This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
Mr. Observer, different people seem to use no deal to refer to either no end deal, or withdrawal/transition deal.
Anyway, if such can be negotiated, and it's a sign of just how well things are going that this is even a question, then that's all fine.
Varadakar clearly differentiates between a transition deal and a No Deal. All he did was make a statement of fact. If there is no deal there will be no flights. Clearly, this is one reason why there is likely to be some kind of minimal deal at the very least. And it will involve the UK paying the money it has agreed it owes.
What Raab is pointing out is the same point you missed over Chequers. A withdrawal agreement where we pay 40bn and do not get a trade agreement as well will not pass the Commons.
If there is no deal, the UK Government will say that they are going to reserve their position on a financial settlement until such time as an FTA is agreed with the EU. The second after we leave with No Deal, the EU's negotiating strength drops to zero.
istr the EU side were shocked some months ago by a presentation given by a DfXEU or FO lawyer arguing that there was nothing legally to pay, and also that a House of Lords committee concluded the same.
Mr. Observer, different people seem to use no deal to refer to either no end deal, or withdrawal/transition deal.
Anyway, if such can be negotiated, and it's a sign of just how well things are going that this is even a question, then that's all fine.
Varadakar clearly differentiates between a transition deal and a No Deal. All he did was make a statement of fact. If there is no deal there will be no flights. Clearly, this is one reason why there is likely to be some kind of minimal deal at the very least. And it will involve the UK paying the money it has agreed it owes.
But Varadkar et al are trying to blackmail the UK into giving them everything they want as part of the transition deal with no long-term guarantees for us in return. So we get a time limited transition and they get the fallback for Northern Ireland in perpetuity.
While we should settle our debts so long as we get at least a minimal deal all deals should be reciprocal. If we only have a time-limited transition then their fallback should be time limited and any payments we make to them should be time-limited.
There's no reason we should go into the 2020 negotiations facing the same cliff edge but having already given away everything they want.
Er.......it's called politics. All along the Headbangers went with the idea that an FTA will fall into place because "they need us". Well, it seems those nasty bureaucrats had done their homework while we played politics about how nasty they were and they are trying "to punish us".
The only difference is that they are better at it than the Tories have been.
Always remember, it is a TORY BREXIT. They made the bed, they should lie on it.
Mr. Observer, different people seem to use no deal to refer to either no end deal, or withdrawal/transition deal.
Anyway, if such can be negotiated, and it's a sign of just how well things are going that this is even a question, then that's all fine.
Varadakar clearly differentiates between a transition deal and a No Deal. All he did was make a statement of fact. If there is no deal there will be no flights. Clearly, this is one reason why there is likely to be some kind of minimal deal at the very least. And it will involve the UK paying the money it has agreed it owes.
What Raab is pointing out is the same point you missed over Chequers. A withdrawal agreement where we pay 40bn and do not get a trade agreement as well will not pass the Commons.
If there is no deal, the UK Government will say that they are going to reserve their position on a financial settlement until such time as an FTA is agreed with the EU. The second after we leave with No Deal, the EU's negotiating strength drops to zero.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
Let's take one example, British Airways.
British Airways is owned by IAG who also own Aer Lingus (Ireland) and Iberia (Spain) amongst others.
If it is about ownership then since these are all owned by the same company is Varadkar proposing that Aer Lingus will be grounded too?
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
What the anti semitism row and the Cable meeting confirms is the continued divide between Corbyn and his supporters and Momentum and the centrist pro EEA parts of the Labour Parliamentary Party. The general election result bolstered Corbyn's position but the divide has not gone away
Since exactly what time did you leave May and became Johnson's mouthpiece ?
As I have said since the Chequers Deal May is entitled to try for a transition deal until December 2020 and a trading agreement in the meantime but it is Boris who should lead the party into the next general election
Not to mention the RAF guarantees the security of Irish airspace.
Not this shit again. No, it doesn't.
The UK QRA operational area specifically excludes the air space of the RoI.
This is what I wrote the last time somebody trotted out this blatant untruth:
On all of my carrier deployments we were specifically forbidden from flying within 10km of Irish airspace. Such was the sensitivity to UK mil traffic...
Have wormholes been invented? Warp drives?
If we're guaranteeing the security of a 10km circumference around Ireland then we are de facto guaranteeing the security of Ireland. Unless you've got some magical way hostile agents can get to Ireland.
The RAF don't provide a ring of a brylcreem at a remove of 10km all around Ireland. The UK QRA area only goes out to about 10W in the north, follows the 28/6 counties border and down (approximately) the middle of the Irish sea. There is no QRA cover to the south or west of Ireland.
Philip will be devastated to know that we do not maintain security over half the Atlantic. After all, we are a Security Council member...........
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
Mr. Observer, different people seem to use no deal to refer to either no end deal, or withdrawal/transition deal.
Anyway, if such can be negotiated, and it's a sign of just how well things are going that this is even a question, then that's all fine.
Varadakar clearly differentiates between a transition deal and a No Deal. All he did was make a statement of fact. If there is no deal there will be no flights. Clearly, this is one reason why there is likely to be some kind of minimal deal at the very least. And it will involve the UK paying the money it has agreed it owes.
But Varadkar et al are trying to blackmail the UK into giving them everything they want as part of the transition deal with no long-term guarantees for us in return. So we get a time limited transition and they get the fallback for Northern Ireland in perpetuity.
While we should settle our debts so long as we get at least a minimal deal all deals should be reciprocal. If we only have a time-limited transition then their fallback should be time limited and any payments we make to them should be time-limited.
There's no reason we should go into the 2020 negotiations facing the same cliff edge but having already given away everything they want.
Er.......it's called politics. All along the Headbangers went with the idea that an FTA will fall into place because "they need us". Well, it seems those nasty bureaucrats had done their homework while we played politics about how nasty they were and they are trying "to punish us".
The only difference is that they are better at it than the Tories have been.
Always remember, it is a TORY BREXIT. They made the bed, they should lie on it.
Absolutely so far the EU side have negotiated much better, mainly by not doing anything and waiting for us to blink.
Doesn't mean we should continue with tactics that have failed so far. Nor does it mean that we will or should accept a dreadful deal that has nothing in it for us. Ultimately in any set of negotiations if one party tries to screw the other over too much they can go too far and cause the other party to walk away. We're getting close to that point.
Am I correct that if the UK reneges on the £39bn [ which after all is to be paid until 2064 - so not in one or five years ], the "transitional" deal was also agreed at the same time ? So why should we assume that that is secure.
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Am I correct that if the UK reneges on the £39bn [ which after all is to be paid until 2064 - so not in one or five years ], the "transitional" deal was also agreed at the same time ? So why should we assume that that is secure.
The point is that nothing is secure yet. If the EU fails to give us a transitional deal (as they're threatening) then its worth reminding them we leave not owing a penny in that instance.
£39bn can fund a lot of unilateral transitionary planning if it becomes necessary.
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Lol @ "case for Boris".
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
The heart of the anti-semitism row is the desire by Corbyn and his followers to be allowed to criticise Israel. In essence it is anti semitic to call Israel racist.
At the end of last week things changed. "The Nation State law" has officially turned Israel into a racist stae with Ist and 2nd class citizens. Even the Board of Deputies who have NEVER knowingly criticised Israel have now done so.
(It is even questionable whether this new law violates the Balfour declaration).
I think in this particular spat Corbyn should hold his ground. Israel are a bully who are occupying their neigbours and slowly creaing an apartheid state at home.and no amount of screaming 'anti semite' should deflect Labour's right to say so.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Yes, it is an interesting Twitter thread. If we were serious about WTO Brexit then we should have had DExEU working on our own air licensing for the last couple of years, so that would be up and running in March, but we pissed away that opportunity and time on Cakeism.
Indeed this is the sort of stuff we need to be negotiating in the next 9 months along with setting up customs facilities on the NI border and in Dover if the EU won't come to the table as an honest broker.
I thought the Headbangers wanted independence i.e. WTO. So why should the EU help you ?
Always remember, it is a TORY BREXIT. They made the bed, they should lie on it.
Actually 46% of the voters want No Deal WTO terms Brexit with Yougov today, only 42% of the voters voted Tory at the last general election and even adding the 2% who voted UKIP you only get to 44%. That is even ignoring the almost a third of Tory voters who voted Remain so on that basis clearly a significant minority of Labour voters want No Deal WTO terms Brexit too
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So how do Aer Lingus planes stay in the air but not British Airways planes? They're the same company.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Yes, it is an interesting Twitter thread. If we were serious about WTO Brexit then we should have had DExEU working on our own air licensing for the last couple of years, so that would be up and running in March, but we pissed away that opportunity and time on Cakeism.
Indeed this is the sort of stuff we need to be negotiating in the next 9 months along with setting up customs facilities on the NI border and in Dover if the EU won't come to the table as an honest broker.
How has the EU not been an honest broker? Barnier even came up with a chart showing us all the different options. Some still believed in the have cake and eat it option i.e we can leave the customs union and not have a customs border. Ridiculous.
Mr. Observer, different people seem to use no deal to refer to either no end deal, or withdrawal/transition deal.
Anyway, if such can be negotiated, and it's a sign of just how well things are going that this is even a question, then that's all fine.
Varadakar clearly differentiates between a transition deal and a No Deal. All he did was make a statement of fact. If there is no deal there will be no flights. Clearly, this is one reason why there is likely to be some kind of minimal deal at the very least. And it will involve the UK paying the money it has agreed it owes.
But Varadkar et al are trying to blackmail the UK into giving them everything they want as part of the transition deal with no long-term guarantees for us in return. So we get a time limited transition and they get the fallback for Northern Ireland in perpetuity.
While we should settle our debts so long as we get at least a minimal deal all deals should be reciprocal. If we only have a time-limited transition then their fallback should be time limited and any payments we make to them should be time-limited.
There's no reason we should go into the 2020 negotiations facing the same cliff edge but having already given away everything they want.
Er.......it's called politics. All along the Headbangers went with the idea that an FTA will fall into place because "they need us". Well, it seems those nasty bureaucrats had done their homework while we played politics about how nasty they were and they are trying "to punish us".
The only difference is that they are better at it than the Tories have been.
Always remember, it is a TORY BREXIT. They made the bed, they should lie on it.
Absolutely so far the EU side have negotiated much better, mainly by not doing anything and waiting for us to blink.
Doesn't mean we should continue with tactics that have failed so far. Nor does it mean that we will or should accept a dreadful deal that has nothing in it for us. Ultimately in any set of negotiations if one party tries to screw the other over too much they can go too far and cause the other party to walk away. We're getting close to that point.
In normal negotiations you walk away to the status quo. That doesn’t happen with Brexit.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
This is a great question, and the answer to it is the main point of why the EU exists.
Instead of having the EU, you instead could have a lot of separate little bilateral deals between all the different member states. But this is a complicated and inflexible way of doing things: Often Country A will make a concession to Country B on X, and Country B will make a concession to country C on Y, and Country C will make a concession to Country A on Z. This is pretty much unworkable with individual deals. This is also why trade agreements are tending the same way - for example the TPP covers lots of different issues with lots of different countries, rather than making a different deal for each issue.
An analogy would be: Why use money, instead of the traditional barter system? It would indeed be possible, but it's very inefficient, and the inefficiency of it means in practice you'd make far fewer transactions. If you tried to opt out of money and go back to barter, you'd have a very hard time of it, and you might conclude that this was because money was designed to suck you in and stop you using barter. But what you're actually seeing is that money is better than barter, so if you stop using it, you find a lot of things that used to be easy suddenly become difficult.
Am I correct that if the UK reneges on the £39bn [ which after all is to be paid until 2064 - so not in one or five years ], the "transitional" deal was also agreed at the same time ? So why should we assume that that is secure.
It’s not secure in any way shape or form. The government has decided to reopen negotiations on what it had already agreed to.
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Lol @ "case for Boris".
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
Am I interested in what a left liberal like you who will never vote Tory anyway at the next general election thinks about who should be Tory leader? No. I am interested in what the voters who might consider voting Tory think and the poll today is clear if May goes they want Boris to succeed her.
Am I correct that if the UK reneges on the £39bn [ which after all is to be paid until 2064 - so not in one or five years ], the "transitional" deal was also agreed at the same time ? So why should we assume that that is secure.
The point is that nothing is secure yet. If the EU fails to give us a transitional deal (as they're threatening) then its worth reminding them we leave not owing a penny in that instance.
£39bn can fund a lot of unilateral transitionary planning if it becomes necessary.
The £39bn [ €43bn ] is to be paid until 2064. €1.28 trillion is the budget for the EU 2021-2027.
Oh, yes, I can see they will die without the £39bn.
If we go WTO, how much in duties will the EU countries get from UK exports ?
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Yes, it is an interesting Twitter thread. If we were serious about WTO Brexit then we should have had DExEU working on our own air licensing for the last couple of years, so that would be up and running in March, but we pissed away that opportunity and time on Cakeism.
Indeed this is the sort of stuff we need to be negotiating in the next 9 months along with setting up customs facilities on the NI border and in Dover if the EU won't come to the table as an honest broker.
How has the EU not been an honest broker? Barnier even came up with a chart showing us all the different options. Some still believed in the have cake and eat it option i.e we can leave the customs union and not have a customs border. Ridiculous.
Irish fallback.
They agreed a fallback where the UK would honour terms and that NI would not be treated differently unless as per the GFA that they wanted to be treated differently.
They're now claiming that the fallback can be NI only in direct contradiction of what was agreed.
Am I correct that if the UK reneges on the £39bn [ which after all is to be paid until 2064 - so not in one or five years ], the "transitional" deal was also agreed at the same time ? So why should we assume that that is secure.
It’s not secure in any way shape or form. The government has decided to reopen negotiations on what it had already agreed to.
Only because the EU have already done the same by reopening the Irish agreement we had reached and twisting it into something we did not agree to and never could agree to. Thus last year's agreement and all the came with it is now nul and void.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
Sir John Major on Marr now and calls for Tory MPs to back May and stop calls for a leadership election and says a No Deal option would be the worst for Britain, claims the North East would lose 16% of its GDP and trade deals with the rest of the world would only have minor advantages and would take years to negotiate
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So how do Aer Lingus planes stay in the air but not British Airways planes? They're the same company.
Funny how integration works.
As I understand it, the issue is about who is flying the planes and where they are flying from and to. Pilots with British licences will be grounded; flights to and from UK airports will not be possible. This thread explains it well: https://twitter.com/brianmlucey/status/1020603084806840320?s=21
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Lol @ "case for Boris".
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
Am I interested in what a left liberal like you who will never vote Tory anyway at the next general election thinks about who should be Tory leader? No. I am interested in what the voters who might consider voting Tory think and the poll today is clear if May goes they want Boris to succeed her.
Given how the process works, you might want to pay a little more attention to what Tory MPs think.
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So how do Aer Lingus planes stay in the air but not British Airways planes? They're the same company.
Funny how integration works.
As I understand it, the issue is about who is flying the planes and where they are flying from and to. Pilots with British licences will be grounded; flights to and from UK airports will not be possible. This thread explains it well: https://twitter.com/brianmlucey/status/1020603084806840320?s=21
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I see the overnight polling has got some people agitated. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, the dynamic has changed slightly - we now have clear evidence that one alternative leader would be doing about as well as the current Prime Minister while all the others would appear to be doing worse and in some cases much worse.
Back in 1990, it was polling showing Heseltine would wipe out the 10-point lead Kinnock's Labour Party was enjoying that enabled him to mount what would be a successful challenge at least in part.
Yet for now the difference between Johnson and May is insignificant - IF May drags the Conservative vote share lower while Johnson seems to maintain or improve it, the pressure for that change on the Conservative backbenches will grow.
As for Labour, I take Roger's points on board and confess I've not been following internal Israeli politics but we all know this isn't about a carefully nuanced critique of Israel. I've always wished Labour well and the requirement for a solid centre-left opposition has arguably never been greater but there seems plenty of evidence of a vein of anti-Semitism among some who support Corbyn and the Party.
It's not for me to tell Labour how to define anti-Semitism but any Party pertaining to represent the whole country has to comport itself in a way that is unquestionably inclusive.
As for Vince Cable, the first point I'd make is he is a caretaker leader (a bit like May in all honesty). As for a "new centre party", anyone who wants to create a new political party is perfectly at liberty to do so and it may or may not be the creators of that party will have common ground with the LDs, we'll have to see. There will be those within the LDs who will echo Cyril Smith's view on the SDP but democracy is a competitive thing and if a new party can reach voters the LDs can't reach (for whatever reason) so be it.
I think there's room for a centre-right pro-business small state tax-cutting party as the Conservatives have become tax and spenders under May and Johnson's apparent attitude to business probably hasn't helped. UKIP isn't of course small state in any form.
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So how do Aer Lingus planes stay in the air but not British Airways planes? They're the same company.
Funny how integration works.
As I understand it, the issue is about who is flying the planes and where they are flying from and to. Pilots with British licences will be grounded; flights to and from UK airports will not be possible. This thread explains it well: https://twitter.com/brianmlucey/status/1020603084806840320?s=21
So the EU will be telling the USA that American Airlines flights to the UK are cancelled? So the EU will be telling Qatar that Qatar Airways flights are cancelled? So the EU will be telling their own airlines that KLM etc flights are cancelled?
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So, we either enter into new agreements, agree a 'status quo' transition until a new agreement is in force (which is what will happen in real life) or, in your imagination, the EU blocks UK fights. You seem to forget that as a sovereign nation we will just block their flights as well. So they achieve nothing except chaos, when every other country in the World will just get on with dealing with the UK as they have for years.
Since the outcome will clearly have been caused by the EU (the UK will obviously propose status quo arrangements) the EU will appear ridiculous in the eyes of the international community - there would be no reason for such actions than vindictiveness. Can't imagine Trump doing anything other than banning EU flights just for fun.
In real life, none of this will ever happen. Project Fear Mk xxx.
Sadly, I must agree this won't shift many votes, and isn't getting a huge amount of media coverage.
Mr. 43, the alternative to what Raab is saying would be nuts. Imagine we got no deal at all, including transition. Why, then, would it make any sense to throw £39bn at the EU?
Do you normally not settle your debts?
Not when the other guy can't produce an agreement in writing that I owe them any money, no.
Unfortunately, my antipodean chum, this is a debt which could be proven: only the quantum was really up for discussion.
Unfortunately, my EU chum, a QC has analysed the treaties and determined that you are wrong. Would you like to refer to the part of the treaty that says that we owe them any money? The article number will be fine.
You can find unhinged Europhobe lawyers just like you can find unhinged Europhobe pb posters. That report is so poor that it is unworthy of detailed analysis.
Let’s stick with the general thrust, which is in essence that the EU’s post-Brexit responsibilities are the EU’s alone. The logical conclusion would be that 27 countries could hand in their Article 50 notice leaving Malta with sole responsibility for funding all outstanding EU obligations. This is obvious nonsense.
There’s a reason why that report sank into an abyss. It’s junk.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
Congestion, probably. You'd be forcing a lot more flights into fewer airways. See map here:
Somewhat incredible this issue continues to rumble on after, what, 2 years? And yet outside perhaps 1-2 examples it doesn't seem to affect Labour very much. So presumably it will just go on and on.
Better to be the party divided about policy than the party divided about racism.
Alternatively the Labour leadership have admitted they have a problem and are working out what to do about it, perhaps not particularly competently. The Tories deny they have a problem.
In the short term *this* is the antisemitism problem Labour has: an entirely pointless public row over part of the IHRA definition. It repels voters, splits the party and provides ammunition to opponents. In the longer term, and the root cause of the issue, Labour's problem with antisemitism is not that it has people who hate Jews -- the last leader was Jewish and when he was elected, pretty much 100 per cent of members' votes went to Jewish candidates, since he beat his brother. What Labour does have, however, is members who though not anti-Jewish are anti-Israel. Labour has chosen -- wrongly, and incredibly -- to indulge the latter by omitting a couple of the IHRA examples.
Maybe Labour is right and its amended version of the IHRA definition is better than the original -- but who cares? It is politically asinine. Adopt the whole IHRA version and let those who want to criticise Israel find better ways of doing so (or just tell them to shut the f up).
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So, we either enter into new agreements, agree a 'status quo' transition until a new agreement is in force (which is what will happen in real life) or, in your imagination, the EU blocks UK fights. You seem to forget that as a sovereign nation we will just block their flights as well. So they achieve nothing except chaos, when every other country in the World will just get on with dealing with the UK as they have for years.
Since the outcome will clearly have been caused by the EU (the UK will obviously propose status quo arrangements) the EU will appear ridiculous in the eyes of the international community - there would be no reason for such actions than vindictiveness. Can't imagine Trump doing anything other than banning EU flights just for fun.
In real life, none of this will ever happen. Project Fear Mk xxx.
Oz will block EU flights - you heard it here first....
Sadly, I must agree this won't shift many votes, and isn't getting a huge amount of media coverage.
Mr. 43, the alternative to what Raab is saying would be nuts. Imagine we got no deal at all, including transition. Why, then, would it make any sense to throw £39bn at the EU?
Do you normally not settle your debts?
Not when the other guy can't produce an agreement in writing that I owe them any money, no.
Unfortunately, my antipodean chum, this is a debt which could be proven: only the quantum was really up for discussion.
Unfortunately, my EU chum, a QC has analysed the treaties and determined that you are wrong. Would you like to refer to the part of the treaty that says that we owe them any money? The article number will be fine.
You can find unhinged Europhobe lawyers just like you can find unhinged Europhobe pb posters. That report is so poor that it is unworthy of detailed analysis.
Let’s stick with the general thrust, which is in essence that the EU’s post-Brexit responsibilities are the EU’s alone. The logical conclusion would be that 27 countries could hand in their Article 50 notice leaving Malta with sole responsibility for funding all outstanding EU obligations. This is obvious nonsense.
There’s a reason why that report sank into an abyss. It’s junk.
Isn't that what happened with the debts the CSA got into in the nineteenth century? Somewhat different circumstances but still.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Of course something akin to copy and paste will be done. Virtually every airline in Europe would face chaos if not bankruptcy if it wasn't. Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in thearticipates as part of the EU.
So, we either enter into new agreements, agree a 'status quo' transition until a new agreement is in force (which is what will happen in real life) or, in your imagination, the EU blocks UK fights. You seem to forget that as a sovereign nation we will just block their flights as well. So they achieve nothing except chaos, when every other country in the World will just get on with dealing with the UK as they have for years.
Since the outcome will clearly have been caused by the EU (the UK will obviously propose status quo arrangements) the EU will appear ridiculous in the eyes of the international community - there would be no reason for such actions than vindictiveness. Can't imagine Trump doing anything other than banning EU flights just for fun.
In real life, none of this will ever happen. Project Fear Mk xxx.
The EU will not block any flights. It’s not about airspace. Instead, no insurance company will cover any plane leaving from or arriving into a UK airport, or flown by a UK-licensed pilot. In effect, that does mean no flights in or out of the UK.
I agree it it is very unlikely to happen because the UK will pay the money it has agreed it owes.
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Lol @ "case for Boris".
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
Am I interested in what a left liberal like you who will never vote Tory anyway at the next general election thinks about who should be Tory leader? No. I am interested in what the voters who might consider voting Tory think and the poll today is clear if May goes they want Boris to succeed her.
Given how the process works, you might want to pay a little more attention to what Tory MPs think.
Most Tory MPs in marginal seats want to keep their seats and if May goes only Boris will help most of them do that with Yougov today
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Lol @ "case for Boris".
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
Am I interested in what a left liberal like you who will never vote Tory anyway at the next general election thinks about who should be Tory leader? No. I am interested in what the voters who might consider voting Tory think and the poll today is clear if May goes they want Boris to succeed her.
Given how the process works, you might want to pay a little more attention to what Tory MPs think.
Most Tory MPs in marginal seats want to keep their seats and if May goes only Boris will help most of them do that with Yougov today
A negotiated withdrawal is not a No Deal withdrawal.
There’ll be no negotiation if the UK refuses to pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The UK didn't agree it owed the money legally. It agreed, for the purposes of a negotiation, that they would agree an amount to settle a debt which the EU believed it was owed as part of an overall agreement that included finalising the ongoing trade relationship. The paper in December is not an agreement or a treaty nor even a commitment and it specifically says that it is not. It was a 'progress report' on what had been agreed subject to everything else being agreed. It says so quite clearly "It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship...".
Since the EU have been unable to deliver a trade agreement to our satisfaction, the rest of the agreement will fall away.
What you are missing is that there is basically nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK wants, other than the agreement on citizens rights which we both know neither side will break even if it is never signed. So there is no reason for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement at all if we go to WTO.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So how do Aer Lingus planes stay in the air but not British Airways planes? They're the same company.
Funny how integration works.
As I understand it, the issue is about who is flying the planes and where they are flying from and to. Pilots with British licences will be grounded; flights to and from UK airports will not be possible. This thread explains it well: https://twitter.com/brianmlucey/status/1020603084806840320?s=21
So the EU will be telling the USA that American Airlines flights to the UK are cancelled? So the EU will be telling Qatar that Qatar Airways flights are cancelled? So the EU will be telling their own airlines that KLM etc flights are cancelled?
We have had decades of good “getting tough on EU” headlines that in reality was fake getting tough, threatening to withhold one slither of one smartie from a naughty child just for the Fake Tough headline you can momentarily surf is bad politics at this moment in time. Bad credibility shredding headlines. Benchmark that slither of Smartie against 45% price hike in selling lamb across borders for example.
The difference between PLP and NEC on anti Semitism wording is actually very technical and very small, though it can be bigged up by adding to “the narrative” and used as a stick to beat someone you want to get at politically. Though as with all bigging up there’s danger that comes with it. Ideally discussions in Labour about anti Semitism should just go on and on and not be closed down, if enough in the party are practically uneasy about the drift in Israel/Levant towards apartheid, and idealistically at home with the words of a certain John Lennon song: imagining a world with no religion is easy to daydream about, but you need to know you are imaging a world without a single Jew in it as their religion and race are intrinsically fused together.
O/T yeah watch this space for new centre ground realignment. But watch the space beyond this space history shows like a breakaway in the Tour de France the body comes back together when things get serious, 1929 and 1930 as one example, former SDP currently sitting as ministers in May’s Brexit government as another example, even with “abolish the monarchy” speeches on their record.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
Keeping planes in the air is not dependent on us charging tariffs on WTO terms, it is dependent on us reaching an agreement with the EU. The same applies in countless other areas. That’s because the UK is currently entirely integrated into EU-wide systems of governance, mutual recognition and control; while in many other areas internationally the UK participates as part of the EU.
So, we either enter into new agreements, agree a 'status quo' transition until a new agreement is in force (which is what will happen in real life) or, in your imagination, the EU blocks UK fights. You seem to forget that as a sovereign nation we will just block their flights as well. So they achieve nothing except chaos, when every other country in the World will just get on with dealing with the UK as they have for years.
Since the outcome will clearly have been caused by the EU (the UK will obviously propose status quo arrangements) the EU will appear ridiculous in the eyes of the international community - there would be no reason for such actions than vindictiveness. Can't imagine Trump doing anything other than banning EU flights just for fun.
In real life, none of this will ever happen. Project Fear Mk xxx.
On the plus side, if the EU does block UK flights, they will look so petty, vindictive and ridiculous that it will harden public against the EU so that we don't rejoin - ever.
Either the EU is so wonderful that a few years out of the club will have the great unwashed baying to be let back in, or it's such a vindictive and petty organisation that it will ground air traffic to spite us.
When they start talking about planes being grounded, I'm not sure whether remainers realise how ridiculous they look. Either way, it won't win anyone over to their side of the argument.
I am completely ignorant about air regulations. I can’t even book an EasyJet flight without paying for stuff I didn’t actually want. But I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in expecting this kind of thing to have been sorted out before we actually left the EU. This whole project is going to go down in history as one of the greatest cockups of all time.
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new centrist anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party, today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Of course something akin to copy and paste will be done. Virtually every airline in Europe would face chaos if not bankruptcy if it wasn't. Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
But you (and others) are promoting the hysteria through your No Deal "option". Common sense doesn't seem in big supply in your camp.
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
A very powerful case being made by John Major for a second referendum (even while not fully endorsing it, yet, himself)
If today's Yougov had the same margin of error as the pre EU referendum final Yougov it would be Leave with No Deal 50% and Remain 50% in any second referendum
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
I think it would be good for the LDs (and I say this as a Party member who voted LEAVE) to move on beyond A50. We are leaving - the deal (if there is one) needs proper and rigorous scrutiny as do future trade deals and the LDs should be concentrating on arguing that point and the votes this past week handing control from parliament to the Government were outrageous and should be reversed at the first opportunity.
Yes, the Party believes we shouldn't be leaving the EU and it can argue once we've left we should rejoin but it needs to establish on what terms we would rejoin. I imagine the EU "could" insist on the Euro and Schengen which would be totally unacceptable to the vast majority. However, a negotiated re-entry on modified terms and opt-outs might be a runner.
That isn't important for now - there's a world of policy and issues beyond the EU. The consequences of leaving the EU for ordinary working people are far from clear - doom mongering notwithstanding. IF people are to be worse off for leaving the EU shouldn't the Government be seeking to mitigate this through tax cuts - we are almost running a surplus as the deficit hawks on here never stop reminding us ? Time to cut taxes (NI in particular) for the poorest once again.
A very powerful case being made by John Major for a second referendum (even while not fully endorsing it, yet, himself)
If today's Yougov had the same margin of error as the pre EU referendum final Yougov it would be Leave with No Deal 50% and Remain 50% in any second referendum
But the referendum would take place once the deal (or lack of it) is known, in detail. Which may change everything.
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Banks was focused on the middle option, a new revived UKIP essentially.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
But I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in expecting this kind of thing to have been sorted out before we actually left the EU.
Not at all.
And I see the bbc site today is saying the cabinet is still divided. FFS it beggars belief they are still arguing with themselves when it's the EU we need to negotiate with. Stunning incompetence.
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Lol @ "case for Boris".
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
Am I interested in what a left liberal like you who will never vote Tory anyway at the next general election thinks about who should be Tory leader? No. I am interested in what the voters who might consider voting Tory think and the poll today is clear if May goes they want Boris to succeed her.
Given how the process works, you might want to pay a little more attention to what Tory MPs think.
Most Tory MPs in marginal seats want to keep their seats and if May goes only Boris will help most of them do that with Yougov today
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
All good points. What was the level of support for the Chequers plan again? 11%? May has a certain genius for finding unpopular policy positions.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some combination of charisma, understanding of the salient points of technical issues based on detailed briefing, and the ability to make a decision are what a leader generally needs (I’m assuming that without the requisite political nous they wouldn’t have made it far enough to be in the running for leader). I don’t pretend to know the Tory party especially well, but it seems that their challenge right now is that they have a leader who scores low on all three measures, and most of the alternatives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Perfect question for the man who knows it all: St. HYUFD.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a sillyver it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
The EU is planning seriously for a No Deal Brexit. That’s not being sanguine, it’s being realistic. It will be very bad news for everyone. The EU has made that clear, too. But the simple fact is that the effects will be worse for the UK. The EU’s big mistake is probably in believing that the nostalgists and profiteers angling for a No Deal on the UK side actually give a monkeys about the consequences of one.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
Your last para hits the nail on the head. It hurts us worse, and our prep has been woeful, but the EU's lack of concern about it seems misplaced given how likely it is and it is not their staTed goal.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in n skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
With Trump last week promising to impose tariffs on all $500 billion of US Chinese imports and China threatening to retaliate and Trump also calling the EU 'a foe' on trade and slapping tariffs on EU imports with the EU retaliating on US imports, if the EU refuse to compromise then No Deal Brexit could lead to a global trade war
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
At worst, you'd have to ground every aircraft with British-made parts. Hopefully, some measure of common sense will prevail.
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new centrist anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party, today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
These hysterical numbers should be taken with a truck load of salt ! The 24% are also within the 38%. The 38-33 are comparable but that leaves a huge 29% who will basically decide the path the country will take.
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Perfect question for the man who knows it all: St. HYUFD.
As I have already said I back May to try and get a transition deal and trade agreement but Boris to lead the Tories at the next general election
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a sillyver it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency ment.
The EU is planning seriously for a No Deal Brexit. That’s not being sanguine, it’s being realistic. It will be very bad news for everyone. The EU has made that clear, too. But the simple fact is that the effects will be worse for the UK. The EU’s big mistake is probably in believing that the nostalgists and profiteers angling for a No Deal on the UK side actually give a monkeys about the consequences of one.
They're planning for it but acting like they don't need to negotiate as we will give in. It's very high risk.
Depressing to read the comments in Daily Mail to a more than sensible article by Ruth Davidson. Who is she they demand. Well she happens to be the reason why the Tories are in power at Westminster amongst other things. The Hard Brexiters assume that everyone else will have common sense to compensate for their total lack of it.
My brother is dean of medicine at one of the top university hospitals in SE England. The planning done for Brexit by the NHS is a big fat zero. No stockpiling of drugs and supplies, no thoughts on how to keep key staff and no idea how to treat EC citizens walking through the door.
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Perfect question for the man who knows it all: St. HYUFD.
As I have already said I back May to try and get a transition deal and trade agreement but Boris to lead the Tories at the next general election
Why avoid answering the question ? If Boris really has better plans to deal with Brexit, then why wait ? Why not send in the letters now ? After all, it is only 48.
Actually the poll shows the Tories would tie Labour under Boris.
Since the poll has Boris ahead of JRM and then a tie between Gove, Javid and Hunt, what it probably shows is name recognition, or who has been on telly the most. We should not dismiss this out of hand, since recognition and media attention are important assets -- ask Lib Dems now despairing of Vince Cable's near-invisibility if they'd welcome a modern-day "chat show Charlie" -- but whoever replaces Theresa May as prime minister will, ex officio, gain a higher profile. But MPs previously voted for John Major and IDS over better known and more charismatic rivals so there is no guarantee they will take it into account this time.
Not this rubbish again.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with upled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
Lol @ "case for Boris".
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
Am I interested in what a left liberal like you who will never vote Tory anyway at the next general election thinks about who should be Tory leader? No. I am interested in what the voters who might consider voting Tory think and the poll today is clear if May goes they want Boris to succeed her.
Given how the process works, you might want to pay a little more attention to what Tory MPs think.
Most Tory MPs in marginal seats want to keep their seats and if May goes only Boris will help most of them do that with Yougov today
You are remarkably naive, even for a Tory.
If anyone is naive it us you if you are so stupid to believe most MPs in marginal seats would not vote for a contender who will keep their seats they would otherwise lose.
Tory Brexiteer MPs plus MPs in marginal seats is easily enough to get Boris to the members' ballot
Better to be the party divided about policy than the party divided about racism.
Alternatively the Labour leadership have admitted they have a problem and are working out what to do about it, perhaps not particularly competently. The Tories deny they have a problem.
In the short term *this* is the antisemitism problem Labour has: an entirely pointless public row over part of the IHRA definition. It repels voters, splits the party and provides ammunition to opponents. In the longer term, and the root cause of the issue, Labour's problem with antisemitism is not that it has people who hate Jews -- the last leader was Jewish and when he was elected, pretty much 100 per cent of members' votes went to Jewish candidates, since he beat his brother. What Labour does have, however, is members who though not anti-Jewish are anti-Israel. Labour has chosen -- wrongly, and incredibly -- to indulge the latter by omitting a couple of the IHRA examples.
Maybe Labour is right and its amended version of the IHRA definition is better than the original -- but who cares? It is politically asinine. Adopt the whole IHRA version and let those who want to criticise Israel find better ways of doing so (or just tell them to shut the f up).
Exactly.
It’s not just about the IRHA definition, though is it?
It’s about the fact that Labour is imposing very different requirements on racism against Jews than it does for any sort of racism directed at other groups: blacks or Muslims.
It’s about the fact that Labour is looking for a way in which it can call Jews Nazis (why?) but is not looking for a way in which it can call blacks “niggers”.
It’s about Labour accepting the McPherson view that a racist act or insult is one if the victim perceives it to be so but is now saying that this does not apply to Jews. In their case someone can use the most insultingly anti-semitic language against them but it won’t be anti-semitic unless the perpetrator intended it to be antisemitic, thus giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator not the victim, unlike with other groups, where only the victim’s perception matters.
It’s about double standards, Nick.
It’s about Labour treating Jews more unfavourably in how they are to be treated and spoken about to other groups.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some combination of charisma, understanding of the salient points of technical issues based on detailed briefing, and the ability to make a decision are what a leader generally needs (I’m assuming that without the requisite political nous they wouldn’t have made it far enough to be in the running for leader). I don’t pretend to know the Tory party especially well, but it seems that their challenge right now is that they have a leader who scores low on all three measures, and most of the alternatives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Banks was focused on the middle option, a new revived UKIP essentially.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
Bannon is already working on plans. Pan-european set-up called The Movement:
Comments
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
The only difference is that they are better at it than the Tories have been.
Always remember, it is a TORY BREXIT. They made the bed, they should lie on it.
British Airways is owned by IAG who also own Aer Lingus (Ireland) and Iberia (Spain) amongst others.
If it is about ownership then since these are all owned by the same company is Varadkar proposing that Aer Lingus will be grounded too?
Doesn't mean we should continue with tactics that have failed so far. Nor does it mean that we will or should accept a dreadful deal that has nothing in it for us. Ultimately in any set of negotiations if one party tries to screw the other over too much they can go too far and cause the other party to walk away. We're getting close to that point.
Who has not head of Hunt or Gove? Hunt has been Health Secretary since the early years of the Cameron government and is now Foreign Secretary, Gove was along with Boris the key figure in the Leave campaign. Both poll abysmally against Corbyn compared to Boris. Virtually everyone has heard of Mogg too given the media coverage he gets and he also does significantly better against Corbyn than Hunt and Gove.
The only contender you could possibly say name recognition is a factor with is Javid given he has only recently got a big Cabinet post but for all the others their reactions to the Chequers Deal were clearly pivotal factors in the polling coupled with the high net disapproval ratings Yougov has had for Hunt and Gove for months.
The only reason Major became Tory leader was he matched Heseltine in head to head polls against Kinnock. IDS only became leader as he was more Eurosceptic than Clarke so both those arguments just reinforce the case for Boris rather than undermine ir
£39bn can fund a lot of unilateral transitionary planning if it becomes necessary.
He has undermined whatever case there might once have been, all by himself.
And his anti-climactic resignation speech was notable for just two things: the absence of any call for new leadership and the absence of any actual plan or proposal for taking Brexit forward.
At the end of last week things changed. "The Nation State law" has officially turned Israel into a racist stae with Ist and 2nd class citizens. Even the Board of Deputies who have NEVER knowingly criticised Israel have now done so.
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/israels-jewish-nation-state-bill-criticised-by-board-as-regressive/
(It is even questionable whether this new law violates the Balfour declaration).
I think in this particular spat Corbyn should hold his ground. Israel are a bully who are occupying their neigbours and slowly creaing an apartheid state at home.and no amount of screaming 'anti semite' should deflect Labour's right to say so.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/nation-state-law-challenges-israels-status-as-both-jewish-and-democratic/
Funny how integration works.
Instead of having the EU, you instead could have a lot of separate little bilateral deals between all the different member states. But this is a complicated and inflexible way of doing things: Often Country A will make a concession to Country B on X, and Country B will make a concession to country C on Y, and Country C will make a concession to Country A on Z. This is pretty much unworkable with individual deals. This is also why trade agreements are tending the same way - for example the TPP covers lots of different issues with lots of different countries, rather than making a different deal for each issue.
An analogy would be: Why use money, instead of the traditional barter system? It would indeed be possible, but it's very inefficient, and the inefficiency of it means in practice you'd make far fewer transactions. If you tried to opt out of money and go back to barter, you'd have a very hard time of it, and you might conclude that this was because money was designed to suck you in and stop you using barter. But what you're actually seeing is that money is better than barter, so if you stop using it, you find a lot of things that used to be easy suddenly become difficult.
Oh, yes, I can see they will die without the £39bn.
If we go WTO, how much in duties will the EU countries get from UK exports ?
They agreed a fallback where the UK would honour terms and that NI would not be treated differently unless as per the GFA that they wanted to be treated differently.
They're now claiming that the fallback can be NI only in direct contradiction of what was agreed.
Good to know.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
https://twitter.com/brianmlucey/status/1020603084806840320?s=21
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent.
2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I see the overnight polling has got some people agitated. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, the dynamic has changed slightly - we now have clear evidence that one alternative leader would be doing about as well as the current Prime Minister while all the others would appear to be doing worse and in some cases much worse.
Back in 1990, it was polling showing Heseltine would wipe out the 10-point lead Kinnock's Labour Party was enjoying that enabled him to mount what would be a successful challenge at least in part.
Yet for now the difference between Johnson and May is insignificant - IF May drags the Conservative vote share lower while Johnson seems to maintain or improve it, the pressure for that change on the Conservative backbenches will grow.
As for Labour, I take Roger's points on board and confess I've not been following internal Israeli politics but we all know this isn't about a carefully nuanced critique of Israel. I've always wished Labour well and the requirement for a solid centre-left opposition has arguably never been greater but there seems plenty of evidence of a vein of anti-Semitism among some who support Corbyn and the Party.
It's not for me to tell Labour how to define anti-Semitism but any Party pertaining to represent the whole country has to comport itself in a way that is unquestionably inclusive.
As for Vince Cable, the first point I'd make is he is a caretaker leader (a bit like May in all honesty). As for a "new centre party", anyone who wants to create a new political party is perfectly at liberty to do so and it may or may not be the creators of that party will have common ground with the LDs, we'll have to see. There will be those within the LDs who will echo Cyril Smith's view on the SDP but democracy is a competitive thing and if a new party can reach voters the LDs can't reach (for whatever reason) so be it.
I think there's room for a centre-right pro-business small state tax-cutting party as the Conservatives have become tax and spenders under May and Johnson's apparent attitude to business probably hasn't helped. UKIP isn't of course small state in any form.
So the EU will be telling Qatar that Qatar Airways flights are cancelled?
So the EU will be telling their own airlines that KLM etc flights are cancelled?
That will be popular.
Since the outcome will clearly have been caused by the EU (the UK will obviously propose status quo arrangements) the EU will appear ridiculous in the eyes of the international community - there would be no reason for such actions than vindictiveness. Can't imagine Trump doing anything other than banning EU flights just for fun.
In real life, none of this will ever happen. Project Fear Mk xxx.
Let’s stick with the general thrust, which is in essence that the EU’s post-Brexit responsibilities are the EU’s alone. The logical conclusion would be that 27 countries could hand in their Article 50 notice leaving Malta with sole responsibility for funding all outstanding EU obligations. This is obvious nonsense.
There’s a reason why that report sank into an abyss. It’s junk.
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ?
Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/nm/cartography/erc10h-21jun2018.pdf
The Atlantic flights out of many English airports all route over Ireland
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
https://mobile.twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1020948495556112384
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I agree it it is very unlikely to happen because the UK will pay the money it has agreed it owes.
The difference between PLP and NEC on anti Semitism wording is actually very technical and very small, though it can be bigged up by adding to “the narrative” and used as a stick to beat someone you want to get at politically. Though as with all bigging up there’s danger that comes with it. Ideally discussions in Labour about anti Semitism should just go on and on and not be closed down, if enough in the party are practically uneasy about the drift in Israel/Levant towards apartheid, and idealistically at home with the words of a certain John Lennon song: imagining a world with no religion is easy to daydream about, but you need to know you are imaging a world without a single Jew in it as their religion and race are intrinsically fused together.
O/T yeah watch this space for new centre ground realignment. But watch the space beyond this space history shows like a breakaway in the Tour de France the body comes back together when things get serious, 1929 and 1930 as one example, former SDP currently sitting as ministers in May’s Brexit government as another example, even with “abolish the monarchy” speeches on their record.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
Either the EU is so wonderful that a few years out of the club will have the great unwashed baying to be let back in, or it's such a vindictive and petty organisation that it will ground air traffic to spite us.
When they start talking about planes being grounded, I'm not sure whether remainers realise how ridiculous they look. Either way, it won't win anyone over to their side of the argument.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party, today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-44911209
No Deal means no deal, to borrow a phrase.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Yes, the Party believes we shouldn't be leaving the EU and it can argue once we've left we should rejoin but it needs to establish on what terms we would rejoin. I imagine the EU "could" insist on the Euro and Schengen which would be totally unacceptable to the vast majority. However, a negotiated re-entry on modified terms and opt-outs might be a runner.
That isn't important for now - there's a world of policy and issues beyond the EU. The consequences of leaving the EU for ordinary working people are far from clear - doom mongering notwithstanding. IF people are to be worse off for leaving the EU shouldn't the Government be seeking to mitigate this through tax cuts - we are almost running a surplus as the deficit hawks on here never stop reminding us ? Time to cut taxes (NI in particular) for the poorest once again.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
And I see the bbc site today is saying the cabinet is still divided. FFS it beggars belief they are still arguing with themselves when it's the EU we need to negotiate with. Stunning incompetence.
Some combination of charisma, understanding of the salient points of technical issues based on detailed briefing, and the ability to make a decision are what a leader generally needs (I’m assuming that without the requisite political nous they wouldn’t have made it far enough to be in the running for leader). I don’t pretend to know the Tory party especially well, but it seems that their challenge right now is that they have a leader who scores low on all three measures, and most of the alternatives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
My brother is dean of medicine at one of the top university hospitals in SE England. The planning done for Brexit by the NHS is a big fat zero. No stockpiling of drugs and supplies, no thoughts on how to keep key staff and no idea how to treat EC citizens walking through the door.
Because Boris is a busted flush.
Tory Brexiteer MPs plus MPs in marginal seats is easily enough to get Boris to the members' ballot
Good after-dinner speaker, though.
It’s about the fact that Labour is imposing very different requirements on racism against Jews than it does for any sort of racism directed at other groups: blacks or Muslims.
It’s about the fact that Labour is looking for a way in which it can call Jews Nazis (why?) but is not looking for a way in which it can call blacks “niggers”.
It’s about Labour accepting the McPherson view that a racist act or insult is one if the victim perceives it to be so but is now saying that this does not apply to Jews. In their case someone can use the most insultingly anti-semitic language against them but it won’t be anti-semitic unless the perpetrator intended it to be antisemitic, thus giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator not the victim, unlike with other groups, where only the victim’s perception matters.
It’s about double standards, Nick.
It’s about Labour treating Jews more unfavourably in how they are to be treated and spoken about to other groups.
If only there were a word to describe this.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-bannons-plan-to-hijack-europe-for-the-far-right