Miss Cyclefree, not sure that's true. A David white paper was leaked online (maybe ConHome?) yesterday. It's essentially the Canada deal with extra bits.
The May white paper is not the creation of Davis et al. but May et al (the insinuation is guided/dictated by pro-EU Civil Service types). It's not the work of any type of Leaver, but Remainers.
As has been pointed out repeatedly that Davis white paper repeatedly crossed the EU red lines something Davis might have realised if he had spent more than 4 hours with Barnier.
You say that as if it's Davis's fault that he's spent more time with Barnier. The alternative explanation is that he was sidelined by May/Robbins from day 1, which makes it very difficult to argue that the Brexiteers truly own whatever Brexit we eventually end up with.
That aside, I think that the Chequers deal, if delivered, will be received reasonably well by the population as a whole and should May/Robbins be able to get it implemented then it can be sold as a triumph for them. The issue is, what happens if/when the EU waters it down further? Have May/Robbins got the guts or inclination to stand firm and threaten to walk away?
As for Trump, I have no issue with him shooting his mouth off on Brexit, as I didn't with Obama. However, like Obama, he should not be surprised if his words have the opposite effect to that intended. Indeed, saying that the US will negotiate with the EU rather than the UK can be interpreted as suggesting we might as well remain. I'm sure ScottP and WillamGlenn are sharpening their pencils right now.
One good thing about Boris imploding is that we should soon stop hearing about his extended family...
It's like when the Blair's were on the scene and all Cherie's extended family were endlessly in the papers and on telly... Now we never hear from any of them.
In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.
Mr. Eagles, everyone honestly remembers things incorrectly now and then. Unlike your nonsensical ravings about Caesar, I, at least, have the good grace to acknowledge when my memory proved less than precise (as seems to be the case regarding Frenchmen to London).
One good thing about Boris imploding is that we should soon stop hearing about his extended family...
It's like when the Blair's were on the scene and all Cherie's extended family were endlessly in the papers and on telly... Now we never hear from any of them.
So too will it be with the Johnson's soon enough.
His dad attempting to become a reality tv star (I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here and Made in Chelsea) was ridiculous. Rachel is very ‘meh’ as well tbh.
In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.
The British public cried - 'Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me.'
In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.
The British public cried - 'Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me.'
And why jumping on local elections results is often not all that it seems
Ms. Apocalypse, not hugely surprising as Boris' sister is, I think, a Lib Dem now.
Mr. Elliot, either that or I just don't keep a record of all the information I ever hear...
Mr. Ace, went to check. Wikipedia's stats are, a bit unhelpfully, from the 2011 census which has 66,000 Frenchmen in London. Must admit, I find that astoundingly small. It's doubly unhelpful because Hollande was in office from 2012 to 2017.
In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.
The British public cried - 'Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me.'
That’s why this country needs a Directly Elected Dictator on 15 year terms.
You won’t have to worry about NIMBYism and election losses.
Miss Cyclefree, not sure that's true. A David white paper was leaked online (maybe ConHome?) yesterday. It's essentially the Canada deal with extra bits.
The May white paper is not the creation of Davis et al. but May et al (the insinuation is guided/dictated by pro-EU Civil Service types). It's not the work of any type of Leaver, but Remainers.
As has been pointed out repeatedly that Davis white paper repeatedly crossed the EU red lines something Davis might have realised if he had spent more than 4 hours with Barnier.
You say that as if it's Davis's fault that he's spent more time with Barnier. The alternative explanation is that he was sidelined by May/Robbins from day 1, which makes it very difficult to argue that the Brexiteers truly own whatever Brexit we eventually end up with.
That aside, I think that the Chequers deal, if delivered, will be received reasonably well by the population as a whole and should May/Robbins be able to get it implemented then it can be sold as a triumph for them. The issue is, what happens if/when the EU waters it down further? Have May/Robbins got the guts or inclination to stand firm and threaten to walk away?
As for Trump, I have no issue with him shooting his mouth off on Brexit, as I didn't with Obama. However, like Obama, he should not be surprised if his words have the opposite effect to that intended. Indeed, saying that the US will negotiate with the EU rather than the UK can be interpreted as suggesting we might as well remain. I'm sure ScottP and WillamGlenn are sharpening their pencils right now.
That may well be the case, in which case he should have been sacked or never appointed in the first place. He is now able to accurately claim that we will never know whether his version of Brexit was deliverable because he was sidelined and never given the chance.
Ms. Apocalypse, not hugely surprising as Boris' sister is, I think, a Lib Dem now.
Mr. Elliot, either that or I just don't keep a record of all the information I ever hear...
Mr. Ace, went to check. Wikipedia's stats are, a bit unhelpfully, from the 2011 census which has 66,000 Frenchmen in London. Must admit, I find that astoundingly small. It's doubly unhelpful because Hollande was in office from 2012 to 2017.
I am not accusing you of being dishonest, just the sources you rely on. Have a Google. All those stories about emigrating Frenchmen won't actually mention how many are leaving and how it compares to the pre-Hollande period.
I don't understand why the Stop the War Coalition are protesting. They're basically on the same side as Putin and Trump.
Stop the War's credo is based on Anti Imperialism. They choose who to support based on who is opposing the US. The fact that Wars are nasty just makes them feel fuzzier inside.
That may well be the case, in which case he should have been sacked or never appointed in the first place. He is now able to accurately claim that we will never know whether his version of Brexit was deliverable because he was sidelined and never given the chance.
Brexiteers in inhabiting a fantasy world shocker.
Has there been a single Brexiteer assumption, strategy or prediction that has survived a millisecond after first contact with the enemy?
In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.
The British public cried - 'Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me.'
And why jumping on local elections results is often not all that it seems
I've always argued that you need about three months' local by-election results to give you a steer on whether a party is doing well/badly/averagely.
And, even then, you need to look at the starting point. Labour lost seats relentlessly after 1997, despite being miles ahead, because they had built up such a huge lead to start with.
I went to the Blenheim Palace demonstration last night. There were some marvellously inventive banners - I liked the kid with "Nellie the Elephant says no Trump Trump Trump" - but it was hard to top "SHITLER GO HOME" for pure invective.
I went to the Blenheim Palace demonstration last night. There were some marvellously inventive banners - I liked the kid with "Nellie the Elephant says no Trump Trump Trump" - but it was hard to top "SHITLER GO HOME" for pure invective.
From ages ago, but one of my personal favourites is...
One good thing about Boris imploding is that we should soon stop hearing about his extended family...
It's like when the Blair's were on the scene and all Cherie's extended family were endlessly in the papers and on telly... Now we never hear from any of them.
So too will it be with the Johnson's soon enough.
His dad attempting to become a reality tv star (I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here and Made in Chelsea) was ridiculous. Rachel is very ‘meh’ as well tbh.
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
One good thing about Boris imploding is that we should soon stop hearing about his extended family...
It's like when the Blair's were on the scene and all Cherie's extended family were endlessly in the papers and on telly... Now we never hear from any of them.
So too will it be with the Johnson's soon enough.
His dad attempting to become a reality tv star (I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here and Made in Chelsea) was ridiculous. Rachel is very ‘meh’ as well tbh.
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Mr. F, my understanding, which could be wrong (based on, I think, a Kuenssberg[sp] answer), is that we would lose the rebate as it's not included in any treaty but the Schengen/single currency opt-outs would remain.
But, as you imply, EU nations would need to agree.
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
So our incompetent political class will be able to develop a "more intelligent and long term strategy" if we remain but will continue with their present blundering if we leave? I mean, really?
What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
As Barry Gardiner pointed out last night on Question Time, there is no going back to the Status Quo
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
It may not be cheap. But it may be cheaper than a crash out Brexit.
One prediction I will make is this: whatever happens Britain's relationship with the EU will continue to be a running sore in British politics for some time to come. The referendum and its aftermath has done absolutely nothing so far to establish a sensible long-term strategic working relationship between Britain and the European continent. This has been the key issue for British foreign policy for centuries and the likes of JRM with their "Fuck Europe" approach or those who think that Britain should simply do whatever the EU tells them are both peddling dangerous delusions.
Mr. F, my understanding, which could be wrong (based on, I think, a Kuenssberg[sp] answer), is that we would lose the rebate as it's not included in any treaty but the Schengen/single currency opt-outs would remain.
But, as you imply, EU nations would need to agree.
We would also have demonstrated that we may shout about things we don't like, but in the end, we will always bend the knee.
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
It may not be cheap. But it may be cheaper than a crash out Brexit.
One prediction I will make is this: whatever happens Britain's relationship with the EU will continue to be a running sore in British politics for some time to come. The referendum and its aftermath has done absolutely nothing so far to establish a sensible long-term strategic working relationship between Britain and the European continent. This has been the key issue for British foreign policy for centuries and the likes of JRM with their "Fuck Europe" approach or those who think that Britain should simply do whatever the EU tells them are both peddling dangerous delusions.
But, if we went back with our tails between our legs, we would have to do what we are told.
Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.
The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.
Edited extra bit: Churchill said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?
A foreign country democratically elect a President who can be childish, so some people in the UK spend money on a small barrage balloon and want to show their own maturity by comparison.
Here's a few suggestions for their slogans … "He smells of poo, tee-hee", "my mammy says he's horrible", and "He has funny hair."
A little embarrassing for them, but of no real consequence.
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
So our incompetent political class will be able to develop a "more intelligent and long term strategy" if we remain but will continue with their present blundering if we leave? I mean, really?
What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.
That's why I said "provided". I agree that it would seem unlikely with our current political class. My hope - vain probably - is that the next generation are looking at what is happening and learning and thinking about what should happen next.
Some really serious thought needs to be given to what Britain's relationship with the Continent should be, whether in or out. I agree with you about what has happened. But we cannot change the past. We can try and learn from it to try and get a better future.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Disagree. Other heads of state would be very happy to see the Brexit headache go away, and it would be a huge vindication for the EU institutions (Commission, EP). If the British said they'd changed their minds, and it was credible (ie didn't look like it was just stalling for negotiating purposes) nobody would be dicking around trying to extract bigger fish quotas or whatever.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Disagree. Other heads of state would be very happy to see the Brexit headache go away, and it would be a huge vindication for the EU institutions (Commission, EP). If the British said they'd changed their minds, and it was credible (ie didn't look like it was just stalling for negotiating purposes) nobody would be dicking around trying to extract bigger fish quotas or whatever.
Indeed. The Brexit headache would go away, the EU looks like it's helping out a friend in need, and the Tories are broken and humiliated.
Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.
The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.
Edited extra bit: Churchill said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?
Might have something to do with the state of the public finances in 2010?
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Disagree. Other heads of state would be very happy to see the Brexit headache go away, and it would be a huge vindication for the EU institutions (Commission, EP). If the British said they'd changed their minds, and it was credible (ie didn't look like it was just stalling for negotiating purposes) nobody would be dicking around trying to extract bigger fish quotas or whatever.
Andy Cooke's proposed solution of a two question second referendum with the four options available looks to be the best proposed solution to me:
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
So our incompetent political class will be able to develop a "more intelligent and long term strategy" if we remain but will continue with their present blundering if we leave? I mean, really?
What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.
That's why I said "provided". I agree that it would seem unlikely with our current political class. My hope - vain probably - is that the next generation are looking at what is happening and learning and thinking about what should happen next.
Some really serious thought needs to be given to what Britain's relationship with the Continent should be, whether in or out. I agree with you about what has happened. But we cannot change the past. We can try and learn from it to try and get a better future.
I would hope that we have a close and friendly working relationship with the EU after this with near frictionless trade, very similar standards on most things, co-operation on security, crime, pollution, research etc. I would very much hope that aggravation about these negotiations does not poison that. But I do think that we are heading in different directions and we are better leaving them to get on with what they want to do rather constantly dragging our heels, muttering under our breath and looking for opt outs.
Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.
The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.
Edited extra bit: Churchill said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?
It would say that they are bedeviled by people who willfully misunderstand the nature of a deficit.
Take a really simple example. Two parties, red and blue, alternate in government for four year terms. When the red party is in government the deficit increases by 1 [large] unit of currency each year so that over the four years it is: 1, 2, 3, 4, for a total accumulated debt of 10 units. When the blue party is in government the reverse happens, with deficits of 4, 3, 2, 1, again for a total accumulation of debt of 10 units.
Are the two parties equally culpable for the accumulation of debt?
Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.
I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.
I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
It may not be cheap. But it may be cheaper than a crash out Brexit.
One prediction I will make is this: whatever happens Britain's relationship with the EU will continue to be a running sore in British politics for some time to come. The referendum and its aftermath has done absolutely nothing so far to establish a sensible long-term strategic working relationship between Britain and the European continent. This has been the key issue for British foreign policy for centuries and the likes of JRM with their "Fuck Europe" approach or those who think that Britain should simply do whatever the EU tells them are both peddling dangerous delusions.
Not sure JRM would use that language but Boris yes
I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
So our incompetent political class will be able to develop a "more intelligent and long term strategy" if we remain but will continue with their present blundering if we leave? I mean, really?
What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.
That's why I said "provided". I agree that it would seem unlikely with our current political class. My hope - vain probably - is that the next generation are looking at what is happening and learning and thinking about what should happen next.
Some really serious thought needs to be given to what Britain's relationship with the Continent should be, whether in or out. I agree with you about what has happened. But we cannot change the past. We can try and learn from it to try and get a better future.
I would hope that we have a close and friendly working relationship with the EU after this with near frictionless trade, very similar standards on most things, co-operation on security, crime, pollution, research etc. I would very much hope that aggravation about these negotiations does not poison that. But I do think that we are heading in different directions and we are better leaving them to get on with what they want to do rather constantly dragging our heels, muttering under our breath and looking for opt outs.
+1
I’m convinced that the argument will blow over provided a deal is reached.
Amongst my peer group it already has. Only 1 person I know still bangs on about it, and is considered by my almost exclusively Remain voting peer group to be a Brexit bore.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Cancelling A50 (Exbrexit?) would be the ultimate validation of The Project so the EU would be very amenable to it.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Disagree. Other heads of state would be very happy to see the Brexit headache go away, and it would be a huge vindication for the EU institutions (Commission, EP). If the British said they'd changed their minds, and it was credible (ie didn't look like it was just stalling for negotiating purposes) nobody would be dicking around trying to extract bigger fish quotas or whatever.
Andy Cooke's proposed solution of a two question second referendum with the four options available looks to be the best proposed solution to me:
Accept/Reject the deal
If the deal is rejected,
Remain in the EU; Leave the EU without a deal.
As 3 option referendum - deal, remain, leave with no deal, conducted in the same way as French elections with the top 2 options going through to the final round.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Cancelling A50 (Exbrexit?) would be the ultimate validation of The Project so the EU would be very amenable to it.
They'd also be very amenable to obtaining concessions..
I went to the Blenheim Palace demonstration last night. There were some marvellously inventive banners - I liked the kid with "Nellie the Elephant says no Trump Trump Trump" - but it was hard to top "SHITLER GO HOME" for pure invective.
" … If the British said they'd changed their minds"
And who are the British in this instance? Who has decided this? Ah, a second referendum because …
(a) We important people didn't like the result of the first one. (b) It's not fair, the wrong sort of people voted. (c) See (a).
The British are represented by the British government.
But for these purposes you need it to look like they're making a decision that won't be quickly reversed; If a government on its last legs was saying this, but Brexit was still polling strongly, and the opposition was still saying they should Brexit, it's possible some of the other member states would say, no, you've already sent the notification and we don't want to go through all this again.
The obvious way to do it is with another referendum. The justification for another referendum would most likely be that the voters did something it seemed like they now regretted given more information, and being a democracy they're allowed to change their minds. But this is an internal matter for the British. What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again.
We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.
Cancelling A50 (Exbrexit?) would be the ultimate validation of The Project so the EU would be very amenable to it.
They'd also be very amenable to obtaining concessions..
At this point the UK government would be slap-bang in the middle of a full on constitutional crisis. It would be unable to grant any concessions even if it were minded to.
" … If the British said they'd changed their minds"
And who are the British in this instance? Who has decided this? Ah, a second referendum because …
(a) We important people didn't like the result of the first one. (b) It's not fair, the wrong sort of people voted. (c) See (a).
The British are represented by the British government.
But for these purposes you need it to look like they're making a decision that won't be quickly reversed; If a government on its last legs was saying this, but Brexit was still polling strongly, and the opposition was still saying they should Brexit, it's possible some of the other member states would say, no, you've already sent the notification and we don't want to go through all this again.
The obvious way to do it is with another referendum. The justification for another referendum would most likely be that the voters did something it seemed like they now regretted given more information, and being a democracy they're allowed to change their minds. But this is an internal matter for the British. What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again.
I should think they would want pretty clear assurances that we weren't going to cause any trouble for them in the future.
"What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again."
Not the British people then? Vernon Bogdanor made an interesting comment recently ... 'After the referendum, the people, not parliament, are sovereign.'
He's supposedly one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts and has written extensively on political and constitutional issues. Bloody experts, eh?
So that means the timeframe is shrinking in which we can be made to decide again. It would take Parliament to unilaterally re-run the referendum. Fig leaves might be in short supply.
"What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again."
Not the British people then? Vernon Bogdanor made an interesting comment recently ... 'After the referendum, the people, not parliament, are sovereign.'
He's supposedly one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts and has written extensively on political and constitutional issues. Bloody experts, eh?
Isn't "Leave" a bit thin as far as a negotiating strategy goes? That was as far as the British people were asked to contribute. No problem with the govt committing to follow their order, but there are quite a few gaps to fill in.
What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades
Indeed. They painted the EU as much more in control than it really was, gold-plated the implementation of many Regulations and Directives and failed to utilise measures that would have eased many of the problems that arose. It suited Westminster to have a bogeyman on whom they could blame all their own failings.
The one positive of Brexit is that Westminster cannot blame it on the EU. It is entirely self-inflicted.
Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.
The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.
Edited extra bit: Churchill said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?
While your statistic is indeed technically correct, it is utterly meaningless without them context of a government taking over in 2010 with a £175,000,000,000 annual deficit, that’s £500m a day in borrowing.
That we have managed to get down to only borrowing £100m a day eight years later is not a bad thing, although I agree that it should have happened faster and we should now be running a surplus building up reserves in preparation for the next recession.
"What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again."
Not the British people then? Vernon Bogdanor made an interesting comment recently ... 'After the referendum, the people, not parliament, are sovereign.'
He's supposedly one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts and has written extensively on political and constitutional issues. Bloody experts, eh?
So that means the timeframe is shrinking in which we can be made to decide again. It would take Parliament to unilaterally re-run the referendum. Fig leaves might be in short supply.
Well, he's presumably talking about the practical constraints on what the government would do. And it may well be true that a government can't ignore a referendum except with another referendum. But that's Britain's concern, not the rest of the EU's.
I think the balloon is rather good. What would people prefer - an effigy as there was with George W Bush? It could be seen in the long history of British mockery non-violent protest.
Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.
The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.
Edited extra bit: Churchill said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?
While your statistic is indeed technically correct, it is utterly meaningless without them context of a government taking over in 2010 with a £175,000,000,000 annual deficit, that’s £500m a day in borrowing.
That we have managed to get down to only borrowing £100m a day eight years later is not a bad thing, although I agree that it should have happened faster and we should now be running a surplus building up reserves in preparation for the next recession.
I notice that you do not refer to national debt between 2000 and 2008 which was remarkably consistent at around £400 billion, while from 2008 to 2010 the debt did increase to £900 billion or so as a result of the banking collapse, but was beginning to decrease as expected and planned for, since then the debt has more than doubled to over £1.85 trillion. A truly brilliant example of Tory Government financial management that promised a reduction or wipe out of the debt by 2015, 2017, 2019, 2023, 2025 and 2030, if then. While wages have stagnated and due to even the small amount of price inflation, have reduced purchase power to below 2006 levels, except for the lucky few of course. Government expenditure on everything has been reduced due to the Tories er! interesting austerity plans, but government debt has increased. - Would someone please explain where all that £900 billion plus, has actually gone (hopefully not into off shore bank account(s))....
hello PB, first time I have commented since the days of "Tim", if anyone remembers him! I had a different moniker then, but enjoyed being the scourge of headbangers on the right and left. HYUFD and his deranged rantings at anyone without his "pure" world view have brought me back out of retirement!
Comments
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1002541345964216321?s=21
It's like when the Blair's were on the scene and all Cherie's extended family were endlessly in the papers and on telly... Now we never hear from any of them.
So too will it be with the Johnson's soon enough.
You won’t have to worry about NIMBYism and election losses.
https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/1017714561833725952?s=21
And the rest half-baked.
Has there been a single Brexiteer assumption, strategy or prediction that has survived a millisecond after first contact with the enemy?
(the enemy, in this case, being external reality)
And, even then, you need to look at the starting point. Labour lost seats relentlessly after 1997, despite being miles ahead, because they had built up such a huge lead to start with.
"Apologies to anyone [who is a posh Tory, presumably] who I have not called a Posh Tory". LOL
https://twitter.com/EricKlinenberg/status/823020886101934081
I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.
I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.
Both sides bad!
But, as you imply, EU nations would need to agree.
Shamefully that includes Mickey Fab who lived up Dave’s maxim about Twitter yesterday.
What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.
We are past the point of 'No return' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AYAtJnSINw
One prediction I will make is this: whatever happens Britain's relationship with the EU will continue to be a running sore in British politics for some time to come. The referendum and its aftermath has done absolutely nothing so far to establish a sensible long-term strategic working relationship between Britain and the European continent. This has been the key issue for British foreign policy for centuries and the likes of JRM with their "Fuck Europe" approach or those who think that Britain should simply do whatever the EU tells them are both peddling dangerous delusions.
Here's a few suggestions for their slogans … "He smells of poo, tee-hee", "my mammy says he's horrible", and "He has funny hair."
A little embarrassing for them, but of no real consequence.
Some really serious thought needs to be given to what Britain's relationship with the Continent should be, whether in or out. I agree with you about what has happened. But we cannot change the past. We can try and learn from it to try and get a better future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs
From an EU perspective that's a dream outcome.
Accept/Reject the deal
If the deal is rejected,
Remain in the EU; Leave the EU without a deal.
Take a really simple example. Two parties, red and blue, alternate in government for four year terms. When the red party is in government the deficit increases by 1 [large] unit of currency each year so that over the four years it is: 1, 2, 3, 4, for a total accumulated debt of 10 units. When the blue party is in government the reverse happens, with deficits of 4, 3, 2, 1, again for a total accumulation of debt of 10 units.
Are the two parties equally culpable for the accumulation of debt?
" … If the British said they'd changed their minds"
And who are the British in this instance? Who has decided this? Ah, a second referendum because …
(a) We important people didn't like the result of the first one.
(b) It's not fair, the wrong sort of people voted.
(c) See (a).
I’m convinced that the argument will blow over provided a deal is reached.
Amongst my peer group it already has. Only 1 person I know still bangs on about it, and is considered by my almost exclusively Remain voting peer group to be a Brexit bore.
Certainly a few thousand there plus the odd pro Trump supporter too including one with a US flag and 'Hillary for prison' baseball cap on
But for these purposes you need it to look like they're making a decision that won't be quickly reversed; If a government on its last legs was saying this, but Brexit was still polling strongly, and the opposition was still saying they should Brexit, it's possible some of the other member states would say, no, you've already sent the notification and we don't want to go through all this again.
The obvious way to do it is with another referendum. The justification for another referendum would most likely be that the voters did something it seemed like they now regretted given more information, and being a democracy they're allowed to change their minds. But this is an internal matter for the British. What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again.
Play with the volume up
https://youtu.be/AyyCz9z1s_M
NEW THREAD
"What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again."
Not the British people then? Vernon Bogdanor made an interesting comment recently ... 'After the referendum, the people, not parliament, are sovereign.'
He's supposedly one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts and has written extensively on political and constitutional issues. Bloody experts, eh?
So that means the timeframe is shrinking in which we can be made to decide again. It would take Parliament to unilaterally re-run the referendum. Fig leaves might be in short supply.
The one positive of Brexit is that Westminster cannot blame it on the EU. It is entirely self-inflicted.
Brown's behaviour over signing the Lisbon treaty was, IMO, an utter disgrace. He was like a thief in the night.
That we have managed to get down to only borrowing £100m a day eight years later is not a bad thing, although I agree that it should have happened faster and we should now be running a surplus building up reserves in preparation for the next recession.