Seemed to be some real content in most areas, but the financial services stuff sounded very thin and squeezed in - the whole passporting thing is a mystery to me, is this not where we most have to get it right?
I'd forget about the City having any negotiated settlement as part of Brexit - they're on their own. Its all about saving the UKs automotive and aerospace industry at the moment.
@MichelBarnier 10m10 minutes ago More I welcome PM @theresa_may speech. Clarity about #UK leaving Single Market and Customs Union & recognition of trade-offs will inform #EUCO guidelines re: future FTA.
Bland, fair, fair enough, in so far as it could go at this point.
If that’s the sort of response that comes out of the EU tonight, then we might as well start preparing now for no deal. And we can do a ceremonial setting fire to a big cheque to make our point if they want.
A polite response would be that while there are still considerable areas of difference, we look forward to getting around the table to move the discussions on.
Neither Weber nor Verhofstadt are principals in the negotiation. These minor characters can rant and rave all they like, but they are not going to block a deal agreed by Barnier and the 27 heads of government.
Let’s hope so.
Such delicate negotiations would I’m sure go much better, if everyone on all sides observed a period of silence as we actually go through the first phase. When we get a draft document in October can be the time to have the discussions and arguments about the details.
Everyone spitting blood for weeks on end just antagonises people, and makes an acrimonious result more likely.
@MichelBarnier 10m10 minutes ago More I welcome PM @theresa_may speech. Clarity about #UK leaving Single Market and Customs Union & recognition of trade-offs will inform #EUCO guidelines re: future FTA.
Is the correct response. At least there’s one adult on each side of the table.
If that’s the sort of response that comes out of the EU tonight, then we might as well start preparing now for no deal. And we can do a ceremonial setting fire to a big cheque to make our point if they want.
A polite response would be that while there are still considerable areas of difference, we look forward to getting around the table to move the discussions on.
Neither Weber nor Verhofstadt are principals in the negotiation. These minor characters can rant and rave all they like, but they are not going to block a deal agreed by Barnier and the 27 heads of government.
Let’s hope so.
Such delicate negotiations would I’m sure go much better, if everyone on all sides observed a period of silence as we actually go through the first phase. When we get a draft document in October can be the time to have the discussions and arguments about the details.
Everyone spitting blood for weeks on end just antagonises people, and makes an acrimonious result more likely.
Absolutely - just do it behind closed doors. No media. No commenting. Just working.
Ideally I would have like the whole thing handled by international arbitration from the outset. That way, there would be a greater focus on compromise rather than 'winning'. But we are where we are.
I don't think Barnier will be getting an honorary knighthood after all this... though he will get one before Tusk does!
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
He should have put some, I don't know, actual policy detail into his 'speech' rather than just trying to play a cynical political game with the future of the UK.
May talked about detail in a way Corbyn has never done.
Re voter ID. Until relatively recently, I didn't have a driving license.
This meant the only photo ID I had was my passport. So, if Mrs May called her snap election when the Passport Authority was renewing my passport, or when the Indian or US Embassy had it for a visa, then I'd be SoL.
There's a delicate balance here.
In NYS you need to provide proof of identity and citizenship when you register. If you register online, you need to bring that proof the first time you vote. After that as the ID is now on file you're good to go. I've yet to vote in person here in NYS, my first vote was by mail as I was abroad on election day, but I understand that when you go to vote here you have to sign the register. I'm not sure if they have a copy of your signature from your original application to check against.
If that’s the sort of response that comes out of the EU tonight, then we might as well start preparing now for no deal. And we can do a ceremonial setting fire to a big cheque to make our point if they want.
A polite response would be that while there are still considerable areas of difference, we look forward to getting around the table to move the discussions on.
Neither Weber nor Verhofstadt are principals in the negotiation. These minor characters can rant and rave all they like, but they are not going to block a deal agreed by Barnier and the 27 heads of government.
Let’s hope so.
Such delicate negotiations would I’m sure go much better, if everyone on all sides observed a period of silence as we actually go through the first phase. When we get a draft document in October can be the time to have the discussions and arguments about the details.
Everyone spitting blood for weeks on end just antagonises people, and makes an acrimonious result more likely.
Absolutely - just do it behind closed doors. No media. No commenting. Just working.
Ideally I would have like the whole thing handled by international arbitration from the outset. That way, there would be a greater focus on compromise rather than 'winning'. But we are where we are.
I don't think Barnier will be getting an honorary knighthood after all this... though he will get one before Tusk does!
And Tusk before Verhofstadt Junker meanwhile stuck at a bar...
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
He should have put some, I don't know, actual policy detail into his 'speech' rather than just trying to play a cynical political game with the future of the UK.
May talked about detail in a way Corbyn has never done.
Corbyn's not capable of doing so. Also Labour have managed to come up with a position on Brexit that is less practical than the defacto EU membership goal of the far Remainer camp, the head-banger Brexiteers, and now the official government position.
If that’s the sort of response that comes out of the EU tonight, then we might as well start preparing now for no deal. And we can do a ceremonial setting fire to a big cheque to make our point if they want.
A polite response would be that while there are still considerable areas of difference, we look forward to getting around the table to move the discussions on.
Neither Weber nor Verhofstadt are principals in the negotiation. These minor characters can rant and rave all they like, but they are not going to block a deal agreed by Barnier and the 27 heads of government.
Let’s hope so.
Such delicate negotiations would I’m sure go much better, if everyone on all sides observed a period of silence as we actually go through the first phase. When we get a draft document in October can be the time to have the discussions and arguments about the details.
Everyone spitting blood for weeks on end just antagonises people, and makes an acrimonious result more likely.
Absolutely - just do it behind closed doors. No media. No commenting. Just working.
Ideally I would have like the whole thing handled by international arbitration from the outset. That way, there would be a greater focus on compromise rather than 'winning'. But we are where we are.
I don't think Barnier will be getting an honorary knighthood after all this... though he will get one before Tusk does!
And Tusk before Verhofstadt Junker meanwhile stuck at a bar...
Or in court dealing with the wire-tapping scandal...
If that’s the sort of response that comes out of the EU tonight, then we might as well start preparing now for no deal. And we can do a ceremonial setting fire to a big cheque to make our point if they want.
A polite response would be that while there are still considerable areas of difference, we look forward to getting around the table to move the discussions on.
Neither Weber nor Verhofstadt are principals in the negotiation. These minor characters can rant and rave all they like, but they are not going to block a deal agreed by Barnier and the 27 heads of government.
No, but they do lead two out of the four major groupings in the European Parliament, so are not entirely without influence.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
With people like Morgan liking the speech, Soubry is looking more isolated than she was 24 hours ago.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
The Brexit numbers are revealing. People think it will be bad for everything but result in less immigration.
This poll also shows that ‘Right to Leave’ is now only one point adrift of ‘Wrong to Leave’.
Curious you forgot to mention that.
Allow me to cherry pick another statistic. Out of current Tory voters, 49% think we will be economically better off after Brexit and only 20% think we won't. Will that hold up?
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
Rumours of an illegal distillery I saw in one paper
Arrested under consiracy to cause explosions, but also proceeds of crime act.
Sounds like illegal chemistry rather terror related, but ongoing. Neither shop nor flat were muslim occupied.
Neighbours confirmed that Aram Kurd, 33, lives in the home with his girlfriend and said they have seen police going in and out of the property. Aram is the owner of Polish shop Zabka which was destroyed in the explosion in Hinckley Road.
That doesn't sound like a very Eastern European name. I believe some on here posted a couple of weeks ago that many of these shops are not owned or run by Eastern Europeans and perhaps their business model doesn't revolve around catering to EU migrants longing for some food from the homeland.
If that’s the sort of response that comes out of the EU tonight, then we might as well start preparing now for no deal. And we can do a ceremonial setting fire to a big cheque to make our point if they want.
A polite response would be that while there are still considerable areas of difference, we look forward to getting around the table to move the discussions on.
Neither Weber nor Verhofstadt are principals in the negotiation. These minor characters can rant and rave all they like, but they are not going to block a deal agreed by Barnier and the 27 heads of government.
Verhofstadt is the EU Parliament's equivalent to William Mcrea, accurately described by Seamus Mallon as "the village idiot of the Assembly."
I'd still be unsurprised if the Government lost the CU vote. When is it, incidentally?
Soubry and Clarkey are irreconcilable.
But others will, I suspect, come into line.
Djangoly, Hammond etc
Edit: plus others of the 'rebels' have voted against the customs union amendments previously, I suspect.
Nicky Morgan has welcomed the speech.
That must have been a struggle for her - but good that she did
I've always seen her as a natural party-line merchant, with a not massive capacity for independent thought. It is a mark of how useless May has been as a leader that she has been incapable of keeping her inside the tent.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
How would it be unconstitutional?
Because Treaty negotiations are for the Executive, not for Parliament.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
How would it be unconstitutional?
Because Treaty negotiations are for the Executive, not for Parliament.
Ah yes, it’s the ratification that parliament votes on.
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
I'd still be unsurprised if the Government lost the CU vote. When is it, incidentally?
Soubry and Clarkey are irreconcilable.
But others will, I suspect, come into line.
Djangoly, Hammond etc
Edit: plus others of the 'rebels' have voted against the customs union amendments previously, I suspect.
Nicky Morgan has welcomed the speech.
That must have been a struggle for her - but good that she did
I've always seen her as a natural party-line merchant, with a not massive capacity for independent thought. It is a mark of how useless May has been as a leader that she has been incapable of keeping her inside the tent.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
How would it be unconstitutional?
Because Treaty negotiations are for the Executive, not for Parliament.
But are there any constitutional limits on the power of parliament to legislate to constrain the executive in such a manner ? I don't think so.
In unrelated news, I'm very much enjoying Kingdom Come Deliverance. Set in Bohemia, 1403, with an emphasis on historical realism, it's got plenty of bugs but also gets a lot of things right. Strange sense of gravity to the world and the actions you take. Not perfect, but very interesting and I hope we see many more historical RPGs in the future.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
How would it be unconstitutional?
Because Treaty negotiations are for the Executive, not for Parliament.
Ah yes, it’s the ratification that parliament votes on.
Yes, they can reject the treaty and send the executive back to the table, but they can’t unilaterally amend something that requires agreement from multiple third parties.
I'd still be unsurprised if the Government lost the CU vote. When is it, incidentally?
Soubry and Clarkey are irreconcilable.
But others will, I suspect, come into line.
Djangoly, Hammond etc
Edit: plus others of the 'rebels' have voted against the customs union amendments previously, I suspect.
Nicky Morgan has welcomed the speech.
That must have been a struggle for her - but good that she did
I've always seen her as a natural party-line merchant, with a not massive capacity for independent thought. It is a mark of how useless May has been as a leader that she has been incapable of keeping her inside the tent.
Possibly because she was shuffled out of Cabinet?
Of course. But I am slightly puzzled why May thought her quite so dispensable; it's not as though she hasn't retained or promoted ministers far more incompetent (*cough, Fox...*). If she were entirely without pull. she'd not have become chair of the Treasury select committee.
I just got back. I walked a mile thru snow to the to the local Tesco, stocked up for the weekend, and walked the mile back. The trains are all cancelled, National Express is now Local Stopped, so I phoned up the local taxi service, got a quote, and will be taken home by taxi. Hopefully I should be home by eight. I note that today a politician said some words in English to other people who spoke English and this was thought to be a Good or Bad Thing, depending. We will see what transpires.
In unrelated news, I'm very much enjoying Kingdom Come Deliverance. Set in Bohemia, 1403, with an emphasis on historical realism, it's got plenty of bugs but also gets a lot of things right. Strange sense of gravity to the world and the actions you take. Not perfect, but very interesting and I hope we see many more historical RPGs in the future.
I would have thought bringing an RPG to a longbow fight would be considered the height of bad manners.
In unrelated news, I'm very much enjoying Kingdom Come Deliverance. Set in Bohemia, 1403, with an emphasis on historical realism, it's got plenty of bugs but also gets a lot of things right. Strange sense of gravity to the world and the actions you take. Not perfect, but very interesting and I hope we see many more historical RPGs in the future.
Rocket Propelled Grenades? Is that one of the bugs?
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
How would it be unconstitutional?
Because Treaty negotiations are for the Executive, not for Parliament.
But are there any constitutional limits on the power of parliament to legislate to constrain the executive in such a manner ? I don't think so.
The time for that would have been in the A50 bill which authorised the talks to take place, and indeed a very similar amendment was proposed and defeated during the Parliamentary process for that Bill.
Thanks to some fantastic whipping in both Houses, the A50 Bill went through completely unamended as literally a two-line Bill, and Labour voted for it at the third reading.
Mr. Topping, depends. One guy with an rocket-propelled grenade versus 100 archers would probably find himself embarking upon an exciting new career as a pincushion, regardless of whether he hit some of them or not.
All that poor Theresa May needs now is praise from that complete plonker Iain Martin. In reality she is the worst speaker on God's earth. John Major (no great orator) sounds like a political giant in comparison.
Her speech was long on problems short on solutions. The only reason that any of this piffle can come to pass if that it "is in the EU's interests as well"
No it is not. The EU overwhelming nterest is in making sure that there is no free lunch for the UK, lest they encourager les autres!
You've obviously never had to listen to Peter Hain - he opens his speeches by apologising for being dull
Mark Anthony does the same in Shakespeare.
yea but Antony was bluffing - Peter Hain wasn't. He had fantastic stories and had seen great events and met brilliant people, but his delivery sucked all the life out of it.
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
How would it be unconstitutional?
Because Treaty negotiations are for the Executive, not for Parliament.
But are there any constitutional limits on the power of parliament to legislate to constrain the executive in such a manner ? I don't think so.
The time for that would have been in the A50 bill which authorised the talks to take place, and indeed a very similar amendment was proposed and defeated during the Parliamentary process for that Bill.
Thanks to some fantastic whipping in both Houses, the A50 Bill went through completely unamended as literally a two-line Bill, and Labour voted for it at the third reading.
But parliament can't constrain its own future actions, surely ? So it is common sense rather than constitutional considerations which would prevent the amendment in question being voted through.
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
All that poor Theresa May needs now is praise from that complete plonker Iain Martin. In reality she is the worst speaker on God's earth. John Major (no great orator) sounds like a political giant in comparison.
Her speech was long on problems short on solutions. The only reason that any of this piffle can come to pass if that it "is in the EU's interests as well"
No it is not. The EU overwhelming nterest is in making sure that there is no free lunch for the UK, lest they encourager les autres!
You've obviously never had to listen to Peter Hain - he opens his speeches by apologising for being dull
Mark Anthony does the same in Shakespeare.
yea but Antony was bluffing - Peter Hain wasn't. He had fantastic stories and had seen great events and met brilliant people, but his delivery sucked all the life out of it.
Hillary Clinton was the same when she read her autobiography on Radio 4. Hell, if she can't make it exciting, what chance the reader?
I just got back. I walked a mile thru snow to the to the local Tesco, stocked up for the weekend, and walked the mile back. The trains are all cancelled, National Express is now Local Stopped, so I phoned up the local taxi service, got a quote, and will be taken home by taxi. Hopefully I should be home by eight. I note that today a politician said some words in English to other people who spoke English and this was thought to be a Good or Bad Thing, depending. We will see what transpires.
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
So in short we will be part of all this stuff, pay to be a member, but can in theory leave at any time.
LOL
Yes, well Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like it sometimes....
Still, now that we will have no say in what regulations are developed, we'll get to feel even less in control / sovereign.
Although, I think ironically, once we no longer have to elect MEPs, have commissioners, etc, etc, people will feel less annoyed by the uppity EU.
The utter uselessness of the European Parliament, which we rewarded with inflicting Farage and other idiots on them, was indeed a factor in my vote. I suspect I was in a pretty small minority in that respect though.
I thought a few months ago we were leaving he European Medicines Agency. Now we want to stay!
Yes! No!! Maybe!!!.
Errr....
Wasn't that about moving the HQ ?
No way the HQ can remain in the UK if we might want to leave in the future even if we never exercise that. The HQ has to be in a proper triply tied EU member state that is still in the EU
Seems to be unreported... but very strong northeasterly winds here last night on the Yorkshire Dales-Lancaster borders. Measured at over 90mph by one farmer who lost old stone tiles off the farmhouse roof for the first time in his memory, barns have lost roofing and one collapsed, own barn lost ridge tiles and slates... all without warning... Met Office too busy worrying about impact of Emma on Exeter I guess...
When a country Taxes our products coming in at, say, 50%, and we Tax the same product coming into our country at ZERO, not fair or smart. We will soon be starting RECIPROCAL TAXES so that we will charge the same thing as they charge us. $800 Billion Trade Deficit-have no choice!
Is the US really planning reciprocal tariff schedules? Ignoring the fact that this is clearly in contravention of WTO rules (in that you'd not have a standard tariff schedule applied universally to all people with whom you don't have an agreement), this isn't a particularly smart move. Oh, we want to export steel to the US. We should cut our steel import tariff to zero.
But more importantly, it misses *why* the US has a trade deficit. It's not because of tariffs, or unfair competition or any of that guff. It has a trade deficit because Americans save too little and spend too much. If you want to close the trade deficit, you need to reduce US domestic consumption.
If you do that, your manufacturers have to find overseas markets for their products, and you suck in fewer imports.
The problem is that increasing your savings rate - through raising interest rates, incentivising saving and discouraging borrowing - is not painless.
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
So in short we will be part of all this stuff, pay to be a member, but can in theory leave at any time.
LOL
Yes, well Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like it sometimes....
Still, now that we will have no say in what regulations are developed, we'll get to feel even less in control / sovereign.
Although, I think ironically, once we no longer have to elect MEPs, have commissioners, etc, etc, people will feel less annoyed by the uppity EU.
The utter uselessness of the European Parliament, which we rewarded with inflicting Farage and other idiots on them, was indeed a factor in my vote. I suspect I was in a pretty small minority in that respect though.
Do you have a t-shirt which says “don’t vote it only encourages them”?
There wasn't clarity about SM and CU before? I thought she was very clear in her previous speeches about this.
Yes she was. But this is perhaps more positive mood music from the EU.
No-one seems to be talking about Corbyn's brilliant contribution at the weekend now. His 'Customs Union' seems to have withered due to the cold weather.
A little soon to judge that, I think. Let's wait until the post-orgasmic glow of May's speech has faded - just as Corbyn's did - and, in particular, see how the Soubry/Umunna amendment pans out.
The whips are going to be working very hard indeed on Anna Soubry to get her to drop it, while simultaneously working hard on the remaining half dozen rebels to avoid giving Corbyn a victory.
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
How would it be unconstitutional?
Because Treaty negotiations are for the Executive, not for Parliament.
But are there any constitutional limits on the power of parliament to legislate to constrain the executive in such a manner ? I don't think so.
The time for that would have been in the A50 bill which authorised the talks to take place, and indeed a very similar amendment was proposed and defeated during the Parliamentary process for that Bill.
Thanks to some fantastic whipping in both Houses, the A50 Bill went through completely unamended as literally a two-line Bill, and Labour voted for it at the third reading.
But parliament can't constrain its own future actions, surely ? So it is common sense rather than constitutional considerations which would prevent the amendment in question being voted through.
Correct about Parliament binding it’s successors, but it’s the same Parliament, and almost the same amendment that has been debated and defeated previously in the Bill that authorised the talks. A different Speaker would have not allowed it, but Bercow is Bercow.
Even if the amendment were to pass, there’s plenty of other delaying tactics that could be used to prevent Royal Assent of the Bill before the clause became completely meaningless anyway. It’s just another throw of the dice by the Remainers to frustrate the whole process.
Seems to be unreported... but very strong northeasterly winds here last night on the Yorkshire Dales-Lancaster borders. Measured at over 90mph by one farmer who lost old stone tiles off the farmhouse roof for the first time in his memory, barns have lost roofing and one collapsed, own barn lost ridge tiles and slates... all without warning... Met Office too busy worrying about impact of Emma on Exeter I guess...
Probably due to the relative number of people living in each area?
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
So in short we will be part of all this stuff, pay to be a member, but can in theory leave at any time.
LOL
Yes, well Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like it sometimes....
Still, now that we will have no say in what regulations are developed, we'll get to feel even less in control / sovereign.
Although, I think ironically, once we no longer have to elect MEPs, have commissioners, etc, etc, people will feel less annoyed by the uppity EU.
The utter uselessness of the European Parliament, which we rewarded with inflicting Farage and other idiots on them, was indeed a factor in my vote. I suspect I was in a pretty small minority in that respect though.
Do you have a t-shirt which says “don’t vote it only encourages them”?
No. My kids gave me a T shirt that said I am your father but I think that was about something else.
To describe the European Parliament as window dressing trying and failing to cover up the chronic democratic deficit in the EU is completely unfair to the average doily.
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
Again, in a democracy personation is absolutely bad, independent of its effectiveness.
Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances. Making the system secure, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. You and I are successfully validating our identity at least tens of times a day with tokens and passwords and stuff. For the small minority who don't do that, workarounds are easily imagined. We mustn't make this like wealth tax, which always raises the problem (which in reality isn't one) of little old ladies on basic state pensions living alone in £25m mansions. Say you buy a house which has no front door lock; do you construct a hide and observe the door 24/7 for 6 months to assess the burglary risk, or do you put a lock in on day 1?
"Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances."
That's rubbish.
Again, I ask: how do you see personation working at a level that would swing a constituency with a majority of (say) 400 (hence 200 votes need altering)?
Again, I answer: personation is absolutely bad, irrespective of whether it "swings constituencies" or not. It is stealing democracy from one's fellow citizens. I mean, why would I not shoplift Wispa bars from Tesco, given that however hard I work at it my individual thefts are never going to be >.0000005% of their turnover?
Also, what we have here is a vulnerability. How often do we hear from Apple or MS that, yes, they have detected a vulnerability, but they can't be arsed to fix it till clear evidence arises of someone intending to exploit it.
Mr. Topping, depends. One guy with an rocket-propelled grenade versus 100 archers would probably find himself embarking upon an exciting new career as a pincushion, regardless of whether he hit some of them or not.
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
Again, in a democracy personation is absolutely bad, independent of its effectiveness.
Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances. Making the system secure, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. You and I are successfully validating our identity at least tens of times a day with tokens and passwords and stuff. For the small minority who don't do that, workarounds are easily imagined. We mustn't make this like wealth tax, which always raises the problem (which in reality isn't one) of little old ladies on basic state pensions living alone in £25m mansions. Say you buy a house which has no front door lock; do you construct a hide and observe the door 24/7 for 6 months to assess the burglary risk, or do you put a lock in on day 1?
"Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances."
That's rubbish.
Again, I ask: how do you see personation working at a level that would swing a constituency with a majority of (say) 400 (hence 200 votes need altering)?
Again, I answer: personation is absolutely bad, irrespective of whether it "swings constituencies" or not. It is stealing democracy from one's fellow citizens. I mean, why would I not shoplift Wispa bars from Tesco, given that however hard I work at it my individual thefts are never going to be >.0000005% of their turnover?....
The comparison, surely, is to wonder why it is that Tesco do not put security tags on their Wispa bars ?
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
So in short we will be part of all this stuff, pay to be a member, but can in theory leave at any time.
LOL
Yes, well Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like it sometimes....
Still, now that we will have no say in what regulations are developed, we'll get to feel even less in control / sovereign.
Although, I think ironically, once we no longer have to elect MEPs, have commissioners, etc, etc, people will feel less annoyed by the uppity EU.
The utter uselessness of the European Parliament, which we rewarded with inflicting Farage and other idiots on them, was indeed a factor in my vote. I suspect I was in a pretty small minority in that respect though.
Do you have a t-shirt which says “don’t vote it only encourages them”?
No. My kids gave me a T shirt that said I am your father but I think that was about something else.
To describe the European Parliament as window dressing trying and failing to cover up the chronic democratic deficit in the EU is completely unfair to the average doily.
It is the very essence of the democratic process. Who’s your MEP?
rcs1000 said: Is the US really planning reciprocal tariff schedules? Ignoring the fact that this is clearly in contravention of WTO rules (in that you'd not have a standard tariff schedule applied universally to all people with whom you don't have an agreement), this isn't a particularly smart move. Oh, we want to export steel to the US. We should cut our steel import tariff to zero.
But more importantly, it misses *why* the US has a trade deficit. It's not because of tariffs, or unfair competition or any of that guff. It has a trade deficit because Americans save too little and spend too much. If you want to close the trade deficit, you need to reduce US domestic consumption.
If you do that, your manufacturers have to find overseas markets for their products, and you suck in fewer imports.
The problem is that increasing your savings rate - through raising interest rates, incentivising saving and discouraging borrowing - is not painless.
I said: I am pretty sure that Trump is not that bothered about WTO rules. And the fact is that "free trade" has worked to the very considerable detriment of the US for the best part of 50 years now (having, in fairness, worked very substantially to their benefit before that). As we are all too painfully finding out countries who run persistent trade deficits end up belonging to other people who may not have your own best interests at heart.
Seems to be unreported... but very strong northeasterly winds here last night on the Yorkshire Dales-Lancaster borders. Measured at over 90mph by one farmer who lost old stone tiles off the farmhouse roof for the first time in his memory, barns have lost roofing and one collapsed, own barn lost ridge tiles and slates... all without warning... Met Office too busy worrying about impact of Emma on Exeter I guess...
Probably due to the relative number of people living in each area?
To be fair, it does require binoculars to be able to see the neighbours... and there is nobody between us and the Lancashire border which runs along the top of the moor to our west, quite a responsibility being the first line of defence should the Roses conflict kick-off again...
Rumours of an illegal distillery I saw in one paper
Arrested under consiracy to cause explosions, but also proceeds of crime act.
Sounds like illegal chemistry rather terror related, but ongoing. Neither shop nor flat were muslim occupied.
The early reports were of a moonshine factory, as opposed to a bomb-making factory. Let’s hope that turns out to be the case.
I know a fair bit about this, but all I will say is that the 6 hours I spent at the scene were amongst the most stressful, yet strangely satisfying and interesting hours I've spent in the job.
I thought a few months ago we were leaving he European Medicines Agency. Now we want to stay!
Yes! No!! Maybe!!!.
Errr....
Wasn't that about moving the HQ ?
No way the HQ can remain in the UK if we might want to leave in the future even if we never exercise that. The HQ has to be in a proper triply tied EU member state that is still in the EU
While we are talking about European Medicines Agency, it is worth remembering that David Davis took months to accept the inevitability that it would be relocated.
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
So in short we will be part of all this stuff, pay to be a member, but can in theory leave at any time.
LOL
Yes, well Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like it sometimes....
Still, now that we will have no say in what regulations are developed, we'll get to feel even less in control / sovereign.
Although, I think ironically, once we no longer have to elect MEPs, have commissioners, etc, etc, people will feel less annoyed by the uppity EU.
The utter uselessness of the European Parliament, which we rewarded with inflicting Farage and other idiots on them, was indeed a factor in my vote. I suspect I was in a pretty small minority in that respect though.
Do you have a t-shirt which says “don’t vote it only encourages them”?
No. My kids gave me a T shirt that said I am your father but I think that was about something else.
To describe the European Parliament as window dressing trying and failing to cover up the chronic democratic deficit in the EU is completely unfair to the average doily.
It is the very essence of the democratic process. Who’s your MEP?
No idea. Couldn't care less. Soon to be unemployed. Good.
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
Again, in a democracy personation is absolutely bad, independent of its effectiveness.
Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances. Making the system secure, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. You and I are successfully validating our identity at least tens of times a day with tokens and passwords and stuff. For the small minority who don't do that, workarounds are easily imagined. We mustn't make this like wealth tax, which always raises the problem (which in reality isn't one) of little old ladies on basic state pensions living alone in £25m mansions. Say you buy a house which has no front door lock; do you construct a hide and observe the door 24/7 for 6 months to assess the burglary risk, or do you put a lock in on day 1?
"Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances."
That's rubbish.
Again, I ask: how do you see personation working at a level that would swing a constituency with a majority of (say) 400 (hence 200 votes need altering)?
Again, I answer: personation is absolutely bad, irrespective of whether it "swings constituencies" or not. It is stealing democracy from one's fellow citizens. I mean, why would I not shoplift Wispa bars from Tesco, given that however hard I work at it my individual thefts are never going to be >.0000005% of their turnover?....
The comparison, surely, is to wonder why it is that Tesco do not put security tags on their Wispa bars ?
Because they employ security staff, CCTV, train shopfloor staff to stay alert - they don't just rely on crossed fingers.
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Fine. No issue. But things then can develop as we see fit.
So in short we will be part of all this stuff, pay to be a member, but can in theory leave at any time.
LOL
Yes, well Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like it sometimes....
Still, now that we will have no say in what regulations are developed, we'll get to feel even less in control / sovereign.
Although, I think ironically, once we no longer have to elect MEPs, have commissioners, etc, etc, people will feel less annoyed by the uppity EU.
The utter uselessness of the European Parliament, which we rewarded with inflicting Farage and other idiots on them, was indeed a factor in my vote. I suspect I was in a pretty small minority in that respect though.
Do you have a t-shirt which says “don’t vote it only encourages them”?
No. My kids gave me a T shirt that said I am your father but I think that was about something else.
To describe the European Parliament as window dressing trying and failing to cover up the chronic democratic deficit in the EU is completely unfair to the average doily.
It is the very essence of the democratic process. Who’s your MEP?
No idea. Couldn't care less. Soon to be unemployed. Good.
Citizen who doesn’t engage with politics furious at being ignored.
I thought people could bring along proof of address instead - if they don't have photo ID
The fact anyone can turn up give a persons name and address without any checks and cast a vote on their behalf is frankly ridiculous. How about some other checks which could be asked if they don't have any ID at all - say date of birth or a bank card?
So we are taking control of our borders, laws and money.
We will have control of our borders, except that we will have either: a) a soft border with the EU, allowing people to cross via NI; b) a hard border within the UK; or c) a hard border between NI and Ireland, contravening the GFA.
We will have control of our laws, except that we will have to keep our regulations the same in many respects - we wouldn't be able to rescue the steel industry or exempt the NHS from EU competition laws.
We will have control of our money, except that we will continue to contribute to the EU to take part in some of its programs, and as part of the exit deal, and an as yet unknown economic cost on top of that.
Is this really worth it? It literally was all about immigration and wanting an *illusion* of control, wasn't it? Because the caveats above mean it can't REALLY be about actually having control.
Do you think May was a conveyancing solicitor in a former life
If she was presumably she gave it up because she couldn't cope with the excitement.
I was thinking more probate. Some of those private client solicitors are, well, special.
I remember as a trainee running around Dundee with 6 or 7 cheques and a large bag to collect KEYS (and sundry conveyancing stuff) for my impatient clients sitting in reception. Every seller wanted to leave at 5 and every buyer wanted in by 9.30. Making sure everyone got the right keys really made Fridays quite exciting for a while.
So we are taking control of our borders, laws and money.
We will have control of our borders, except that we will have either: a) a soft border with the EU, allowing people to cross via NI; b) a hard border within the UK; or c) a hard border between NI and Ireland, contravening the GFA.
We will have control of our laws, except that we will have to keep our regulations the same in many respects - we wouldn't be able to rescue the steel industry or exempt the NHS from EU competition laws.
We will have control of our money, except that we will continue to contribute to the EU to take part in some of its programs, and as part of the exit deal, and an as yet unknown economic cost on top of that.
Is this really worth it? It literally was all about immigration and wanting an *illusion* of control, wasn't it? Because the caveats above mean it can't REALLY be about actually having control.
I thought a few months ago we were leaving he European Medicines Agency. Now we want to stay!
Yes! No!! Maybe!!!.
Errr....
Wasn't that about moving the HQ ?
No way the HQ can remain in the UK if we might want to leave in the future even if we never exercise that. The HQ has to be in a proper triply tied EU member state that is still in the EU
While we are talking about European Medicines Agency, it is worth remembering that David Davis took months to accept the inevitability that it would be relocated.
Is this really worth it? It literally was all about immigration and wanting an *illusion* of control, wasn't it? Because the caveats above mean it can't REALLY be about actually having control.
This obsession that control means "off" mentality baffles me - if you have a tv remote control you don't furiously bash the buttons constantly - you can change and alter as you wish in a considered manner.
It's typical of the naysayer attitude of remain mind you.
So we are taking control of our borders, laws and money.
We will have control of our borders, except that we will have either: a) a soft border with the EU, allowing people to cross via NI; b) a hard border within the UK; or c) a hard border between NI and Ireland, contravening the GFA.
We will have control of our laws, except that we will have to keep our regulations the same in many respects - we wouldn't be able to rescue the steel industry or exempt the NHS from EU competition laws.
We will have control of our money, except that we will continue to contribute to the EU to take part in some of its programs, and as part of the exit deal, and an as yet unknown economic cost on top of that.
Is this really worth it? It literally was all about immigration and wanting an *illusion* of control, wasn't it? Because the caveats above mean it can't REALLY be about actually having control.
Well no, it's probably not 'worth it'. But for those who obsess over sovereignty, it is, undeniably, a significant change.
So we are taking control of our borders, laws and money.
We will have control of our borders, except that we will have either: a) a soft border with the EU, allowing people to cross via NI; b) a hard border within the UK; or c) a hard border between NI and Ireland, contravening the GFA.
We will have control of our laws, except that we will have to keep our regulations the same in many respects - we wouldn't be able to rescue the steel industry or exempt the NHS from EU competition laws.
We will have control of our money, except that we will continue to contribute to the EU to take part in some of its programs, and as part of the exit deal, and an as yet unknown economic cost on top of that.
Is this really worth it? It literally was all about immigration and wanting an *illusion* of control, wasn't it? Because the caveats above mean it can't REALLY be about actually having control.
How does some customs check contravene the GFA?
May has committed to no infrastructure or checks. Where's your loyalty to the PM?
Rumours of an illegal distillery I saw in one paper
Arrested under consiracy to cause explosions, but also proceeds of crime act.
Sounds like illegal chemistry rather terror related, but ongoing. Neither shop nor flat were muslim occupied.
The early reports were of a moonshine factory, as opposed to a bomb-making factory. Let’s hope that turns out to be the case.
I know a fair bit about this, but all I will say is that the 6 hours I spent at the scene were amongst the most stressful, yet strangely satisfying and interesting hours I've spent in the job.
You tease I’m sure it will all come out eventually, well done to all those of your job who were involved.
Comments
"...trade wars are good, and easy to win..."
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-trade-wars-are-good/?lo=ap_c1
I wouldn't be so sure about that
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/969596990232432641
For the first time I do believe the ultra remainers have lost their argument
Such delicate negotiations would I’m sure go much better, if everyone on all sides observed a period of silence as we actually go through the first phase. When we get a draft document in October can be the time to have the discussions and arguments about the details.
Everyone spitting blood for weeks on end just antagonises people, and makes an acrimonious result more likely.
Ideally I would have like the whole thing handled by international arbitration from the outset. That way, there would be a greater focus on compromise rather than 'winning'. But we are where we are.
I don't think Barnier will be getting an honorary knighthood after all this... though he will get one before Tusk does!
He should have put some, I don't know, actual policy detail into his 'speech' rather than just trying to play a cynical political game with the future of the UK.
May talked about detail in a way Corbyn has never done.
Junker meanwhile stuck at a bar...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmq4WIjQxp0
A different Speaker could rule such an amendment unconstitutional, but obviously there’s no chance of Bercow doing that.
Meanwhile, the Lions tour proved Mason Crane to be more or less useless (and Jack Leach potentially rather good).
Jomel Warrican looks as though he might just resurrect the days of Ramadin and Valentine for the Windies...
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/police-search-leicester-explosion-shop-1281061
That doesn't sound like a very Eastern European name. I believe some on here posted a couple of weeks ago that many of these shops are not owned or run by Eastern Europeans and perhaps their business model doesn't revolve around catering to EU migrants longing for some food from the homeland.
It is a mark of how useless May has been as a leader that she has been incapable of keeping her inside the tent.
LOL
I don't think so.
But I am slightly puzzled why May thought her quite so dispensable; it's not as though she hasn't retained or promoted ministers far more incompetent (*cough, Fox...*). If she were entirely without pull. she'd not have become chair of the Treasury select committee.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/969605358250594305
*showing age*
Thanks to some fantastic whipping in both Houses, the A50 Bill went through completely unamended as literally a two-line Bill, and Labour voted for it at the third reading.
You silly fellow.
Edited extra bit: Mr. L is also a silly fellow
Errr....
Still, now that we will have no say in what regulations are developed, we'll get to feel even less in control / sovereign.
Although, I think ironically, once we no longer have to elect MEPs, have commissioners, etc, etc, people will feel less annoyed by the uppity EU.
Cons 41%
Lab 42%
LDs 7%
https://mobile.twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/969596965360209920
No way the HQ can remain in the UK if we might want to leave in the future even if we never exercise that. The HQ has to be in a proper triply tied EU member state that is still in the EU
Earning a degree is about signalling, and not just learning"
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/03/economist-explains-0
Is the US really planning reciprocal tariff schedules? Ignoring the fact that this is clearly in contravention of WTO rules (in that you'd not have a standard tariff schedule applied universally to all people with whom you don't have an agreement), this isn't a particularly smart move. Oh, we want to export steel to the US. We should cut our steel import tariff to zero.
But more importantly, it misses *why* the US has a trade deficit. It's not because of tariffs, or unfair competition or any of that guff. It has a trade deficit because Americans save too little and spend too much. If you want to close the trade deficit, you need to reduce US domestic consumption.
If you do that, your manufacturers have to find overseas markets for their products, and you suck in fewer imports.
The problem is that increasing your savings rate - through raising interest rates, incentivising saving and discouraging borrowing - is not painless.
Even if the amendment were to pass, there’s plenty of other delaying tactics that could be used to prevent Royal Assent of the Bill before the clause became completely meaningless anyway. It’s just another throw of the dice by the Remainers to frustrate the whole process.
To describe the European Parliament as window dressing trying and failing to cover up the chronic democratic deficit in the EU is completely unfair to the average doily.
Also, what we have here is a vulnerability. How often do we hear from Apple or MS that, yes, they have detected a vulnerability, but they can't be arsed to fix it till clear evidence arises of someone intending to exploit it.
Is the US really planning reciprocal tariff schedules? Ignoring the fact that this is clearly in contravention of WTO rules (in that you'd not have a standard tariff schedule applied universally to all people with whom you don't have an agreement), this isn't a particularly smart move. Oh, we want to export steel to the US. We should cut our steel import tariff to zero.
But more importantly, it misses *why* the US has a trade deficit. It's not because of tariffs, or unfair competition or any of that guff. It has a trade deficit because Americans save too little and spend too much. If you want to close the trade deficit, you need to reduce US domestic consumption.
If you do that, your manufacturers have to find overseas markets for their products, and you suck in fewer imports.
The problem is that increasing your savings rate - through raising interest rates, incentivising saving and discouraging borrowing - is not painless.
I said:
I am pretty sure that Trump is not that bothered about WTO rules. And the fact is that "free trade" has worked to the very considerable detriment of the US for the best part of 50 years now (having, in fairness, worked very substantially to their benefit before that). As we are all too painfully finding out countries who run persistent trade deficits end up belonging to other people who may not have your own best interests at heart.
https://www.ft.com/content/72ead180-229a-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16
With that level of awareness of how the world works it is no wonder the negotiations aren't going well.
I’ll give the Daily Mash that one for free.
We will have control of our borders, except that we will have either:
a) a soft border with the EU, allowing people to cross via NI;
b) a hard border within the UK;
or c) a hard border between NI and Ireland, contravening the GFA.
We will have control of our laws, except that we will have to keep our regulations the same in many respects - we wouldn't be able to rescue the steel industry or exempt the NHS from EU competition laws.
We will have control of our money, except that we will continue to contribute to the EU to take part in some of its programs, and as part of the exit deal, and an as yet unknown economic cost on top of that.
Is this really worth it? It literally was all about immigration and wanting an *illusion* of control, wasn't it? Because the caveats above mean it can't REALLY be about actually having control.
I remember as a trainee running around Dundee with 6 or 7 cheques and a large bag to collect KEYS (and sundry conveyancing stuff) for my impatient clients sitting in reception. Every seller wanted to leave at 5 and every buyer wanted in by 9.30. Making sure everyone got the right keys really made Fridays quite exciting for a while.
It's typical of the naysayer attitude of remain mind you.
But for those who obsess over sovereignty, it is, undeniably, a significant change.