On topic I have for some months now been emphasising that this government has to be about far more than Brexit. The economy, in fairness, is going relatively well but not nearly enough is being done about housing, education, student debt, infrastructure, transport, all the real problems people worry about.
Really every minister who is not directly involved in Brexit should be getting on with it. Other than Gove very few are. This will make this government vulnerable when it has to face the electorate again, whoever is leading them. They have simply not performed.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
That may well be so and they may well succeed.
But, as I asked the other day, is it wise to do so?
The consequences may be unexpectedly horrible for more than just the UK. Think Lehmans.
A reasonable hypothesis, but there are two contradictory thoughts.
"but on the whole they’re up for a bit of socialism for a change." and "people get that he’s a dogged socialist." The latter phrase is shorthand for he's a a Trot, and they don't do "a bit."
As the famous line in 'Cabaret' nearly says … "Do you still think you can control them, Neil?"
I understand why they need to get a broader alliance on show, but when push comes to shove, jezza won't water down his principles. He no longer wears a string vest, and he's learned to speak politics (better than Mrs May), but he hasn't got a decade to see 'proper socialism' gradually come in the UK, and he won't wait.
Pah! File under 'bogeyman scare stories'.
Jezza as PM would only be able to do what parliament will allow. Labour are unlikely to have an outright majority; Momentum will definitely not have one.
He will have control over Number 11 Downing Street and we saw how much damage Gordon Brown as a non-socialist lefty did there. The damage that Corbyn and McDonnell could do from Downing Street is much greater.
This all strikes me as Labour trying to move the conversation on from Brexit. Nice try - it may just work. I went to one of Corbyn's live events last summer and he whipped up the crowd fervently for 20 mins without mentioning Brexit.
Labour seem to be banking on Brexit being a bit 'meh' If it's a triumph or disaster (both looking more likely right now) then hard to see how they aren't sidelined or condemned. Ironically it was the 2017 general election when it was easiest for Labour to move the conversation on - if any of the crisis talk actually happens they'll find it much harder to ignore when fears are realised in practice.
Extraditing someone to potentially face the death penalty is widely thought to be incompatible with ECHR making any such step by Javid illegal and preventable. I would be pretty astonished if our courts did not stop it.
There's no extradition necessary from the UK, though. They aren't on UK soil and haven't been caught by UK forces. Javid is basically saying he's not going to fight the US extraditing them from Iraq.
Our security correspondent added that the UK still had a "long-standing opposition" to the controversial US military prison Guantanamo Bay and still wants it closed. He said if the pair - who are accused of being the last two members of an IS foursome dubbed "The Beatles" - are sent to Guantanamo Bay, the UK will not share intelligence for the trial. But if they go to a civil trial, the UK will.
I'm not sure how a legal process of "extradition" would work - as I understand it, they are being held by Syrian rebels inside Syria, not in Iraq. Do the Syrian rebels have a parallel court system that can authorise extradition? Obviously the Americans won't go through Assad's courts...
Extraditing someone to potentially face the death penalty is widely thought to be incompatible with ECHR making any such step by Javid illegal and preventable. I would be pretty astonished if our courts did not stop it.
How can they? The individuals are held by the Iraqi authorities. Frankly they ought to be tried there. Up to the Iraqis if they want to extradite them to the US.
Extraditing someone to potentially face the death penalty is widely thought to be incompatible with ECHR making any such step by Javid illegal and preventable. I would be pretty astonished if our courts did not stop it.
There's no extradition necessary from the UK, though. They aren't on UK soil and haven't been caught by UK forces. Javid is basically saying he's not going to fight the US extraditing them from Iraq.
Ah right. What’s it got to do with us then? Sorry for not being up to speed. Still gobsmacked by the mountain views from my pool and the extraordinary lightening storm last night.
Those salivating for a Treaty of Versailles: remind the class what happened afterwards, perhaps?
[Said for a while the far right could credibly rise and there's a plausible path for that to occur. Either no deal or an attempt (successful or not) by the EU to extort a terrible deal for the UK would fit].
Will we get an explosion of artistic creativity and Weimar debauchery first?
But even if a fudge is on from Europe's side, it's not really on from Britain's. Political numbers mean that it's something like Chequers or nothing. And as nothing isn't worth talking about, that's why people are 'just carrying on', as you rightly put it.
TBF this hoary old canard, that we can simply "go over the commision's head" to the Council is one of those Brexiteer fantasies I assumed had gone down in flames 12 months ago.
The commission is negotiating withing the parameters given to it *by* the council. We're not going to go over the commission's head, because the commission is implementing the council's line. French, German, Irish government members all publicly reiterated their commitment to the commission's strategy only last week.
Also bear in mind that any deal would need the approval of the European parliament, and that's currently in even more of a mood to give the UK a kicking than the commission is.
In the very, very unlikely event the UK is able to drive a wedge between the council and commission, it's nailed on the European parliament will side with the commission.
So, if a Corbyn government is likely in the next few years, what would be the best forms of investments? I can imagine he's going to hammer the utilities and finance / banking.
But are there any areas that may *gain* from Corbynite policies? I guess I can't buy shares in trade unions ...
(Note: I; not looking for investment advice; just what people think might be the areas least susceptible to his policies.)
In general, I think he will tax capital more. So in a sense it doesn't much matter what you invest in. Utilities shares could go either way depending on whether Corbyn says he will pay market price at time of sale or a compulsory purchase at an average price of the last 3 months or something like that.
Perhaps the best advice is not to do anything daft like investing a bunch of money into bitcoin.
The 2017 programme was pretty popular and doesn’t need huge adjustment.
I was surprised by the popularity of the Labour manifesto, because I thought what would kill Corbyn's chances were not his support for terrorism or his links to Holocaust deniers (after all, that didn't hurt Trump) but the unpopularity of his policies. What he essentially imposed was vast extra taxation to pay for vast extra public spending on pointless goodies at a time when most people seemed to accept as they didn't want the former they wouldn't get the latter.
What I didn't bargain for was the vast unfunded splurge he would go in for - promising free school meals for every child, free university tuition, the writing off or diminution (his famous 'deal with it') of student debt, the nationalisation of the utilities, spending on infrastructure, 10,000 extra police officers - all without raising taxes, or at least, claiming he would only be raising them on 1% of people and extra borrowing (because obviously spending more money on debt interest to wealthy oil producers is more sensible than sorting out our schools and hospitals).
As it happens he was later forced to admit he was lying about some of this - well, he was lying about all of it, because none of his sums were based on anything other than fantasies and although he probably isn't intelligent enough to realise that, Macdonnell certainly is. So it was deliberate falsification. But because of this, he's in a difficult situation if he puts forward the same offering again. He'll just be accused of dishonesty and given he also has an unfortunate track record of lying about anything awkward, his denials will not be very credible. (It was this mess on costing, incidentally, that got Abbott into that notorious tangle. Even if she had read out the right figures though, Labour had allocated less than 50% of the money required - £300 million instead of £700 million - which could serve as a metaphor for their whole manifesto.)
Does his mean he can't win on such a manifesto? No. Last year proved it's possible. People are sick of austerity, sick of seeing those who should be in prison (bankers) flourishing while we suffer, sick of politicians and sick of being sensible. They will be tempted by Corbyn's siren calls. But he would be much better off coming up with a realistic manifesto. Otherwise, even if he wins he'll spend all of his six weeks in office battling economic crises and broken promises that could easily finish Labour for good.
So yes - for everyone's sake it does need huge adjustment, to reflect reality. The difficulty for Corbyn is he might well end up with a very New Labour offering as a result - the very thing he has officially disowned.
A reasonable hypothesis, but there are two contradictory thoughts.
"but on the whole they’re up for a bit of socialism for a change." and "people get that he’s a dogged socialist." The latter phrase is shorthand for he's a a Trot, and they don't do "a bit."
As the famous line in 'Cabaret' nearly says … "Do you still think you can control them, Neil?"
I understand why they need to get a broader alliance on show, but when push comes to shove, jezza won't water down his principles. He no longer wears a string vest, and he's learned to speak politics (better than Mrs May), but he hasn't got a decade to see 'proper socialism' gradually come in the UK, and he won't wait.
Pah! File under 'bogeyman scare stories'.
Jezza as PM would only be able to do what parliament will allow. Labour are unlikely to have an outright majority; Momentum will definitely not have one.
He will have control over Number 11 Downing Street and we saw how much damage Gordon Brown as a non-socialist lefty did there. The damage that Corbyn and McDonnell could do from Downing Street is much greater.
Nothing Gordon Brown did is going to damage the country as much as Brexit.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Extraditing someone to potentially face the death penalty is widely thought to be incompatible with ECHR making any such step by Javid illegal and preventable. I would be pretty astonished if our courts did not stop it.
There's no extradition necessary from the UK, though. They aren't on UK soil and haven't been caught by UK forces. Javid is basically saying he's not going to fight the US extraditing them from Iraq.
Ah right. What’s it got to do with us then? Sorry for not being up to speed. Still gobsmacked by the mountain views from my pool and the extraordinary lightening storm last night.
I answer only to clarify your question, and offer no opinion on the rightness or not of the extradition, but note they're British citizens - which is the argument those opposing their extradition to the US (And onward to face the death penalty) will put forward.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
I yield to no-one in my contempt of and despair at the way Britsin has gone about these negotiations.
But the EU have paid scant regard to the terms of Article 50 and are making a big strategic mistake if they think that humiliating Britain and crowing about it is the way to go.
Agreed. We've fed on fudge a long time, and people are sick of it, particularly as brinkmanship has pushed the sides to extremes. May isn't bluffing. They assume she is. But Chequers would have been hard enough, getting an even more EU friendly version through just won't happen. Complacency that the sides can square that circle us why were getting no deal, as it's the same complacency that we wouldn't vote to leave, that is, wrong.
What May wants is no longer relevant. She's not in control of events and is unlikely to regain control either.
In this context, you can take 'May' as shorthand for 'the British political system in its widest sense, as it currently exists', because as you rightly imply, she is the cipher for that.
The simple facts are these:
- Con+DUP have a majority. - There are very few Con Remain rebels and they're cancelled out by Lab Leave ones. - The ERG block in parliament is sufficient to trigger a VoNC in May but not strong enough to carry it by itself. - Tory membership opinion is strongly Leave. - Tory vote support is strongly Leave. - A Tory leadership election can only end with a firm supporter of a Hardish Brexit winning. This may be a Leaver or a recanting Remainer, though probably the former. - May has little natural support and remains in office more for lack of widely-acceptable alternatives than for her intrinsic merits. - DUP will not accept intra-UK borders - Chequers is the best (only) plan on offer but is unpopular with Con members, voters and (I think) MPs. There is no scope for further concessions. This unpopularity runs beyond the ERG fringe, though is causing the UKIP fringe to defect back.
Put that lot together and there is really very little room for manouevre. It's not so much that May isn't bluffing on No Deal; it's that she really can't deliver much other than what she's put forward.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
Good morning all. My condolences to you Alistair on your father's death.
A really interesting thread Nick. Whilst I certainly do not believe that Brexit will be sorted as an issue by next March, I do accept that most of the public are and will be even more keen by the next GE to talk about other issues. The only exception being if we really are in an unorganised no deal BREXIT with food shortages etc as has been flagged by some.
Even in the 2017 GE we noted that enough people were enthused by Corbyn's domestic agenda (he didn't mention Brexit much understandably) and I feel many in the population will be of the view their political leaders should be talking more about health, education etc.
Here I think DavidL is correct that the government need to try to place more emphasis on their non-Brexit activities. I think there are signs of activity in a range of areas but beyond the civil service being heavily occupied on Brexit, the media are so Brexit focused few other issues have profile. Here all political parties are in a bind.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
We have a trade deficit with the EU so yes they do
It's incredible that you continue to cling to that delusion in the face of all the evidence.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
A reasonable hypothesis, but there are two contradictory thoughts.
"but on the whole they’re up for a bit of socialism for a change." and "people get that he’s a dogged socialist." The latter phrase is shorthand for he's a a Trot, and they don't do "a bit."
As the famous line in 'Cabaret' nearly says … "Do you still think you can control them, Neil?"
I understand why they need to get a broader alliance on show, but when push comes to shove, jezza won't water down his principles. He no longer wears a string vest, and he's learned to speak politics (better than Mrs May), but he hasn't got a decade to see 'proper socialism' gradually come in the UK, and he won't wait.
Pah! File under 'bogeyman scare stories'.
Jezza as PM would only be able to do what parliament will allow. Labour are unlikely to have an outright majority; Momentum will definitely not have one.
He will have control over Number 11 Downing Street and we saw how much damage Gordon Brown as a non-socialist lefty did there. The damage that Corbyn and McDonnell could do from Downing Street is much greater.
Nothing Gordon Brown did is going to damage the country as much as Brexit.
I find it extremely unlikely Brexit is going to cause our budget deficit to swell to the levels Brown caused.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
Even if so, how does that help the EU?
Are we not rather working on the assumption that the EU's negotiating team see the EU as a free trade bloc, rather than an indissoluble federal state that it is de facto treason to leave or otherwise undermine, and any such attempt must be punished?
If so I would suggest it is a very bold assumption given the characters involved.
I would further add that Juncker might well see this as an opportunity to precipitate a further Euro Crisis to drive deeper integration through emergency counter measures. It's the sort of plan that would need somebody insane, megalomaniacal, ruthlessly callous, extremely stupid or impressively drunk to come up with - but that hardly lets Juncker out.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
Even if so, how does that help the EU?
The EU doesn't care about individual countries in the union either, just the institution. That's why they were happy to chuck Greece under a bus.
They'll happily damage Britain a lot and remaining members a fair amount if it means the "project" stays on track.
O/T, I am looking to get a new personal computer. I want something relatively flexible in terms of weight/size (i.e. not a table top) I can take around. Big screen not essential as I can plug in to a larger screen. I am not a gamer so don't need huge capacity here around graphics, but would like something which can do a few functions at once with decent memory. Budget 750-850, I could go a little higher if the benefits are obvious.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
The problem is that *any* proposal from the EU would be treated with disdain and anger by the hardcore Brexiteers, and any government that agreed to them would be called traitors, idiots, etc, etc. for anything that the EU proposed would automatically be seen as not enough.
As ever, it seems leavers want someone else to do the work they're too lazy and incompetent to do.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
But even if a fudge is on from Europe's side, it's not really on from Britain's. Political numbers mean that it's something like Chequers or nothing. And as nothing isn't worth talking about, that's why people are 'just carrying on', as you rightly put it.
TBF this hoary old canard, that we can simply "go over the commision's head" to the Council is one of those Brexiteer fantasies I assumed had gone down in flames 12 months ago.
The commission is negotiating withing the parameters given to it *by* the council. We're not going to go over the commission's head, because the commission is implementing the council's line. French, German, Irish government members all publicly reiterated their commitment to the commission's strategy only last week.
Also bear in mind that any deal would need the approval of the European parliament, and that's currently in even more of a mood to give the UK a kicking than the commission is.
In the very, very unlikely event the UK is able to drive a wedge between the council and commission, it's nailed on the European parliament will side with the commission.
I get all that. However, the only way that a deal can be done is if the Commission changes its stance. That can only happen if the Council changes its stance. And that can only happen if the EU27 change their stance - so that is where HMG needs to focus. Now, you might say that that's a forlorn hope and you might be right but it's the only way agreement will be reached.
I share your concern about the EP, though ultimately, I think if the Council reach an agreement, which would inevitably bring the Commission with it, the EP will tag along, albeit grudgingly.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
There's a simpler point that Leavers still don't seem to understand after over two years. A trade balance is made up of two large absolute numbers. Where, as here, one side is much bigger than the other, the damage done by impeding trade will almost certainly be greater to the smaller side regardless of which way the balance lies. It's the proportionate importance of the trade that matters most.
A reasonable hypothesis, but there are two contradictory thoughts.
"but on the whole they’re up for a bit of socialism for a change." and "people get that he’s a dogged socialist." The latter phrase is shorthand for he's a a Trot, and they don't do "a bit."
As the famous line in 'Cabaret' nearly says … "Do you still think you can control them, Neil?"
I understand why they need to get a broader alliance on show, but when push comes to shove, jezza won't water down his principles. He no longer wears a string vest, and he's learned to speak politics (better than Mrs May), but he hasn't got a decade to see 'proper socialism' gradually come in the UK, and he won't wait.
Pah! File under 'bogeyman scare stories'.
Jezza as PM would only be able to do what parliament will allow. Labour are unlikely to have an outright majority; Momentum will definitely not have one.
He will have control over Number 11 Downing Street and we saw how much damage Gordon Brown as a non-socialist lefty did there. The damage that Corbyn and McDonnell could do from Downing Street is much greater.
Nothing Gordon Brown did is going to damage the country as much as Brexit.
I find it extremely unlikely Brexit is going to cause our budget deficit to swell to the levels Brown caused.
Any small-c 'conservative' would not have voted to leave in the EU referendum. There is nothing 'conservative' in voting for such an uncertain proposition. As we're seeing now.
Brexit is revolution, not evolution. It's why Corbyn's so much in favour of it: it's creating instability and creating opportunities for further change - and ones that may not necesarily be to conservatives' liking - whether small-c or large-C.
There was an interesting remark by David Herdson perhaps about a year ago, and I think below the line rather than above it, to the point that Brexit might be seen as both an exemplar of small-c conservatism as well as its opposite, depending on one's perspective.
So yes, on the one hand Brexit can be seen as a major break of policy and in that sense revolutionary. But alternatively, you can see a (hopefully orderly, negotiated, friendly) decoupling from the EU at this stage as a way of forestalling a sharper shock later on.
For example because you see the EU as a potential source of instability - if you read the tea-leaves regarding the massive unemployment, particularly among youths, in some countries in the "south" of Europe, the electoral trend towards the far-right, and to some extent far-left, across large parts of the continent including in countries we would traditionally have regarded as bulwarks of stability, and uncertainty at the very highest levels over what the future of the European project really represents, creating a risk that the whole thing might fracture under its own tensions.
Or because you see the EU itself as a fundamentally stable concept but one which will need to achieve very deep integration (e.g. your view is that political centralisation may be needed to make the single currency work) and that the UK electorate is ultimately going to reject the that long-term direction. In this case a UK exit may be viewed as inevitable at some point, and if so then it would be easier to leave sooner rather than later, because it reduces the amount of entanglement. (Related is the argument that the UK might have found Brexit more manageable around the time of Maastricht or Lisbon, and that caution in doing so then has saved up problems until now.)
I do think many Leave voters were coming from a Change position - fed up of the higher-powers (not necessarily politicians, but the wider "establishment" too) not listening to their concerns and wanting a fresh roll of the dice. But Remain voters seeing that as nothing more than a status quo option were mistaken to the extent that the EU is evolving and that the UK's position within it would have changed considerably by the time, if ever, that UK citizens next got a vote on it.
O/T, I am looking to get a new personal computer. I want something relatively flexible in terms of weight/size (i.e. not a table top) I can take around. Big screen not essential as I can plug in to a larger screen. I am not a gamer so don't need huge capacity here around graphics, but would like something which can do a few functions at once with decent memory. Budget 750-850, I could go a little higher if the benefits are obvious.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
Just order from Dell. You will get a laptop that meets your price point and, these days, almost any computer will do what most of us need.
Do get one with lots of memory. If you can add extra memory - double the amount the machine comes with. Excess memory improves performance far, far, far more than processors or disc.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
Even if so, how does that help the EU?
Encourages les autres?
Yes, I can see that, but suppose for example, Russia starts fomenting trouble in the Baltic States, or some other security crisis develops? Could they really expect British assistance, after imposing a leonine treaty on us?
I'm not sure how a legal process of "extradition" would work - as I understand it, they are being held by Syrian rebels inside Syria, not in Iraq. Do the Syrian rebels have a parallel court system that can authorise extradition? Obviously the Americans won't go through Assad's courts...
Just money. We did it all the time in Basra to get people released or locked up as expedience dictated.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
The problem is that *any* proposal from the EU would be treated with disdain and anger by the hardcore Brexiteers, and any government that agreed to them would be called traitors, idiots, etc, etc. for anything that the EU proposed would automatically be seen as not enough.
As ever, it seems leavers want someone else to do the work they're too lazy and incompetent to do.
Not really. If they said we want no tariffs between the EU and the U.K. , for example, but that we demand the following proof of origin tests to avoid the loss of tariffs due on goods from third countries we could then have a sensible discussion about those requirements in which they would almost certainly get 90%+ of their way. That would be a result. Not knowing how or on what terms you are going to trade with one of your largest markets in 9 months time is not.
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
Even if so, how does that help the EU?
The EU doesn't care about individual countries in the union either, just the institution. That's why they were happy to chuck Greece under a bus.
They'll happily damage Britain a lot and remaining members a fair amount if it means the "project" stays on track.
That maybe putting it a bit strongly but the EU have to ensure that Britain is not seen to get most of the benefits of membership with few of the obligations. Any club would ensure the same.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
The problem is that *any* proposal from the EU would be treated with disdain and anger by the hardcore Brexiteers, and any government that agreed to them would be called traitors, idiots, etc, etc. for anything that the EU proposed would automatically be seen as not enough.
As ever, it seems leavers want someone else to do the work they're too lazy and incompetent to do.
That may be true.
But if the EU has really proposed that there should be a customs border within the UK then that is a complete no-no even to Remainers, surely?
I say “if” because it is still not clear to me if that is what the EU has proposed or if that is the UK’s interpretation.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
I disagree. They identified and ruthlessly pursued their objective of dissuading any other country to contemplate leaving.
O/T, I am looking to get a new personal computer. I want something relatively flexible in terms of weight/size (i.e. not a table top) I can take around. Big screen not essential as I can plug in to a larger screen. I am not a gamer so don't need huge capacity here around graphics, but would like something which can do a few functions at once with decent memory. Budget 750-850, I could go a little higher if the benefits are obvious.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
I buy from these guys. End of line and surplus stock (and spare parts for obsolete models)
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
The problem is that *any* proposal from the EU would be treated with disdain and anger by the hardcore Brexiteers, and any government that agreed to them would be called traitors, idiots, etc, etc. for anything that the EU proposed would automatically be seen as not enough.
As ever, it seems leavers want someone else to do the work they're too lazy and incompetent to do.
Not really. If they said we want no tariffs between the EU and the U.K. , for example, but that we demand the following proof of origin tests to avoid the loss of tariffs due on goods from third countries we could then have a sensible discussion about those requirements in which they would almost certainly get 90%+ of their way. That would be a result. Not knowing how or on what terms you are going to trade with one of your largest markets in 9 months time is not.
"... we could have a sensible discussion..."
Ah, I see where you're going wrong. Hardcore brexiteers are not interested in a 'sensible discussion'; this is partly why the Brexiteers in charge of this mess - and I point at David Davis here - have accomplished nothing in two years.
My contempt for the idiots who have put their hatred for the EU in front of good government and the good of the country grows every day.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
There's a simpler point that Leavers still don't seem to understand after over two years. A trade balance is made up of two large absolute numbers. Where, as here, one side is much bigger than the other, the damage done by impeding trade will almost certainly be greater to the smaller side regardless of which way the balance lies. It's the proportionate importance of the trade that matters most.
It seems that nothing matters as long as we are out. If it all turns to poo then we can eat our blue passports and enjoy the knowledge that we are in control of our destiny free from the yoke of our oppressors....
I honestly do not understand Leavers. What use is Sovereignty in today's world where everyone and everything is interconnected?
The only truly sovereign people in the world these days are the Sentinelese Islanders because they kill any outsider who visits and they still live in their own stone age....
The Whigs were Scottish horse-rustlers as well, driving reluctant horses away from their rightful owners...
I think the original meaning of Whig was somewhat less judgmental, i.e. cattle drover v. Tory = outlaw or thief. Of course the most famous Scottish cattle rustler of them all, Rob Roy MacGregor, could have been described as a Tory.
A reasonable hypothesis, but there are two contradictory thoughts.
"but on the whole they’re up for a bit of socialism for a change." and "people get that he’s a dogged socialist." The latter phrase is shorthand for he's a a Trot, and they don't do "a bit."
As the famous line in 'Cabaret' nearly says … "Do you still think you can control them, Neil?"
I understand why they need to get a broader alliance on show, but when push comes to shove, jezza won't water down his principles. He no longer wears a string vest, and he's learned to speak politics (better than Mrs May), but he hasn't got a decade to see 'proper socialism' gradually come in the UK, and he won't wait.
Pah! File under 'bogeyman scare stories'.
Jezza as PM would only be able to do what parliament will allow. Labour are unlikely to have an outright majority; Momentum will definitely not have one.
He will have control over Number 11 Downing Street and we saw how much damage Gordon Brown as a non-socialist lefty did there. The damage that Corbyn and McDonnell could do from Downing Street is much greater.
Nothing Gordon Brown did is going to damage the country as much as Brexit.
Um, didn't he sign the Lisbon Treaty and (in)directly cause all this?
And on Chequers, I remain baffled that given the EU are saying no that everyone is just continuing on. Time to commit to no deal, horrible as it may be, May cannot fudge a deal from what the EU have said.
It seems pretty obvious to me now that the EU's strategy is to run down the clock. They no longer want a deal, they want to force the UK to choose between to equally humiliating alternatives: pleading for an extension or crashing out with no deal.
The EU doesn't want an extension I think, and they wouldn't mind a deal. But it'll be THEIR deal on humiliating terms for the PM. But they are not depserate for a deal in the way May will be. This isn't an arms length transaction between two equal entities.
Indeed not. The EU now sense that they have within its grasp the opportunity to internationally humiliate the UK. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
Even if so, how does that help the EU?
Encourages les autres?
Yes, I can see that, but suppose for example, Russia starts fomenting trouble in the Baltic States, or some other security crisis develops? Could they really expect British assistance, after imposing a leonine treaty on us?
Perversely, I think the Trump is the only thing that may make the EU flex a bit at the end - both his undermining of NATO and his trade tariffs. But on balance they may feel Trump will be gone in 2 or 6 years, so it's a risk wirth running for the long-term EU project.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
There's a simpler point that Leavers still don't seem to understand after over two years. A trade balance is made up of two large absolute numbers. Where, as here, one side is much bigger than the other, the damage done by impeding trade will almost certainly be greater to the smaller side regardless of which way the balance lies. It's the proportionate importance of the trade that matters most.
Following that logic leads you to some interesting conclusions elsewhere such as India and China need Nepali trade more than the reverse, since they have a trade surplus with Nepal.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
The position in financial markets is very different though because of the inter-connectedness of those markets. Any disturbance or disequilibrium in those markets could have wide-ranging effects beyond immediate borders. I am not at all confident that financial regulators in the EU, if they refuse to talk to or co-operate with British regulators, are up to the task.
Any small-c 'conservative' would not have voted to leave in the EU referendum. There is nothing 'conservative' in voting for such an uncertain proposition. As we're seeing now.
Brexit is revolution, not evolution. It's why Corbyn's so much in favour of it: it's creating instability and creating opportunities for further change - and ones that may not necesarily be to conservatives' liking - whether small-c or large-C.
There was an interesting remark by David Herdson perhaps about a year ago, and I think below the line rather than above it, to the point that Brexit might be seen as both an exemplar of small-c conservatism as well as its opposite, depending on one's perspective.
So yes, on the one hand Brexit can be seen as a major break of policy and in that sense revolutionary. But alternatively, you can see a (hopefully orderly, negotiated, friendly) decoupling from the EU at this stage as a way of forestalling a sharper shock later on.
For example because you see the EU as a potential source of instability - if you read the tea-leaves regarding the massive unemployment, particularly among youths, in some countries in the "south" of Europe, the electoral trend towards the far-right, and to some extent far-left, across large parts of the continent including in countries we would traditionally have regarded as bulwarks of stability, and uncertainty at the very highest levels over what the future of the European project really represents, creating a risk that the whole thing might fracture under its own tensions.
Or because you see the EU itself as a fundamentally stable concept but one which will need to achieve very deep integration (e.g. your view is that political centralisation may be needed to make the single currency work) and that the UK electorate is ultimately going to reject the that long-term direction. In this case a UK exit may be viewed as inevitable at some point, and if so then it would be easier to leave sooner rather than later, because it reduces the amount of entanglement. (Related is the argument that the UK might have found Brexit more manageable around the time of Maastricht or Lisbon, and that caution in doing so then has saved up problems until now.)
I do think many Leave voters were coming from a Change position - fed up of the higher-powers (not necessarily politicians, but the wider "establishment" too) not listening to their concerns and wanting a fresh roll of the dice. But Remain voters seeing that as nothing more than a status quo option were mistaken to the extent that the EU is evolving and that the UK's position within it would have changed considerably by the time, if ever, that UK citizens next got a vote on it.
Thinking about, joining the EEC was a remarkably radical step for the Conservatives to take.
The Whigs were Scottish horse-rustlers as well, driving reluctant horses away from their rightful owners...
I think the original meaning of Whig was somewhat less judgmental, i.e. cattle drover v. Tory = outlaw or thief. Of course the most famous Scottish cattle rustler of them all, Rob Roy MacGregor, could have been described as a Tory.
No - both labels came from their political opponents and were derogatory.
Rob Roy could hardly be called a Tory. He wasn't Irish. In fact, I don't think he would have even thanked you for the suggestion he was Irish.
A reasonable hypothesis, but there are two contradictory thoughts.
"but on the whole they’re up for a bit of socialism for a change." and "people get that he’s a dogged socialist." The latter phrase is shorthand for he's a a Trot, and they don't do "a bit."
As the famous line in 'Cabaret' nearly says … "Do you still think you can control them, Neil?"
I understand why they need to get a broader alliance on show, but when push comes to shove, jezza won't water down his principles. He no longer wears a string vest, and he's learned to speak politics (better than Mrs May), but he hasn't got a decade to see 'proper socialism' gradually come in the UK, and he won't wait.
Pah! File under 'bogeyman scare stories'.
Jezza as PM would only be able to do what parliament will allow. Labour are unlikely to have an outright majority; Momentum will definitely not have one.
He will have control over Number 11 Downing Street and we saw how much damage Gordon Brown as a non-socialist lefty did there. The damage that Corbyn and McDonnell could do from Downing Street is much greater.
Nothing Gordon Brown did is going to damage the country as much as Brexit.
Um, didn't he sign the Lisbon Treaty and (in)directly cause all this?
You could level similar arguments against Heath (accession) and Major (Maastricht).
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
I disagree. They identified and ruthlessly pursued their objective of dissuading any other country to contemplate leaving.
If the EU is so self-evidently a good thing, why should it be necessary to humiliate a former member to achieve that? Seeking humiliation is usually a sign of a lack of confidence rather than of an organisation confident in its own values and benefits and attractiveness.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
Well Im sure those Countries affected will be happy with the negotiating stance of the EU.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
I disagree. They identified and ruthlessly pursued their objective of dissuading any other country to contemplate leaving.
Not necessarily. If despite them doing all this we leave and we leave successfully then all the threats will ring very hollow.
After we left the ERM we went from strength to strength. That probably encouraged the Swedes and others to stay out of the Euro. If history repeats itself here then the notion that leaving the EU will be dissuaded will be dispelled and the Swedes and others could plausibly follow us out.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
Well Im sure those Countries affected will be happy with the negotiating stance of the EU.
The countries affected are setting the negotiating stance. Their representatives on the Council tell the Commission what to do.
On topic, a generally good piece from Nick but I disagree with his prediction that a last-minute deal will sort the issue, which I think is born of the 'this is how Brussels works' mentality that Brexit was a revolt against. That kind of business-as-usual approach will be rejected if it produced an outcome-as-usual - i.e. the fudge he predicts.
You may be right, but I think May is a match for the EU in the fudge department - she has repeatedly proved that she's willing to shade meaning one way or another, depending on who she's talking to. To be fair I'm not sure she has much choice.
You're predicting a sizable revolt if the outcome is indeed fudge, but that will run into a popular wave of sentiment to get the damn thing over with. I think that people who vote against the deal run a real risk of resentment if they succeed (loud opposition to this and that without the expectation of succeeding is something else) - if Parliament actually rejects whatever deal May comes up with and we're back to haggling and emergency arrangements in April, I doubt if it will be Theresa who is the target of popular fury.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
Well Im sure those Countries affected will be happy with the negotiating stance of the EU.
The countries affected are setting the negotiating stance. Their representatives on the Council tell the Commission what to do.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
The position in financial markets is very different though because of the inter-connectedness of those markets. Any disturbance or disequilibrium in those markets could have wide-ranging effects beyond immediate borders. I am not at all confident that financial regulators in the EU, if they refuse to talk to or co-operate with British regulators, are up to the task.
That is a fair point. I also understand that the City holds (or trades) some outrageously silly amount like €29 trillion on behalf of the EU.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
I disagree. They identified and ruthlessly pursued their objective of dissuading any other country to contemplate leaving.
If the EU is so self-evidently a good thing, why should it be necessary to humiliate a former member to achieve that? Seeking humiliation is usually a sign of a lack of confidence rather than of an organisation confident in its own values and benefits and attractiveness.
I'm not sure they'll see it as 'humiliation'.
Also recall that many leavers (e.g. Farage et al) want not just to lave the EU, but to destroy it.
Whether by accident or design it looks like either the Chequers plan (at most slightly tweaked), crash out (presumably with some emergency cobbled together provisions) or some kind or postponement and extension to cover a general election and/or referendum.
I admit it is a minority view but I think May is playing a weak hand well. There are major traps for everyone in the current situation. Let's take Labour. If there is a reasonable compromise deal do they support, abstain or oppose? We can negotiate better! (Yeh, right) won't cut it. Bringing about a crash out or being seen to be manouvering for party advangae would be a disaster. If there is no deal and Europe are seen as being unreasonable then it will be a "khaki election", May retiring with honour as the decent person who tried.
My feeling is that a "moderate" Labour leadership would probably already have forced an election because it would be popular and would win a majority. There is a really strong stop Corbyn block of voters. It is very volatile but a Labour majority win is far from being probable.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
I disagree. They identified and ruthlessly pursued their objective of dissuading any other country to contemplate leaving.
If the EU is so self-evidently a good thing, why should it be necessary to humiliate a former member to achieve that? Seeking humiliation is usually a sign of a lack of confidence rather than of an organisation confident in its own values and benefits and attractiveness.
I would suggest a possible answer is that those who work with it and know most about it (90% of the governing, business and administrative élites of Europe) are convinced it is a good thing. They just know that a very large chunk - possibly even the majority of the ordinary people of Europe - disagree.
Therefore, they are desperately trying to drive further integration incrementally, often from the best of motives, without said ordinary people finding out or demanding a say. Remember, almost all referendums on matters EU in the last 20 years have been won by the sceptics, including ours.
But it doesn't make for stability. It's one of the things driving populists on left and right, and it leaves the EU with no moral authority whatsoever, not helped by blatant corruption and incompetence at its highest levels.
They have started with the premise 'this is what we need, how do we achieve it?' And forgotten to ask 'this is what the people of Europe want, how can we best deliver it?' As a result, they have navigated us all into dangerous waters.
Agreed. We've fed on fudge a long time, and people are sick of it, particularly as brinkmanship has pushed the sides to extremes. May isn't bluffing. They assume she is. But Chequers would have been hard enough, getting an even more EU friendly version through just won't happen. Complacency that the sides can square that circle us why were getting no deal, as it's the same complacency that we wouldn't vote to leave, that is, wrong.
What May wants is no longer relevant. She's not in control of events and is unlikely to regain control either.
In this context, you can take 'May' as shorthand for 'the British political system in its widest sense, as it currently exists', because as you rightly imply, she is the cipher for that.
The simple facts are these:
- Con+DUP have a majority. - There are very few Con Remain rebels and they're cancelled out by Lab Leave ones. - The ERG block in parliament is sufficient to trigger a VoNC in May but not strong enough to carry it by itself. - Tory membership opinion is strongly Leave. - Tory vote support is strongly Leave. - A Tory leadership election can only end with a firm supporter of a Hardish Brexit winning. This may be a Leaver or a recanting Remainer, though probably the former. - May has little natural support and remains in office more for lack of widely-acceptable alternatives than for her intrinsic merits. - DUP will not accept intra-UK borders - Chequers is the best (only) plan on offer but is unpopular with Con members, voters and (I think) MPs. There is no scope for further concessions. This unpopularity runs beyond the ERG fringe, though is causing the UKIP fringe to defect back.
Put that lot together and there is really very little room for manouevre. It's not so much that May isn't bluffing on No Deal; it's that she really can't deliver much other than what she's put forward.
Hard to argue with that David.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
O/T, I am looking to get a new personal computer. I want something relatively flexible in terms of weight/size (i.e. not a table top) I can take around. Big screen not essential as I can plug in to a larger screen. I am not a gamer so don't need huge capacity here around graphics, but would like something which can do a few functions at once with decent memory. Budget 750-850, I could go a little higher if the benefits are obvious.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
Surface Pro is Microsoft not Apple. If you want something to "take around" then it should be small, light and robust. Consider a docking station for when you are back home with your larger screen. Consider whether you need an inbuilt camera for video conferences and Skype calls, or a fingerprint scanner for security. Look at laptops aimed at business rather than home users: they tend to be more robust, although your budget is low unless you look at the refurbished market (which is worth considering -- businesses replace laptops after X years, not when they barely work any more like home users do).
Go to Lenovo or Dell or HP sites and browse amongst the business/work machines, not home or gaming ones. Get an idea of what features are available and then think about what matters to you.
Tech specs: memory is good; SSDs are good; CPUs probably don't matter as much as you'd think since you do not want to do anything in particular. See above re size, weight, cameras and fingerprint scanners. Once you've got it, consider encryption in case it gets nicked, and regular backups for the same reason.
But surely we hold all the cards? Don't they need us more than we need them after all then?!
Brexiteers, amongst their other numerous errors, massively overestimated how willing the EU would be to give us a deal.
Turns out negotiating, which is what the EU does *constantly*, is something they've gotten rather good at.
If you think that this is good negotiation you have a lot to learn. They have been embarrassingly inept.
Why? They have the UK on the ropes and haven't even thrown a punch.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
The EU has a trade surplus with the UK. A no deal (which is what their negotiation stance will cause) will be throwing that out of the window. Im sure all the manufacturers who sell stuff to the UK in Europe will be delighted.
Let us get something in perspective. The EU has no trade surplus with the UK. Several EU countries have a surplus. This means that any pain is spread out on the EU side whereas we, in the UK, get a great big dollop of hurt.
The position in financial markets is very different though because of the inter-connectedness of those markets. Any disturbance or disequilibrium in those markets could have wide-ranging effects beyond immediate borders. I am not at all confident that financial regulators in the EU, if they refuse to talk to or co-operate with British regulators, are up to the task.
One does wonder whether EU banks will still be able to access wholesale funding in London if we leave without any kind of deal. That would destabilise the whole banking sector on the continent. I think Mark Carney has been at pains to point this out time and again to his European counterparts but so far no one is listening to him.
Yes, I can see that, but suppose for example, Russia starts fomenting trouble in the Baltic States, or some other security crisis develops? Could they really expect British assistance, after imposing a leonine treaty on us?
Unless the UK leaves NATO as well then yes they will expect British assistance.
Yes, I can see that, but suppose for example, Russia starts fomenting trouble in the Baltic States, or some other security crisis develops? Could they really expect British assistance, after imposing a leonine treaty on us?
Unless the UK leaves NATO as well then yes they will expect British assistance.
I think if the US suspends its membership then nothing is off the table. I could definitely see a PM other than May press that advantage a lot better and probably increase defence spending at the same time.
Agreed. We've fed on fudge a long time, and people are sick of it, particularly as brinkmanship has pushed the sides to extremes. May isn't bluffing. They assume she is. But Chequers would have been hard enough, getting an even more EU friendly version through just won't happen. Complacency that the sides can square that circle us why were getting no deal, as it's the same complacency that we wouldn't vote to leave, that is, wrong.
What May wants is no longer relevant. She's not in control of events and is unlikely to regain control either.
In this context, you can take 'May' as shorthand for 'the British political system in its widest sense, as it currently exists', because as you rightly imply, she is the cipher for that.
The simple facts are these:
- Con+DUP have a majority. - There are very few Con Remain rebels and they're cancelled out by Lab Leave ones. - The ERG block in parliament is sufficient to trigger a VoNC in May but not strong enough to carry it by itself. - Tory membership opinion is strongly Leave. - Tory vote support is strongly Leave. - A Tory leadership election can only end with a firm supporter of a Hardish Brexit winning. This may be a Leaver or a recanting Remainer, though probably the former. - May has little natural support and remains in office more for lack of widely-acceptable alternatives than for her intrinsic merits. - DUP will not accept intra-UK borders - Chequers is the best (only) plan on offer but is unpopular with Con members, voters and (I think) MPs. There is no scope for further concessions. This unpopularity runs beyond the ERG fringe, though is causing the UKIP fringe to defect back.
Put that lot together and there is really very little room for manouevre. It's not so much that May isn't bluffing on No Deal; it's that she really can't deliver much other than what she's put forward.
Hard to argue with that David.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
A point I made more than a year ago and it now seems to be in fashion:
In practice Theresa May will have more room to manoeuvre if there's a clear deal on the table. The non-headbangers will move further to avoid disorder. If there's no clear deal on the table, they won't see why they should. So the EU needs to start thinking about what its best and final offer is.
The Whigs were Scottish horse-rustlers as well, driving reluctant horses away from their rightful owners...
I think the original meaning of Whig was somewhat less judgmental, i.e. cattle drover v. Tory = outlaw or thief. Of course the most famous Scottish cattle rustler of them all, Rob Roy MacGregor, could have been described as a Tory.
No - both labels came from their political opponents and were derogatory.
Rob Roy could hardly be called a Tory. He wasn't Irish. In fact, I don't think he would have even thanked you for the suggestion he was Irish.
So you're saying that the terms were adopted by political opponents and became separated from their origins, but that RRM would still have seen Tory as an entirely Irish description? The idea that Scottish Jacobitism was completely divorced from Toryism is an interesting one.
Thanks for the advice on the computers so far. I thought in the age of mass technology 750-850 would be a decent budget, but I guess it depends on the standards you seek!
In terms of technology, fingerprint and encryption - I am a little wary of the former, where is the fingerprint stored? A cloud?
With the Microsoft Surface Pro - is it all style with little whack for the money in terms of features?
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
There's not a majority in the house for a WTO Brexit. May resigning and getting replaced by a Mogglodyte will do nothing to change the stalemate.
On the point of whether there will be a last-minute deal, I agree with David Herdson. There's no majority in the House (and even less so in the Conservative Party) for any particular deal. Ergo, no particular deal will be passed. This leaves us with No Deal.
The question is simply between planned No Deal and crash No Deal. The one looks painful. The other looks horrible. Arguably, adopting EEA would meet the letter of the referendum and be acceptable to the EU and minimise damage, but that would certainly necessitate explicit electoral buy-in, and I doubt the Government want another referendum, there's very limited time and it may be unachievable, and would probably lose in a referendum in any case as the downsides of No Deal are not visible to the public and wouldn't be well publicised in the run-up to the referendum in any case. The Remain side poisoned the well on warning when they went overboard in the run-up to the referendum.
On the customs border thing, maybe the minds of pb.com can help my confusion. The problem seems to be:
1 - If we leave the Single Market and Customs Union, we will need a customs border with the EU. This seems unavoidable - the former means we won't have similar regulations governing what things are and their treatment; the latter that we'll have different customs rates. Given WTO rules, abandoning all customs checks by stating we won't put any tariffs on them means that: a - We won't have any right to put tariffs on anyone else's stuff, either, thanks to MFN rules b - If the EU were to follow suit, they also will give up the right to put tariffs on anything else from anyone else. This is therefore not going to happen.
2 - This necessitates a border, with checks. Technology can help, but won't plausibly remove the need in any short-term timescale.
3 - The Good Friday Agreement in Ireland means there must not be such a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
All of this taken together seems to imply that either: 1 - We break the Good Friday Agreement 2 - We accept that NI has a different status to the rest of the UK and put the border between NI and the mainland 3 - We stay in the SM and CU after all.
It doesn't seem down to intransigence by anyone, but simply that we simultaneously need a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and yet cannot have one.
Thanks for the advice on the computers so far. I thought in the age of mass technology 750-850 would be a decent budget, but I guess it depends on the standards you seek!
In terms of technology, fingerprint and encryption - I am a little wary of the former, where is the fingerprint stored? A cloud?
With the Microsoft Surface Pro - is it all style with little whack for the money in terms of features?
The CPU or motherboard has a device called a "trusted platform module", or "secure enclave". your fingerprint is stored, encrypted in that device. It's never transmitted to the cloud.
The Whigs were Scottish horse-rustlers as well, driving reluctant horses away from their rightful owners...
I think the original meaning of Whig was somewhat less judgmental, i.e. cattle drover v. Tory = outlaw or thief. Of course the most famous Scottish cattle rustler of them all, Rob Roy MacGregor, could have been described as a Tory.
No - both labels came from their political opponents and were derogatory.
Rob Roy could hardly be called a Tory. He wasn't Irish. In fact, I don't think he would have even thanked you for the suggestion he was Irish.
So you're saying that the terms were adopted by political opponents and became separated from their origins, but that RRM would still have seen Tory as an entirely Irish description? The idea that Scottish Jacobitism was completely divorced from Toryism is an interesting one.
It took centuries for the labels to separate from their origins. Tories called themselves 'King's Men' until the time of Pitt the Younger fifty years later.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
There's not a majority in the house for a WTO Brexit. May resigning and getting replaced by a Mogglodyte will do nothing to change the stalemate.
There doesn't need to be. It happens by default unless there is a majority for another option that is agreed with Europe.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
There's not a majority in the house for a WTO Brexit. May resigning and getting replaced by a Mogglodyte will do nothing to change the stalemate.
There doesn't need to be. It happens by default unless there is a majority for another option that is agreed with Europe.
I’m still baffled that MPs really don’t get this; by triggering Article 50 they approved the result of the referendum and set the backstop option as No Deal.
O/T, I am looking to get a new personal computer. I want something relatively flexible in terms of weight/size (i.e. not a table top) I can take around. Big screen not essential as I can plug in to a larger screen. I am not a gamer so don't need huge capacity here around graphics, but would like something which can do a few functions at once with decent memory. Budget 750-850, I could go a little higher if the benefits are obvious.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
As others have said, get a branded laptop with decent memory and a solid state disk and you won't go far wrong. My wife's Dell Inspiron 5000 cost £800, has 16GB memory and 512GB SSD and does her very well for anything.
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
I disagree. They identified and ruthlessly pursued their objective of dissuading any other country to contemplate leaving.
It's weird how British people have to be so Basil Fawlty about everything. Either everyone's going to surrender before the majesty of your domestic auto markets or the whole thing's an evil plot to make an example of you.
Here's what's happening. There are two models the British might like, Norway and Canada. But the British say they don't want a border in NI, and the EU agree since this is what Ireland wants, and that isn't compatible with Canada, so NI has to be Norway. Now the British need to decide whether they want the whole UK to be Norway, or just for NI to be Norway, with an internal border between that and Canada.
That's basically it. The EU will deal, but they need something logically and practically possible, and that keeps control of their borders, because they have right-wingers worried about that too. No doubt there will be some hardball on the detail, but the reason this thing is stalled is because the British can't agree on an actual practical thing they want the EU to give them.
It's clear that Theresa squandered far too much precious time appointing Boris and DD. They've vanished without a trace, and we're back to square one: 'Come on boys! Let's knuckle down and think of something here.' The exams should now be over with everyone looking forward to the summer vac. Instead the initial reading list has barely been sent out.
Agreed. We've fed on fudge a long time, and people are sick of it, particularly as brinkmanship has pushed the sides to extremes. May isn't bluffing. They assume she is. But Chequers would have been hard enough, getting an even more EU friendly version through just won't happen. Complacency that the sides can square that circle us why were getting no deal, as it's the same complacency that we wouldn't vote to leave, that is, wrong.
What May wants is no longer relevant. She's not in control of events and is unlikely to regain control either.
In this context, you can take 'May' as shorthand for 'the British political system in its widest sense, as it currently exists', because as you rightly imply, she is the cipher for that.
The simple facts are these:
- Con+DUP have a majority. - There are very few Con Remain rebels and they're cancelled out by Lab Leave ones. - The ERG block in parliament is sufficient to trigger a VoNC in May but not strong enough to carry it by itself. - Tory membership opinion is strongly Leave. - Tory vote support is strongly Leave. - A Tory leadership election can only end with a firm supporter of a Hardish Brexit winning. This may be a Leaver or a recanting Remainer, though probably the former. - May has little natural support and remains in office more for lack of widely-acceptable alternatives than for her intrinsic merits. - DUP will not accept intra-UK borders - Chequers is the best (only) plan on offer but is unpopular with Con members, voters and (I think) MPs. There is no scope for further concessions. This unpopularity runs beyond the ERG fringe, though is causing the UKIP fringe to defect back.
Put that lot together and there is really very little room for manouevre. It's not so much that May isn't bluffing on No Deal; it's that she really can't deliver much other than what she's put forward.
Hard to argue with that David.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
Then we arrive at the point where the large majority of our elected representatives know that the status quo is better than what we are about to inflict upon ourselves.
On the point of whether there will be a last-minute deal, I agree with David Herdson. There's no majority in the House (and even less so in the Conservative Party) for any particular deal. Ergo, no particular deal will be passed. This leaves us with No Deal.
The question is simply between planned No Deal and crash No Deal. The one looks painful. The other looks horrible. Arguably, adopting EEA would meet the letter of the referendum and be acceptable to the EU and minimise damage, but that would certainly necessitate explicit electoral buy-in, and I doubt the Government want another referendum, there's very limited time and it may be unachievable, and would probably lose in a referendum in any case as the downsides of No Deal are not visible to the public and wouldn't be well publicised in the run-up to the referendum in any case. The Remain side poisoned the well on warning when they went overboard in the run-up to the referendum.
On the customs border thing, maybe the minds of pb.com can help my confusion. The problem seems to be:
1 - If we leave the Single Market and Customs Union, we will need a customs border with the EU. This seems unavoidable - the former means we won't have similar regulations governing what things are and their treatment; the latter that we'll have different customs rates. Given WTO rules, abandoning all customs checks by stating we won't put any tariffs on them means that: a - We won't have any right to put tariffs on anyone else's stuff, either, thanks to MFN rules b - If the EU were to follow suit, they also will give up the right to put tariffs on anything else from anyone else. This is therefore not going to happen.
2 - This necessitates a border, with checks. Technology can help, but won't plausibly remove the need in any short-term timescale.
3 - The Good Friday Agreement in Ireland means there must not be such a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
All of this taken together seems to imply that either: 1 - We break the Good Friday Agreement 2 - We accept that NI has a different status to the rest of the UK and put the border between NI and the mainland 3 - We stay in the SM and CU after all.
It doesn't seem down to intransigence by anyone, but simply that we simultaneously need a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and yet cannot have one.
What am I missing?
There would be a fudge on Ireland. We don’t need to put a border in place (it’s our only land border and under WTO rules we just say ‘this (business declaration, SME exemption) is how we deal with all our land borders’.
I honestly do not understand Leavers. What use is Sovereignty in today's world where everyone and everything is interconnected?
There are nuances over both practical and legal aspects of "sovereignty" but a lot comes down to Benn's five questions: "what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you?" That eurocrats are much-unbeloved stems at least in part from their failings on this front. "Take back control" had power as a slogan because it grasped what most people would regard as the minimal level of democratic sovereignty - that the citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to vote for, and boot out, the people who run the country. I don't think anyone believes that for the UK government to be truly sovereign, then if its lawmakers voted that Brits should levitate 30 feet in the air, we should magically find ourselves doing so, There are practical, physical limitations to power. But bootoutability is important.
Yes, one of those limitations is the trend towards globalisation, internationalisation, standardisation, harmonisation... but there's more than one model to deal with interconnectedness. Brexiteers tend to prefer international institutions rather than supranational ones. And if you are going to rely on supranational institutions, particularly ones expected to evolve in their scope and power, it would be wise for your goals and your vision of those future arrangements to fundamentally match those of your co-members.
Wilson considered the UK becoming the 51st state after the de Gaulle veto. Moving UK regulation in line with the US would clearly have opened up vast opportunities to the economy. In terms of a "sovereignty multiplier", British voters would have had a critical impact on US elections and this would likely have had more influence on world affairs than their ability to elect a UK prime minister. Domestically, British politicians would still have had considerable power over education, healthcare, transport, the environment and many other important day-to-day issues. So why would anyone oppose it? They don't "feel" American? A feeling their values are not in-line with those largely held in America, or codified in the constitution? They don't want things decided in Washington DC rather than closer to home? The way that Britain would be an eternal odd-one-out in the American context and likely to be shaded out by the other states and consigned to second-rate treatment? The loss of the UK as an independent country?
If you can see why some people may not want to join the USA, or some putative World State Organisation, it's not a great leap to understand the motivation of many leavers either.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
There's not a majority in the house for a WTO Brexit. May resigning and getting replaced by a Mogglodyte will do nothing to change the stalemate.
There doesn't need to be. It happens by default unless there is a majority for another option that is agreed with Europe.
It's not quite that simple. Do you think the Prime Minister would face no votes on the subject if it is apparent that she has not negotiated a deal?
Not at all. When you negotiate you need to know what your end game is and what you want. They seem to have as little idea as us. How do they want to trade with the U.K. after we leave? It’s an important question and watching the U.K. government flannel about may be amusing but it is no answer. They should be making constructive proposals which meet their objectives and criteria. They have completely failed to do so.
I disagree. They identified and ruthlessly pursued their objective of dissuading any other country to contemplate leaving.
It's weird how British people have to be so Basil Fawlty about everything. Either everyone's going to surrender before the majesty of your domestic auto markets or the whole thing's an evil plot to make an example of you.
Here's what's happening. There are two models the British might like, Norway and Canada. But the British say they don't want a border in NI, and the EU agree since this is what Ireland wants, and that isn't compatible with Canada, so NI has to be Norway. Now the British need to decide whether they want the whole UK to be Norway, or just for NI to be Norway, with an internal border between that and Canada.
That's basically it. The EU will deal, but they need something logically and practically possible, and that keeps control of their borders, because they have right-wingers worried about that too. No doubt there will be some hardball on the detail, but the reason this thing is stalled is because the British can't agree on an actual practical thing they want the EU to give them.
There are nuances over both practical and legal aspects of "sovereignty" but a lot comes down to Benn's five questions: "what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you?" That eurocrats are much-unbeloved stems at least in part from their failings on this front. "Take back control" had power as a slogan because it grasped what most people would regard as the minimal level of democratic sovereignty - that the citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to vote for, and boot out, the people who run the country. I don't think anyone believes that for the UK government to be truly sovereign, then if its lawmakers voted that Brits should levitate 30 feet in the air, we should magically find ourselves doing so, There are practical, physical limitations to power. But bootoutability is important.
Yes, one of those limitations is the trend towards globalisation, internationalisation, standardisation, harmonisation... but there's more than one model to deal with interconnectedness. Brexiteers tend to prefer international institutions rather than supranational ones. And if you are going to rely on supranational institutions, particularly ones expected to evolve in their scope and power, it would be wise for your goals and your vision of those future arrangements to fundamentally match those of your co-members.
Wilson considered the UK becoming the 51st state after the de Gaulle veto. Moving UK regulation in line with the US would clearly have opened up vast opportunities to the economy. In terms of a "sovereignty multiplier", British voters would have had a critical impact on US elections and this would likely have had more influence on world affairs than their ability to elect a UK prime minister. Domestically, British politicians would still have had considerable power over education, healthcare, transport, the environment and many other important day-to-day issues. So why would anyone oppose it? They don't "feel" American? A feeling their values are not in-line with those largely held in America, or codified in the constitution? They don't want things decided in Washington DC rather than closer to home? The way that Britain would be an eternal odd-one-out in the American context and likely to be shaded out by the other states and consigned to second-rate treatment? The loss of the UK as an independent country?
If you can see why some people may not want to join the USA, or some putative World State Organisation, it's not a great leap to understand the motivation of many leavers either.
O/T, I am looking to get a new personal computer. I want something relatively flexible in terms of weight/size (i.e. not a table top) I can take around. Big screen not essential as I can plug in to a larger screen. I am not a gamer so don't need huge capacity here around graphics, but would like something which can do a few functions at once with decent memory. Budget 750-850, I could go a little higher if the benefits are obvious.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
As others have said, get a branded laptop with decent memory and a solid state disk and you won't go far wrong. My wife's Dell Inspiron 5000 cost £800, has 16GB memory and 512GB SSD and does her very well for anything.
It's always f'ing frustrating to run out of memory (e.g. when an antivirus program spools up, or you have a fair few tabs open in a browser). PCs can be easy to upgradde, but laptops can be an absolute pain.
SO IMV a first priority is to get *more* memory than you think you need. Second would be a good SSD. Third a reasonable battery life. Fourth processor power.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
There's not a majority in the house for a WTO Brexit. May resigning and getting replaced by a Mogglodyte will do nothing to change the stalemate.
There doesn't need to be. It happens by default unless there is a majority for another option that is agreed with Europe.
I’m still baffled that MPs really don’t get this; by triggering Article 50 they approved the result of the referendum and set the backstop option as No Deal.
Perhaps they are blinded by ideology, terrified of their electorates or are simply less bright than we assume?
On the point of whether there will be a last-minute deal, I agree with David Herdson. There's no majority in the House (and even less so in the Conservative Party) for any particular deal. Ergo, no particular deal will be passed. This leaves us with No Deal.
The question is simply between planned No Deal and crash No Deal. The one looks painful. The other looks horrible. Arguably, adopting EEA would meet the letter of the referendum and be acceptable to the EU and minimise damage, but that would certainly necessitate explicit electoral buy-in, and I doubt the Government want another referendum, there's very limited time and it may be unachievable, and would probably lose in a referendum in any case as the downsides of No Deal are not visible to the public and wouldn't be well publicised in the run-up to the referendum in any case. The Remain side poisoned the well on warning when they went overboard in the run-up to the referendum.
On the customs border thing, maybe the minds of pb.com can help my confusion. The problem seems to be:
1 - If we leave the Single Market and Customs Union, we will need a customs border with the EU. This seems unavoidable - the former means we won't have similar regulations governing what things are and their treatment; the latter that we'll have different customs rates. Given WTO rules, abandoning all customs checks by stating we won't put any tariffs on them means that: a - We won't have any right to put tariffs on anyone else's stuff, either, thanks to MFN rules b - If the EU were to follow suit, they also will give up the right to put tariffs on anything else from anyone else. This is therefore not going to happen.
2 - This necessitates a border, with checks. Technology can help, but won't plausibly remove the need in any short-term timescale.
3 - The Good Friday Agreement in Ireland means there must not be such a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
All of this taken together seems to imply that either: 1 - We break the Good Friday Agreement 2 - We accept that NI has a different status to the rest of the UK and put the border between NI and the mainland 3 - We stay in the SM and CU after all.
It doesn't seem down to intransigence by anyone, but simply that we simultaneously need a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and yet cannot have one.
What am I missing?
There would be a fudge on Ireland. We don’t need to put a border in place (it’s our only land border and under WTO rules we just say ‘this (business declaration, SME exemption) is how we deal with all our land borders’.
And from the EU's side? They do, after all, have lost more in the way of land borders and it only needs for one side to need to put up a border.
With great respect you are underestimating the sensible Leave case. There is a difference between being a state in a federal union & being a nation state co-operating on matters with other nation states.
Some Leavers may have felt that the EU’s path to one state would effectively have led to the abolition of the nation state. You can see that in the concept of EU citizenship & no discrimination between EU citizens which, as far as Britain was concerned, meant that it had to give the same welfare benefits to someone who has just arrived as to a British citizen living here for decades. In short a British citizen had no special claim on his/her government/state than anyone else. You might think that fine but it does rather lead to a very different idea of the nation state.
Or take law. In most of the EU there is civil law, no trial by jury, no concept of reasonable doubt or burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay evidence. If you are going to have ever closer union & one effective state which law will be used in an EU-wide criminal law system? Would you be happy with the abolition of trial by jury or the burden of proof?
We have already seen what happens with the EAW where bureaucratic convenience has been allowed to trump the claims of justice (a requesting state does not even have to prove a prima facie case, which is utterly offensive when you are dealing with the liberty of individuals).
The EU’s path to ever closer union has sought to ignore the fact that this inevitably means the loss of the traditional nation state or its change to something very different. It has not honestly addressed what this means : for law, political representation, control over politicians & many other factors. It has sought to justify it on the basis of economic benefits. But those economic benefits are also achievable by nation states co-operating without the necessity for political union. Remainers have, in part, failed because they have not properly addressed these very real concerns about where the EU is heading & what this means for the very idea of the nation-state as Britain understands it. (I accept that other nations may have a very different idea of nationhood, its costs & benefits.) The EU was not the status quo because - & this was key for some Leavers I know - it was where it was going to they did not like not where it was. If they thought it was going to remain where it was they could have lived with that.
On the point of whether there will be a last-minute deal, I agree with David Herdson. There's no majority in the House (and even less so in the Conservative Party) for any particular deal. Ergo, no particular deal will be passed. This leaves us with No Deal.
The question is simply between planned No Deal and crash No Deal. The one looks painful. The other looks horrible. Arguably, adopting EEA would meet the letter of the referendum and be acceptable to the EU and minimise damage, but that would certainly necessitate explicit electoral buy-in, and I doubt the Government want another referendum, there's very limited time and it may be unachievable, and would probably lose in a referendum in any case as the downsides of No Deal are not visible to the public and wouldn't be well publicised in the run-up to the referendum in any case. The Remain side poisoned the well on warning when they went overboard in the run-up to the referendum.
On the customs border thing, maybe the minds of pb.com can help my confusion. The problem seems to be:
1 - If we leave the Single Market and Customs Union, we will need a customs border with the EU. This seems unavoidable - the former means we won't have similar regulations governing what things are and their treatment; the latter that we'll have different customs rates. Given WTO rules, abandoning all customs checks by stating we won't put any tariffs on them means that: a - We won't have any right to put tariffs on anyone else's stuff, either, thanks to MFN rules b - If the EU were to follow suit, they also will give up the right to put tariffs on anything else from anyone else. This is therefore not going to happen.
2 - This necessitates a border, with checks. Technology can help, but won't plausibly remove the need in any short-term timescale.
3 - The Good Friday Agreement in Ireland means there must not be such a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
All of this taken together seems to imply that either: 1 - We break the Good Friday Agreement 2 - We accept that NI has a different status to the rest of the UK and put the border between NI and the mainland 3 - We stay in the SM and CU after all.
It doesn't seem down to intransigence by anyone, but simply that we simultaneously need a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and yet cannot have one.
What am I missing?
There would be a fudge on Ireland. We don’t need to put a border in place (it’s our only land border and under WTO rules we just say ‘this (business declaration, SME exemption) is how we deal with all our land borders’.
And from the EU's side? They do, after all, have lost more in the way of land borders and it only needs for one side to need to put up a border.
O/T, I am looking to get a new personal computer. I want something relatively flexible in terms of weight/size (i.e. not a table top) I can take around. Big screen not essential as I can plug in to a larger screen. I am not a gamer so don't need huge capacity here around graphics, but would like something which can do a few functions at once with decent memory. Budget 750-850, I could go a little higher if the benefits are obvious.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
As others have said, get a branded laptop with decent memory and a solid state disk and you won't go far wrong. My wife's Dell Inspiron 5000 cost £800, has 16GB memory and 512GB SSD and does her very well for anything.
It's always f'ing frustrating to run out of memory (e.g. when an antivirus program spools up, or you have a fair few tabs open in a browser). PCs can be easy to upgradde, but laptops can be an absolute pain.
SO IMV a first priority is to get *more* memory than you think you need. Second would be a good SSD. Third a reasonable battery life. Fourth processor power.
Spool is an interesting verb when talking about solid state memory.
On the point of whether there will be a last-minute deal, I agree with David Herdson. There's no majority in the House (and even less so in the Conservative Party) for any particular deal. Ergo, no particular deal will be passed. This leaves us with No Deal.
The question is simply between planned No Deal and crash No Deal. The one looks painful. The other looks horrible. Arguably, adopting EEA would meet the letter of the referendum and be acceptable to the EU and minimise damage, but that would certainly necessitate explicit electoral buy-in, and I doubt the Government want another referendum, there's very limited time and it may be unachievable, and would probably lose in a referendum in any case as the downsides of No Deal are not visible to the public and wouldn't be well publicised in the run-up to the referendum in any case. The Remain side poisoned the well on warning when they went overboard in the run-up to the referendum.
On the customs border thing, maybe the minds of pb.com can help my confusion. The problem seems to be:
1 - If we leave the Single Market and Customs Union, we will need a customs border with the EU. This seems unavoidable - the former means we won't have similar regulations governing what things are and their treatment; the latter that we'll have different customs rates. Given WTO rules, abandoning all customs checks by stating we won't put any tariffs on them means that: a - We won't have any right to put tariffs on anyone else's stuff, either, thanks to MFN rules b - If the EU were to follow suit, they also will give up the right to put tariffs on anything else from anyone else. This is therefore not going to happen.
2 - This necessitates a border, with checks. Technology can help, but won't plausibly remove the need in any short-term timescale.
3 - The Good Friday Agreement in Ireland means there must not be such a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
All of this taken together seems to imply that either: 1 - We break the Good Friday Agreement 2 - We accept that NI has a different status to the rest of the UK and put the border between NI and the mainland 3 - We stay in the SM and CU after all.
It doesn't seem down to intransigence by anyone, but simply that we simultaneously need a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and yet cannot have one.
What am I missing?
You are missing that Brexiteers do not understand why Customs Unions are better than Free Trade Agreements. So far as I can tell, most Leavers regard FTAs as magic talismans and ipso facto a good thing that can be had without prolonged negotiation or loss of sovereignty and control, which is what all this was supposed to be about.
It's clear that Theresa squandered far too much precious time appointing Boris and DD. They've vanished without a trace, and we're back to square one: 'Come on boys! Let's knuckle down and think of something here.' The exams should now be over with everyone looking forward to the summer vac. Instead the initial reading list has barely been sent out.
We should start negotiations again from a WTO position and see what the EU is prepared to concede for us to move away from WTO.
On the customs border thing, maybe the minds of pb.com can help my confusion. The problem seems to be:
1 - If we leave the Single Market and Customs Union, we will need a customs border with the EU. This seems unavoidable - the former means we won't have similar regulations governing what things are and their treatment; the latter that we'll have different customs rates. Given WTO rules, abandoning all customs checks by stating we won't put any tariffs on them means that: a - We won't have any right to put tariffs on anyone else's stuff, either, thanks to MFN rules b - If the EU were to follow suit, they also will give up the right to put tariffs on anything else from anyone else. This is therefore not going to happen.
2 - This necessitates a border, with checks. Technology can help, but won't plausibly remove the need in any short-term timescale.
3 - The Good Friday Agreement in Ireland means there must not be such a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
All of this taken together seems to imply that either: 1 - We break the Good Friday Agreement 2 - We accept that NI has a different status to the rest of the UK and put the border between NI and the mainland 3 - We stay in the SM and CU after all.
It doesn't seem down to intransigence by anyone, but simply that we simultaneously need a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and yet cannot have one.
What am I missing?
There would be a fudge on Ireland. We don’t need to put a border in place (it’s our only land border and under WTO rules we just say ‘this (business declaration, SME exemption) is how we deal with all our land borders’.
And from the EU's side? They do, after all, have lost more in the way of land borders and it only needs for one side to need to put up a border.
Have the WTO turn a blind eye.
That seems... an optimistic suggestion. "We will explicitly break the regulations of the WTO and ask them to ignore it" doesn't seem a solid platform for an open-ended situation. Is there no way of getting an explicit exemption passed by the WTO? (If not, the hope that the WTO will ignore it forever seems rather a stretch)
Comments
Really every minister who is not directly involved in Brexit should be getting on with it. Other than Gove very few are. This will make this government vulnerable when it has to face the electorate again, whoever is leading them. They have simply not performed.
But, as I asked the other day, is it wise to do so?
The consequences may be unexpectedly horrible for more than just the UK. Think Lehmans.
Labour seem to be banking on Brexit being a bit 'meh' If it's a triumph or disaster (both looking more likely right now) then hard to see how they aren't sidelined or condemned. Ironically it was the 2017 general election when it was easiest for Labour to move the conversation on - if any of the crisis talk actually happens they'll find it much harder to ignore when fears are realised in practice.
Our security correspondent added that the UK still had a "long-standing opposition" to the controversial US military prison Guantanamo Bay and still wants it closed. He said if the pair - who are accused of being the last two members of an IS foursome dubbed "The Beatles" - are sent to Guantanamo Bay, the UK will not share intelligence for the trial. But if they go to a civil trial, the UK will.
I'm not sure how a legal process of "extradition" would work - as I understand it, they are being held by Syrian rebels inside Syria, not in Iraq. Do the Syrian rebels have a parallel court system that can authorise extradition? Obviously the Americans won't go through Assad's courts...
The commission is negotiating withing the parameters given to it *by* the council. We're not going to go over the commission's head, because the commission is implementing the council's line. French, German, Irish government members all publicly reiterated their commitment to the commission's strategy only last week.
Also bear in mind that any deal would need the approval of the European parliament, and that's currently in even more of a mood to give the UK a kicking than the commission is.
In the very, very unlikely event the UK is able to drive a wedge between the council and commission, it's nailed on the European parliament will side with the commission.
Perhaps the best advice is not to do anything daft like investing a bunch of money into bitcoin.
Sounds like a flawless victory to me.
I was surprised by the popularity of the Labour manifesto, because I thought what would kill Corbyn's chances were not his support for terrorism or his links to Holocaust deniers (after all, that didn't hurt Trump) but the unpopularity of his policies. What he essentially imposed was vast extra taxation to pay for vast extra public spending on pointless goodies at a time when most people seemed to accept as they didn't want the former they wouldn't get the latter.
What I didn't bargain for was the vast unfunded splurge he would go in for - promising free school meals for every child, free university tuition, the writing off or diminution (his famous 'deal with it') of student debt, the nationalisation of the utilities, spending on infrastructure, 10,000 extra police officers - all without raising taxes, or at least, claiming he would only be raising them on 1% of people and extra borrowing (because obviously spending more money on debt interest to wealthy oil producers is more sensible than sorting out our schools and hospitals).
As it happens he was later forced to admit he was lying about some of this - well, he was lying about all of it, because none of his sums were based on anything other than fantasies and although he probably isn't intelligent enough to realise that, Macdonnell certainly is. So it was deliberate falsification. But because of this, he's in a difficult situation if he puts forward the same offering again. He'll just be accused of dishonesty and given he also has an unfortunate track record of lying about anything awkward, his denials will not be very credible. (It was this mess on costing, incidentally, that got Abbott into that notorious tangle. Even if she had read out the right figures though, Labour had allocated less than 50% of the money required - £300 million instead of £700 million - which could serve as a metaphor for their whole manifesto.)
Does his mean he can't win on such a manifesto? No. Last year proved it's possible. People are sick of austerity, sick of seeing those who should be in prison (bankers) flourishing while we suffer, sick of politicians and sick of being sensible. They will be tempted by Corbyn's siren calls. But he would be much better off coming up with a realistic manifesto. Otherwise, even if he wins he'll spend all of his six weeks in office battling economic crises and broken promises that could easily finish Labour for good.
So yes - for everyone's sake it does need huge adjustment, to reflect reality. The difficulty for Corbyn is he might well end up with a very New Labour offering as a result - the very thing he has officially disowned.
But the EU have paid scant regard to the terms of Article 50 and are making a big strategic mistake if they think that humiliating Britain and crowing about it is the way to go.
The simple facts are these:
- Con+DUP have a majority.
- There are very few Con Remain rebels and they're cancelled out by Lab Leave ones.
- The ERG block in parliament is sufficient to trigger a VoNC in May but not strong enough to carry it by itself.
- Tory membership opinion is strongly Leave.
- Tory vote support is strongly Leave.
- A Tory leadership election can only end with a firm supporter of a Hardish Brexit winning. This may be a Leaver or a recanting Remainer, though probably the former.
- May has little natural support and remains in office more for lack of widely-acceptable alternatives than for her intrinsic merits.
- DUP will not accept intra-UK borders
- Chequers is the best (only) plan on offer but is unpopular with Con members, voters and (I think) MPs. There is no scope for further concessions. This unpopularity runs beyond the ERG fringe, though is causing the UKIP fringe to defect back.
Put that lot together and there is really very little room for manouevre. It's not so much that May isn't bluffing on No Deal; it's that she really can't deliver much other than what she's put forward.
The Whigs were Scottish horse-rustlers as well, driving reluctant horses away from their rightful owners...
A really interesting thread Nick. Whilst I certainly do not believe that Brexit will be sorted as an issue by next March, I do accept that most of the public are and will be even more keen by the next GE to talk about other issues. The only exception being if we really are in an unorganised no deal BREXIT with food shortages etc as has been flagged by some.
Even in the 2017 GE we noted that enough people were enthused by Corbyn's domestic agenda (he didn't mention Brexit much understandably) and I feel many in the population will be of the view their political leaders should be talking more about health, education etc.
Here I think DavidL is correct that the government need to try to place more emphasis on their non-Brexit activities. I think there are signs of activity in a range of areas but beyond the civil service being heavily occupied on Brexit, the media are so Brexit focused few other issues have profile. Here all political parties are in a bind.
If so I would suggest it is a very bold assumption given the characters involved.
I would further add that Juncker might well see this as an opportunity to precipitate a further Euro Crisis to drive deeper integration through emergency counter measures. It's the sort of plan that would need somebody insane, megalomaniacal, ruthlessly callous, extremely stupid or impressively drunk to come up with - but that hardly lets Juncker out.
They'll happily damage Britain a lot and remaining members a fair amount if it means the "project" stays on track.
I am not an Apple person, but had looked at a Surface Pro? Any comments and advice welcome. I know when I asked about mobile phones, PB.com were enthusiastic in advice!
As ever, it seems leavers want someone else to do the work they're too lazy and incompetent to do.
I share your concern about the EP, though ultimately, I think if the Council reach an agreement, which would inevitably bring the Commission with it, the EP will tag along, albeit grudgingly.
So yes, on the one hand Brexit can be seen as a major break of policy and in that sense revolutionary. But alternatively, you can see a (hopefully orderly, negotiated, friendly) decoupling from the EU at this stage as a way of forestalling a sharper shock later on.
For example because you see the EU as a potential source of instability - if you read the tea-leaves regarding the massive unemployment, particularly among youths, in some countries in the "south" of Europe, the electoral trend towards the far-right, and to some extent far-left, across large parts of the continent including in countries we would traditionally have regarded as bulwarks of stability, and uncertainty at the very highest levels over what the future of the European project really represents, creating a risk that the whole thing might fracture under its own tensions.
Or because you see the EU itself as a fundamentally stable concept but one which will need to achieve very deep integration (e.g. your view is that political centralisation may be needed to make the single currency work) and that the UK electorate is ultimately going to reject the that long-term direction. In this case a UK exit may be viewed as inevitable at some point, and if so then it would be easier to leave sooner rather than later, because it reduces the amount of entanglement. (Related is the argument that the UK might have found Brexit more manageable around the time of Maastricht or Lisbon, and that caution in doing so then has saved up problems until now.)
I do think many Leave voters were coming from a Change position - fed up of the higher-powers (not necessarily politicians, but the wider "establishment" too) not listening to their concerns and wanting a fresh roll of the dice. But Remain voters seeing that as nothing more than a status quo option were mistaken to the extent that the EU is evolving and that the UK's position within it would have changed considerably by the time, if ever, that UK citizens next got a vote on it.
Do get one with lots of memory. If you can add extra memory - double the amount the machine comes with. Excess memory improves performance far, far, far more than processors or disc.
That maybe putting it a bit strongly but the EU have to ensure that Britain is not seen to get most of the benefits of membership with few of the obligations. Any club would ensure the same.
But if the EU has really proposed that there should be a customs border within the UK then that is a complete no-no even to Remainers, surely?
I say “if” because it is still not clear to me if that is what the EU has proposed or if that is the UK’s interpretation.
This looks cool.
https://shop.itxchange.com/OA_HTML/products-Lenovo-ThinkPad-X1-Tablet20GHS2BP00-01-925819.jsp
Ah, I see where you're going wrong. Hardcore brexiteers are not interested in a 'sensible discussion'; this is partly why the Brexiteers in charge of this mess - and I point at David Davis here - have accomplished nothing in two years.
My contempt for the idiots who have put their hatred for the EU in front of good government and the good of the country grows every day.
I honestly do not understand Leavers. What use is Sovereignty in today's world where everyone and everything is interconnected?
The only truly sovereign people in the world these days are the Sentinelese Islanders because they kill any outsider who visits and they still live in their own stone age....
Rob Roy could hardly be called a Tory. He wasn't Irish. In fact, I don't think he would have even thanked you for the suggestion he was Irish.
He's a lazy, incompetent, selfish, self-aggrandising bastard who is helping bring this country to its knees.
Like so many of the leavers in the government.
After we left the ERM we went from strength to strength. That probably encouraged the Swedes and others to stay out of the Euro. If history repeats itself here then the notion that leaving the EU will be dissuaded will be dispelled and the Swedes and others could plausibly follow us out.
Duh!
You're predicting a sizable revolt if the outcome is indeed fudge, but that will run into a popular wave of sentiment to get the damn thing over with. I think that people who vote against the deal run a real risk of resentment if they succeed (loud opposition to this and that without the expectation of succeeding is something else) - if Parliament actually rejects whatever deal May comes up with and we're back to haggling and emergency arrangements in April, I doubt if it will be Theresa who is the target of popular fury.
Also recall that many leavers (e.g. Farage et al) want not just to lave the EU, but to destroy it.
I admit it is a minority view but I think May is playing a weak hand well. There are major traps for everyone in the current situation. Let's take Labour. If there is a reasonable compromise deal do they support, abstain or oppose? We can negotiate better! (Yeh, right) won't cut it. Bringing about a crash out or being seen to be manouvering for party advangae would be a disaster. If there is no deal and Europe are seen as being unreasonable then it will be a "khaki election", May retiring with honour as the decent person who tried.
My feeling is that a "moderate" Labour leadership would probably already have forced an election because it would be popular and would win a majority. There is a really strong stop Corbyn block of voters. It is very volatile but a Labour majority win is far from being probable.
Therefore, they are desperately trying to drive further integration incrementally, often from the best of motives, without said ordinary people finding out or demanding a say. Remember, almost all referendums on matters EU in the last 20 years have been won by the sceptics, including ours.
But it doesn't make for stability. It's one of the things driving populists on left and right, and it leaves the EU with no moral authority whatsoever, not helped by blatant corruption and incompetence at its highest levels.
They have started with the premise 'this is what we need, how do we achieve it?' And forgotten to ask 'this is what the people of Europe want, how can we best deliver it?' As a result, they have navigated us all into dangerous waters.
It does seem that May is trying to make a go of selling her Chequers deal, but knows in all likelihood the EU will scupper it by wanting more. So the question then is: will she get behind a no deal WTO Brexit - or resign and let someone else lead that?
Go to Lenovo or Dell or HP sites and browse amongst the business/work machines, not home or gaming ones. Get an idea of what features are available and then think about what matters to you.
Tech specs: memory is good; SSDs are good; CPUs probably don't matter as much as you'd think since you do not want to do anything in particular. See above re size, weight, cameras and fingerprint scanners. Once you've got it, consider encryption in case it gets nicked, and regular backups for the same reason.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/01/everything-is-negotiable-how-the-election-result-may-have-improved-britains-negotiating-position-in-the-brexit-talks/
In practice Theresa May will have more room to manoeuvre if there's a clear deal on the table. The non-headbangers will move further to avoid disorder. If there's no clear deal on the table, they won't see why they should. So the EU needs to start thinking about what its best and final offer is.
In terms of technology, fingerprint and encryption - I am a little wary of the former, where is the fingerprint stored? A cloud?
With the Microsoft Surface Pro - is it all style with little whack for the money in terms of features?
The question is simply between planned No Deal and crash No Deal. The one looks painful. The other looks horrible. Arguably, adopting EEA would meet the letter of the referendum and be acceptable to the EU and minimise damage, but that would certainly necessitate explicit electoral buy-in, and I doubt the Government want another referendum, there's very limited time and it may be unachievable, and would probably lose in a referendum in any case as the downsides of No Deal are not visible to the public and wouldn't be well publicised in the run-up to the referendum in any case. The Remain side poisoned the well on warning when they went overboard in the run-up to the referendum.
On the customs border thing, maybe the minds of pb.com can help my confusion. The problem seems to be:
1 - If we leave the Single Market and Customs Union, we will need a customs border with the EU. This seems unavoidable - the former means we won't have similar regulations governing what things are and their treatment; the latter that we'll have different customs rates. Given WTO rules, abandoning all customs checks by stating we won't put any tariffs on them means that:
a - We won't have any right to put tariffs on anyone else's stuff, either, thanks to MFN rules
b - If the EU were to follow suit, they also will give up the right to put tariffs on anything else from anyone else. This is therefore not going to happen.
2 - This necessitates a border, with checks. Technology can help, but won't plausibly remove the need in any short-term timescale.
3 - The Good Friday Agreement in Ireland means there must not be such a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
All of this taken together seems to imply that either:
1 - We break the Good Friday Agreement
2 - We accept that NI has a different status to the rest of the UK and put the border between NI and the mainland
3 - We stay in the SM and CU after all.
It doesn't seem down to intransigence by anyone, but simply that we simultaneously need a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland and yet cannot have one.
What am I missing?
Here's what's happening. There are two models the British might like, Norway and Canada. But the British say they don't want a border in NI, and the EU agree since this is what Ireland wants, and that isn't compatible with Canada, so NI has to be Norway. Now the British need to decide whether they want the whole UK to be Norway, or just for NI to be Norway, with an internal border between that and Canada.
That's basically it. The EU will deal, but they need something logically and practically possible, and that keeps control of their borders, because they have right-wingers worried about that too. No doubt there will be some hardball on the detail, but the reason this thing is stalled is because the British can't agree on an actual practical thing they want the EU to give them.
Yes, one of those limitations is the trend towards globalisation, internationalisation, standardisation, harmonisation... but there's more than one model to deal with interconnectedness. Brexiteers tend to prefer international institutions rather than supranational ones. And if you are going to rely on supranational institutions, particularly ones expected to evolve in their scope and power, it would be wise for your goals and your vision of those future arrangements to fundamentally match those of your co-members.
Wilson considered the UK becoming the 51st state after the de Gaulle veto. Moving UK regulation in line with the US would clearly have opened up vast opportunities to the economy. In terms of a "sovereignty multiplier", British voters would have had a critical impact on US elections and this would likely have had more influence on world affairs than their ability to elect a UK prime minister. Domestically, British politicians would still have had considerable power over education, healthcare, transport, the environment and many other important day-to-day issues. So why would anyone oppose it? They don't "feel" American? A feeling their values are not in-line with those largely held in America, or codified in the constitution? They don't want things decided in Washington DC rather than closer to home? The way that Britain would be an eternal odd-one-out in the American context and likely to be shaded out by the other states and consigned to second-rate treatment? The loss of the UK as an independent country?
If you can see why some people may not want to join the USA, or some putative World State Organisation, it's not a great leap to understand the motivation of many leavers either.
SO IMV a first priority is to get *more* memory than you think you need. Second would be a good SSD. Third a reasonable battery life. Fourth processor power.
Or all of the above ....
They do, after all, have lost more in the way of land borders and it only needs for one side to need to put up a border.
Some Leavers may have felt that the EU’s path to one state would effectively have led to the abolition of the nation state. You can see that in the concept of EU citizenship & no discrimination between EU citizens which, as far as Britain was concerned, meant that it had to give the same welfare benefits to someone who has just arrived as to a British citizen living here for decades. In short a British citizen had no special claim on his/her government/state than anyone else. You might think that fine but it does rather lead to a very different idea of the nation state.
Or take law. In most of the EU there is civil law, no trial by jury, no concept of reasonable doubt or burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay evidence. If you are going to have ever closer union & one effective state which law will be used in an EU-wide criminal law system? Would you be happy with the abolition of trial by jury or the burden of proof?
We have already seen what happens with the EAW where bureaucratic convenience has been allowed to trump the claims of justice (a requesting state does not even have to prove a prima facie case, which is utterly offensive when you are dealing with the liberty of individuals).
The EU’s path to ever closer union has sought to ignore the fact that this inevitably means the loss of the traditional nation state or its change to something very different. It has not honestly addressed what this means : for law, political representation, control over politicians & many other factors. It has sought to justify it on the basis of economic benefits. But those economic benefits are also achievable by nation states co-operating without the necessity for political union. Remainers have, in part, failed because they have not properly addressed these very real concerns about where the EU is heading & what this means for the very idea of the nation-state as Britain understands it. (I accept that other nations may have a very different idea of nationhood, its costs & benefits.) The EU was not the status quo because - & this was key for some Leavers I know - it was where it was going to they did not like not where it was. If they thought it was going to remain where it was they could have lived with that.
Spool is an interesting verb when talking about solid state memory.
(If not, the hope that the WTO will ignore it forever seems rather a stretch)