Carlotta, which side you are on ? Normally, you go with the Tory leadership. I have not read the whole thread to know your "current" feelings.
We’re not in the school playground!
I’d have preferred Remain to have won, but once LEAVE did respect for democracy trumps that. On first glance what May has cobbled together seems to meet that - provided the immigration question is answered adequately. I still suspect we’ll have a major drama in October.
I’m not sure “The EU turned down something you want too” is the strongest of selling points....
It's just a question of claiming our concessions weren't feasible, then it's 'They gave us no choice but to say no, because the alternative would have been worse'. I'm not convinced by the 'it will have serious implications' for them too line of argument, since it's the same reasoning that is used to suggest no deal is simply impossible, when there are any number of ways we could all sleepwalk into such a position, since negative implications are not immediate and politicians all over are content to kick the can down the road and take a hit later rather than make too many concessions today.
I hope a deal is done, but I think it is expecting too much to think the populations of the EU will see something bad happening down the line and go 'Well, it's my government's fault', particularly when the EU 27 will probably be united, in that scenario, to saying it was ours. Sure, some oppositions may make something of it, but as factor in forcing the EU to concede on some pretty major points? It might happen, but I don't think it is as effective as some think.
If there is a No Deal then bad things will happen, of that there is no doubt. That's when the blame will be apportioned - not before. It's the knowledge of the bad things and their consequences that will drive both sides. As David observes, the UK government has now done enough to manage - at least to some extent - how a No Deal will be received in the UK. From here, given the concessions that have been made, the EU27 governments are going to have to start thinking about it, too.
Where I think David is wrong is that this is as far as the government will go. There is more to come.
Before we get into who will get hurt most, let's take in the figures: We trade with the EU as a whole and roughly 50% of our exports go there [ including gold re-shipments ]. For each of the EU27 countries, only the UK will be leaving, the other EU26 remain in the single market. The "cost" [ in lost trade ] to each of the EU27 separately is tiny compared to the UK [ particularly, as a percentage of their total exports ].
Yep, I get that, which is why I always said threatening a No Deal was never remotely feasible from a UK perspective. But that does not mean a No Deal scenario is palatable for the EU27 or that it does not deliver negative consequences for them.
I was curious about what you thought their motivations were?
False consciousness, a genuine desire to see agricultural wages rise, or merely a feeling of not liking foreigners?
Edit: To be fair to you, I'll give you my view. A little of both the last two. A time of massive change over which they have no control or say, or for which any planning was done. An associated feeling of being told they don't matter.
The best outcome from yesterday is the end of BoZo's career. He gambled on losing the referendum to win the leadership, and now both sides don't trust him.
Result!
If that was the result the bunting would be flying throughout the nation. Unfortunately since yesterday all we discovered is that there is nothing a Cabinet Minister wont agree to if it means keeping their job. The only surprise really is that Theresa was too unworldly not to have called their bluff before her government became an international laughing stock.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
Miss Vance, if accepted, the deal would cause a massive strategic shift in UK politics, I feel.
A Farage-Banks I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP political vehicle would arise. I don't think it'd have much impact at the next election, but at the one after that it could redraw the electoral map.
What concerns me is that further right parties might spring up. Between the far left's capture of Labour, the potential for Conservative woe, and a gnawing sense of betrayal, we could see things take an unpredictable turn (again), almost certainly not for the better.
Being complacent about 'upsetting the right people' reminds me 'fruitcakes, nutters, and closet racists'. Which transmogrified to 'Little Englanders'. And then the majority.
If accepted (and I think Immigration remains the elephant in the room) then I think many will go “fair enough, it’ll do I suppose” and get on with their lives. They will then turn their concerns to employment, the NHS and Laura Norder and normal politics will resume.
It really boils down to immigration - if the government can quickly get to a point where EU citizens are treated no differently to Australian, Canadian or New Zealand for example, then I suspect the issue will be defused - if they retain “preferential access” then that may not be so easily wished away.
EU migration figures have started falling quite rapidly, while the numbers fr9m outside the EU haven’t. It’s quite possible it won’t be a practical issue whatever the policy.
Interesting, but I disagree. I think Barnier will say politely that it's progress but there is further work to do, and it will get chipped away at the edges. In the end there will be a fudged deal. The inconsistencies relate to hypotheticals:
* Parliament COULD decide on deviation. Barnier will say sure, but build in the collapse of free trade if that happens. Parliament can in principle always decide to affiliate to Brazil or ban pubs, but in practice it doesn't happen. * The "mobility framework" will be FoM in all but name - perhaps, as with Switzerland, allowing movement only if jobs have been advertised domestically first * The MaxFac idea will certainly be implemented when it's been shown to be technically feasible to everyone's satisfaction, i.e. probably never. * Britain can certainly agree trade deals with other countries if we can find a way to make them meaningful, yet consistent with the package, i.e. probably never.
I think the difficult one is the first, being harmonised on goods but not services. The Continent might be tempted as they can require a price of marginalising the City, but it breaches a fundamental principle. Expect some hard bargaining here with an outcome that we could in theory deviate for services, but with a massive effect which will mean we won't.
Will May get away with it? Yes, I think so. Most voters aren't really that interested in these arcane details. So long as we're leaving and there's some sort of deal that doesn't wreck Britain, they'll feel that's not too bad.
Nick
How does Norway work? My understanding was that they didn’t have to apply EU regulations if they don’t want to, but this doesn’t crash free trade.
Mobility framework isn’t FoM. An automatic work permit with a job offer is fine. More important us no recourse to public funds. Essentially put them on the same rules as someone with ILR and make it easy to obtain
We voted to leave the EU. The EU's stance has always been they cannot compromise on FOM. If they stick to that, negotiation is futile.
"Tell us what you want?"
"This, this and this together with controls on immigration"
"No, now tell us what you want."
The sub-text is they cannot compromise on FOM without the other countries piling in too. That will unravel the whole cunning plan - a united or federal country.
Had they made it plain in 1975 that they always intended uniting Europe into a single country, we would never have voted to go in. That's why they downplayed any such suggestion at the time. Before anyone bothers suggesting they always made it clear, I was in my mid-twenties then and far more politically aware than I am now. I admit I believed the lies, and lies they were.
We are still owed transition control equivalents from 2004 om FOM from most of Eastern Europe by the EU as Blair refused to take them
You always make this statement
It’s just meaningless. We aren’t “owed” anything
The past is the past and we are where we are. This is a new negotiation
David Herdson's analysis above is very cogent. And coming from a Tory . He has no axe to grind.
It is clear the audience is the UK public. When the EU rejects it, as it will, the "blame" will be theirs , at least, for domestic consumption.
In a sense, this was yet another can kicking exercise. No real acceptable solution was offered because there is none which can hold the Conservative Party together save a few headbangers.
There is therefore a resignation that we will either get Canada or WTO. The Conservative Party has enough links to the business community to know what the latter means. I think we will end up with Canada [ without the plus ] and this is just preparing the public. Basically, it is trying to say: "We tried but those nasty Euro's wanted to punish us".
As Max observed, this is essentially EU_Switzerland. But I don't think the EU will want to replicate Switzerland again. What will we do ? Go to the ECJ to complain ? That will be the supreme irony.
Ironically, this could be close to Corbyn's own vision. Not the Labour Party's.
Surby, this is EU-Switzerland without free movement, if the UK had included free movement then I think the EU would just live with it but they didn't which is why the whole thing will get rejected.
I think this includes FoM in another name. 95% probably will come in, in the same way as before. Let's wait for the details.
One thing I am sure about and that was also implicit in David Herdson's piece. The EU will not allow access to the SM like before if the FoM is not explicitly agreed. They might accept a little tinkering of the FoM against an equivalent little tinkering of the SM access.
So, you were correct, this is almost EU_Switzerland but I am not sure the EU will want another Switzerland. My feeling is that it will be Canada in the end with a generous transition period. Even 7 years so that it could be priced in the next budgetary phase. All EU27 will agree to it.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
Interesting, but I disagree. I think Barnier will say politely that it's progress but there is further work to do, and it will get chipped away at the edges. In the end there will be a fudged deal. The inconsistencies relate to hypotheticals:
* Parliament COULD decide on deviation. Barnier will say sure, but build in the collapse of free trade if that happens. Parliament can in principle always decide to affiliate to Brazil or ban pubs, but in practice it doesn't happen. * The "mobility framework" will be FoM in all but name - perhaps, as with Switzerland, allowing movement only if jobs have been advertised domestically first * The MaxFac idea will certainly be implemented when it's been shown to be technically feasible to everyone's satisfaction, i.e. probably never. * Britain can certainly agree trade deals with other countries if we can find a way to make them meaningful, yet consistent with the package, i.e. probably never.
I think the difficult one is the first, being harmonised on goods but not services. The Continent might be tempted as they can require a price of marginalising the City, but it breaches a fundamental principle. Expect some hard bargaining here with an outcome that we could in theory deviate for services, but with a massive effect which will mean we won't.
Will May get away with it? Yes, I think so. Most voters aren't really that interested in these arcane details. So long as we're leaving and there's some sort of deal that doesn't wreck Britain, they'll feel that's not too bad.
Nick
How does Norway work? My understanding was that they didn’t have to apply EU regulations if they don’t want to, but this doesn’t crash free trade.
Mobility framework isn’t FoM. An automatic work permit with a job offer is fine. More important us no recourse to public funds. Essentially put them on the same rules as someone with ILR and make it easy to obtain
I think the current FoM rules allow no benefits except child benefits. We chose not to implement it. Someone please clarify as I would like to know this as well.
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
I don't disagree with the OP that the Leavers in the cabinet approved this plan because they thought it will be rejected. I assume that May assured them that if they backed her on this and the EU rejected it, she would hold firm and go with no deal as necessary.
I just doubt their sanity and integrity. It is quite obvious that Robbins and May will continue to make compromises on absolutely anything to get a deal and that they don't care at all which deal. The Leavers simply demonstrated that they will rationalise anything to avoid resigning - which she will use against them when she agrees to FOM, ECJ and ongoing payments although no doubt called something else.
I said months ago how sad it was that Leavers were being reduced to rooting for Barnier to be the pompous, power crazed vindictive lunatic he is in order to get no deal and a real Brexit, but there we are. Go Barnier!
48% voting against leaving in 2016 =/= “don’t want to leave (on any terms)”
If we’re talking about any terms we are likely to achieve, she’s almost certainly right. If you mean fantasy terms, then it’s not a very useful discussion.
Are you suggesting Neymar's ridiculous tantrums should not attract any ridicule because he isn't British?
Fail to see the relevance of a video from five years ago.
"Yeah, but, some English player dived, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Roger's facing up to the grim reality that England have a chance of winning this.
It is the attitude that the British uniquely know how to behave whilst surrounded by hordes of Barbarians that got us into this mess in the first place. We need some up to date education and we need it quickly
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
"I said months ago how sad it was that Leavers were being reduced to rooting for Barnier to be the pompous, power crazed vindictive lunatic he is in order to get no deal and a real Brexit, but there we are. Go Barnier!"
I doubt if he needs any encouragement. This deal won't be accepted immediately, there's still more haggling time. It might even encourage him to go further. "We're on a roll, lads, let's add some more punishment beating to discourage the others."
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
I think they will give this one more attention. Mainly because of timescales, also because they are not likely to get another chance to ask the UK to go back to the drawing board before March 2019.
I am not as delusional as to believe the “they need us more than we need them” line that occasionally gets trotted out, but it is still in the EUs interests to get some sort of deal.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
Good old JRM. One of very few politicians who actually has any integrity at the moment.
I can't understand why even those that do not agree with him cannot understand how much politics and the country need people like him desperately. It seems that at least the Remainer half of this forum think it is absolutely fantastic that our PM is a lying, scheming manipulator who deliberately misled the country and her party as to her own views on Brexit. How does that help democracy? Oh, silly me, Remainers don't care about such things.
I have always respected conviction politicians, even when they are from the other side of politics. We need them now more than ever.
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
Nice article. Is Mr Herdson arguing a hard brexit is more likely now?
I've cashed out of Mr Meeks tip on brexit before March 2019 for a decent profit. Have decided I have no idea what's going on with Brexit, best to get out while ahead.
On the football, fancy De Bruyne for golden ball at 11-1.
A negotiated hard Brexit is off the table. The options are a crash Brexit, with no deal; a super-soft EU-terms Brexit; or, just possibly a soft Brexit based on the Chequers Plan. But I don't think that plan will be acceptable in Brussels (though I could of course be wrong - it'd be far from the first time).
We will be formally aligned on goods while for eg financial services we will be de facto aligned and certainly a rule taker if we want to continue to do business as we do today.
Take back control!
And yet, this deal is a non starter, the EU has never and will never compromise on free movement. I pointed it out last night, it will insist on the full fat 100% "EU citizen" concept.
However, there is definitely scope for divergence on services, as I said yesterday it will result in capitalised subsidiaries in smaller EU countries with 95% of the work carried out in the UK. That's the Nomura model (though I thought I was Luxembourg, not Tallinn) and it looks very much like what JP are doing with their "dozens" of people moving and the rest being given guarantees of not moving to Europe.
Without passporting that's a non starter because each entity will need to be registered in its respective jurisdiction.
A UK entity or subsidiary would need to be FCA-registered and as such the FCA would need to align regulations with the EU if that subsidiary wanted to transact client business in the EU. Which to be fair the FCA has said it will do.
Why do you think the Govt has sold The City down the river? 2 years ago it was all The City must be protected with passporting or equivalence, now not a mention at all.
I’m not sure “The EU turned down something you want too” is the strongest of selling points....
It's just a question of claiming our concessions weren't feasible, then it's 'They gave us no choice but to say no, because the alternative would have been worse'. I'm not convinced by the 'it will have serious implications' for them too line of argument, since it's the same reasoning that is used to suggest no deal is simply impossible, when there are any number of ways we could all sleepwalk into such a position, since negative implications are not immediate and politicians all over are content to kick the can down the road and take a hit later rather than make too many concessions today.
I hope a deal is done, but I think it is expecting too much to think the populations of the EU will see something bad happening down the line and go 'Well, it's my government's fault', particularly when the EU 27 will probably be united, in that scenario, to saying it was ours. Sure, some oppositions may make something of it, but as factor in forcing the EU to concede on some pretty major points? It might happen, but I don't think it is as effective as some think.
If there is a No Deal then bad things will happen, of that there is no doubt. That's when the blame will be apportioned - not before. It's the knowledge of the bad things and their consequences that will drive both sides. As David observes, the UK government has now done enough to manage - at least to some extent - how a No Deal will be received in the UK. From here, given the concessions that have been made, the EU27 governments are going to have to start thinking about it, too.
Where I think David is wrong is that this is as far as the government will go. There is more to come.
Before we get into who will get hurt most, let's take in the figures: We trade with the EU as a whole and roughly 50% of our exports go there [ including gold re-shipments ]. For each of the EU27 countries, only the UK will be leaving, the other EU26 remain in the single market. The "cost" [ in lost trade ] to each of the EU27 separately is tiny compared to the UK [ particularly, as a percentage of their total exports ].
Are you suggesting Neymar's ridiculous tantrums should not attract any ridicule because he isn't British?
Fail to see the relevance of a video from five years ago.
"Yeah, but, some English player dived, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Roger's facing up to the grim reality that England have a chance of winning this.
It is the attitude that the British uniquely know how to behave whilst surrounded by hordes of Barbarians that got us into this mess in the first place. We need some up to date education and we need it quickly
We're not saints - I'm the first to call out cheats whatever their nationality.
But generally it is the South Americans that try it on at tournaments. Their Latin cousins from Italy, Spain and Portugal try it on to a lesser extent, but the rest of us get on with the game.
What pleased me most about the Colombia performance was that we didn't fall for it. In the past we'd have reacted and probably had someone sent off.
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
Hopefully they’ll find either a manufacturing defect or an obvious kerb damage on the suspension. If they don’t then they’ll be building a new reinforced suspension overnight or withdrawing from the event. The slo-mo of the failure looks horrible.
I think the current FoM rules allow no benefits except child benefits. We chose not to implement it. Someone please clarify as I would like to know this as well.
Not true. FoM rules are very clear. All EU citizens are entitled to exactly the same rights as national citizens after a period of 90 days. That means if an EU citizen comes here, they can wait it out for 90 days and they will be eligible for NHS treatment, tax credits, housing benefits and education for any children as long as they work for minimum 16 hours per week in a minimum wage job or declare themselves self-employed (big issue sellers).
The reason Switzerland is able to handle free movement without the same massive rush of unskilled labour as the UK is because they have a contributory benefits system, no tax credits, no housing benefits and healthcare requires an insurance provision (which is very heavily subsidised for low or no income people). EU citizens are required to register with the local authority after 90 days and show they can live independently in order to qualify for temporary residency status. I had to take my payslips and employment contract as evidence that I could live in Switzerland without assistance before I was granted status.
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
Funny how these things happen with Torro Rosso, isn't it?
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
I think they will give this one more attention. Mainly because of timescales, also because they are not likely to get another chance to ask the UK to go back to the drawing board before March 2019.
I am not as delusional as to believe the “they need us more than we need them” line that occasionally gets trotted out, but it is still in the EUs interests to get some sort of deal.
Yep - that's where I am on this. From here, a No Deal becomes much harder for the EU27 governments domestically because the UK has made so many concessions and because the likes of Johnson have been emasculated and humiliated. And I am also pretty sure that May would not have formulated this plan without at least some back corridor consultation with both the member states and the Commission.
Nice article. Is Mr Herdson arguing a hard brexit is more likely now?
I've cashed out of Mr Meeks tip on brexit before March 2019 for a decent profit. Have decided I have no idea what's going on with Brexit, best to get out while ahead.
On the football, fancy De Bruyne for golden ball at 11-1.
A negotiated hard Brexit is off the table. The options are a crash Brexit, with no deal; a super-soft EU-terms Brexit; or, just possibly a soft Brexit based on the Chequers Plan. But I don't think that plan will be acceptable in Brussels (though I could of course be wrong - it'd be far from the first time).
If it breaks down do you think the EU will refuse to negotiate bilaterals on Air Traffic, land transport, etc?
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
You are the one in for a surprise. How many Tory members are resigning this weekend? How many do you have left?
Elections are won on the ground. Who exactly do you think is going to go around campaigning and canvassing when your leader has betrayed her own members?
Like the rest of us, your best hope of winning another election is Barnier.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
What incentive does any Conservative voter have for turning out to vote Tory? Seriously what will be the Conservatives selling point?
We delivered Brexit (er no) We'll lower your tax bill (er no) we'll look after our older voters (er no) we are the party of the self-employed (er no)
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
Hopefully they’ll find either a manufacturing defect or an obvious kerb damage on the suspension. If they don’t then they’ll be building a new reinforced suspension overnight or withdrawing from the event. The slo-mo of the failure looks horrible.
Remember when Buemi’s Toro Rosso did this? http s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMZJ3ZaEcIQ
Blocked here in the UK, sadly, but I assume it was the one where both his front wheels decided to go on a trip whilst he was going down a straight?
The early Newey Red Bull designs were rather fragile, as I recall. There was another case where (I think) Coulthard's suspension 'exploded'.
It'll be interesting to hear what the cause was, if they release it.
Good old JRM. One of very few politicians who actually has any integrity at the moment.
I can't understand why even those that do not agree with him cannot understand how much politics and the country need people like him desperately. It seems that at least the Remainer half of this forum think it is absolutely fantastic that our PM is a lying, scheming manipulator who deliberately misled the country and her party as to her own views on Brexit. How does that help democracy? Oh, silly me, Remainers don't care about such things.
I have always respected conviction politicians, even when they are from the other side of politics. We need them now more than ever.
Sure. We just need them on the backbenches asking awkward questions.
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
Funny how these things happen with Torro Rosso, isn't it?
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
What incentive does any Conservative voter have for turning out to vote Tory? Seriously what will be the Conservatives selling point?
We delivered Brexit (er no) We'll lower your tax bill (er no) we'll look after our older voters (er no) we are the party of the self-employed (er no)
What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?
Hmm. The Northern Ireland backstop will still be in the Withdrawal Agreement, unless the EU removes it by December. The Chequers document refers to the Political Statement on the future relationship which accompanies the Withdrawal Agreement. The WA is a hard treaty while the Political Statement is guff the negotiators might refer to when the substantive negotiations start after Brexit.
This is potentially where the deal will fall over. The current EU backstop simply can't be in the WA. Virtually nobody in Parliament would support it.
So what backstop sellout can May give that the EU will accept?
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
You are the one in for a surprise. How many Tory members are resigning this weekend? How many do you have left?
Elections are won on the ground. Who exactly do you think is going to go around campaigning and canvassing when your leader has betrayed her own members?
Like the rest of us, your best hope of winning another election is Barnier.
I am totally relaxed about the future of the conservative party
Good old JRM. One of very few politicians who actually has any integrity at the moment.
I can't understand why even those that do not agree with him cannot understand how much politics and the country need people like him desperately. It seems that at least the Remainer half of this forum think it is absolutely fantastic that our PM is a lying, scheming manipulator who deliberately misled the country and her party as to her own views on Brexit. How does that help democracy? Oh, silly me, Remainers don't care about such things.
I have always respected conviction politicians, even when they are from the other side of politics. We need them now more than ever.
Sure. We just need them on the backbenches asking awkward questions.
Well, we can't have anyone with integrity in the Cabinet, or goodness know what state the country would get into....
Nice article. Is Mr Herdson arguing a hard brexit is more likely now?
I've cashed out of Mr Meeks tip on brexit before March 2019 for a decent profit. Have decided I have no idea what's going on with Brexit, best to get out while ahead.
On the football, fancy De Bruyne for golden ball at 11-1.
A negotiated hard Brexit is off the table. The options are a crash Brexit, with no deal; a super-soft EU-terms Brexit; or, just possibly a soft Brexit based on the Chequers Plan. But I don't think that plan will be acceptable in Brussels (though I could of course be wrong - it'd be far from the first time).
If it breaks down do you think the EU will refuse to negotiate bilaterals on Air Traffic, land transport, etc?
I think they'll negotiate them but only after March 29, when it becomes real. The pressure from Ireland and France, as the main border states, to sort the mess out would be enormous.
Are you suggesting Neymar's ridiculous tantrums should not attract any ridicule because he isn't British?
Fail to see the relevance of a video from five years ago.
"Yeah, but, some English player dived, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Roger's facing up to the grim reality that England have a chance of winning this.
It is the attitude that the British uniquely know how to behave whilst surrounded by hordes of Barbarians that got us into this mess in the first place. We need some up to date education and we need it quickly
We're not saints - I'm the first to call out cheats whatever their nationality.
But generally it is the South Americans that try it on at tournaments. Their Latin cousins from Italy, Spain and Portugal try it on to a lesser extent, but the rest of us get on with the game.
What pleased me most about the Colombia performance was that we didn't fall for it. In the past we'd have reacted and probably had someone sent off.
In defence of Neymar, there's a context to be understood.
He was invalided out of the 2014 world cup. He spent more than half the last season out injured because of broken metatarsal. He's a sublime footballer, who is frailer than most. Every time he steps out on to a pitch there are opposition footballers going out to hurt him as subtly as they can without incurring punishment for themselves. In Brazil's first game against Switzerland the number of fouls against him was in double figures.
It's his way of making a point - it might not be the right way, but I don't honestly how else he could get the point across.
Nice article. Is Mr Herdson arguing a hard brexit is more likely now?
I've cashed out of Mr Meeks tip on brexit before March 2019 for a decent profit. Have decided I have no idea what's going on with Brexit, best to get out while ahead.
On the football, fancy De Bruyne for golden ball at 11-1.
A negotiated hard Brexit is off the table. The options are a crash Brexit, with no deal; a super-soft EU-terms Brexit; or, just possibly a soft Brexit based on the Chequers Plan. But I don't think that plan will be acceptable in Brussels (though I could of course be wrong - it'd be far from the first time).
If it breaks down do you think the EU will refuse to negotiate bilaterals on Air Traffic, land transport, etc?
If they did, what could we do to focus Continental minds? Announce a moratorium on City lending to the EU until they became more amenable?
In other words, Parliament has to approve significant regulatory change, but in practice always does so in due course. In part this reflects the dominance of parties who want to be close to the EU, in part by the implied (and I think unstated) risks of disruption to trade if they suddenly decided not to adhere to something (clearly the EU would not accept imports of goods not complying with their regulations). I expect the same will apply in Britain.
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
The EU's real red line is that the deal has to be clearly and permanently worse for us than membership. Why would we want that? Because we need access to the EU market and its regulatory system. Better than nothing but worse than what we had is a big negotiating space and it should be easy to find agreement. It's a difficult sell for the UK government however as Brexit was by choice and not a force of circumstance. No-one voted Leave with the intention of reducing their prospects, to make things more difficult for themselves and to make themselves poorer.
How long before Johnson decides he wasn’t in the room when the vote was taken or his attention was otherwise elsewhere, or something, so he doesn’t have to abide by the decision?
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
I think they will give this one more attention. Mainly because of timescales, also because they are not likely to get another chance to ask the UK to go back to the drawing board before March 2019.
I am not as delusional as to believe the “they need us more than we need them” line that occasionally gets trotted out, but it is still in the EUs interests to get some sort of deal.
Yep - that's where I am on this. From here, a No Deal becomes much harder for the EU27 governments domestically because the UK has made so many concessions and because the likes of Johnson have been emasculated and humiliated. And I am also pretty sure that May would not have formulated this plan without at least some back corridor consultation with both the member states and the Commission.
One would hope, however, I'm not confident that the EU will compromise on free movement at all.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
What incentive does any Conservative voter have for turning out to vote Tory? Seriously what will be the Conservatives selling point?
We delivered Brexit (er no) We'll lower your tax bill (er no) we'll look after our older voters (er no) we are the party of the self-employed (er no)
On and on it goes under May and Hammond...<
Not Jeremy Corbyn. It will be plenty enough.
Very doubtful. It was barely enough in 2017 (Remember when May threatened her older voters) - Tories will be vastly more unpopular in 2022 (or whenever they have the guts to face the electorate) than they were in 2017.
Con voters won't switch to Lab but they will sit on their hands and refuse to turn out and vote... And they'll do so in droves IMO...
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
Hopefully they’ll find either a manufacturing defect or an obvious kerb damage on the suspension. If they don’t then they’ll be building a new reinforced suspension overnight or withdrawing from the event. The slo-mo of the failure looks horrible.
Remember when Buemi’s Toro Rosso did this? http s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMZJ3ZaEcIQ
Blocked here in the UK, sadly, but I assume it was the one where both his front wheels decided to go on a trip whilst he was going down a straight?
The early Newey Red Bull designs were rather fragile, as I recall. There was another case where (I think) Coulthard's suspension 'exploded'.
It'll be interesting to hear what the cause was, if they release it.
Yes it was that video, and from the official F1 account. It looks like Sky completely stitched up Bernie with the rights deal, which must be a nightmare for Liberty now trying to unpick this sort of thing.
Couthard’s broken suspension was in a McLaren, funnily enough it was the first suggested video next to the Buemi one.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
You are the one in for a surprise. How many Tory members are resigning this weekend? How many do you have left?
Elections are won on the ground. Who exactly do you think is going to go around campaigning and canvassing when your leader has betrayed her own members?
Like the rest of us, your best hope of winning another election is Barnier.
I am totally relaxed about the future of the conservative party
You should be big g , this is a big step forward by May.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
What incentive does any Conservative voter have for turning out to vote Tory? Seriously what will be the Conservatives selling point?
We delivered Brexit (er no) We'll lower your tax bill (er no) we'll look after our older voters (er no) we are the party of the self-employed (er no)
On and on it goes under May and Hammond...
Just because TM has ruled out a hard Brexit does not equate to a political collapse. She may well lose some UKIPPERS but others will rejoin due to the avoidance of a cliff edge and the safe guarding of Airbus, Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls Royce and others employing directly or indirectly millions
Are you suggesting Neymar's ridiculous tantrums should not attract any ridicule because he isn't British?
Fail to see the relevance of a video from five years ago.
"Yeah, but, some English player dived, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Roger's facing up to the grim reality that England have a chance of winning this.
It is the attitude that the British uniquely know how to behave whilst surrounded by hordes of Barbarians that got us into this mess in the first place. We need some up to date education and we need it quickly
We're not saints - I'm the first to call out cheats whatever their nationality.
But generally it is the South Americans that try it on at tournaments. Their Latin cousins from Italy, Spain and Portugal try it on to a lesser extent, but the rest of us get on with the game.
What pleased me most about the Colombia performance was that we didn't fall for it. In the past we'd have reacted and probably had someone sent off.
In defence of Neymar, there's a context to be understood.
He was invalided out of the 2014 world cup. He spent more than half the last season out injured because of broken metatarsal. He's a sublime footballer, who is frailer than most. Every time he steps out on to a pitch there are opposition footballers going out to hurt him as subtly as they can without incurring punishment for themselves. In Brazil's first game against Switzerland the number of fouls against him was in double figures.
It's his way of making a point - it might not be the right way, but I don't honestly how else he could get the point across.
I agree entirely that skillful players deserve more protection. But I think too much of it is premeditated with Neymar. And I didn't see him getting kicked off the park yesterday. For the most part I think the Belgians had him under control. Douglas Costa appeared to cause them more problems.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
I think that's right. My view is based on a generally positive opinion of the EU - I think they wish us and the trade partnership well so long as it doesn't obviously break the system - and a sense that they really don't care as much as we think they do/should. "Here's a deal which is more or less OK subject to implementation details which we'll share control over" sounds good enough to a harassed Merkel or Macron, let alone someone like the PM of Bulgaria who really couldn't give a toss.
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
Hopefully they’ll find either a manufacturing defect or an obvious kerb damage on the suspension. If they don’t then they’ll be building a new reinforced suspension overnight or withdrawing from the event. The slo-mo of the failure looks horrible.
Remember when Buemi’s Toro Rosso did this? http s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMZJ3ZaEcIQ
Blocked here in the UK, sadly, but I assume it was the one where both his front wheels decided to go on a trip whilst he was going down a straight?
The early Newey Red Bull designs were rather fragile, as I recall. There was another case where (I think) Coulthard's suspension 'exploded'.
It'll be interesting to hear what the cause was, if they release it.
Yes it was that video, and from the official F1 account. It looks like Sky completely stitched up Bernie with the rights deal, which must be a nightmare for Liberty now trying to unpick this sort of thing.
Couthard’s broken suspension was in a McLaren, funnily enough it was the first suggested video next to the Buemi one.
Was it? I could have sworn it was the first or second year of RB. My memory's obviously faulty.
Good old JRM. One of very few politicians who actually has any integrity at the moment.
I can't understand why even those that do not agree with him cannot understand how much politics and the country need people like him desperately. It seems that at least the Remainer half of this forum think it is absolutely fantastic that our PM is a lying, scheming manipulator who deliberately misled the country and her party as to her own views on Brexit. How does that help democracy? Oh, silly me, Remainers don't care about such things.
I have always respected conviction politicians, even when they are from the other side of politics. We need them now more than ever.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
What incentive does any Conservative voter have for turning out to vote Tory? Seriously what will be the Conservatives selling point?
We delivered Brexit (er no) We'll lower your tax bill (er no) we'll look after our older voters (er no) we are the party of the self-employed (er no)
On and on it goes under May and Hammond...<
Not Jeremy Corbyn. It will be plenty enough.
Very doubtful. It was barely enough in 2017 (Remember when May threatened her older voters) - Tories will be vastly more unpopular in 2022 (or whenever they have the guts to face the electorate) than they were in 2017.
Con voters won't switch to Lab but they will sit on their hands and refuse to turn out and vote... And they'll do so in droves IMO...
Nice article. Is Mr Herdson arguing a hard brexit is more likely now?
I've cashed out of Mr Meeks tip on brexit before March 2019 for a decent profit. Have decided I have no idea what's going on with Brexit, best to get out while ahead.
On the football, fancy De Bruyne for golden ball at 11-1.
A negotiated hard Brexit is off the table. The options are a crash Brexit, with no deal; a super-soft EU-terms Brexit; or, just possibly a soft Brexit based on the Chequers Plan. But I don't think that plan will be acceptable in Brussels (though I could of course be wrong - it'd be far from the first time).
If it breaks down do you think the EU will refuse to negotiate bilaterals on Air Traffic, land transport, etc?
If they did, what could we do to focus Continental minds? Announce a moratorium on City lending to the EU until they became more amenable?
My personal view is that there is a very small chance they will refuse to negotiate bilaterals. Planes not being able to fly is very bad for them on multiple levels. EU lorries not being able to drive on UK roads again, bad for them. EU citizens in the UK using national driving licenses and national plated cars not being able to drive, again bad for them. They may refuse to negotiate a trade deal but they will not allow them selves to be blamed for the above. The EU is masterful at avoiding blame for bad outcomes that it causes.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
You are the one in for a surprise. How many Tory members are resigning this weekend? How many do you have left?
Elections are won on the ground. Who exactly do you think is going to go around campaigning and canvassing when your leader has betrayed her own members?
Like the rest of us, your best hope of winning another election is Barnier.
I am totally relaxed about the future of the conservative party
You should be big g , this is a big step forward by May.
She always seems to surprise and is 'a bloody difficult woman
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
In other words, Parliament has to approve significant regulatory change, but in practice always does so in due course. In part this reflects the dominance of parties who want to be close to the EU, in part by the implied (and I think unstated) risks of disruption to trade if they suddenly decided not to adhere to something (clearly the EU would not accept imports of goods not complying with their regulations). I expect the same will apply in Britain.
The Norwegian parliament (or possibly government) published an interesting document on the Norwegian relationship with the EU where they basically accepted the arrangement was a nonsense but one that was necessary for internal cohesion where people didn't agree. It made a particular point that common regulation protects Norway's interest as EU members are bound by the same regulation that gives Norway remedies. Otherwise the bigger and more powerful parties can do what they want. That level playing field is more important than influence over what it does.
Edit. I believe a party can refuse to implement an EU regulation at which point that whole section of the EEA gets guillotine d for all parties
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
I think you are in for a surprise
What incentive does any Conservative voter have for turning out to vote Tory? Seriously what will be the Conservatives selling point?
We delivered Brexit (er no) We'll lower your tax bill (er no) we'll look after our older voters (er no) we are the party of the self-employed (er no)
On and on it goes under May and Hammond...
Just because TM has ruled out a hard Brexit does not equate to a political collapse. She may well lose some UKIPPERS but others will rejoin due to the avoidance of a cliff edge and the safe guarding of Airbus, Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls Royce and others employing directly or indirectly millions
There never was such a thing as hard/soft Breixt. The terms were entirely manufactured by the elite and media to make sure we're unable to actually leave (and dress is up as "soft Brexit) people know and understand this - Particularly Con voters.
Are you suggesting Neymar's ridiculous tantrums should not attract any ridicule because he isn't British?
Fail to see the relevance of a video from five years ago.
"Yeah, but, some English player dived, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Roger's facing up to the grim reality that England have a chance of winning this.
It is the attitude that the British uniquely know how to behave whilst surrounded by hordes of Barbarians that got us into this mess in the first place. We need some up to date education and we need it quickly
We're not saints - I'm the first to call out cheats whatever their nationality.
But generally it is the South Americans that try it on at tournaments. Their Latin cousins from Italy, Spain and Portugal try it on to a lesser extent, but the rest of us get on with the game.
What pleased me most about the Colombia performance was that we didn't fall for it. In the past we'd have reacted and probably had someone sent off.
The irony is that when Colombia did actually start playing, they dominated England. If they'd played like that from the start it would be the England team and not football coming home.
Bloody hell that was a big accident for Hartley. Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
Hartley just can't get any luck, can he?
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
Hopefully they’ll find either a manufacturing defect or an obvious kerb damage on the suspension. If they don’t then they’ll be building a new reinforced suspension overnight or withdrawing from the event. The slo-mo of the failure looks horrible.
Remember when Buemi’s Toro Rosso did this? http s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMZJ3ZaEcIQ
Blocked here in the UK, sadly, but I assume it was the one where both his front wheels decided to go on a trip whilst he was going down a straight?
The early Newey Red Bull designs were rather fragile, as I recall. There was another case where (I think) Coulthard's suspension 'exploded'.
It'll be interesting to hear what the cause was, if they release it.
Yes it was that video, and from the official F1 account. It looks like Sky completely stitched up Bernie with the rights deal, which must be a nightmare for Liberty now trying to unpick this sort of thing.
Couthard’s broken suspension was in a McLaren, funnily enough it was the first suggested video next to the Buemi one.
Was it? I could have sworn it was the first or second year of RB. My memory's obviously faulty.
Or not: apparently I was thinking of Malaysia 2008: ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNLP0kBLkbk
Just to say (as a Welshman and ex-outside half) I'm hoping England win today. I could never support England in rugby but I can't help wanting the footballers to win. It's Baddiel and Skinner's 'It's Coming Home' that gets me... those halcyon 90s years of cheap beer, great British music, Gazza's goal against Scotland, warm summers and the nostalgic memories of being a happy teenager (that the song brings) that does it. Come on England ❤️
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
Talking to people in the Tory shires they are enraged by Theresa selling Brexit down the river.
Conservative Party what have you done...
Was in Enfield Southgate this morning and one man made clear he would 'not vote Tory while that woman was leader' for 'betraying' the Brexit result and would stay at home on polling day. To which David Burrowes replied she would not be and the Tories would have a new leader at the next general election.
On the whole though few mentioned it and the focus was on the NHS
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
With infantile taxi threat et al, I would argue that she has just fostered more resentment for herself and her team. If you treat people respectfully you will reap the rewards.
It’s not been put up to be knocked down. It’s been put up because it can be got through Cabinet. Its unacceptability to the EU is largely irrelevant. That problem will be faced next.
Except it wasn't. Chequers is a C16th Manor House and the rooms are actually very cool even during a heatwave.
And this neatly illustrates the trouble with this article: speculation and guesswork. Until or unless ministers leak further details to the Sunday papers we remain in the dark. Something is clearly going on. The fact that Brexiteers (apart from Guido Fawkes, who wasn't present) are so chilled about it all means there's more to this than meets the eye. David Davis would have certainly resigned and others would have been agitating.
The only part of this article which is trustworthy is the point about Theresa May. She is, and remains, a formidable force. Mike Smithson has gradually come to realise this truth. Write her off at your peril.
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
With infantile taxi threat et al, I would argue that she has just fostered more resentment for herself and her team. If you treat people respectfully you will reap the rewards.
That is a two way street. When has Boris ever respected his position
What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?
Hmm. The Northern Ireland backstop will still be in the Withdrawal Agreement, unless the EU removes it by December. The Chequers document refers to the Political Statement on the future relationship which accompanies the Withdrawal Agreement. The WA is a hard treaty while the Political Statement is guff the negotiators might refer to when the substantive negotiations start after Brexit.
This is potentially where the deal will fall over. The current EU backstop simply can't be in the WA. Virtually nobody in Parliament would support it.
So what backstop sellout can May give that the EU will accept?
The backstop will be the NI only backstop. If you read the Chequers text closely it’s clear this is what they have agreed to sign based on the idea that it will never need to be activated.
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
With infantile taxi threat et al, I would argue that she has just fostered more resentment for herself and her team. If you treat people respectfully you will reap the rewards.
Especially as she's already on incredibly thin ice after conducting the worst general election campaign since 1700 or longer, turning a 25% option poll lead into virtual "neck and neck" in four weeks and blowing Cameron's majority.
She's behaving as though she's got a 100 seat majority sitting behind her...
Good old JRM. One of very few politicians who actually has any integrity at the moment.
I can't understand why even those that do not agree with him cannot understand how much politics and the country need people like him desperately. It seems that at least the Remainer half of this forum think it is absolutely fantastic that our PM is a lying, scheming manipulator who deliberately misled the country and her party as to her own views on Brexit. How does that help democracy? Oh, silly me, Remainers don't care about such things.
I have always respected conviction politicians, even when they are from the other side of politics. We need them now more than ever.
And he always does what his Nanny tells him....
... and, of course, the Pope. JRM doesn't want Brussels to tell us what to do, but Rome, that's OK.
Maybe it's my Scandinavian background talking, but aren't the odds for Sweden (15-4 as I write) a bit long? Something like 6-4 sounds more reasonable, so it may be value. DYOR, of course. On the other match, Croatia are heavily favoured, which is probably right but maybe a little too much.
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
With infantile taxi threat et al, I would argue that she has just fostered more resentment for herself and her team. If you treat people respectfully you will reap the rewards.
Especially as she's already on incredibly thin ice after conducting the worst general election campaign since 1700 or longer, turning a 25% option poll lead into virtual "neck and neck" in four weeks and blowing Cameron's majority.
She's behaving as though she's got a 100 seat majority sitting behind her...
She’s getting away with it because “she can wipe the floor with these people”, as someone once said about Maggie.
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
With infantile taxi threat et al, I would argue that she has just fostered more resentment for herself and her team. If you treat people respectfully you will reap the rewards.
That is a two way street. When has Boris ever respected his position
Boris has only ever repeated the Governments official position No ECJ, No CU, No SM, No payments. It is Hammond that caused all the trouble. May goes on holiday, Hammond gets on TV and basically trashes her stance, in the CU, in the SM, payments etc. Boris just responded.
Except it wasn't. Chequers is a C16th Manor House and the rooms are actually very cool even during a heatwave.
And this neatly illustrates the trouble with this article: speculation and guesswork. Until or unless ministers leak further details to the Sunday papers we remain in the dark. Something is clearly going on. The fact that Brexiteers (apart from Guido Fawkes, who wasn't present) are so chilled about it all means there's more to this than meets the eye. David Davis would have certainly resigned and others would have been agitating.
The only part of this article which is trustworthy is the point about Theresa May. She is, and remains, a formidable force. Mike Smithson has gradually come to realise this truth. Write her off at your peril.
Except it wasn't. Chequers is a C16th Manor House and the rooms are actually very cool even during a heatwave.
And this neatly illustrates the trouble with this article: speculation and guesswork. Until or unless ministers leak further details to the Sunday papers we remain in the dark. Something is clearly going on. The fact that Brexiteers (apart from Guido Fawkes, who wasn't present) are so chilled about it all means there's more to this than meets the eye. David Davis would have certainly resigned and others would have been agitating.
The only part of this article which is trustworthy is the point about Theresa May. She is, and remains, a formidable force. Mike Smithson has gradually come to realise this truth. Write her off at your peril.
Formidable inertia, certainly. Effective force, not so much.
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
With infantile taxi threat et al, I would argue that she has just fostered more resentment for herself and her team. If you treat people respectfully you will reap the rewards.
That is a two way street. When has Boris ever respected his position
Boris has only ever repeated the Governments official position No ECJ, No CU, No SM, No payments. It is Hammond that caused all the trouble. May goes on holiday, Hammond gets on TV and basically trashes her stance, in the CU, in the SM, payments etc. Boris just responded.
Not to mention Boris is a proven winner (three times) where-as May is a loser.
Except it wasn't. Chequers is a C16th Manor House and the rooms are actually very cool even during a heatwave.
And this neatly illustrates the trouble with this article: speculation and guesswork. Until or unless ministers leak further details to the Sunday papers we remain in the dark. Something is clearly going on. The fact that Brexiteers (apart from Guido Fawkes, who wasn't present) are so chilled about it all means there's more to this than meets the eye. David Davis would have certainly resigned and others would have been agitating.
The only part of this article which is trustworthy is the point about Theresa May. She is, and remains, a formidable force. Mike Smithson has gradually come to realise this truth. Write her off at your peril.
Why does Chequers being a 16th century Manor House mean it is exempt from the laws of thermodynamics?
Mr. B, cheers for that info, but it's a bit alarming. I'd guess that fittings could be changed quickly, but if it's his neck itself that's the problem, he may not be able to qualify.
Comments
I was curious about what you thought their motivations were?
False consciousness, a genuine desire to see agricultural wages rise, or merely a feeling of not liking foreigners?
Edit: To be fair to you, I'll give you my view. A little of both the last two. A time of massive change over which they have no control or say, or for which any planning was done. An associated feeling of being told they don't matter.
https://twitter.com/HeleneBismarck/status/1015499387408146437
How does Norway work? My understanding was that they didn’t have to apply EU regulations if they don’t want to, but this doesn’t crash free trade.
Mobility framework isn’t FoM. An automatic work permit with a job offer is fine. More important us no recourse to public funds. Essentially put them on the same rules as someone with ILR and make it easy to obtain
Conservative Party what have you done...
It’s just meaningless. We aren’t “owed” anything
The past is the past and we are where we are. This is a new negotiation
One thing I am sure about and that was also implicit in David Herdson's piece. The EU will not allow access to the SM like before if the FoM is not explicitly agreed. They might accept a little tinkering of the FoM against an equivalent little tinkering of the SM access.
So, you were correct, this is almost EU_Switzerland but I am not sure the EU will want another Switzerland. My feeling is that it will be Canada in the end with a generous transition period. Even 7 years so that it could be priced in the next budgetary phase. All EU27 will agree to it.
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
I just doubt their sanity and integrity. It is quite obvious that Robbins and May will continue to make compromises on absolutely anything to get a deal and that they don't care at all which deal. The Leavers simply demonstrated that they will rationalise anything to avoid resigning - which she will use against them when she agrees to FOM, ECJ and ongoing payments although no doubt called something else.
I said months ago how sad it was that Leavers were being reduced to rooting for Barnier to be the pompous, power crazed vindictive lunatic he is in order to get no deal and a real Brexit, but there we are. Go Barnier!
Front suspension failure at 200mph, somehow he walked away from the wreck.
48% voting against leaving in 2016 =/= “don’t want to leave (on any terms)”
Surprised with the reaction you mention.
Meanwhile: https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1015529952630988800
If you mean fantasy terms, then it’s not a very useful discussion.
There are some fairly spectacular shots of the suspension disintegrating. It wouldn't surprise me if both Torro Rosso drivers miss qualifying, and perhaps the race. Cars just shouldn't do that.
"I said months ago how sad it was that Leavers were being reduced to rooting for Barnier to be the pompous, power crazed vindictive lunatic he is in order to get no deal and a real Brexit, but there we are. Go Barnier!"
I doubt if he needs any encouragement. This deal won't be accepted immediately, there's still more haggling time. It might even encourage him to go further. "We're on a roll, lads, let's add some more punishment beating to discourage the others."
I think the French have a phrase for it.
I am not as delusional as to believe the “they need us more than we need them” line that occasionally gets trotted out, but it is still in the EUs interests to get some sort of deal.
I can't understand why even those that do not agree with him cannot understand how much politics and the country need people like him desperately. It seems that at least the Remainer half of this forum think it is absolutely fantastic that our PM is a lying, scheming manipulator who deliberately misled the country and her party as to her own views on Brexit. How does that help democracy? Oh, silly me, Remainers don't care about such things.
I have always respected conviction politicians, even when they are from the other side of politics. We need them now more than ever.
But generally it is the South Americans that try it on at tournaments. Their Latin cousins from Italy, Spain and Portugal try it on to a lesser extent, but the rest of us get on with the game.
What pleased me most about the Colombia performance was that we didn't fall for it. In the past we'd have reacted and probably had someone sent off.
Remember when Buemi’s Toro Rosso did this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMZJ3ZaEcIQ
The reason Switzerland is able to handle free movement without the same massive rush of unskilled labour as the UK is because they have a contributory benefits system, no tax credits, no housing benefits and healthcare requires an insurance provision (which is very heavily subsidised for low or no income people). EU citizens are required to register with the local authority after 90 days and show they can live independently in order to qualify for temporary residency status. I had to take my payslips and employment contract as evidence that I could live in Switzerland without assistance before I was granted status.
Elections are won on the ground. Who exactly do you think is going to go around campaigning and canvassing when your leader has betrayed her own members?
Like the rest of us, your best hope of winning another election is Barnier.
We delivered Brexit (er no) We'll lower your tax bill (er no) we'll look after our older voters (er no) we are the party of the self-employed (er no)
On and on it goes under May and Hammond...
The early Newey Red Bull designs were rather fragile, as I recall. There was another case where (I think) Coulthard's suspension 'exploded'.
It'll be interesting to hear what the cause was, if they release it.
So what backstop sellout can May give that the EU will accept?
He was invalided out of the 2014 world cup. He spent more than half the last season out injured because of broken metatarsal. He's a sublime footballer, who is frailer than most. Every time he steps out on to a pitch there are opposition footballers going out to hurt him as subtly as they can without incurring punishment for themselves. In Brazil's first game against Switzerland the number of fouls against him was in double figures.
It's his way of making a point - it might not be the right way, but I don't honestly how else he could get the point across.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations
In other words, Parliament has to approve significant regulatory change, but in practice always does so in due course. In part this reflects the dominance of parties who want to be close to the EU, in part by the implied (and I think unstated) risks of disruption to trade if they suddenly decided not to adhere to something (clearly the EU would not accept imports of goods not complying with their regulations). I expect the same will apply in Britain.
Con voters won't switch to Lab but they will sit on their hands and refuse to turn out and vote... And they'll do so in droves IMO...
Couthard’s broken suspension was in a McLaren, funnily enough it was the first suggested video next to the Buemi one.
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
Or not: apparently I was thinking of Malaysia 2008:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNLP0kBLkbk
They may refuse to negotiate a trade deal but they will not allow them selves to be blamed for the above. The EU is masterful at avoiding blame for bad outcomes that it causes.
Edit. I believe a party can refuse to implement an EU regulation at which point that whole section of the EEA gets guillotine d for all parties
I could never support England in rugby but I can't help wanting the footballers to win. It's Baddiel and Skinner's 'It's Coming Home' that gets me... those halcyon 90s years of cheap beer, great British music, Gazza's goal against Scotland, warm summers and the nostalgic memories of being a happy teenager (that the song brings) that does it. Come on England ❤️
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
On the whole though few mentioned it and the focus was on the NHS
Except it wasn't. Chequers is a C16th Manor House and the rooms are actually very cool even during a heatwave.
And this neatly illustrates the trouble with this article: speculation and guesswork. Until or unless ministers leak further details to the Sunday papers we remain in the dark. Something is clearly going on. The fact that Brexiteers (apart from Guido Fawkes, who wasn't present) are so chilled about it all means there's more to this than meets the eye. David Davis would have certainly resigned and others would have been agitating.
The only part of this article which is trustworthy is the point about Theresa May. She is, and remains, a formidable force. Mike Smithson has gradually come to realise this truth. Write her off at your peril.
She's behaving as though she's got a 100 seat majority sitting behind her...
Commentary indicated Vettel only did a few laps, not sure why. And the Ferrari engine dominates the lower top 10 positions (Haas and Sauber).
Waiting for markets. Hoping I might be able to hedge my little Raikkonen pole bet.
Someone's not happy
Effective force, not so much.
Edited extra bit: confirmed it's Vettel's neck
https://twitter.com/JennieGow/status/1015553638121566208