Based on her mood last night, I wouldn't be surprised if it is good cop, bad cop, *by the Brits*
Getting the DUP to veto her own offer is a novel way of avoiding an Irish veto.
So she goes back to the EU and says "I need more"
The first leak of the 'false offer' was from RTE. That puts the Irish govt's fingerprints on it. It would suggest that its the EU who thinks that scuppering what was a reasonable agreement is in their benefit.
They might still think that there is a possibility of getting a better govt in the UK to negotiate with.
They were trying to bounce May into a different deal to the one she'd agreed? Thought she would accept anything to move on?
Or they think in a choice between Remain and No Deal, remain would win?
This all sounds like too much over-analysis...my take on it is that T May was characteristically guarding sensitive information (she has a long track record of this with HM Queen, the Tory party generally and her cabinet colleagues and voters) and the DUP didnt like it.....Ulster said "no" to paraphrase the late Dr Paisley. The Irish govt are scared of a no deal situation and were perhaps a little over enthusiastic and forgot that the DUP needed to be kept happy
Can the BT commentators please stop talking over the third umpire.
Just shut the eff up.
Graeme Swann's spent too much time in Australia. He treats hs fellow commentatoress like she's a silly schoolgirl. Lucky he's being employed by BT not the BBC or he'd be on the naughty step with Damien Green
You know he works for TMS as well right? As does the likes of Sir Geoffrey. As has Alison Mitchell, while Swann was working for TMS.
You must have to work really hard to be such a pillock.
I imagine there is a majority in the Commons for what Ruth Davidson is suggesting. I also suspect this is what testerday was really all about. Good news.
You seem to be giving May credit for having a plan. That seems most unlikely.
But I can't argue that she will use this as an excuse to sell out on EU regulation. Which will also require another sellout on ECJ (only the ECJ can have jurisdiction over EU regulations). And another sellout on FOM will be involved. Question is, will the Leavers in the Tory party stand up and stop her?
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
Talking of dodgy cricket related things, Cricviz model is still horribly broken. It gave England a 21% chance of winning when they were 40/0. There is no way in the history of cricket that a team batting 4th gets ~350 to win 20% of the time.
Based on her mood last night, I wouldn't be surprised if it is good cop, bad cop, *by the Brits*
Getting the DUP to veto her own offer is a novel way of avoiding an Irish veto.
So she goes back to the EU and says "I need more"
The first leak of the 'false offer' was from RTE. That puts the Irish govt's fingerprints on it. It would suggest that its the EU who thinks that scuppering what was a reasonable agreement is in their benefit.
They might still think that there is a possibility of getting a better govt in the UK to negotiate with.
They were trying to bounce May into a different deal to the one she'd agreed? Thought she would accept anything to move on?
Or they think in a choice between Remain and No Deal, remain would win?
This all sounds like too much over-analysis...my take on it is that T May was characteristically guarding sensitive information (she has a long track record of this with HM Queen, the Tory party generally and her cabinet colleagues and voters) and the DUP didnt like it.....Ulster said "no" to paraphrase the late Dr Paisley. The Irish govt are scared of a no deal situation and were perhaps a little over enthusiastic and forgot that the DUP needed to be kept happy
Yes I think you're right. Cock up, not conspiracy. But now Brexit is inextricably tangled up with the delicate and divisive politics of Ireland and that is seriously bad news.
Something does not add up with yesterday's events. Reporting this morning the Conservative Party is fully aligned with the DUP includimg all remainers and leavers.
If that is the case did TM chance her arm or was she set up by the Irish Government and the EU
If it was the former I would suggest she will have a leadership challenge very soon
She was set up by the EU and their Remanian friends in the media, as usual.
How long before she decides she can’t be bothered with all this and walks away to WTO?
She agreed a deal. The DUP blocked it. That’s what happened. The Orange Order is dictating British foreign policy via a party that got 36% of the vote in Northern Ireland in June.
Not quite - the EU and UK agreed a deal. The Irish government then started causing last-minute difficulties (as is proven by the fact that they held a Cabinet meeting just a couple of hours before the Juncker-May photoshoot was supposed to be happening). It seems that frantic last-minute negotiations were carried out to try to placate the Irish government, but that came up against problems with the DUP.
It does look very much as the the EU were as surprised by the Irish government's behaviour as everyone else. Hopefully they'll be doing some late arm-twisting to correct this.
Of course, the root cause here is partly the EU's daft sequencing diktat, which inter alia gave a loaded gun to the Irish.
There is a definite problem with the VirtualEye. There has been at least 3 occasions in this test match where you can see from side on that the ball will hit somewhere very close to top of the wickets and VirtualEye has had it sailing way over the top.
It uses a massively inferior technological approach.
I imagine there is a majority in the Commons for what Ruth Davidson is suggesting. I also suspect this is what testerday was really all about. Good news.
You seem to be giving May credit for having a plan. That seems most unlikely.
But I can't argue that she will use this as an excuse to sell out on EU regulation. Which will also require another sellout on ECJ (only the ECJ can have jurisdiction over EU regulations). And another sellout on FOM will be involved. Question is, will the Leavers in the Tory party stand up and stop her?
Yep - I could be giving May too much credit, it is true :-)
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
Her statement says that if the PM thinks NI requires regulatory alignment with the EU, then it should apply to all of the UK not just NI. That seems pretty clear to me. Unless, of course, the PM does not think that NI requires regulatory alignment!!
Stat-tastic: "Root would become the first captain in 55 years to win a match in Australia after scoring higher than 50 in 4th innings if England win here.. the last captain to achieve that was E Dexter in 1962-1963"
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
Something does not add up with yesterday's events. Reporting this morning the Conservative Party is fully aligned with the DUP includimg all remainers and leavers.
If that is the case did TM chance her arm or was she set up by the Irish Government and the EU
If it was the former I would suggest she will have a leadership challenge very soon
She was set up by the EU and their Remanian friends in the media, as usual.
How long before she decides she can’t be bothered with all this and walks away to WTO?
She agreed a deal. The DUP blocked it. That’s what happened. The Orange Order is dictating British foreign policy via a party that got 36% of the vote in Northern Ireland in June.
Not quite - the EU and UK agreed a deal. The Irish government then started causing last-minute difficulties (as is proven by the fact that they held a Cabinet meeting just a couple of hours before the Juncker-May photoshoot was supposed to be happening). It seems that frantic last-minute negotiations were carried out to try to placate the Irish government, but that came up against problems with the DUP.
It does look very much as the the EU were as surprised by the Irish government's behaviour as everyone else. Hopefully they'll be doing some late arm-twisting to correct this.
Of course, the root cause here is partly the EU's daft sequencing diktat, which inter alia gave a loaded gun to the Irish.
The good news for May is that no deal would be even more disastrous for Ireland than for us, so there is no real reason for capitulation. The loaded gun could just as well backfire.
Something does not add up with yesterday's events. Reporting this morning the Conservative Party is fully aligned with the DUP includimg all remainers and leavers.
If that is the case did TM chance her arm or was she set up by the Irish Government and the EU
If it was the former I would suggest she will have a leadership challenge very soon
She was set up by the EU and their Remanian friends in the media, as usual.
How long before she decides she can’t be bothered with all this and walks away to WTO?
She agreed a deal. The DUP blocked it. That’s what happened. The Orange Order is dictating British foreign policy via a party that got 36% of the vote in Northern Ireland in June.
Not quite - the EU and UK agreed a deal. The Irish government then started causing last-minute difficulties (as is proven by the fact that they held a Cabinet meeting just a couple of hours before the Juncker-May photoshoot was supposed to be happening). It seems that frantic last-minute negotiations were carried out to try to placate the Irish government, but that came up against problems with the DUP.
It does look very much as the the EU were as surprised by the Irish government's behaviour as everyone else. Hopefully they'll be doing some late arm-twisting to correct this.
Of course, the root cause here is partly the EU's daft sequencing diktat, which inter alia gave a loaded gun to the Irish.
That's possible, and explains the Connelly tweet (info from Irish govt sources). But it doesn't necessarily explain why Faisal Islam got that MEP on the record fairly early on, I think suggesting something other than that which May had put to the DUP at 7am.
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
Her statement says that if the PM thinks NI requires regulatory alignment with the EU, then it should apply to all of the UK not just NI. That seems pretty clear to me. Unless, of course, the PM does not think that NI requires regulatory alignment!!
It is very sad because NI does not require regulatory alignment to have a low friction border - the UKs suggestions on this were perfectly viable and if she has stuck to her guns there is every chance that the EU would have backed down - the Irish were really only chancing their arm on this. But, of course, May was so desperate to concede to anything that they realised that they could bounce her. And as a result she will end up conceding the core part of any trade negotiations before she even started. Quite simply the worst negotiating performance by a British PM since Munich.
That is just a stupid thing to say. VirtualEye has been shown to be dodgy in the past on several occasions, and the approach they use actually requires human interaction to work (unlike Hawkeye).
There has been several reviews in this match where the camera is perfectly side on, the batsman has been hit way back in the crease, thus the ball has only a very short distance to travel. We can see that the ball has reached the peak of the arc and by the old physics can only lose height. It is clear from that view that the ball is very close to hitting the top of the stumps. Yet VirtualEye has got it miles over the top.
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
Stat-tastic: "Root would become the first captain in 55 years to win a match in Australia after scoring higher than 50 in 4th innings if England win here.. the last captain to achieve that was E Dexter in 1962-1963"
This one is better: Lyon has 9 wickets and averages 14.33 against left handers versus 1 wicket and an average of 108 against right handers...
Based on her mood last night, I wouldn't be surprised if it is good cop, bad cop, *by the Brits*
Getting the DUP to veto her own offer is a novel way of avoiding an Irish veto.
So she goes back to the EU and says "I need more"
The first leak of the 'false offer' was from RTE. That puts the Irish govt's fingerprints on it. It would suggest that its the EU who thinks that scuppering what was a reasonable agreement is in their benefit.
They might still think that there is a possibility of getting a better govt in the UK to negotiate with.
They were trying to bounce May into a different deal to the one she'd agreed? Thought she would accept anything to move on?
Or they think in a choice between Remain and No Deal, remain would win?
This all sounds like too much over-analysis...my take on it is that T May was characteristically guarding sensitive information (she has a long track record of this with HM Queen, the Tory party generally and her cabinet colleagues and voters) and the DUP didnt like it.....Ulster said "no" to paraphrase the late Dr Paisley. The Irish govt are scared of a no deal situation and were perhaps a little over enthusiastic and forgot that the DUP needed to be kept happy
In my experience working in large, bureaucratic multinationals, people tend to look for conspiracy, intrigue and hidden agendas when in actual fact rank incompetence, a lack of procedure (or lack of understanding thereof), or basic errors like the wrong person being cc'ed at the wrong time is usually to blame. One imagines this problem is even bigger with government bureaucracies.
Can the BT commentators please stop talking over the third umpire.
Just shut the eff up.
Graeme Swann's spent too much time in Australia. He treats hs fellow commentatoress like she's a silly schoolgirl. Lucky he's being employed by BT not the BBC or he'd be on the naughty step with Damien Green
You know he works for TMS as well right? As does the likes of Sir Geoffrey. As has Alison Mitchell, while Swann was working for TMS.
You must have to work really hard to be such a pillock.
I cannot recall hearing Swann on the BBC at TMS at the Ashes this winter.
I don't quite understand why you had to throw some nasty personal abuse at a fellow poster for making quite a witty remark.
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
Virtually all the problems and issues go away with the simple formula:
1 - Move to the EEA/EFTA 2 - Temporarily remain within the Customs Union until any ways around the problem are found 3 - Adopt the maximum restrictions allowable within FoM as it stands (actually having exit checks might make people think we're serious about this sort of thing...) 4 - Agree to have the EEA solution ratified by a confirmatory referendum after 2 years to ensure the electorate are indeed content this is an acceptable solution.
Can the BT commentators please stop talking over the third umpire.
Just shut the eff up.
Graeme Swann's spent too much time in Australia. He treats hs fellow commentatoress like she's a silly schoolgirl. Lucky he's being employed by BT not the BBC or he'd be on the naughty step with Damien Green
You know he works for TMS as well right? As does the likes of Sir Geoffrey. As has Alison Mitchell, while Swann was working for TMS.
You must have to work really hard to be such a pillock.
I cannot recall hearing Swann on the BBC at TMS at the Ashes this winter....
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
Sir Geoffrey is spot on...England have no real pace in the team, so that when the ball gets old we can never hurry anybody in the way Australia can with any one of their 3 frontline bowlers.
Based on her mood last night, I wouldn't be surprised if it is good cop, bad cop, *by the Brits*
Getting the DUP to veto her own offer is a novel way of avoiding an Irish veto.
So she goes back to the EU and says "I need more"
The first leak of the 'false offer' was from RTE. That puts the Irish govt's fingerprints on it. It would suggest that its the EU who thinks that scuppering what was a reasonable agreement is in their benefit.
They might still think that there is a possibility of getting a better govt in the UK to negotiate with.
They were trying to bounce May into a different deal to the one she'd agreed? Thought she would accept anything to move on?
Or they think in a choice between Remain and No Deal, remain would win?
This all sounds like too much over-analysis...my take on it is that T May was characteristically guarding sensitive information (she has a long track record of this with HM Queen, the Tory party generally and her cabinet colleagues and voters) and the DUP didnt like it.....Ulster said "no" to paraphrase the late Dr Paisley. The Irish govt are scared of a no deal situation and were perhaps a little over enthusiastic and forgot that the DUP needed to be kept happy
In my experience working in large, bureaucratic multinationals, people tend to look for conspiracy, intrigue and hidden agendas when in actual fact rank incompetence, a lack of procedure (or lack of understanding thereof), or basic errors like the wrong person being cc'ed at the wrong time is usually to blame. One imagines this problem is even bigger with government bureaucracies.
It is also worth repeating that the phrase 'regulatory alignment' is being misquoted (no doubt deliberately on the part of some). The Today programme this morning, for example, covered it at some length, without anyone pointing out that the actual text referred to regulatory alignment on those parts of single market and customs union that might otherwise lead to hard border.
Clearly, that's a completely different thing from a blanket agreement on regulatory alignment. There can still be plenty of regulatory divergence, as long as sensible administrative processes can be put in to handle it - for example, simple no-hassle self-declaration forms.
Google is hiring thousands of new moderators after facing widespread backlash for allowing child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content to flourish on YouTube.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
Virtually all the problems and issues go away with the simple formula:
1 - Move to the EEA/EFTA 2 - Temporarily remain within the Customs Union until any ways around the problem are found 3 - Adopt the maximum restrictions allowable within FoM as it stands (actually having exit checks might make people think we're serious about this sort of thing...) 4 - Agree to have the EEA solution ratified by a confirmatory referendum after 2 years to ensure the electorate are indeed content this is an acceptable solution.
Sure, if 30 countries unanimously agree and ratify the necessary treaties by March 2019.
Good work by the government. The 2001 to 2006 drop is very telling. I'm sure Labour were telling us that exam results were getting better every year during that time.
Yesterday’s order paper showed Keith Vaz being discharged from his position on the International Trade select committee, just three months after he joined. Vaz is being replaced by Tom Watson’s old flame Stephanie Peacock. Sources say Vaz hasn’t been seen much around the House recently, and he hasn’t voted since 18 October.
I agree. I think SO has caught NickPalmeritis, whereby the Brussels merry-go-round carries on going round, according to its own tunes and dance-steps, and whereby everyone reaches an agreement in the end, after sufficient posturing.
What this misses is that for some, red lines really are red lines. The DUP didn't do what they did yesterday because they wanted more concessions (i.e. as a negotiating tactic); they did it because the deal as it was was unacceptable. This is not something that can be smudged over with ambiguous words because behind the words will be hard facts and those facts will determine whether the DUP, Tory MPs, and the Dublin government can accept the deal.
As an aside, I don't think we've got a final deal on ex-pat rights yet either, have we? Don't assume that that's a gimme.
Yes, I'm sticking to my prediction! In anything EUish, ambiguity rules OK.
Google is hiring thousands of new moderators after facing widespread backlash for allowing child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content to flourish on YouTube.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
Virtually all the problems and issues go away with the simple formula:
1 - Move to the EEA/EFTA 2 - Temporarily remain within the Customs Union until any ways around the problem are found 3 - Adopt the maximum restrictions allowable within FoM as it stands (actually having exit checks might make people think we're serious about this sort of thing...) 4 - Agree to have the EEA solution ratified by a confirmatory referendum after 2 years to ensure the electorate are indeed content this is an acceptable solution.
Or we could implement the result of the referendum that we already had, which was to leave the EU which by law also involves leaving the SM and CU.
Virtually all the problems and issues go away with the simple formula:
1 - Move to the EEA/EFTA 2 - Temporarily remain within the Customs Union until any ways around the problem are found 3 - Adopt the maximum restrictions allowable within FoM as it stands (actually having exit checks might make people think we're serious about this sort of thing...) 4 - Agree to have the EEA solution ratified by a confirmatory referendum after 2 years to ensure the electorate are indeed content this is an acceptable solution.
Sure, if 30 countries unanimously agree and ratify the necessary treaties by March 2019.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It is also worth repeating that the phrase 'regulatory alignment' is being misquoted (no doubt deliberately on the part of some). The Today programme this morning, for example, covered it at some length, without anyone pointing out that the actual text referred to regulatory alignment on those parts of single market and customs union that might otherwise lead to hard border.
Clearly, that's a completely different thing from a blanket agreement on regulatory alignment. There can still be plenty of regulatory divergence, as long as sensible administrative processes can be put in to handle it - for example, simple no-hassle self-declaration forms.
Excellent point. Journalists either wilfully ignorant or deliberately misleading.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
Virtually all the problems and issues go away with the simple formula:
1 - Move to the EEA/EFTA 2 - Temporarily remain within the Customs Union until any ways around the problem are found 3 - Adopt the maximum restrictions allowable within FoM as it stands (actually having exit checks might make people think we're serious about this sort of thing...) 4 - Agree to have the EEA solution ratified by a confirmatory referendum after 2 years to ensure the electorate are indeed content this is an acceptable solution.
Or we could implement the result of the referendum that we already had, which was to leave the EU which by law also involves leaving the SM and CU.
Just as a point of order - that's not remotely true. The Customs Union may be a sticking point - but with regulatory compliance through the SM, I'm not convinced that's necessary in any case - but leaving the EU does certainly not legally require leaving the SM.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries, each of who has their own agenda and concerns, and several of whom might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do.
EFTA should see a significant advantage to enlargement, as it probably helps what is a less political entity carry a bigger trade stick. However, the Norwegians are an odd case: Like the UK its political class is pro EU but its people less so, and they might not want to have the UK in the club, destroying their ambitions of EU membership.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
Google is hiring thousands of new moderators after facing widespread backlash for allowing child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content to flourish on YouTube.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
Virtually all the problems and issues go away with the simple formula:
1 - Move to the EEA/EFTA 2 - Temporarily remain within the Customs Union until any ways around the problem are found 3 - Adopt the maximum restrictions allowable within FoM as it stands (actually having exit checks might make people think we're serious about this sort of thing...) 4 - Agree to have the EEA solution ratified by a confirmatory referendum after 2 years to ensure the electorate are indeed content this is an acceptable solution.
Or we could implement the result of the referendum that we already had, which was to leave the EU which by law also involves leaving the SM and CU.
Just as a point of order - that's not remotely true. The Customs Union may be a sticking point - but with regulatory compliance through the SM, I'm not convinced that's necessary in any case - but leaving the EU does certainly not legally require leaving the SM.
As a point of order - the UK is only a party to the SM and EEA via the EU treaties, not in their own right. By law, Brexit terminates UK membership of both the SM and CU.
It might be possible to rejoin. But it is not true to say that we can opt to leave the EU an stay in the SM or CU. That would be up to the EU.
Therefore, when the UK voted to leave the EU, as a matter of fact they voted to leave the SM/CU. If you want to rejoin, you need to obtain a mandate. That does not exist at present.
I agree. I think SO has caught NickPalmeritis, whereby the Brussels merry-go-round carries on going round, according to its own tunes and dance-steps, and whereby everyone reaches an agreement in the end, after sufficient posturing.
What this misses is that for some, red lines really are red lines. The DUP didn't do what they did yesterday because they wanted more concessions (i.e. as a negotiating tactic); they did it because the deal as it was was unacceptable. This is not something that can be smudged over with ambiguous words because behind the words will be hard facts and those facts will determine whether the DUP, Tory MPs, and the Dublin government can accept the deal.
As an aside, I don't think we've got a final deal on ex-pat rights yet either, have we? Don't assume that that's a gimme.
Yes, I'm sticking to my prediction! In anything EUish, ambiguity rules OK.
Ambiguity will get us to Phase Two, but it will not deliver a final Brexit deal. That will need to be absolutely clear as it will be the basis on which the UK will seek other FTAs.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
It's not that simple. Even if we joined EFTA we wouldn't automatically gain access to any of their existing free trade agreements.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
Yes, of course you are right that if we went down that route lots of the problems would disappear (but of course we would still have Freedom Of Movement exactly as before). And you are probably right that, if we had decided to go down that route, and squared off the 31 other countries in advance, it might have been a fairly simple negotiation, although one can never be sure until it's actually tried.
However, the Leave campaign didn't campaign to join the EEA. They campaigned on ending freedom of movement, ending payments to the EU, and not being subject to lots of EU regulations. If they had campaigned on joining the EEA, they'd have lost badly, since what would be the point of leaving the EU only to sign straight back into the things people most disliked about it?
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
It's not that simple. Even if we joined EFTA we wouldn't automatically gain access to any of their existing free trade agreements.
Actually, I think its the opposite - the constitution means that all entrants MUST agree to the terms of all current trade deals. During the campaign, people were pointing out that this might be problematic for the UK.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
It's not that simple. Even if we joined EFTA we wouldn't automatically gain access to any of their existing free trade agreements.
Actually, I think its the opposite - the constitution means that all entrants MUST agree to the terms of all current trade deals. During the campaign, people were pointing out that this might be problematic for the UK.
Read the EFTA-South Korea FTA for example. South Korea would have to approve any new member acceding to the agreement.
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
Yes, of course you are right that if we went down that route lots of the problems would disappear (but of course we would still have Freedom Of Movement exactly as before). And you are probably right that, if we had decided to go down that route, and squared off the 31 other countries in advance, it might have been a fairly simple negotiation, although one can never be sure until it's actually tried.
However, the Leave campaign didn't campaign to join the EEA. They campaigned on ending freedom of movement, ending payments to the EU, and not being subject to lots of EU regulations. If they had campaigned on joining the EEA, they'd have lost badly, since what would be the point of leaving the EU only to sign straight back into the things people most disliked about it?
Either way, the option is not available now
Leave campaigned for the moon on a stick. And then some.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
It's not that simple. Even if we joined EFTA we wouldn't automatically gain access to any of their existing free trade agreements.
Actually, I think its the opposite - the constitution means that all entrants MUST agree to the terms of all current trade deals. During the campaign, people were pointing out that this might be problematic for the UK.
Surely the counterparties to those trade agreements must have a veto on that? Otherwise they could suddenly find themselves unwillingly entering a trade agreement with a big economy which they hadn't expected when they signed up.
Can the BT commentators please stop talking over the third umpire.
Just shut the eff up.
Graeme Swann's spent too much time in Australia. He treats hs fellow commentatoress like she's a silly schoolgirl. Lucky he's being employed by BT not the BBC or he'd be on the naughty step with Damien Green
You know he works for TMS as well right? As does the likes of Sir Geoffrey. As has Alison Mitchell, while Swann was working for TMS.
You must have to work really hard to be such a pillock.
For all those right wing BEEB bashers......all I can say to you about the national value of the BBC is encapsulated in three letters.......TMS.....
Hear, hear. It has been fantastic this morning.
Though, on a point of order there is quite a lot of left wing Beeb bashing as well.
I never thought I'd miss Blowers quite as much as I do. He was irreplaceable. Alison Mitchell is a good ball on ball commentator but she needs time to become an old pro.
Glad we agree on something mind....well we probably also agree that Oxford is a wonderful city too....
Someone has just posted on the Cricinfo commentary site ""Oh! Test cricket doesn't have boundary! A person from Bangladesh, now staying in India for the purpose of higher study, is following Test cricket in Australia, rather following cricket in Bangladesh-India and wish to see England win for a competitive ASHES! Best of luck Test Cricket! “
Mr. Tyson, not a cricket fan myself, but can appreciate the odd void a great commentator can leave. I still remember the excellent enthusiasm of Murray Walker.
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
It's not that simple. Even if we joined EFTA we wouldn't automatically gain access to any of their existing free trade agreements.
Actually, I think its the opposite - the constitution means that all entrants MUST agree to the terms of all current trade deals. During the campaign, people were pointing out that this might be problematic for the UK.
Read the EFTA-South Korea FTA for example. South Korea would have to approve any new member acceding to the agreement.
Are you referring to this? Art 10.4 Any State, Member of the European Free Trade Association, may accede to this Agreement, provided that the Joint Co mmittee decides to approve its accession, on terms and conditions to be negotiated be tween the acceding State and the existing Parties. The instrument of accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.
I agree. I think SO has caught NickPalmeritis, whereby the Brussels merry-go-round carries on going round, according to its own tunes and dance-steps, and whereby everyone reaches an agreement in the end, after sufficient posturing.
What this misses is that for some, red lines really are red lines. The DUP didn't do what they did yesterday because they wanted more concessions (i.e. as a negotiating tactic); they did it because the deal as it was was unacceptable. This is not something that can be smudged over with ambiguous words because behind the words will be hard facts and those facts will determine whether the DUP, Tory MPs, and the Dublin government can accept the deal.
As an aside, I don't think we've got a final deal on ex-pat rights yet either, have we? Don't assume that that's a gimme.
Yes, I'm sticking to my prediction! In anything EUish, ambiguity rules OK.
Ambiguity will get us to Phase Two, but it will not deliver a final Brexit deal. That will need to be absolutely clear as it will be the basis on which the UK will seek other FTAs.
To quote David Cameron/Gordon Brown.... I agree with Nick. I reckon there'll be a deal in the end. TM has rather made things difficult for herself though!
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Excellent. And of course there is the time. Much of the historic dataset of chases were practically impossible within the time remaining.
Mr. Tyson, not a cricket fan myself, but can appreciate the odd void a great commentator can leave. I still remember the excellent enthusiasm of Murray Walker.
Especially when James Hunt was his co-commentator.
Sometimes though some national treasures can be replaced though...Mike Costello at BB5 boxing is utterly superb and is probably better than Harry Carpenter, something I didn't think possible.....
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
Yes, of course you are right that if we went down that route lots of the problems would disappear (but of course we would still have Freedom Of Movement exactly as before). And you are probably right that, if we had decided to go down that route, and squared off the 31 other countries in advance, it might have been a fairly simple negotiation, although one can never be sure until it's actually tried.
However, the Leave campaign didn't campaign to join the EEA. They campaigned on ending freedom of movement, ending payments to the EU, and not being subject to lots of EU regulations. If they had campaigned on joining the EEA, they'd have lost badly, since what would be the point of leaving the EU only to sign straight back into the things people most disliked about it?
Either way, the option is not available now
It could easily be pointed out that leaving the EU for the EEA decreases net payments noticeably, slashes the number of regulations with which we'd have to adhere, and permits for an emergency brake on FoM in certain circumstances (and we still don't come near to using the restrictions on FoM that we had/have as members of the EU).
It could also be pointed out that the result was only narrowly to leave the EU, so an outcome where we only narrowly leave the EU would be spot on the will of the people.
And, as I say, we could make it subject to confirmatory referendum just to make absolutely sure the will of the people is taken into account.
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
It's not that simple. Even if we joined EFTA we wouldn't automatically gain access to any of their existing free trade agreements.
Actually, I think its the opposite - the constitution means that all entrants MUST agree to the terms of all current trade deals. During the campaign, people were pointing out that this might be problematic for the UK.
Surely the counterparties to those trade agreements must have a veto on that? Otherwise they could suddenly find themselves unwillingly entering a trade agreement with a big economy which they hadn't expected when they signed up.
Yes, I think I was confusing this with some statements that I heard during the campaign, that to be granted EFTA entry we would have to be willing on our side to agree to enter all deals currently on the table (but of course that would be subject to 3rd country approval). It was more our side's position that was in question. It was probably a projection of what we would be required to do by EFTA.
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Thank you. I have been saying this for ages.
As an aside, I do think that the whole mentality about what's possible in a run-chase would be different had it not rained on the 12th day (including rest days), in that 1938/9 timeless test in S Africa.
Comments
You must have to work really hard to be such a pillock.
But I can't argue that she will use this as an excuse to sell out on EU regulation. Which will also require another sellout on ECJ (only the ECJ can have jurisdiction over EU regulations). And another sellout on FOM will be involved. Question is, will the Leavers in the Tory party stand up and stop her?
I have seen comments to the effect that no-one really knows what Davidson means-probably does not matter much as her views on Brexit have been kaleidoscopic in their variety :-)
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/937985818920194048
Plus Hawkeye has its own flaws.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/shock-drs-howler-questions-accuracy-of-hawkeye-technology/news-story/3878095d2386cd9e8192a4ccbf523f83
It does look very much as the the EU were as surprised by the Irish government's behaviour as everyone else. Hopefully they'll be doing some late arm-twisting to correct this.
Of course, the root cause here is partly the EU's daft sequencing diktat, which inter alia gave a loaded gun to the Irish.
It uses a massively inferior technological approach.
"Root would become the first captain in 55 years to win a match in Australia after scoring higher than 50 in 4th innings if England win here.. the last captain to achieve that was E Dexter in 1962-1963"
https://twitter.com/bbcnormans/status/937995378850455553
There has been several reviews in this match where the camera is perfectly side on, the batsman has been hit way back in the crease, thus the ball has only a very short distance to travel. We can see that the ball has reached the peak of the arc and by the old physics can only lose height. It is clear from that view that the ball is very close to hitting the top of the stumps. Yet VirtualEye has got it miles over the top.
Lyon has 9 wickets and averages 14.33 against left handers versus 1 wicket and an average of 108 against right handers...
https://twitter.com/catalannews/status/937992622857179136
I cannot recall hearing Swann on the BBC at TMS at the Ashes this winter.
I don't quite understand why you had to throw some nasty personal abuse at a fellow poster for making quite a witty remark.
At least Peston didn't suggest Ruth would be demanding single market access for Scotland from May.
No wonder Sony have removed him from day to day duties at Hawkeye when they bought the company...
1 - Move to the EEA/EFTA
2 - Temporarily remain within the Customs Union until any ways around the problem are found
3 - Adopt the maximum restrictions allowable within FoM as it stands (actually having exit checks might make people think we're serious about this sort of thing...)
4 - Agree to have the EEA solution ratified by a confirmatory referendum after 2 years to ensure the electorate are indeed content this is an acceptable solution.
Sandpit breathes again.
Clearly, that's a completely different thing from a blanket agreement on regulatory alignment. There can still be plenty of regulatory divergence, as long as sensible administrative processes can be put in to handle it - for example, simple no-hassle self-declaration forms.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/google-youtube-hire-moderators-child-abuse-videos
The factory jobs of the 21st century...
Error
Cock-up
Fuck-up
Calamity
Omnishambles
Uber-arsery
Catastrofuck
Brexit
Good work by the government. The 2001 to 2006 drop is very telling. I'm sure Labour were telling us that exam results were getting better every year during that time.
https://order-order.com/2017/12/05/vaz-off-international-trade-select-committee/
I can't imagine many professions where effectively not turning up for work for 2 months would go without sanction.
It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
The Customs Union may be a sticking point - but with regulatory compliance through the SM, I'm not convinced that's necessary in any case - but leaving the EU does certainly not legally require leaving the SM.
JICIPM (Jezza is Communist is PM)!!!
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
It might be possible to rejoin. But it is not true to say that we can opt to leave the EU an stay in the SM or CU. That would be up to the EU.
Therefore, when the UK voted to leave the EU, as a matter of fact they voted to leave the SM/CU. If you want to rejoin, you need to obtain a mandate. That does not exist at present.
Though, on a point of order there is quite a lot of left wing Beeb bashing as well.
However, the Leave campaign didn't campaign to join the EEA. They campaigned on ending freedom of movement, ending payments to the EU, and not being subject to lots of EU regulations. If they had campaigned on joining the EEA, they'd have lost badly, since what would be the point of leaving the EU only to sign straight back into the things people most disliked about it?
Either way, the option is not available now
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/free-trade-relations/republic-of-korea/EFTA- Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement.pdf
When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354).
There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario)
England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao)
They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Edit: As @williamglenn has just shown.
Glad we agree on something mind....well we probably also agree that Oxford is a wonderful city too....
Citizens of the World!
Art 10.4
Any State, Member of the European
Free Trade Association, may accede to
this Agreement, provided that the Joint Co
mmittee decides to approve its accession,
on terms and conditions to be negotiated be
tween the acceding State and the existing
Parties. The instrument of accession
shall be deposited with the Depositary.
I reckon there'll be a deal in the end. TM has rather made things difficult for herself though!
I've not looked but Aus 1.35 perhaps from here ?
Edit: 1.315 according to Betfair, looks about right.
Sometimes though some national treasures can be replaced though...Mike Costello at BB5 boxing is utterly superb and is probably better than Harry Carpenter, something I didn't think possible.....
It could also be pointed out that the result was only narrowly to leave the EU, so an outcome where we only narrowly leave the EU would be spot on the will of the people.
And, as I say, we could make it subject to confirmatory referendum just to make absolutely sure the will of the people is taken into account.
No: i want Ireland to be divided.
How about "do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom"
As an aside, I do think that the whole mentality about what's possible in a run-chase would be different had it not rained on the 12th day (including rest days), in that 1938/9 timeless test in S Africa.
TSE -lost for words?