brexit in name only. Much as William Glenn is ridiculed on here, it suggests he may be correct that the government in private is preparing for the mother of all back tracks.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
FWIW I think we will get to the very edge of the cliff, the point at which airlines warn about cancelled flights, panic buying begins as supermarkets warn of food shortages and sterling drops sharply. This will cause a major political and economic crisis the result of which will be a de facto reversal of Brexit - acceptance of an EEA "transition" or even perhaps revocation of article 50. The nature of the crisis will be such that finding a way out - any way out - will be an overriding political imperative and in that situation almost anything could happen.
Has there ever been a more dismal performance at PMQs by a leader of the opposition? In the expectation of watching the perfect goal-albeit into an empty net-I foolishly listened to the whole thing
I didn't think too bad. Concentrating on austerity ahead of the budget.
Brexit rumblings are better left for the Tory backbenches. Jezza would prefer a weak May to a number of other potential PMs.
And anyway only a small number of political obsessives like us know or care what happens at PMQs.
PMQs have two functions. They give airtime to the Leader of the Opposition who otherwise struggles to be heard. They are the set-piece event that connects leaders to their backbenchers. Commentators tend to focus on the second because that's the dramatic yahboo. Mrs May "won" these PMQs, because she comfortably beat low expectations of her performance. In doing so, she gave a boost to her MPs. Mr Corbyn "lost" because it will restart rumblings that have absent for a while about whether he is up to it.
The first and overlooked aspect of PMQs is more interesting. Even while I had a generally low opinion of Corbyn's abilities I though he made a decent shift of PMQs. That's because he is an issues man and he has been using PMQs to get the issues into the public domain. His weakness, which Mrs May exploited today, is in policy: OK, you have identified a problem. What specifically are you going to do about it? What are your priorities, what compromises will you make to achieve your aim, how do you bring vested interests on board, how much does it cost?
FWIW I think we will get to the very edge of the cliff, the point at which airlines warn about cancelled flights, panic buying begins as supermarkets warn of food shortages and sterling drops sharply. This will cause a major political and economic crisis the result of which will be a de facto reversal of Brexit - acceptance of an EEA "transition" or even perhaps revocation of article 50. The nature of the crisis will be such that finding a way out - any way out - will be an overriding political imperative and in that situation almost anything could happen.
That is my expectation as well.
Panic buying of food because of Brexit? Project fear, eat your heart out.
Many people were on the fence previously, mainly as a function of not giving too much of a fuck about it.
.
Or alternatively, that the EU is deeply deluded about where British politics is. May could not sell backing out of Brexit without leaving her party and doing a deal with those on the other side of the House, as I said at the weekend.
If that is the case then we can probably expect an outcome which is at one or other extreme....either essentially Remaining as-is (perhaps dressed up as an associate member or an endless transition period), or the hardest of hard Brexits as a result of both sides totally misunderstanding the other until it was too late to change course. The kind of outcome which HYUFD keeps prattling on about - ie some kind of Canada FTA - seems exceptionally unlikely, at least until we've experienced one of the two extreme outcomes for a few years first.
No most Tories would support a FTA as it ends free movement and the EU ultimately would too as the UK has to leave the single market and they still get a trade deal with their largest export destination. A 2 year transition does not change that destination
The more you opine from your position of moronocity about what "most Tories" want the more I am unable not to call you a fucking idiot.
HYUFD doesn't seem to understand that the EU doesn't give a toss what the Tory party or Labour party would or wouldn't support. They do not waste a moment of their time thinking about such considerations. Many here seem to believe Brexit is consuming every waking hour of every Eurocrat's day and I'm afraid that is a major error. My observation from the Brussels side is that they've got bigger fish to fry than Brexit and they think the Brits can like it or lump it. A huge amount of effort is going into a new framework for handling Chinese trade relations after they gain WTO market economy status. This and other geopolitical matters are getting their main focus.
Comments
The way he has dealt or not dealt with the obnoxious buffoons in his own party, the equal lack of certainty about Brexit in the Labour position, the delusional claims that he was to be PM before Christmas and the failure to obtain any lead on a chronically inept and divided government, there are definitely straws in the wind again. He didn't need a PMQ performance like this was reported to be (I haven't seen it).
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/930772330732716032?s=17
I thought diplomatic protection applied to those on official state diplomatic business etc which the whole argument is that she was not doing.
Diplomatic protection, which has been confirmed in different cases of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice, is a discretionary right of a State and may take any form that is not prohibited by international law.
It can include consular action, negotiations with the other State, political and economic pressure, judicial or arbitral proceedings or other forms of peaceful dispute settlement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_protection
http://www.cityam.com/274440/barnier-floats-canada-deal-post-brexit-model-risk-damaging
(Sorry @RoyalBlue)
http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/03/theresa-may-secretly-agrees-to-pay-50-billion-eu-divorce-bill-6899289/
I wouldn't agree that Sisi's coup against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has made things better. It overthrew a government that, whatever its faults, was democratically elected. Human rights violations under the Sisi regime are worse than they ever have been, even by the dismal standards of Mubarak. The regime has imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents and committed thousands of judicial murders. Meanwhile the economy is as mismanaged as ever.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/930779553852686336
The latest poll in Alabama has Roy Moore leading 49-43%. 35% of voters say that the allegations make it more likely that they will vote for him.
ROFLMAO
PMSL
No, seriously, leadership of what?
"Compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies."
No he really did,
Ah feck, my party is fucked.
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/14586295.John_Baron_throws_name_into_Conservative_leadership_ring__as_South_Essex_MPs_have_their_say/
Moore 4/6
Jones 11/10
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/international/us-elections/alabama-senate-election/225994924/
Betfair
Republicans are around 2/5
Dems are 7/5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.135032133
That she’s a dual citizen of Iran complicates things even more, there’s basically nothing we can do for her except have Boris apologise for his comments and ask nicely that they let her go.
A particular problem is that Iran doesn’t recognise dual citizenship, so there is very little that foreign governments can do in cases like this.
The British government’s advice to its own dual nationals – not just British-Iranians but dual with anywhere – is, as you say, that they won’t get consular assistance etc in the same way if they are arrested in another country that they are also citizens of. But that doesn’t, and shouldn’t, mean the government can't/won’t/shouldn't exert diplomatic pressure in individual cases, particularly if there are human rights issues at stake. After all, they will even call out unfair jailing of opposition activists who have no connection to Britain, so it’s not surprising they’ll pull some stops out for dual nationals in cases like this. But options are limited, despite the "special humanitarian protection reasons" claus in the advice below, from https://www.gov.uk/help-if-you-are-arrested-abroad/y/iran
What the FCO and British consulate can’t do
The FCO and British consulate won’t be able to:
get someone out of prison or detention
help someone get special treatment
offer legal advice, start legal proceedings or investigate a crime
pay for any costs as a result of being arrested
forward packages sent by friends or family to an arrested person or prisoner
prevent authorities from deporting a British national after release
Dual nationals
The FCO and British consulate can help a dual British national (with a valid British passport) as long as they’re arrested in a country other than the one they hold dual nationality with.
They won’t get involved if someone’s arrested in a country for which they hold a valid passport, unless there’s a special humanitarian reason to do so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Alabama,_2008
Diplomatic protection allows a country to take up the cause of a national whose rights/interests have been injured by another state (I repeat: this is not the same as "diplomatic immunity"), but this can only apply once the local appeals process is exhausted – has it been yet? Even then there are still issues with the Master Nationality Rule: Article 4 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws of 1930 means that "a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also possesses."
It would take some cunning legal work to demonstrate she was even eligible for diplomatic protection, and I can’t see the Iranians accepting such an argument. And even diplomatic protection isn’t a get-out-of-jail card. It seems to me the sad truth is that she’s stuffed, and is likely to remain so until such a point as the Iranian government might find it convenient to unstuff her.
Note that the Master Nationality Rule is one reason some governments encourage citizens to consider dropping their other nationalities – because retaining them renders them more vulnerable in situations like this. (I believe this is the official advice of the USA for example.)
Diplomatic protection is not especially powerful. It's generally been seen as desirable for the scope of diplomatic protection to be limited because it stops strong states bullying weak ones. See e.g. the Calvo Doctrine – Latin American countries being less than keen for the USA to exercise its power on disputes involving U.S. investments in the region, so hold "that jurisdiction in international investment disputes lies with the country in which the investment is located" rather than with the nationality of the investor. To combine this with another theme of today, several of Russia’s neighbours have for years been alarmed at how it has been handing out dual Russian citizenship to Kremlin-friendly inhabitants of their border areas, providing a pretext of “protecting Russian nationals” when the time is ripe (as has been exercised in Georgia and Ukraine).
'Police being beaten by soldiers'
Harare resident Denissa Moyannahas told the BBC that she travelled into the city centre, known as the central business district (CBD), from her home in the upmarket suburb of Borrowdale this morning.
"Armoured vehicles were all over the CBD, stopping cars at intersections."
"Police were getting beaten up by soldiers."
"The state TV Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation has been playing liberation struggle songs."
The atmosphere in the Zimbabwean capital is reported to be calm."
If police are being beaten by soldiers in the streets, it doesn't sound like the calmest place to me...
Right, I'm off for the day. Hope everyone is doing well, haven't been checking in for a while. Particular best wishes for antifrank's partner, hope the recovery is going well. Also some contrition on my part: according to Guido the twitter feed I linked to in the last thread is decidedly "unofficial", though the drama and politics of it is essentially correct.
'People might like to draw comparisons to the results in Virginia, but Alabama isn't in the South, it is in the Deep South, which should help any GOP candidate'
Firstly there probably is no transition available to one. Preferential Trade Agreements take years to negotiate and may never even happen. The EU has more PTAs than anyone else but even so they don't yet have them with some very important economies, including the United States, China, India and Japan. While we are negotiating this agreement we will be in the outer orbit of WTO.
The second problem is that the agreement is unlikely to be favourable to us, if and when we do negotiate one. They tend to be stronger on goods, where the EU has the advantage, and weaker on services where we have the advantage. The EU with its stronger negotiating position will be able to cast the agreement to favour them.
WTO Hard Brexit might be where we end up, but it is not a solution. It's the absence of one. Sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, there will be pressure to find something better.
EEA/Single Market has the problem of having to take all our rules while losing all influence over them. It gives us less than what we had as a member, even if a lot more than a PTA.
Having rejected EU membership the UK has no good options remaining, but it has to do something. My expectation is that we end up with the EEA or equivalent. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, the EEA is a nonsense outcome. But it creates the least additional damage. I think that's what will count.
If Spain counts, then 1981.
PMQs: Corbyn gives May an easy ride.
yes, that's exactly what he did, out of the goodness of his heart.
What a bunch of bennys.
There has been no destruction of the Death Star, and the Emperor remains alive and well. Do not believe the rebel scum who report otherwise. There are no bloody annoying teddy bears on Endor.
The "reasonable length of time" referred to in paragraph 5(c) of Article XXIV should exceed 10 years only in exceptional cases. In cases where Members parties to an interim agreement believe that 10 years would be insufficient they shall provide a full explanation to the Council for Trade in Goods of the need for a longer period.
Since how long has Spain been in North West Europe?
In Africa, the 1981 coup by Jerry Rawlings in Ghana was a pretty good outcome, at least after the brief purge of the old regime.
Brexit rumblings are better left for the Tory backbenches. Jezza would prefer a weak May to a number of other potential PMs.
IIRC Mrs Thatcher beforehand thought her Premiership might soon be over but Kinnock managed to unite the Tory party behind Mrs T.
I remember Lord Tebbit holding his head in his hands with disbelief at how bad he was.
Thinking about it, it's not really different.The PTA option would be excluded earlier.
I am not hugely confident about this prediction. It's possible we will take the time to get a normal PTA and it's also possible we will quickly agree a massively unfavourable PTA by accepting every one of the EU's negotiating lines. But there is no doubt it is easier to go off-the-shelf. You know where you are with the Single Market and it's OK as long as you accept you will do what you are told.
Today's poll showing both parties level yet again are prompting media questions on why Corbyn is not way ahead
He should be out of sight and in view of all TM's problems that is really surprising. He may not turn out to be the Messiah you were looking for
The first and overlooked aspect of PMQs is more interesting. Even while I had a generally low opinion of Corbyn's abilities I though he made a decent shift of PMQs. That's because he is an issues man and he has been using PMQs to get the issues into the public domain. His weakness, which Mrs May exploited today, is in policy: OK, you have identified a problem. What specifically are you going to do about it? What are your priorities, what compromises will you make to achieve your aim, how do you bring vested interests on board, how much does it cost?
It's also one reason I've backed another referendum being held.
If we end up remaining with no second referendum there will be dire political consequences.