Anyone else like me having problems with the new boss of Zimbabwe's pronunciation it goes like this courtesy of Pro-nounce EHM-ehr-sohn muh-nahn-GAHG-wah.It is spelt MNANGAGWA, EMMERSON. Mugabe was so much easier to spell.
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.
The EU will be opposed to your proposal and won't offer it. They don't believe in a distinction between economics and politics. Agreements are a careful balance between obligations and benefits that is necessarily political. They simply couldn't put together a deep and comprehensive multilateral agreement between 30 countries with different agendas without the political element. If they went down your route the whole thing would unravel. They won't do it.
And Edit. The EEA is a treaty change. I doubt it will be offered as a temporary arrangement. Permanent or not at all. Again, I may be wrong ...
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
I meant in reverse - I wonder if motivated first time Doug Jones/Anti-Moore voters are being discarded.
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.
The EU will be opposed to your proposal and won't offer it. They don't believe in a distinction between economics and politics. Agreements are a careful balance between obligations and benefits that is necessarily political. They simply couldn't put together a deep and comprehensive multilateral agreement between 30 countries with different agendas without the political element. If they went down your route the whole thing would unravel. They won't do it.
If they didn't, at the point that EFTA was strong enough to leave the EEA agreement (and it would be the 4th largest trading entity in the world at that stage at which the UK had joined it), then any party can give 1 year's notice and depart from the EEA. I would expect us, and possibly the rest of the EFTA nations to do this.
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.
The EU will be opposed to your proposal and won't offer it. They don't believe in a distinction between economics and politics. Agreements are a careful balance between obligations and benefits that is necessarily political. They simply couldn't put together a deep and comprehensive multilateral agreement between 30 countries with different agendas without the political element. If they went down your route the whole thing would unravel. They won't do it.
Why not? I suspect it's because they are focused on one goal - a federal Europe.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
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.
The EU will be opposed to your proposal and won't offer it. They don't believe in a distinction between economics and politics. Agreements are a careful balance between obligations and benefits that is necessarily political. They simply couldn't put together a deep and comprehensive multilateral agreement between 30 countries with different agendas without the political element. If they went down your route the whole thing would unravel. They won't do it.
Why not? I suspect it's because they are focused on one goal - a federal Europe.
If they were focussed on that, it would be better for the EU to remove the strongest dissenter without removing it from its positive trade balance. The best way would be to see it in EFTA, with the EFTA deal removed from the EEA so that the dreams of expansion can give way to deepening integration of the current members.
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.
Not only that but it was a major point of difference between Kinnock and Smith.
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
I'm glad someone else has mentioned this. Bill Cash's comments yesterday were frankly appalling. John Cleese wrote his famous goose-stepping episode of Fawlty Towers in 1975 partly as a satire on how stupid it was that the Brits hadn't moved on from the war after 30 years. That a significant number of people remain in that mindset 40+ years later is very depressing and makes us look frankly ridiculous to the rest of the world. Cash also forgets that the generation of Brits who served gallantly in the war (led by Heath) were the architects of our entry into the EEC.
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.
The EU will be opposed to your proposal and won't offer it. They don't believe in a distinction between economics and politics. Agreements are a careful balance between obligations and benefits that is necessarily political. They simply couldn't put together a deep and comprehensive multilateral agreement between 30 countries with different agendas without the political element. If they went down your route the whole thing would unravel. They won't do it.
If they didn't, at the point that EFTA was strong enough to leave the EEA agreement (and it would be the 4th largest trading entity in the world at that stage at which the UK had joined it), then any party can give 1 year's notice and depart from the EEA. I would expect us, and possibly the rest of the EFTA nations to do this.
Back up a bit. I expect the EEA will change somewhat to accommodate the practicalities of the much larger entity. But the EU won't go back on the principles. The reason is simple and stark. Doing so undermines the integrity of their organisation. They are a membership organisation and are focused on the interests of their members. Outside relationships with EFTA, the UK etc are secondary.
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.
Well, it takes very little to empty supermarkets. I think the 2000 fuel blockade did it.
The UK is very vulnerable. 40% of food is imported.
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.
Yes, the last thing Corbyn wants is an effective leader of the Tories.
TM's position is so precarious that even a beating at PMQs could precipitate her demise, so deliberate or not missing an open goal might just be to Labour's advantage.
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.
Someone high up in a food company was quoted on here the other day as saying some foods would be in short supply within a week of a hard Brexit and there would be price rises across the board. As hard Brexit approaches these warnings will get louder and people will start to stock up - this will have the effect of pushing up prices and depleting stocks, thus making shortages more likely.
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.
Well, it takes very little to empty supermarkets. I think the 2000 fuel blockade did it.
The UK is very vulnerable. 40% of food is imported.
Today's reports of a Xmas shortage of turkeys and butter will not have helped
Mr. NorthWales, that's alarming. The Telegraph front page is not something I like. Democracy means people get to legitimately disagree and hold varying opinions. I know they might play it as rebelling against the whip, but rebels and mutineers are different kettles of fish, and I don't like that use of language any more than I like the ridiculously hyperbolic use of 'denier' for the deficit or global warming.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
I agree with that. Both the EU and the government seem to be conspiring for the 2nd referendum to be held in the midst of people panic buying baked beans with an expectation of a 70% vote to remain after all.
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.
The EU will be opposed to your proposal and won't offer it. They don't believe in a distinction between economics and politics. Agreements are a careful balance between obligations and benefits that is necessarily political. They simply couldn't put together a deep and comprehensive multilateral agreement between 30 countries with different agendas without the political element. If they went down your route the whole thing would unravel. They won't do it.
If they didn't, at the point that EFTA was strong enough to leave the EEA agreement (and it would be the 4th largest trading entity in the world at that stage at which the UK had joined it), then any party can give 1 year's notice and depart from the EEA. I would expect us, and possibly the rest of the EFTA nations to do this.
Back up a bit. I expect the EEA will change somewhat to accommodate the practicalities of the much larger entity. But the EU won't go back on the principles. The reason is simple and stark. Doing so undermines the integrity of their organisation. They are a membership organisation and are focused on the interests of their members. Outside relationships with EFTA, the UK etc are secondary.
Precisely why I think that to get the full federal issues settled, they have to roll the EEA into the main treaty - in the way that the Fundamental Law from the Spinelli group seemed to advocate. A two tier internalised structure - with no external interference (rights of reservation, twin pillar legislative process). They need trade and Politics entirely combined at a single point and level - with only the Euro issue separating temporarily the inner and outer circles. The only way to do that, is to deal with EFTA in a different way.
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.
Someone high up in a food company was quoted on here the other day as saying some foods would be in short supply within a week of a hard Brexit and there would be price rises across the board. As hard Brexit approaches these warnings will get louder and people will start to stock up - this will have the effect of pushing up prices and depleting stocks, thus making shortages more likely.
We've had War, now Famine. At least Pestilence will be kept at bay with the extra £350 mn/week.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
I agree with that. Both the EU and the government seem to be conspiring for the 2nd referendum to be held in the midst of people panic buying baked beans with an expectation of a 70% vote to remain after all.
I wouldn't accuse the British government of conspiring - frankly I don't think they are capable of organising the proverbial p*ss up in a brewery and this kind of conspiracy is way beyond them. But nevertheless events are moving in that direction.
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.
Yes, the last thing Corbyn wants is an effective leader of the Tories.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
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.
Someone high up in a food company was quoted on here the other day as saying some foods would be in short supply within a week of a hard Brexit and there would be price rises across the board. As hard Brexit approaches these warnings will get louder and people will start to stock up - this will have the effect of pushing up prices and depleting stocks, thus making shortages more likely.
We've had War, now Famine. At least Pestilence will be kept at bay with the extra £350 mn/week.
We'd better be stocking up now on tinned food, and buying air rifles, so we can shoot squirrels and other game.
Precisely why I think that to get the full federal issues settled, they have to roll the EEA into the main treaty - in the way that the Fundamental Law from the Spinelli group seemed to advocate. A two tier internalised structure - with no external interference (rights of reservation, twin pillar legislative process). They need trade and Politics entirely combined at a single point and level - with only the Euro issue separating temporarily the inner and outer circles. The only way to do that, is to deal with EFTA in a different way.
I am a bit lost here. I think you are suggesting EU Associate Membership instead of an external relationship with an outside body? The UK would be an associate member and EFTA would probably disappear.
There is a lot of merit in that suggestion. The EU has not shown any interest in how best to accommodate countries that really don't want full membership. It probably should. Associate membership wouldn't be a less political arrangement but it would be one that came with fewer obligations. For it to work for the EU and its need to make full membership more attractive, it would also have to offer noticeably fewer benefits. Membership would need to be packaged to ensure associate membership was sufficiently attractive over no membership at all, but that most countries would be happy to upgrade to full membership.
So lots of good stuff but it doesn't deal with Brexit. We have to choose from the options available to us.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
The Telegraph has become a rag.
The Telegraph will go tits up when Matt leaves them.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
The Telegraph has become a rag.
The Telegraph will go tits up when Matt leaves them.
Their website is dire. Is the paper version as bad?
Mr. NorthWales, that's alarming. The Telegraph front page is not something I like. Democracy means people get to legitimately disagree and hold varying opinions. I know they might play it as rebelling against the whip, but rebels and mutineers are different kettles of fish, and I don't like that use of language any more than I like the ridiculously hyperbolic use of 'denier' for the deficit or global warming.
The Telegraph front page was a disgrace. I do not agree with Anna and the rebels but their views must be respected and considered, as TM said today, to enable a more consensual approach to Brexit by the party.
They are not going to take down the government, not least Anna who has a leave voting very marginal seat as we all know
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
The Telegraph has become a rag.
The Telegraph will go tits up when Matt leaves them.
Their website is dire. Is the paper version as bad?
And they’ve just put their paywall back up online. One assumes the paper version still has the sub-editors that clearly disappeared from the online version some time ago.
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
The Telegraph has become a rag.
The Telegraph will go tits up when Matt leaves them.
Their website is dire. Is the paper version as bad?
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
The Telegraph has become a rag.
The Telegraph will go tits up when Matt leaves them.
Their website is dire. Is the paper version as bad?
Mr. Hemmelig, I think lots of people want that to happen. It would explain the EU's intransigence, and Starmer batting for the other side.
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.
Anna Soubry reporting threats (who are these cretins) as a result of the Telegraph reporting is a snapshot of the turmoil that would happen if Brexit was derailed
I really don’t understand what the Telegraph were trying to do with that front page, especially given that an excellent job from the whips yesterday saw all the key votes go the government’s way?
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
The Telegraph has become a rag.
The Telegraph will go tits up when Matt leaves them.
Their website is dire. Is the paper version as bad?
@FF43"I am a bit lost here. I think you are suggesting EU Associate Membership instead of an external relationship with an outside body? The UK would be an associate member and EFTA would probably disappear."
That's exactly what the Federalist group would like. But that won't happen in itself because Norway's population are not and are never likely to be in favour of it. My suggestion is then to go the other way. Forget the nations that they cannot bring along and go for the fully federal option of concentric circles - EZ in the centre, with Non EZ members outside that in two tiers of agreement, from which a country might move from one to the other if necessary in either direction. But this would be internalised - i.e with No EEA rights outside the bloc, so as not to have any brake on the legislative process from outside as now exists with the Twin Pillar structure for EFTA.
To secure this, then EFTA has to have an FTA/PTA with the EU which is totally separately administered from the legal infrastructure of the EU - one with an arbitration structure that can be seen as totally independent. They could sell to their members this by observing that EFTA is the next biggest trade bloc in the world after the EU.
It's all long term thinking,but I think its where all parties have the most to gain and the least to lose.
How different the response to "The Brexit Mutineers" and "Crush The Saboteurs" and "Enemies Of The People". Both of the latter two were far worse, but in those heady pre-election days when Leavers gripped the reins of power tightly, they could afford to rally behind the Daily Mail. Theresa May certainly didn't feel the need to distance herself from either headline.
Now, when the Leave project looks far less assured, they feel obliged to round on the Telegraph now that it has gauchely tried the same stunt at the wrong time. Needs must, but no one should be fooled that Leavers actually disagree. They just think it impolitic to do so.
How different the response to "The Brexit Mutineers" and "Crush The Saboteurs" and "Enemies Of The People". Both of the latter two were far worse, but in those heady pre-election days when Leavers gripped the reins of power tightly, they could afford to rally behind the Daily Mail. Theresa May certainly didn't feel the need to distance herself from either headline.
Now, when the Leave project looks far less assured, they feel obliged to round on the Telegraph now that it has gauchely tried the same stunt at the wrong time. Needs must, but no one should be fooled that Leavers actually disagree. They just think it impolitic to do so.
Another brick has been pulled out of the jenga tower by this article. Brexit rebels will no longer be intimidated by press bullying.
How different the response to "The Brexit Mutineers" and "Crush The Saboteurs" and "Enemies Of The People". Both of the latter two were far worse, but in those heady pre-election days when Leavers gripped the reins of power tightly, they could afford to rally behind the Daily Mail. Theresa May certainly didn't feel the need to distance herself from either headline.
Now, when the Leave project looks far less assured, they feel obliged to round on the Telegraph now that it has gauchely tried the same stunt at the wrong time. Needs must, but no one should be fooled that Leavers actually disagree. They just think it impolitic to do so.
Not me - I have just contacted their on line chat to cancel my subscription. I consider the headline counter productive and out of order, and as you know I was a remainer now a leaver
The chat line said it will report my comments to its editorial team and my comments were frank
How different the response to "The Brexit Mutineers" and "Crush The Saboteurs" and "Enemies Of The People". Both of the latter two were far worse, but in those heady pre-election days when Leavers gripped the reins of power tightly, they could afford to rally behind the Daily Mail. Theresa May certainly didn't feel the need to distance herself from either headline.
Now, when the Leave project looks far less assured, they feel obliged to round on the Telegraph now that it has gauchely tried the same stunt at the wrong time. Needs must, but no one should be fooled that Leavers actually disagree. They just think it impolitic to do so.
Another brick has been pulled out of the jenga tower by this article. Brexit rebels will no longer be intimidated by press bullying.
They weren't exactly cowering in fear in the first place.
How different the response to "The Brexit Mutineers" and "Crush The Saboteurs" and "Enemies Of The People". Both of the latter two were far worse, but in those heady pre-election days when Leavers gripped the reins of power tightly, they could afford to rally behind the Daily Mail. Theresa May certainly didn't feel the need to distance herself from either headline.
Now, when the Leave project looks far less assured, they feel obliged to round on the Telegraph now that it has gauchely tried the same stunt at the wrong time. Needs must, but no one should be fooled that Leavers actually disagree. They just think it impolitic to do so.
Good point. "Brexit mutineers" is a factual description whereas the other headlines are an incitement to hatred.
They think they are safe because it's just Christians they are trolling. Personally in these troubled times I would think twice before suggesting that the prophet ʿĪsā ibn Maryam was partly made of pig's meat.
Someone high up in a food company was quoted on here the other day as saying some foods would be in short supply within a week of a hard Brexit and there would be price rises across the board. As hard Brexit approaches these warnings will get louder and people will start to stock up - this will have the effect of pushing up prices and depleting stocks, thus making shortages more likely.
If I were a Tory, and a Leaver, the following graphic would scare the shit out of me:
Bearing in mind that people don't like to believe they were wrong, the most likely reaction of Leavers to a bad economic outcome of Brexit would be "It was the execution that screwed it up, not the idea." That is - blame whoever was in power and actioned Brexit.
So, in the short and medium term, it's the Tories who should be scared.
However, the Remainers will consider themselves completely confirmed by events. When you have generational differences in political viewpoints, it can be one of two things: 1 - Ageing differences. That is - as you age, your opinion changes (cf the Tories being third amongst young voters in the early Seventies, and well into absolute majority leads amongst the same cohort in the latest elections) 2 - Cohort differences. That is, each generation has different views, which they maintain as they age (eg gay marriage).
Given the very human tendency to dig in on one's opinions whenever there's conflict between opinions, and the size of the disagreement and ongoing conflict, I think this looks to be more in the way of a cohort difference than an ageing difference. The way the "was the referendum choice right or wrong" polls have been very very slowly inching towards "wrong", without much evidence of anyone changing their mind is weak support of this - the "Leave" side are more likely to die off than the "Remain" side, due to the age breakdown, and if it's a cohort thing, they won't be replenished by ageing Remainers flipping sides.
This could easily end up with a "Rejoin" vote in a decade's time, especially if leaving gets associated with a big recession. Worse - it could involve joining all the way into the Eurozone, which I personally would view as an error.
I think the future with UK ex EU will depend on how close relations become with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and our Commonwealth Countries plus the US hopefully without Trump.
I believe this is scaring the EU as a succesful trading group of Countries on the perimeter of Europe with good free trade deals may well attract EU business here and see other EU countries become restless to join an alternate and successful free trading group, as the EEC was originally conceived
Someone high up in a food company was quoted on here the other day as saying some foods would be in short supply within a week of ikely.
If I were a Tory, and a Leaver, the following graphic would scare the shit out of me:
Bearing in mind that people don't like to believe they were wrong, the most likely reaction of Leavers to a bad economic outcome of Brexit would be "It was the execution that screwed it up, not the idea." That is - blame whoever was in power and actioned Brexit.
So, in the short and medium term, it's the Tories who should be scared.
However, the Remainers will consider themselves completely confirmed by events. When you have generational differences in political viewpoints, it can be one of two things: 1 - Ageing differences. That is - as you age, your opinion changes (cf the Tories being third amongst young voters in the early Seventies, and well into absolute majority leads amongst the same cohort in the latest elections) 2 - Cohort differences. That is, each generation has different views, which they maintain as they age (eg gay marriage).
Given the very human tendency to dig in on one's opinions whenever there's conflict between opinions, and the size of the disagreement and ongoing conflict, I think this looks to be more in the way of a cohort difference than an ageing difference. The way the "was the referendum choice right or wrong" polls have been very very slowly inching towards "wrong", without much evidence of anyone changing their mind is weak support of this - the "Leave" side are more likely to die off than the "Remain" side, due to the age breakdown, and if it's a cohort thing, they won't be replenished by ageing Remainers flipping sides.
This could easily end up with a "Rejoin" vote in a decade's time, especially if leaving gets associated with a big recession. Worse - it could involve joining all the way into the Eurozone, which I personally would view as an error.
Uh no. First diehard Remainers warned we were heading for Great Depression 2 after a Leave vote, they were proved completely wrong, now again they warn we are heading for Great Depression 2 after Brexit. Again no we are heading for a transition period and then a Canada style FTA.
Most Leavers also voted to restore sovereignty and end free movement, both of which will be achieved once Brexit is delivered. Finally of course more than 80% oppose the Euro so not only are we unlikely to ever rejoin the EU we are even more unlikely to ever join the Eurozone
I think the future with UK ex EU will depend on how close relations become with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and our Commonwealth Countries plus the US hopefully without Trump.
I believe this is scaring the EU as a succesful trading group of Countries on the perimeter of Europe with good free trade deals may well attract EU business here and see other EU countries become restless to join an alternate and successful free trading group, as the EEC was originally conceived
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.
Yet it still remains the case the UK is by far the EU's largest destination for exports, larger even than both Chins and the US so they cannot ignore us completely even if they want to.
Hence even Barnier is now talking of a Canada style FTA with the UK
I think the future with UK ex EU will depend on how close relations become with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and our Commonwealth Countries plus the US hopefully without Trump.
I believe this is scaring the EU as a succesful trading group of Countries on the perimeter of Europe with good free trade deals may well attract EU business here and see other EU countries become restless to join an alternate and successful free trading group, as the EEC was originally conceived
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.
Yet it still remains the case the UK is by far the EU's largest destination for exports, larger even than both Chins and the US so they cannot ignore us completely even if they want to.
Hence even Barnier is now talking of a Canada style FTA with the UK
I read that as "Export Lager". Which is probably true.
I think the future with UK ex EU will depend on how close relations become with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and our Commonwealth Countries plus the US hopefully without Trump.
I believe this is scaring the EU as a succesful trading group of Countries on the perimeter of Europe with good free trade deals may well attract EU business here and see other EU countries become restless to join an alternate and successful free trading group, as the EEC was originally conceived
Someone high up in a food company was quoted on here the other day as saying some foods would be in short supply within a week of a hard Brexit and there would be price rises across the board. As hard Brexit approaches these warnings will get louder and people will start to stock up - this will have the effect of pushing up prices and depleting stocks, thus making shortages more likely.
If I were a Tory, and a Leaver, the following graphic would scare the shit out of me:
Bearing in mind that people don't like to believe they were wrong, the most likely reaction of Leavers to a bad economic outcome of Brexit would be "It was the execution that screwed it up, not the idea." That is - blame whoever was in power and actioned Brexit.
So, in the short and medium term, it's the Tories who should be scared.
However, the Remainers will consider themselves completely confirmed by events. When you have generational differences in political viewpoints, it can be one of two things: 1 - Ageing differences. That is - as you age, your opinion changes (cf the Tories being third amongst young voters in the early Seventies, and well into absolute majority leads amongst the same cohort in the latest elections) 2 - Cohort differences. That is, each generation has different views, which they maintain as they age (eg gay marriage).
Given the very human tendency to dig in on one's opinions whenever there's conflict between opinions, and the size of the disagreement and ongoing conflict, I think this looks to be more in the way of a cohort difference than an ageing difference. The way the "was the referendum choice right or wrong" polls have been very very slowly inching towards "wrong", without much evidence of anyone changing their mind is weak support of this - the "Leave" side are more likely to die off than the "Remain" side, due to the age breakdown, and if it's a cohort thing, they won't be replenished by ageing Remainers flipping sides.
This could easily end up with a "Rejoin" vote in a decade's time, especially if leaving gets associated with a big recession. Worse - it could involve joining all the way into the Eurozone, which I personally would view as an error.
If Brexit is a disaster, then I could see rejoin being a real possibility.
If Brexit turns out anywhere between being a bit poor to being good, then rejoining will be just a Lost Cause. Few people would want to go through all the hassle of applying to rejoin.
I think the future with UK ex EU will depend on how close relations become with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and our Commonwealth Countries plus the US hopefully without Trump.
I believe this is scaring the EU as a succesful trading group of Countries on the perimeter of Europe with good free trade deals may well attract EU business here and see other EU countries become restless to join an alternate and successful free trading group, as the EEC was originally conceived
OUR Commonwealth countries???
Straw picking
The Commonwealth heads of states conference is in London next year. Huge opportunity for us to talk trade with our friends including Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Someone high up in a food company was quoted on here the other day as saying some foods would be in short supply within a week of ikely.
If I were a Tory, and a Leaver, the following graphic would scare the shit out of me:
So, in the short and medium term, it's the Tories who should be scared.
However, the Remainers will consider themselves completely confirmed by events. When you have generational differences in political viewpoints, it can be one of two things: 1 - Ageing differences. That is - as you age, your opinion changes (cf the Tories being third amongst young voters in the early Seventies, and well into absolute majority leads amongst the same cohort in the latest elections) 2 - Cohort differences. That is, each generation has different views, which they maintain as they age (eg gay marriage).
Given the very human tendency to dig in on one's opinions whenever there's conflict between opinions, and the size of the disagreement and ongoing conflict, I think this looks to be more in the way of a cohort difference than an ageing difference. The way the "was the referendum choice right or wrong" polls have been very very slowly inching towards "wrong", without much evidence of anyone changing their mind is weak support of this - the "Leave" side are more likely to die off than the "Remain" side, due to the age breakdown, and if it's a cohort thing, they won't be replenished by ageing Remainers flipping sides.
This could easily end up with a "Rejoin" vote in a decade's time, especially if leaving gets associated with a big recession. Worse - it could involve joining all the way into the Eurozone, which I personally would view as an error.
Uh no. First diehard Remainers warned we were heading for Great Depression 2 after a Leave vote, they were proved completely wrong, now again they warn we are heading for Great Depression 2 after Brexit. Again no we are heading for a transition period and then a Canada style FTA.
Most Leavers also voted to restore sovereignty and end free movement, both of which will be achieved once Brexit is delivered. Finally of course more than 80% oppose the Euro so not only are we unlikely to ever rejoin the EU we are even more unlikely to ever join the Eurozone
There's a difference between the economic effects of an actual Brexit and the loss of confidence caused by the Brexit vote. The vote led to a 15% devaluation (the effects of which are just working their way through the system now) and the new reality we find ourselves in once we're outside. The smart money considers those effects to be somewhere between a difficult decade and third world status.
Comments
Mugabe was so much easier to spell.
And Edit. The EEA is a treaty change. I doubt it will be offered as a temporary arrangement. Permanent or not at all. Again, I may be wrong ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BZhacKgVCE
Nothing to see here - just a military exercise...
The UK is very vulnerable. 40% of food is imported.
TM's position is so precarious that even a beating at PMQs could precipitate her demise, so deliberate or not missing an open goal might just be to Labour's advantage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2017
Sorry to hear that people are targeting Anna Soubry, just not acceptable to threaten people who are standing up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. A derailing of Brexit will almost certainly result in an amount of civil unrest.
There is a lot of merit in that suggestion. The EU has not shown any interest in how best to accommodate countries that really don't want full membership. It probably should. Associate membership wouldn't be a less political arrangement but it would be one that came with fewer obligations. For it to work for the EU and its need to make full membership more attractive, it would also have to offer noticeably fewer benefits. Membership would need to be packaged to ensure associate membership was sufficiently attractive over no membership at all, but that most countries would be happy to upgrade to full membership.
So lots of good stuff but it doesn't deal with Brexit. We have to choose from the options available to us.
https://twitter.com/_/status/930767055585927168
They are not going to take down the government, not least Anna who has a leave voting very marginal seat as we all know
That song is on my phone.
Helped make me the man I am today.
That's exactly what the Federalist group would like. But that won't happen in itself because Norway's population are not and are never likely to be in favour of it. My suggestion is then to go the other way. Forget the nations that they cannot bring along and go for the fully federal option of concentric circles - EZ in the centre, with Non EZ members outside that in two tiers of agreement, from which a country might move from one to the other if necessary in either direction. But this would be internalised - i.e with No EEA rights outside the bloc, so as not to have any brake on the legislative process from outside as now exists with the Twin Pillar structure for EFTA.
To secure this, then EFTA has to have an FTA/PTA with the EU which is totally separately administered from the legal infrastructure of the EU - one with an arbitration structure that can be seen as totally independent. They could sell to their members this by observing that EFTA is the next biggest trade bloc in the world after the EU.
It's all long term thinking,but I think its where all parties have the most to gain and the least to lose.
The prosecution rests its case.
Mr. D, I'm sure Impress is as objective and impartial as Baroness Chakrabarti's[sp] report into anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
Now, when the Leave project looks far less assured, they feel obliged to round on the Telegraph now that it has gauchely tried the same stunt at the wrong time. Needs must, but no one should be fooled that Leavers actually disagree. They just think it impolitic to do so.
I’m so excited.
The chat line said it will report my comments to its editorial team and my comments were frank
...I thimk he likes it.
All we'll hear is Radio ga ga.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/15/greggs-nativity-jesus-sausage-roll-advent-calendar
They should have used a Steak Bake.
Anyway, it looks like the sausage roll has already gone through a certain procedure prevalent in certain faith communities.
"Maybe we should get George Clooney back" - Justice League review round-up
http://www.gamesradar.com/maybe-we-should-get-george-clooney-back-justice-league-review-round-up/
Bearing in mind that people don't like to believe they were wrong, the most likely reaction of Leavers to a bad economic outcome of Brexit would be "It was the execution that screwed it up, not the idea." That is - blame whoever was in power and actioned Brexit.
So, in the short and medium term, it's the Tories who should be scared.
However, the Remainers will consider themselves completely confirmed by events. When you have generational differences in political viewpoints, it can be one of two things:
1 - Ageing differences. That is - as you age, your opinion changes (cf the Tories being third amongst young voters in the early Seventies, and well into absolute majority leads amongst the same cohort in the latest elections)
2 - Cohort differences. That is, each generation has different views, which they maintain as they age (eg gay marriage).
Given the very human tendency to dig in on one's opinions whenever there's conflict between opinions, and the size of the disagreement and ongoing conflict, I think this looks to be more in the way of a cohort difference than an ageing difference. The way the "was the referendum choice right or wrong" polls have been very very slowly inching towards "wrong", without much evidence of anyone changing their mind is weak support of this - the "Leave" side are more likely to die off than the "Remain" side, due to the age breakdown, and if it's a cohort thing, they won't be replenished by ageing Remainers flipping sides.
This could easily end up with a "Rejoin" vote in a decade's time, especially if leaving gets associated with a big recession. Worse - it could involve joining all the way into the Eurozone, which I personally would view as an error.
Unsympathetic to whom, Boris or Z-R ?
I believe this is scaring the EU as a succesful trading group of Countries on the perimeter of Europe with good free trade deals may well attract EU business here and see other EU countries become restless to join an alternate and successful free trading group, as the EEC was originally conceived
Most Leavers also voted to restore sovereignty and end free movement, both of which will be achieved once Brexit is delivered. Finally of course more than 80% oppose the Euro so not only are we unlikely to ever rejoin the EU we are even more unlikely to ever join the Eurozone
Johnson slipped up in the commons and said she was 'training journalists'
& No 10 line is that she was on holiday.
Tinker, tailor....
Hence even Barnier is now talking of a Canada style FTA with the UK
If Brexit turns out anywhere between being a bit poor to being good, then rejoining will be just a Lost Cause. Few people would want to go through all the hassle of applying to rejoin.