I think the EU was just about ready to countenance the Chequers agreement (With some minor changes perhaps) but I don't see how they can agree the amended version we now have.
I think the EU was just about ready to countenance the Chequers agreement (With some minor changes perhaps) but I don't see how they can agree the amended version we now have.
We're f*cked.
Nothing stopping them revisiting the law at a future date.
Fucking LOL. They"ve taken the BAE Replica mock up out from behind the skip where they left it in 1998, turned it the right way up and repainted it. This reminds me of the way the Iranian government produces crude facsimiles of aircraft that will never exist for the titillation of the gullible.
Is it a conscious policy to name fighters after RAF fighters from WWII? If not, it's a marvellously accidental tap into the Brexit zeitgeist.
Let us hope they do not recycle the Blackburn Roc for naming purposes, an aircraft so bad they parked them at airfields to use the gun turret for anti-aircraft fire rather than fly it
I think the EU was just about ready to countenance the Chequers agreement (With some minor changes perhaps) but I don't see how they can agree the amended version we now have.
We're f*cked.
There is no chance the EU would have accepted the Chequers agreement. You only have to look at the mood music coming from the EU since the White Paper was published
Thanks for the link fpt on Tony Blair's view - that parliament should reject May's compromise, though obviously he sees that as a way of staying in the EU. He does concede there is a case for a "clean" Brexit even if he doesn't agree with it.
What I find strikingly disingenuous about his case for remaining is his repeated insistence that the UK government retains the powers to do anything actually important. But this seems to assume the EU will preserve its current balance of powers in aspic, ignoring the dynamics of ever-closer union - politics and economics driving each other onwards. The hypocritical aspect is that if Blair were in power now he would surely have been at the forefront of integrating Britain into the heart of Europe, thereby constraining the freedom of action not just of his own government but all that follow. He cites the UK's freedom to set its own fiscal policy, yet he wanted to join the euro with the constraints that imposes.
Had Britain done so and Blair's input was critical to the crisis talks over the euro's future, would he have Macronlike proposed a strong European Treasury? In relation to the tax-dodging corporations set up in Ireland, would Blair's interest in social justice have led to him to join other states in calling for a harmonized corporate tax rate? And if he himself would not have committed to such a future-binding course, what guarantee would he have that his successors would not have pursued it?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
I think the EU was just about ready to countenance the Chequers agreement (With some minor changes perhaps) but I don't see how they can agree the amended version we now have.
We're f*cked.
There is no chance the EU would have accepted the Chequers agreement. You only have to look at the mood music coming from the EU since the White Paper was published
Well if anything that strengthens the point about them not accepting this version.
I guess the bottom line is it currently looks like*
May is simultaenously not strong enough to face down the ERG and not a good enough negotiator to extract concessions she's agreed that will have passed the house. I don't think there is actually a solution** to this.
* Who knows I might be wrong ** Not one acceptable to all those that matter anyway.
I think the EU was just about ready to countenance the Chequers agreement (With some minor changes perhaps) but I don't see how they can agree the amended version we now have.
We're f*cked.
There is no chance the EU would have accepted the Chequers agreement. You only have to look at the mood music coming from the EU since the White Paper was published
Well if anything that strengthens the point about them not accepting this version.
Yep - it's pretty much dead in the water. The Tories will own the consequences completely.
Thanks for the link fpt on Tony Blair's view - that parliament should reject May's compromise, though obviously he sees that as a way of staying in the EU. He does concede there is a case for a "clean" Brexit even if he doesn't agree with it.
What I find strikingly disingenuous about his case for remaining is his repeated insistence that the UK government retains the powers to do anything actually important. But this seems to assume the EU will preserve its current balance of powers in aspic, ignoring the dynamics of ever-closer union - politics and economics driving each other onwards. The hypocritical aspect is that if Blair were in power now he would surely have been at the forefront of integrating Britain into the heart of Europe, thereby constraining the freedom of action not just of his own government but all that follow. He cites the UK's freedom to set its own fiscal policy, yet he wanted to join the euro with the constraints that imposes.
Had Britain done so and Blair's input was critical to the crisis talks over the euro's future, would he have Macronlike proposed a strong European Treasury? In relation to the tax-dodging corporations set up in Ireland, would Blair's interest in social justice have led to him to join other states in calling for a harmonized corporate tax rate? And if he himself would not have committed to such a future-binding course, what guarantee would he have that his successors would not have pursued it?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
The UK govt retains the power to do lots of things "that are important" even if we were to remain in EU. The "sovereignty" argument that gets so many eyes-a-swivelling has not been sufficiently challenged.
Whether you want UK to go to war or not, it still does, as is it's sovereign right; the EU cannot stop us (though the UN may try). We also have the, er, little issue of the referendum. If we are not sovereign, how is it we can choose to leave? The biggest irony of all is that we continue to have US bases on British soil and people like Fox would like us to have an even more subservient relationship with our US ally.
It is time that those of us with more moderate views stood up against those bullies that wrap themselves up in the union flag to hide their small insecurities, while they say "fuck business" to those of us that would rather not see our economy go down the global plughole
Parliament will not vote for May’s turd of a deal. Even if May wants a referendum, 100+ Brexiteers won’t vote for it. Neither will Corbyn, as he’ll say the proper course of action should be a general election, which won’t pass the Commons either.
No deal it is.
For my benefit, could you explain what you think the consequences of this, on its face, quite blithe “no deal it is” are?
You are talking to the same fool who admitted that he believed economic collapse to be a price worth paying for Brexit to happen. I dare say he doesn't care what the consequences are.
Mr. Herdson, if May's proposal falls then a straight leave without a deal or remain would surely be the choice? What else could there be?
Well, this is one reason why I don't think that an EURef2 is a runner to start with. I don't really see a decision tree (seeing as they seem to be all the rage), that ends up there. What problem is it supposed to solve?
Even those poll ratings are much higher than Labour recorded during the 2017 election campaign. In the context of a Westminster election with GB polls showing Labour well placed to win , I would expect Labour to rally strongly in Scotland to poll circa 30% - mainly though not entirely at SNP expense.Will be very surprised if the SNP exceed 35% next time.
Keep chanting that mantra.
Yup - meaningless wishful thinking completely without evidence to back it up.
Thanks for the link fpt on Tony Blair's view - that parliament should reject May's compromise, though obviously he sees that as a way of staying in the EU. He does concede there is a case for a "clean" Brexit even if he doesn't agree with it.
What I find strikingly disingenuous about his case for remaining is his repeated insistence that the UK government retains the powers to do anything actually important. But this seems to assume the EU will preserve its current balance of powers in aspic, ignoring the dynamics of ever-closer union - politics and economics driving each other onwards. The hypocritical aspect is that if Blair were in power now he would surely have been at the forefront of integrating Britain into the heart of Europe, thereby constraining the freedom of action not just of his own government but all that follow. He cites the UK's freedom to set its own fiscal policy, yet he wanted to join the euro with the constraints that imposes.
Had Britain done so and Blair's input was critical to the crisis talks over the euro's future, would he have Macronlike proposed a strong European Treasury? In relation to the tax-dodging corporations set up in Ireland, would Blair's interest in social justice have led to him to join other states in calling for a harmonized corporate tax rate? And if he himself would not have committed to such a future-binding course, what guarantee would he have that his successors would not have pursued it?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
Mr. Foremain, arguing the EU isn't overmighty or too influential because it doesn't have command of our armed forces is not especially persuasive.
Mr. Herdson, cheers for the time frame correction.
On reaching a leave/remain referendum, again, it's because in that scenario May's proposal is no more and a pro-EU majority of MPs would prefer to chance their arm in a new vote rather than accept leaving without any deal.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Mr. Herdson, if May's proposal falls then a straight leave without a deal or remain would surely be the choice? What else could there be?
The only alternative option would be an off-the-peg existing arrangement - ie, the EEA.
Regardless of the merits or lack of them of the EEA Arrangement, it is certainly one that could be actioned in very short time, and arguably the only one that could.
If this current offer fails, we have the following five options:
1 - Extend A50 negotiation time and start again. This is, I feel, highly unlikely, unless it looks to the EU as if we really know what we want now and it's feasible and acceptable 2 - Get an off-the-peg deal. In practice, this is limited to EEA 3 - Negotiate for a controlled no-deal "diamond hard" Brexit. Limited by the issue that there's a lot that needs to be done for this and very limited time. A50 extension may be possible if the amount of time needed is fairly short and we're a long way down the track; I'm sceptical this would happen 4 - Remain. And how exactly do we do that with any democratic legitimacy? Another referendum would certainly be needed, and we've discussed the issues around that 5 - Crash out. Unfortunately, looks like the most likely outcome, and this will very likely be accompanied by Project Fear-level serious shit.
Have I missed any others?
My PDOMA-level estimates of probability for each of these (if it is given that the current deal falls through) would be: 1 - 10% 2 - 20% 3 - 20% 4 - 10% 5 - 40%
... but those are grabbed out of clean air. I'd be interested in others assessment of the chances.
Thanks for the link fpt on Tony Blair's view - that parliament should reject May's compromise, though obviously he sees that as a way of staying in the EU. He does concede there is a case for a "clean" Brexit even if he doesn't agree with it.
What I find strikingly disingenuous about his case for remaining is his repeated insistence that the UK government retains the powers to do anything actually important. But this seems to assume the EU will preserve its current balance of powers in aspic, ignoring the dynamics of ever-closer union - politics and economics driving each other onwards. The hypocritical aspect is that if Blair were in power now he would surely have been at the forefront of integrating Britain into the heart of Europe, thereby constraining the freedom of action not just of his own government but all that follow. He cites the UK's freedom to set its own fiscal policy, yet he wanted to join the euro with the constraints that imposes.
Had Britain done so and Blair's input was critical to the crisis talks over the euro's future, would he have Macronlike proposed a strong European Treasury? In relation to the tax-dodging corporations set up in Ireland, would Blair's interest in social justice have led to him to join other states in calling for a harmonized corporate tax rate? And if he himself would not have committed to such a future-binding course, what guarantee would he have that his successors would not have pursued it?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
Asquith? Baldwin?
Asquith remained largely well regarded within his own party - and beyond - until his death in 1928.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
As I have said many times, Theresa May listens to whoever shouts loudest. Today that was the ERG.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I believe she has a real fear that the EU would want to make amendments, that in this climate would be impossible, so from a practical point of view she has moved towards the ERG group as a forerunner of telling the EU the deal is not workable and she will take immediate steps to implement a no deal strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
Fucking LOL. They"ve taken the BAE Replica mock up out from behind the skip where they left it in 1998, turned it the right way up and repainted it. This reminds me of the way the Iranian government produces crude facsimiles of aircraft that will never exist for the titillation of the gullible.
Well you've got to start somewhere, I guess. Though perhaps a two decades old design concept isn't the optimal place....
Mr. NorthWales, I largely agree but do think a second referendum is eminently plausible.
Regardless of whether one voted this way or that, or has changed one's mind, May's execution of an admittedly difficult task has nevertheless been found extremely wanting.
Thanks for the link fpt on Tony Blair's view - that parliament should reject May's compromise, though obviously he sees that as a way of staying in the EU. He does concede there is a case for a "clean" Brexit even if he doesn't agree with it.
What I find strikingly disingenuous about his case for remaining is his repeated insistence that the UK government retains the powers to do anything actually important. But this seems to assume the EU will preserve its current balance of powers in aspic, ignoring the dynamics of ever-closer union - politics and economics driving each other onwards. The hypocritical aspect is that if Blair were in power now he would surely have been at the forefront of integrating Britain into the heart of Europe, thereby constraining the freedom of action not just of his own government but all that follow. He cites the UK's freedom to set its own fiscal policy, yet he wanted to join the euro with the constraints that imposes.
Had Britain done so and Blair's input was critical to the crisis talks over the euro's future, would he have Macronlike proposed a strong European Treasury? In relation to the tax-dodging corporations set up in Ireland, would Blair's interest in social justice have led to him to join other states in calling for a harmonized corporate tax rate? And if he himself would not have committed to such a future-binding course, what guarantee would he have that his successors would not have pursued it?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
Asquith? Baldwin?
Asquith remained largely well regarded within his own party - and beyond - until his death in 1928.
Perhaps - but his party was about one-tenth the size of what it had been when he took over.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Yes, I am truly perplexed by todays news.
I don't understand what is happening or why/
Perhaps the aim is to get MPs and electorate so confused and bored that they acquiesce to whatever the cobbled together crap of the day might end up being ?
Sounds a bit like the new combat aircraft project.
I may well be wrong, but I'm not at all sanguine that a 1634 page trade agreement designed for a specific country (Canada) would be as easy and straightforward to adapt for the UK as some might seem to think. It took 9 years to negotiate for Canada in the first place. I do very much doubt that we could do something as simple as a search-and-replace on "Canada" for "UK", for example. There would be much in there that would need considerable tweaking.
In contrast, the EEA Agreement is designed from the start to be straightforward for countries to enter and exit, and generic in its provisions.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
The main thing she ruled out was a customs arrangement that the EU were never going to accept anyway. Not sure why she proposed it in the first place, but its not a huge loss
Thanks for the link fpt on Tony Blair's view - that parliament should reject May's compromise, though obviously he sees that as a way of staying in the EU. He does concede there is a case for a "clean" Brexit even if he doesn't agree with it.
What I find strikingly disingenuous about his case for remaining is his repeated insistence that the UK government retains the powers to do anything actually important. But this seems to assume the EU will preserve its current balance of powers in aspic, ignoring the dynamics of ever-closer union - politics and economics driving each other onwards. The hypocritical aspect is that if Blair were in power now he would surely have been at the forefront of integrating Britain into the heart of Europe, thereby constraining the freedom of action not just of his own government but all that follow. He cites the UK's freedom to set its own fiscal policy, yet he wanted to join the euro with the constraints that imposes.
Had Britain done so and Blair's input was critical to the crisis talks over the euro's future, would he have Macronlike proposed a strong European Treasury? In relation to the tax-dodging corporations set up in Ireland, would Blair's interest in social justice have led to him to join other states in calling for a harmonized corporate tax rate? And if he himself would not have committed to such a future-binding course, what guarantee would he have that his successors would not have pursued it?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
Asquith? Baldwin?
Asquith remained largely well regarded within his own party - and beyond - until his death in 1928.
Perhaps - but his party was about one-tenth the size of what it had been when he took over.
If May is playing out a similar strategy, the party should end up maybe one-thirtieth of what it was ?
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I think that even No 10 can see the political benefit of having the EU say so publicly, were that the case.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I believe she has a real fear that the EU would want to make amendments, that in this climate would be impossible, so from a practical point of view she has moved towards the ERG group as a forerunner of telling the EU the deal is not workable and she will take immediate steps to implement a no deal strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
What will be interesting will be the reaction of EU Governments when they realise No Deal is going to happen. The UK has a huge trade deficit with EU and if it becomes difficult or costly for the UK consumer to buy EU goods then surely they will try to do something with the EU negotiating team, who clearly do not care what happens as long as the UK suffers.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I believe she has a real fear that the EU would want to make amendments, that in this climate would be impossible, so from a practical point of view she has moved towards the ERG group as a forerunner of telling the EU the deal is not workable and she will take immediate steps to implement a no deal strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
What will be interesting will be the reaction of EU Governments when they realise No Deal is going to happen. The UK has a huge trade deficit with EU and if it becomes difficult or costly for the UK consumer to buy EU goods then surely they will try to do something with the EU negotiating team, who clearly do not care what happens as long as the UK suffers.
Mr. NorthWales, I largely agree but do think a second referendum is eminently plausible.
Regardless of whether one voted this way or that, or has changed one's mind, May's execution of an admittedly difficult task has nevertheless been found extremely wanting.
It is possible, but I do not see how it would come about.
Who would agree the questions, how soon could it pass the HOC and HOL, is it a simple majority so 52/48 could happen again, and there must be an increased liklihood or leave winning and it all starts up again
As far as TM is concerned she has many problems, not least her lack of communication skills, but I do believe she is genuinely trying to do the best for the Country and trying to square a circle. I cannot think of anyone who would be better, and that is a condemnation on all our politicians who are so talentless
Did you ever read about a fudge Who dreamed of bein' an agreement And then became one Well except for the names And a few other changes If you talk about Brexit The story is the same one
The UK govt retains the power to do lots of things "that are important" even if we were to remain in EU. The "sovereignty" argument that gets so many eyes-a-swivelling has not been sufficiently challenged.
Whether you want UK to go to war or not, it still does, as is it's sovereign right; the EU cannot stop us (though the UN may try). We also have the, er, little issue of the referendum. If we are not sovereign, how is it we can choose to leave? The biggest irony of all is that we continue to have US bases on British soil and people like Fox would like us to have an even more subservient relationship with our US ally.
It is time that those of us with more moderate views stood up against those bullies that wrap themselves up in the union flag to hide their small insecurities, while they say "fuck business" to those of us that would rather not see our economy go down the global plughole
There's definitely something in this view - in fact I think it's even worth distinguishing between "sovereignty" and "power to do important things". The US states or German Lander possess quite significant powers to affect people's everyday lives, in fact over most of the public concerns that Blair lists. Even a clearly less-than-sovereign UK within a hypothetical United States of Europe would surely retain substantial residual powers over the lives and welfare of its inhabitants.
There is some irony to EU member states retaining the capacity for unilateral war-making, given the purpose of the original coal and steel pact. Perhaps in another 50 years of integration that will be but a memory - but it's certainly possible to imagine a situation in which members have given considerably more power over domestic and economic affairs to Brussels than presently, and largely follow a common foreign policy, yet still retain a final veto over the use of their own forces in operations.
On the flip side, the trend towards greater international regulation isn't going to go away regardless of whether the UK remains in the EU or EEA or in a different economic sphere altogether - even a "sovereign" UK isn't going to set its own rules and regulations on everything. In fairness, even stridently sovereigntist Brexiteers seem mostly to accept this - but they'd be happier for this rule-setting to occur in multilateral settings, rather than within an organisation whose structure and functioning they dislike and whose long-run goals they cannot concord with.
Mr. Herdson, if May's proposal falls then a straight leave without a deal or remain would surely be the choice? What else could there be?
The only alternative option would be an off-the-peg existing arrangement - ie, the EEA.
Regardless of the merits or lack of them of the EEA Arrangement, it is certainly one that could be actioned in very short time, and arguably the only one that could.
If this current offer fails, we have the following five options:
1 - Extend A50 negotiation time and start again. This is, I feel, highly unlikely, unless it looks to the EU as if we really know what we want now and it's feasible and acceptable 2 - Get an off-the-peg deal. In practice, this is limited to EEA 3 - Negotiate for a controlled no-deal "diamond hard" Brexit. Limited by the issue that there's a lot that needs to be done for this and very limited time. A50 extension may be possible if the amount of time needed is fairly short and we're a long way down the track; I'm sceptical this would happen 4 - Remain. And how exactly do we do that with any democratic legitimacy? Another referendum would certainly be needed, and we've discussed the issues around that 5 - Crash out. Unfortunately, looks like the most likely outcome, and this will very likely be accompanied by Project Fear-level serious shit.
Have I missed any others?
My PDOMA-level estimates of probability for each of these (if it is given that the current deal falls through) would be: 1 - 10% 2 - 20% 3 - 20% 4 - 10% 5 - 40%
... but those are grabbed out of clean air. I'd be interested in others assessment of the chances.
1 - but only the extension of A50 bit - is potentially compatible with 2,3 and 4 - and indeed, another referendum.
Start again is a complete non-starter while May is still PM; under a new administration, maybe a 5% chance, but why would the EU agree to extend A50 and risk being back where they started after another year or so ?
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I believe she has a real fear that the EU would want to make amendments, that in this climate would be impossible, so from a practical point of view she has moved towards the ERG group as a forerunner of telling the EU the deal is not workable and she will take immediate steps to implement a no deal strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
What will be interesting will be the reaction of EU Governments when they realise No Deal is going to happen. The UK has a huge trade deficit with EU and if it becomes difficult or costly for the UK consumer to buy EU goods then surely they will try to do something with the EU negotiating team, who clearly do not care what happens as long as the UK suffers.
If we go to WTO terms, some EU goods will cost more in the UK, many UK manufacturers using EU-wide supply chains will quickly run into trouble and UK entities will not be able to sell services into the EU. We have a deficit in goods, a surplus in services.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I believe she has a real fear that the EU would want to make amendments, that in this climate would be impossible, so from a practical point of view she has moved towards the ERG group as a forerunner of telling the EU the deal is not workable and she will take immediate steps to implement a no deal strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
What will be interesting will be the reaction of EU Governments when they realise No Deal is going to happen. The UK has a huge trade deficit with EU and if it becomes difficult or costly for the UK consumer to buy EU goods then surely they will try to do something with the EU negotiating team, who clearly do not care what happens as long as the UK suffers.
What is more likely is that the British will still buy European goods but that any British components will be reduced as trans-national supply chains are pulled back into the EU to avoid border problems, so the deficit on EU trade will get worse and the EU will get more jobs.
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I believe she has a real fear that the EU would want to make amendments, that in this climate would be impossible, so from a practical point of view she has moved towards the ERG group as a forerunner of telling the EU the deal is not workable and she will take immediate steps to implement a no deal strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
What will be interesting will be the reaction of EU Governments when they realise No Deal is going to happen. The UK has a huge trade deficit with EU and if it becomes difficult or costly for the UK consumer to buy EU goods then surely they will try to do something with the EU negotiating team, who clearly do not care what happens as long as the UK suffers.
If we go to WTO terms, some EU goods will cost more in the UK, many UK manufacturers using EU-wide supply chains will quickly run into trouble and UK entities will not be able to sell services into the EU. We have a deficit in goods, a surplus in services.
You have painted a bleak picture for the UK but surely it will be a bleak picture for many European economies as well? The UK is a massive contributer to the EU, if it leaves with No Deal surely the impact will be far reaching?
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I game, unfortunately
What will be interesting will be the reaction of EU Governments when they realise No Deal is going to happen. The UK has a huge trade deficit with EU and if it becomes difficult or costly for the UK consumer to buy EU goods then surely they will try to do something with the EU negotiating team, who clearly do not care what happens as long as the UK suffers.
If we go to WTO terms, some EU goods will cost more in the UK, many UK manufacturers using EU-wide supply chains will quickly run into trouble and UK entities will not be able to sell services into the EU. We have a deficit in goods, a surplus in services.
You have painted a bleak picture for the UK but surely it will be a bleak picture for many European economies as well? The UK is a massive contributer to the EU, if it leaves with No Deal surely the impact will be far reaching?
Of course - no-one wins. But we lose the most. However, it is worth noting that tariffs only become an issue once the UK begins to source cheaper alternatives elsewhere. That will take time and may prove to be tricky in a number of areas given that WTO tariffs are not selective and have to be supplied to all goods entering the country.
Services are something like 40% of our exports to the EU27.
The biggest irony of all is that we continue to have US bases on British soil and people like Fox would like us to have an even more subservient relationship with our US ally.
Fwiw I think few people outside the Hard Left are aggrieved by the presence of US bases here and if a European ally wanted to build some facilities here and subsidise the local economy I doubt most Brexit-voters would reject it. The problem most people have with the one-sidedness of our Atlantic alliance is the extent to which our government might blindly follow or refuse to criticise the Americans. That's a very considerable power over us, irrespective of the fact that e.g. the US Supreme Court does not have ultimate jurisdiction over us or that 327 million Americans do not have the automatic right to settle here. And their military bases here hardly represent a Warsaw Pact or colonial arrangement in which their presence is the fundamental guarantor of American control.
The underlying issue is that America is a larger and more powerful country that we do a lot of business with and whose interests largely align with our own - we already mute our criticism of China because of their rise, but at least we don't get dragged into their affairs because there is no sense of being fundamentally "on their side" or that our support may gain some quid pro quo in future. If there does arise an Increasingly United States of Europe upon our border - something that UK foreign policy spent a long time trying to prevent in the past - then British statespeople of the future will have a tricky course to navigate in the long run. A counterweight to American influence may prove useful, particularly for bargaining purposes, but if Europe were to really get its act together then an "independent" and "sovereign" UK would face a power imbalance that could quite easily surpass our current "subservience" to the US.
(It's even plausible this problem could occur if Britain remained within the EU but didn't pursue tighter integration while "core" members accelerate. We are talking multi-decadal timescales here, but when you've got a "once in a lifetime" kind of referendum then you are trying to set a course through a jungle of alternative histories in a way that a bog standard general election rarely does.)
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
The main thing she ruled out was a customs arrangement that the EU were never going to accept anyway. Not sure why she proposed it in the first place, but its not a huge loss
But the EU is even less likely to accept what's been put in its place?
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Perhaps the EU have told her that they cant accept the Chequers Plan
I believe she has a real fear that the EU would want to make amendments, that in this climate would be impossible, so from a practical point of view she has moved towards the ERG group as a forerunner of telling the EU the deal is not workable and she will take immediate steps to implement a no deal strategy.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
What will be interesting will be the reaction of EU Governments when they realise No Deal is going to happen. The UK has a huge trade deficit with EU and if it becomes difficult or costly for the UK consumer to buy EU goods then surely they will try to do something with the EU negotiating team, who clearly do not care what happens as long as the UK suffers.
If we go to WTO terms, some EU goods will cost more in the UK, many UK manufacturers using EU-wide supply chains will quickly run into trouble and UK entities will not be able to sell services into the EU. We have a deficit in goods, a surplus in services.
You have painted a bleak picture for the UK but surely it will be a bleak picture for many European economies as well? The UK is a massive contributer to the EU, if it leaves with No Deal surely the impact will be far reaching?
Of course - no-one wins. But we lose the most.
Maybe, but surely the EU governments will want to prevent this?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
Asquith? Baldwin?
Asquith remained largely well regarded within his own party - and beyond - until his death in 1928.
Perhaps - but his party was about one-tenth the size of what it had been when he took over.
I reckon those are two good calls myself, with Asquith being somewhat of a special case as you said.
What makes Blair particularly interesting, indeed tragic, is his relative youth as he lives through the unwinding of his legacy...
If this actually happens, which is unlikely given Peston's track record, Labour could swing in supporting the amendment. If they won wouldn't that be a resigning matter for the PM?
Not 100% true. There is a fork in the future where we lose the most but there is also a fork where import substitution takes place and the EU has a lot of produce looking for new markets.
Not 100% true. There is a fork in the future where we lose the most but there is also a fork where import substitution takes place and the EU has a lot of produce looking for new markets.
I for one am certainly looking forward to watching adverts for Austin 1100s on my Baird tv.
What is more likely is that the British will still buy European goods but that any British components will be reduced as trans-national supply chains are pulled back into the EU to avoid border problems, so the deficit on EU trade will get worse and the EU will get more jobs.
That should please the Leavers on here then, all pushing for "Diamond hard Brexit" or "No Deal it is then".
Why concern yourself with economic damage and dislocation when you have a blue passport?
In accepting the amendments today, May has effectively killed her own Chequers Deal (which cost her two cabinet ministers and several more junior government members), and made No Deal *far* more likely.
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
Top post. Will be interesting to read her autobiography... much of her decision-making or strategy seems to make less sense in retrospect! Whatever rational purpose might eventually be discerned in one act, she negates by her next.
(Incidentally, given how mindboggling the dance of government and parliament is in this negotiation, how would those rare people who proposed that somehow parliament, rather than government, should have run the negotiation think it would have worked in practice?)
Comments
We're f*cked.
The amendments are incorporated. It is against Barnier that the whole thing crashes on the rocks now.
Just seen this shared by a black lefty musician friend on facebook..
Thanks for the link fpt on Tony Blair's view - that parliament should reject May's compromise, though obviously he sees that as a way of staying in the EU. He does concede there is a case for a "clean" Brexit even if he doesn't agree with it.
What I find strikingly disingenuous about his case for remaining is his repeated insistence that the UK government retains the powers to do anything actually important. But this seems to assume the EU will preserve its current balance of powers in aspic, ignoring the dynamics of ever-closer union - politics and economics driving each other onwards. The hypocritical aspect is that if Blair were in power now he would surely have been at the forefront of integrating Britain into the heart of Europe, thereby constraining the freedom of action not just of his own government but all that follow. He cites the UK's freedom to set its own fiscal policy, yet he wanted to join the euro with the constraints that imposes.
Had Britain done so and Blair's input was critical to the crisis talks over the euro's future, would he have Macronlike proposed a strong European Treasury? In relation to the tax-dodging corporations set up in Ireland, would Blair's interest in social justice have led to him to join other states in calling for a harmonized corporate tax rate? And if he himself would not have committed to such a future-binding course, what guarantee would he have that his successors would not have pursued it?
At any rate, his views barely matters now. Rare must be the man to have reigned so supreme over this country for so long, yet barely a decade later to be so totally deprived of public influence or affection or, even in the echelons of his own party, a political legacy. To be writing an opinion piece on one's own website (and it doesn't read as if he has had a paid aide or speechwriter to tidy up his own thoughts for him) must be the digital equivalent of howling at the moon.
May is simultaenously not strong enough to face down the ERG and not a good enough negotiator to extract concessions she's agreed that will have passed the house. I don't think there is actually a solution** to this.
* Who knows I might be wrong
** Not one acceptable to all those that matter anyway.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1018870124290461696
JC: "Save your strength, Prime Minister. These Momentum people had sworn to live and die at my command two hundred years before you were born!"
Trump: "KHAAAAAAAAAAAN! KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1018870493301092357
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1018871185554190337
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1018871326185017344
Whether you want UK to go to war or not, it still does, as is it's sovereign right; the EU cannot stop us (though the UN may try). We also have the, er, little issue of the referendum. If we are not sovereign, how is it we can choose to leave? The biggest irony of all is that we continue to have US bases on British soil and people like Fox would like us to have an even more subservient relationship with our US ally.
It is time that those of us with more moderate views stood up against those bullies that wrap themselves up in the union flag to hide their small insecurities, while they say "fuck business" to those of us that would rather not see our economy go down the global plughole
Corbyn actually has the better plan on Brexit with his 'a customs union' stuff. At least his party (Bar about 6) could be united for such a vote.
Disgraceful.
Mr. Herdson, cheers for the time frame correction.
On reaching a leave/remain referendum, again, it's because in that scenario May's proposal is no more and a pro-EU majority of MPs would prefer to chance their arm in a new vote rather than accept leaving without any deal.
Hand bags but not a good look
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-braced-for-showdown-with-brexit-rebels-11438418
As the article mentions, there is 0% chance of any of these wrecking amendments succeeding without Labour support.
If the Mogglodytes are serious, they'll have quiet feelers out in the opposition benches for what kinds of amendments they'll support.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1018870659949084672
The question has to be why. Either she doesn't understand the consequences of what she's done, or she has actively chosen to bin her own compromise in favour of something else - but what?
If she does understand what she's doing then the only rational explanation is that she expected to lose her Chequers Plan anyway and acted early in order to forestall further opposition and, presumably, resignations. But it's come at one hell of a cost. Apart from anything else, she's now risking No Confidence letters from the left of the Party - which if they go in before the Mogglodites withdraw theirs could prompt a No Confidence vote.
How else would it work?
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1018876955867918337
I don't understand what is happening or why/
Regardless of the merits or lack of them of the EEA Arrangement, it is certainly one that could be actioned in very short time, and arguably the only one that could.
If this current offer fails, we have the following five options:
1 - Extend A50 negotiation time and start again. This is, I feel, highly unlikely, unless it looks to the EU as if we really know what we want now and it's feasible and acceptable
2 - Get an off-the-peg deal. In practice, this is limited to EEA
3 - Negotiate for a controlled no-deal "diamond hard" Brexit. Limited by the issue that there's a lot that needs to be done for this and very limited time. A50 extension may be possible if the amount of time needed is fairly short and we're a long way down the track; I'm sceptical this would happen
4 - Remain. And how exactly do we do that with any democratic legitimacy? Another referendum would certainly be needed, and we've discussed the issues around that
5 - Crash out. Unfortunately, looks like the most likely outcome, and this will very likely be accompanied by Project Fear-level serious shit.
Have I missed any others?
My PDOMA-level estimates of probability for each of these (if it is given that the current deal falls through) would be:
1 - 10%
2 - 20%
3 - 20%
4 - 10%
5 - 40%
... but those are grabbed out of clean air. I'd be interested in others assessment of the chances.
Mr. Currystar, possibly.
Extraordinary if disappointing.
Todays announcements on UK based space launch bases and a new all UK fighter aircraft (Tempest) are a real indication of the direction of travel
I see no path to a second referendum and I fear we are heading for huge disruption but that is the more likely end game, unfortunately
Regardless of whether one voted this way or that, or has changed one's mind, May's execution of an admittedly difficult task has nevertheless been found extremely wanting.
Sounds a bit like the new combat aircraft project.
In contrast, the EEA Agreement is designed from the start to be straightforward for countries to enter and exit, and generic in its provisions.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1018871185554190337
JRM as PM here we come?
Who would agree the questions, how soon could it pass the HOC and HOL, is it a simple majority so 52/48 could happen again, and there must be an increased liklihood or leave winning and it all starts up again
As far as TM is concerned she has many problems, not least her lack of communication skills, but I do believe she is genuinely trying to do the best for the Country and trying to square a circle. I cannot think of anyone who would be better, and that is a condemnation on all our politicians who are so talentless
Who dreamed of bein' an agreement
And then became one
Well except for the names
And a few other changes
If you talk about Brexit
The story is the same one
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1018880559072858112
There is some irony to EU member states retaining the capacity for unilateral war-making, given the purpose of the original coal and steel pact. Perhaps in another 50 years of integration that will be but a memory - but it's certainly possible to imagine a situation in which members have given considerably more power over domestic and economic affairs to Brussels than presently, and largely follow a common foreign policy, yet still retain a final veto over the use of their own forces in operations.
On the flip side, the trend towards greater international regulation isn't going to go away regardless of whether the UK remains in the EU or EEA or in a different economic sphere altogether - even a "sovereign" UK isn't going to set its own rules and regulations on everything. In fairness, even stridently sovereigntist Brexiteers seem mostly to accept this - but they'd be happier for this rule-setting to occur in multilateral settings, rather than within an organisation whose structure and functioning they dislike and whose long-run goals they cannot concord with.
Start again is a complete non-starter while May is still PM; under a new administration, maybe a 5% chance, but why would the EU agree to extend A50 and risk being back where they started after another year or so ?
I suppose there is still some deluded idiots who believe her.
It does look as if the chances of JRM or Boris are growing but they have to get passed the mps
Services are something like 40% of our exports to the EU27.
The underlying issue is that America is a larger and more powerful country that we do a lot of business with and whose interests largely align with our own - we already mute our criticism of China because of their rise, but at least we don't get dragged into their affairs because there is no sense of being fundamentally "on their side" or that our support may gain some quid pro quo in future. If there does arise an Increasingly United States of Europe upon our border - something that UK foreign policy spent a long time trying to prevent in the past - then British statespeople of the future will have a tricky course to navigate in the long run. A counterweight to American influence may prove useful, particularly for bargaining purposes, but if Europe were to really get its act together then an "independent" and "sovereign" UK would face a power imbalance that could quite easily surpass our current "subservience" to the US.
(It's even plausible this problem could occur if Britain remained within the EU but didn't pursue tighter integration while "core" members accelerate. We are talking multi-decadal timescales here, but when you've got a "once in a lifetime" kind of referendum then you are trying to set a course through a jungle of alternative histories in a way that a bog standard general election rarely does.)
What makes Blair particularly interesting, indeed tragic, is his relative youth as he lives through the unwinding of his legacy...
Not 100% true. There is a fork in the future where we lose the most but there is also a fork where import substitution takes place and the EU has a lot of produce looking for new markets.
I for one am certainly looking forward to watching adverts for Austin 1100s on my Baird tv.
Putin has offered to provide advisors to assist in the investigation in the US and we will enlarge co-operation.
Bit like Putin offer to help in Salisbury
The press conference becomes more surreal
Why concern yourself with economic damage and dislocation when you have a blue passport?
Where are they BTW? It seems a bit quieter today.
Anna Soubry on t'other hand...
(Incidentally, given how mindboggling the dance of government and parliament is in this negotiation, how would those rare people who proposed that somehow parliament, rather than government, should have run the negotiation think it would have worked in practice?)
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/1018885211269058560