"Hundreds storm border fence into Spain's north Africa enclave of Ceuta
Incident follows warnings over country’s ability to cope with rising migration numbers"
To the best of my knowledge, these types of incursions at Ceuta and Melilla have been going on for a very long time. Of more interest will be seeing what happens when no more takers can be found for all the charity water taxis that keep going to collect migrants from 200 yards off the coast of Libya.
If, or more likely when, we get to this point then is there any legal mechanism available to attempt to force the Maltese or the Italians to accept them - and would anyone dare to use it?
The migrant arrivals in Andalucia have rapidly become a big concern as the numbers are spiking after Sanchez effectively opened the doors with the boat from Italy. He's also offering free healthcare etc all of which may be terribly right on but it is sending entirely the wrong message to the traffikers.However, all will be well because no doubt France, Germany and the rest of the EU 27 will rapidly be offering to share the burden as they did with Ital...oh..wait a minute... Ahh..Spain is f*****.
I’m guessing Spain doesn’t have the same demographic problem as Germany? So, why?
It's a lot poorer, has far greater unemployment and tons of unusable space. Migrants cost money and Spain has few jobs to offer them. So your guessing doesn't make a lot of sense.
No, it was badly phrased but that is exactly what I mean. It won’t work in the interests of Spain in the long term if there isn’t employment for immigrants AND a declining population...
The new opposition PP leader in Spain seems a young man of extreme right-wing views and may well be the next Spanish Prime Minister unless he is too strong for even Citizens.
The "problems" aren't going to go away. Even if Spain, France, Italy, Malta and Greece all elect virulently anti-migrant Governments, the flow of humanity from sub-Saharan Africa isn't going to stop.
Resolving the chaos of Libya might be a good step as it is the core of much of the migration.
Anecdotally, I am seeing more sub-Saharan Africans coming into East Ham - more shops are offering services for Nigerians, Ghanaians and Kenyans so there's a clear flow of people from these areas into the UK.
PP is unlikely to be in government in Spain for a long time now. Maduro himself may not be around for too long. He is embroiled in a scandal about how he got his masters degree. It does not seem to have involved him doing any work.
Secondly it was political self-interest - i.e. to add to the electorate millions of extra voters who would, presumably, be relied on to lean disproportionately to Labour in gratitude.
That only works as a conspiracy theory if you’re talking about non-EU migrants from the Commonwealth. EU citizens had virtually no incentive to become British citizens and become eligible to vote in general election.
The ability to vote is an incentive to become a citizen.
Clearly not a strong one, particularly given the costs involved, or more long-term resident EU citizens would have pursued it.
The new opposition PP leader in Spain seems a young man of extreme right-wing views and may well be the next Spanish Prime Minister unless he is too strong for even Citizens.
The "problems" aren't going to go away. Even if Spain, France, Italy, Malta and Greece all elect virulently anti-migrant Governments, the flow of humanity from sub-Saharan Africa isn't going to stop.
Resolving the chaos of Libya might be a good step as it is the core of much of the migration.
Anecdotally, I am seeing more sub-Saharan Africans coming into East Ham - more shops are offering services for Nigerians, Ghanaians and Kenyans so there's a clear flow of people from these areas into the UK.
PP is unlikely to be in government in Spain for a long time now. Maduro himself may not be around for too long. He is embroiled in a scandal about how he got his masters degree. It does not seem to have involved him doing any work.
Oxford PPE and a £50 MA, I expect.
Do they charge PPE grads more than other courses? That would be quite funny.
Mr. Evershed, indeed. Not only that, the expanding nature of the EU membership means that vetoes are continually reduced and national sovereignty diminished as decisions are taken collectively. That couples with the drive to integrate ever further to give more powers to the unaccountable to impose a one size fits all approach (often pretending black is white and fire is cold, [cf eurozone membership criteria]) on countries that are wildly diverse in scale, demographics, economy, and culture.
The UK would've loved the economic aspects without the politics. That wasn't on offer, and isn't now.
Isn't the issue that most of the "political union" elements are intertwined with the economic structures...
ie no single market without free movement of people.
Quite. The economic element is only there as a necessary part of facilitating the wider political objective. Otherwise everyone would probably be part of an EFTA-like arrangement instead, the EU would never have been created, and life would be a lot less complicated and fraught as a result.
An interesting article, but isn't this merely the last throw of the dice for Remainers?
We've had most stages in the grief cycle, but this is a new one. It's all too complicated, we're stuck in the EU. Akin to an abusive Victorian marriage where, because of all the labyrinthic rules, we can't unravel.
"I am stepped in blood so far that should I wade no more,. returning were as tedious as go o'er."
I remember discussing this with other posters on here, arguing that there'd always be a future opportunity to get out before federalisation... With each passing day I'm more convinced this is the last chance.
One of the most plugged in people I know (the uncle of my French connection) is a die hard leaver who voted Remain
His view was that we had been comprehensively screwed over by age station of politicians - but that we were far enough in that it was impossible to unravel (he would have voted against Lisbon but viewed that as the last chance)
Southam throughout this thread has also been comparing Labour’s antisemitism scandal with this, with few Conservatives responding to him on this matter, which I find a bit odd.
I'm not a Conservative, but:
1) This looks bad. What on Earth do Goe, Johnson, et al think they're going to gain from this?
2) To be fair, they're just talking. The anti-Semitism within Labour is now deep within its very soul.
4) 5) The moment that JRM is a leading member of the Conservative Party is the moment I start actively campaigning against them.
In Gove's case, it seems to amount to a couple of conversations about US politics.
Yes, it appears that way. I'd be massively surprised if Gove held any fascistic views.
But as I said: it looks bad. Politics is as much about spin and image as it is about truth and reality, and Bannon has the image of being an influential and rather controversial right-winger - in the US, of all places.
What's more, he's a fading star. I don't quite understand what they think they're going to gain from talking to him, and there's much to lose. If anything Bannon gains more, by inflating his sense of self-importance.
It'll have damaged them more than anything they might have gained from it.
He got Trump elected, is wealthy and connected and knows the inside workings of the White House. Whilst he isean he's not still dangerous and potentially useful to an aspiring right winger.
I thought the voters Putin using the American political system elected Trump.
Fixed that for you
Really - just how exactly were millions of Americans forced by Putin to vote for Trump. I wouldn't mind trying whatever it is you're smoking.
Manipulation through propaganda and misinformation. Certainly enough to make a difference in PA, MI and WI, all of which Trump won by tiny margins. I’m guessing you’re with Trump in his denial of Russian collusion against all the evidence?
Everybody's guessing motives today. You're wrong - I'd never vote for him but pretending he won through Russian influence is to excuse the crap Hilary campaign and avoid understanding why so many Americans are pissed enough to vote for him.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
An interesting article, but isn't this merely the last throw of the dice for Remainers?
We've had most stages in the grief cycle, but this is a new one. It's all too complicated, we're stuck in the EU. Akin to an abusive Victorian marriage where, because of all the labyrinthic rules, we can't unravel.
"I am stepped in blood so far that should I wade no more,. returning were as tedious as go o'er."
I remember discussing this with other posters on here, arguing that there'd always be a future opportunity to get out before federalisation... With each passing day I'm more convinced this is the last chance.
One of the most plugged in people I know (the uncle of my French connection) is a die hard leaver who voted Remain
His view was that we had been comprehensively screwed over by age station of politicians - but that we were far enough in that it was impossible to unravel (he would have voted against Lisbon but viewed that as the last chance)
He had a lot more wisdom than soft Eurosceptics who let nationalistic hubris tempt them into overreaching and who have led us instead towards humiliation.
The new opposition PP leader in Spain seems a young man of extreme right-wing views and may well be the next Spanish Prime Minister unless he is too strong for even Citizens.
The "problems" aren't going to go away. Even if Spain, France, Italy, Malta and Greece all elect virulently anti-migrant Governments, the flow of humanity from sub-Saharan Africa isn't going to stop.
Resolving the chaos of Libya might be a good step as it is the core of much of the migration.
Anecdotally, I am seeing more sub-Saharan Africans coming into East Ham - more shops are offering services for Nigerians, Ghanaians and Kenyans so there's a clear flow of people from these areas into the UK.
PP is unlikely to be in government in Spain for a long time now. Maduro himself may not be around for too long. He is embroiled in a scandal about how he got his masters degree. It does not seem to have involved him doing any work.
A bit like my MA Cantab! Agrred - PP members chose the wrong candidate. Party members all over Europe have a lot to answer for about the leaders they choose. All very sad.
That is why I think there will be a roll of the dice in the New Year, and May will go. She might be forced out anyway for health reasons (she looks really ill) but if not I think Hammond and Hunt will have a quiet word.
Apparently insulin is one the drugs we have to import. No UK manufacture.
An interesting article, but isn't this merely the last throw of the dice for Remainers?
We've had most stages in the grief cycle, but this is a new one. It's all too complicated, we're stuck in the EU. Akin to an abusive Victorian marriage where, because of all the labyrinthic rules, we can't unravel.
"I am stepped in blood so far that should I wade no more,. returning were as tedious as go o'er."
I remember discussing this with other posters on here, arguing that there'd always be a future opportunity to get out before federalisation... With each passing day I'm more convinced this is the last chance.
One of the most plugged in people I know (the uncle of my French connection) is a die hard leaver who voted Remain
His view was that we had been comprehensively screwed over by age station of politicians - but that we were far enough in that it was impossible to unravel (he would have voted against Lisbon but viewed that as the last chance)
He had a lot more wisdom than soft Eurosceptics who let nationalistic hubris tempt them into overreaching and who have led us instead towards humiliation.
"Hundreds storm border fence into Spain's north Africa enclave of Ceuta
Incident follows warnings over country’s ability to cope with rising migration numbers"
To the best of my knowledge, these types of incursions at Ceuta and Melilla have been going on for a very long time. Of more interest will be seeing what happens when no more takers can be found for all the charity water taxis that keep going to collect migrants from 200 yards off the coast of Libya.
If, or more likely when, we get to this point then is there any legal mechanism available to attempt to force the Maltese or the Italians to accept them - and would anyone dare to use it?
The migrant arrivals in Andalucia have rapidly become a big concern as the numbers are spiking after Sanchez effectively opened the doors with the boat from Italy. He's also offering free healthcare etc all of which may be terribly right on but it is sending entirely the wrong message to the traffikers.However, all will be well because no doubt France, Germany and the rest of the EU 27 will rapidly be offering to share the burden as they did with Ital...oh..wait a minute... Ahh..Spain is f*****.
I’m guessing Spain doesn’t have the same demographic problem as Germany? So, why?
It's a lot poorer, has far greater unemployment and tons of unusable space. Migrants cost money and Spain has few jobs to offer them. So your guessing doesn't make a lot of sense.
No, it was badly phrased but that is exactly what I mean. It won’t work in the interests of Spain in the long term if there isn’t employment for immigrants AND a declining population...
Ah my apologies. Of course spain needs a new load of economic migrants like the proverbial hole in the head. PSOE will pay dearly if the current situation escalates.
An interesting article, but isn't this merely the last throw of the dice for Remainers?
We've had most stages in the grief cycle, but this is a new one. It's all too complicated, we're stuck in the EU. Akin to an abusive Victorian marriage where, because of all the labyrinthic rules, we can't unravel.
"I am stepped in blood so far that should I wade no more,. returning were as tedious as go o'er."
I remember discussing this with other posters on here, arguing that there'd always be a future opportunity to get out before federalisation... With each passing day I'm more convinced this is the last chance.
One of the most plugged in people I know (the uncle of my French connection) is a die hard leaver who voted Remain
His view was that we had been comprehensively screwed over by age station of politicians - but that we were far enough in that it was impossible to unravel (he would have voted against Lisbon but viewed that as the last chance)
He had a lot more wisdom than soft Eurosceptics who let nationalistic hubris tempt them into overreaching and who have led us instead towards humiliation.
You're the one talking about humiliation.
You're always telling me how out of touch with the Tory party I am. Have you not seen the reaction to Chequers?
An interesting article, but isn't this merely the last throw of the dice for Remainers?
We've had most stages in the grief cycle, but this is a new one. It's all too complicated, we're stuck in the EU. Akin to an abusive Victorian marriage where, because of all the labyrinthic rules, we can't unravel.
"I am stepped in blood so far that should I wade no more,. returning were as tedious as go o'er."
I remember discussing this with other posters on here, arguing that there'd always be a future opportunity to get out before federalisation... With each passing day I'm more convinced this is the last chance.
One of the most plugged in people I know (the uncle of my French connection) is a die hard leaver who voted Remain
His view was that we had been comprehensively screwed over by age station of politicians - but that we were far enough in that it was impossible to unravel (he would have voted against Lisbon but viewed that as the last chance)
He had a lot more wisdom than soft Eurosceptics who let nationalistic hubris tempt them into overreaching and who have led us instead towards humiliation.
You're the one talking about humiliation.
You're always telling me how out of touch with the Tory party I am. Have you not seen the reaction to Chequers?
It has emboldened the No Deal brigade.
I only hear dyed in the wool remainers talking about humiliation.
Manipulation through propaganda and misinformation. Certainly enough to make a difference in PA, MI and WI, all of which Trump won by tiny margins. I’m guessing you’re with Trump in his denial of Russian collusion against all the evidence?
Everybody's guessing motives today. You're wrong - I'd never vote for him but pretending he won through Russian influence is to excuse the crap Hilary campaign and avoid understanding why so many Americans are pissed enough to vote for him.
Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, we must remember. She lost for the same reason she lost against Obama: piling up votes in the wrong places because no-one on her team reads pb and understands the American electoral college.
There clearly was Russian interference, though the Donald denies there was actual collusion. It is idle to deny it. More worryingly for next time, there have been reported efforts to hack online voting machines.
"Hundreds storm border fence into Spain's north Africa enclave of Ceuta
Incident follows warnings over country’s ability to cope with rising migration numbers"
To the best of my knowledge, these types of incursions at Ceuta and Melilla have been going on for a very long time. Of more interest will be seeing what happens when no more takers can be found for all the charity water taxis that keep going to collect migrants from 200 yards off the coast of Libya.
If, or more likely when, we get to this point then is there any legal mechanism available to attempt to force the Maltese or the Italians to accept them - and would anyone dare to use it?
The migrant arrivals in Andalucia have rapidly become a big concern as the numbers are spiking after Sanchez effectively opened the doors with the boat from Italy. He's also offering free healthcare etc all of which may be terribly right on but it is sending entirely the wrong message to the traffikers.However, all will be well because no doubt France, Germany and the rest of the EU 27 will rapidly be offering to share the burden as they did with Ital...oh..wait a minute... Ahh..Spain is f*****.
I’m guessing Spain doesn’t have the same demographic problem as Germany? So, why?
It's a lot poorer, has far greater unemployment and tons of unusable space. Migrants cost money and Spain has few jobs to offer them. So your guessing doesn't make a lot of sense.
No, it was badly phrased but that is exactly what I mean. It won’t work in the interests of Spain in the long term if there isn’t employment for immigrants AND a declining population...
Ah my apologies. Of course spain needs a new load of economic migrants like the proverbial hole in the head. PSOE will pay dearly if the current situation escalates.
No apologies necessary!
My badly phrased why was intended to question the PM. Why has he done it if it doesn't make sense?
To make nice with the EU?
As anotherrichard has pointed out, this is a foolish enterprise....
"Hundreds storm border fence into Spain's north Africa enclave of Ceuta
Incident follows warnings over country’s ability to cope with rising migration numbers"
To the best of my knowledge, these types of incursions at Ceuta and Melilla have been going on for a very long time. Of more interest will be seeing what happens when no more takers can be found for all the charity water taxis that keep going to collect migrants from 200 yards off the coast of Libya.
If, or more likely when, we get to this point then is there any legal mechanism available to attempt to force the Maltese or the Italians to accept them - and would anyone dare to use it?
The migrant arrivals in Andalucia have rapidly become a big concern as the numbers are spiking after Sanchez effectively opened the doors with the boat from Italy. He's also offering free healthcare etc all of which may be terribly right on but it is sending entirely the wrong message to the traffikers.However, all will be well because no doubt France, Germany and the rest of the EU 27 will rapidly be offering to share the burden as they did with Ital...oh..wait a minute... Ahh..Spain is f*****.
I’m guessing Spain doesn’t have the same demographic problem as Germany? So, why?
It's a lot poorer, has far greater unemployment and tons of unusable space. Migrants cost money and Spain has few jobs to offer them. So your guessing doesn't make a lot of sense.
No, it was badly phrased but that is exactly what I mean. It won’t work in the interests of Spain in the long term if there isn’t employment for immigrants AND a declining population...
Ah my apologies. Of course spain needs a new load of economic migrants like the proverbial hole in the head. PSOE will pay dearly if the current situation escalates.
No apologies necessary!
My badly phrased why was intended to question the PM. Why has he done it if it doesn't make sense?
To make nice with the EU?
As anotherrichard has pointed out, this is a foolish enterprise....
Migrants tend to vote socialist once they become citizens?
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
Manipulation through propaganda and misinformation. Certainly enough to make a difference in PA, MI and WI, all of which Trump won by tiny margins. I’m guessing you’re with Trump in his denial of Russian collusion against all the evidence?
Everybody's guessing motives today. You're wrong - I'd never vote for him but pretending he won through Russian influence is to excuse the crap Hilary campaign and avoid understanding why so many Americans are pissed enough to vote for him.
Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, we must remember. She lost for the same reason she lost against Obama: piling up votes in the wrong places because no-one on her team reads pb and understands the American electoral college.
There clearly was Russian interference, though the Donald denies there was actual collusion. It is idle to deny it. More worryingly for next time, there have been reported efforts to hack online voting machines.
There were also shenanigans around the right to vote, fewer polling stations, facebook ads saying you could vote by text (false) etc. 60,000 fewer voted in Milwaukee than in 2012. Trump won Wisconsin by 20,000 odd votes.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Not if the plan was to test Brexit to destruction. Saying we would leave everything, then triggering article and allowing it to fail would make perfect sense if that was the intention.
Mr. B, I'd planned to set up a hedge on Raikkonen for pole but there wasn't a market up (on LadEx).
And so the Year of Woe continues.
More seriously, a very entertaining qualifying session. Hamilton was something like 8 or 9 for the win pre-qualifying (4.33 pre-practice). Imagine he'll be 2.5 or so now.
Yes, the rather premature value call I made earlier in the week all of a sudden doesn’t look quite so foolish. Which is gratifying as I took my own advice. For once.
Rubik's cube is a good analogy, but I'd like to point out that it's relatively simple and follows well defined mathematics. One of my friends, a mathematician, his wife and their two teenage daughters could each solve a R-cube in a minute or two from an arbitrary starting configuration.
It has always been clear to me ( and others) that "Breaks-it" would be many power of ten more complicated, better compared to a hat box full of molecules say. Isn't it ironic that the very force so important to capitalism and the Tory party, individual egoism, is now responsible for the "Breaks-up" difficulties?
Corresponding to the bulk properties of a hat box full of molecules---temperature, pressure,etc---there are, for me, reasons to stay the course and try to improve the EU.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Not if the plan was to test Brexit to destruction. Saying we would leave everything, then triggering article and allowing it to fail would make perfect sense if that was the intention.
Yeh. That was the plan. And to destroy the Tory party in the meantime.
With theories like this, you almost make flat earthers sound rational...
There is this view that Article 50 having a time limit is somehow an evil plot to do down those who want to leave the EU.
On the contrary, without Article 50, no-one would ever successfully leave.
Imagine there was no time limit on negotiations. We would still be talking in 2022. Then there'd be a change of government. Then the negotiations would begin again. At some point, and for some reason, you'd end up with a pro-EU party in power, who would notionally be in favour of leaving, but who wouldn't progress talks at all. And then suddenly the referendum was more than a decade ago, and - hey - does it still have any democratic legitimacy?
The mistake we made was simple. We should have made all the preparations - which is a multi-year process - for No Deal before we triggered Article 50. We should have published our tariff schedule at that point. We should have a soft implementation of our Irish border technology. We should have had customs staff hired, and new building at Dover. We should have had a published - and acceptable - alternative to the dispute resolution measures on EU trade treaties.
In this way, we would credibly have been able to walk into negotiations from a position of relative strength. Instead, we're eight months from leaving the EU and have done none of these things.
So, the choice we have is increasingly stark: accept what we're offered, or crash out to something we're totally unprepared for. One will potentially split the Conservative Party, the other likely lead to a nasty recession - for which the government will be blamed.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
This flies in the face of the facts. The EU was prepared with a negotiating mandate that has stood up to every attempt to undermine it ever since we invoked Article 50.
Your comment about charity boats picking up migrants is unfair. The number crossing the Med has collapsed since 2015, with the number down about 95% from the peak. There are about 200 people coming a day compare to 4,000 at the same time three years ago.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
We say "refuse to negotiate", they say "choose SM or CETA".
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
We say "refuse to negotiate", they say "choose SM or CETA".
They didn't even get that far before triggering Article 50:
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
We say "refuse to negotiate", they say "choose SM or CETA".
They didn't even get that far before triggering Article 50:
It's not strictly true to say that the UK's trade with the US is entirely on WTO terms, in that there are a series of bilateral agreements (largely covering mutual recognition of standards) between the EU and the US, as well as a dispute resolution mechanism. Furthermore, there are certain parts of the US economy - such as defence - where UK firms are advantaged compared to generic other ones.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
The Brexit case has been found to be utterly delusional.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The EU is very, very aware that they have a trade surplus with the UK. Also one of their main aims is to protect it. The reason that Barnier keeps offering a customs union is because that is the mechanism they can protect their trade flows The EU would control the trade deals, so no UK cutting deals with other countries that could affect EU trade flows into the UK.
Of course it was. The EU referendum commitment was made entirely as a political ruse to attempt to deal with his Ukip problem.
Whether you believe that having the vote was a good idea in principle or not, the salient fact is that he didn't - but he called it anyway.
Perhaps he didn't expect to win outright, that there'd need to be another Coalition, and that Clegg would get him off the hook? If so, then things didn't run entirely according to plan...
Doesn't that mostly show that - in the immediate aftermath of the GFC - there were more important things for us to worry about.
It shows that the Conservative Party doesn't take its priorities from the public. The way they have handled it shows they are not competent. All in all they are not fit for purpose. They could do with a long spell in opposition to sort themselves out.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
The Brexit case has been found to be utterly delusional.
I came across the New Yorker quite by chance only a few months ago. I find it very interesting. I would have said only the LRB really compares to it on this side of the ditch, and that's a bit more restrictive in letting people access it.
The psychology it goes into on May is intriguing, but as of course Sam Knight didn't speak to her himself it's a bit second hand - a more detailed version of PB comments?
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
The Brexit case has been found to be utterly delusional.
Yes, the arrogance was astonishing. I think the the Leavers have actually come to realize it. That's why the project now is to persuade everyone that hardship and economic deterioration is somehow good for the national soul.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
This is the article I have been looking for where the EU would carry out any mitigation unilaterally and on a temporary basis. Mitigation for us requires us to negotiate. A deal, in other words.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
The Brexit case has been found to be utterly delusional.
Yes, the arrogance was astonishing. I think the the Leavers have actually come to realize it. That's why the project now is to persuade everyone that hardship and economic deterioration is somehow good for the national soul.
Yep. In history, political freedom to act would have allowed us to invade some third country or colonise a far flung part of the world. Now, paid for by sacrificing both economic prosperity and our credibility and influence on the world stage, its value will mostly be an illusion.
If it wasn't more complicated than that, there wouldn't be so much angst about it, would there?
It is more complicated but much of the 'angst' is being massively hyped for firly obviois reasons.
Isn't the issue that business has err developed it's processes based upon the SM/CU relationship within the EU. A simple point but probably the heart of the issue
If it wasn't more complicated than that, there wouldn't be so much angst about it, would there?
It is more complicated but much of the 'angst' is being massively hyped for firly obviois reasons.
Isn't the issue that business has err developed it's processes based upon the SM/CU relationship within the EU. A simple point but probably the heart of the issue
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
The Brexit case has been found to be utterly delusional.
I came across the New Yorker quite by chance only a few months ago. I find it very interesting. I would have said only the LRB really compares to it on this side of the ditch, and that's a bit more restrictive in letting people access it.
The psychology it goes into on May is intriguing, but as of course Sam Knight didn't speak to her himself it's a bit second hand - a more detailed version of PB comments?
I think the New Yorker is better written than the LRB. Much as I like the latter, it too often relies upon too much background knolwedge, or an arcane vocabulary.
The new opposition PP leader in Spain seems a young man of extreme right-wing views and may well be the next Spanish Prime Minister unless he is too strong for even Citizens.
The "problems" aren't going to go away. Even if Spain, France, Italy, Malta and Greece all elect virulently anti-migrant Governments, the flow of humanity from sub-Saharan Africa isn't going to stop.
Resolving the chaos of Libya might be a good step as it is the core of much of the migration.
Anecdotally, I am seeing more sub-Saharan Africans coming into East Ham - more shops are offering services for Nigerians, Ghanaians and Kenyans so there's a clear flow of people from these areas into the UK.
PP is unlikely to be in government in Spain for a long time now. Maduro himself may not be around for too long. He is embroiled in a scandal about how he got his masters degree. It does not seem to have involved him doing any work.
Oxford PPE and a £50 MA, I expect.
Do they charge PPE grads more than other courses? That would be quite funny.
New Yorker article is fair enough. It's all a bit negative though - clocks stopping etc.
We're talking about the future of the nations that make up the UK - there is a degree to which we can be confident that it'll not end in doom and gloom.
The outcome could be bad, it could be very bad, but it's not some sort of an apocalypse.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the Remain advocates are free to tell us what we're going to miss, but when they resort to the stupid scare-mongering that in part lost them the referendum in the first place I think there's a line to be drawn. The really disappointing thing is that they can't agree on one or two important issues to press their case on - instead it's 'lets have all our cake back please'.
Whatever the divisions and daftness associated with the Leave campaign, in my view those that wish us not to leave have fallen short even of those standards.
' Over time, young people have lost their connection with south Asia, and are no longer fluent in Urdu, Punjabi or Gujarati. But this has not always coincided with a strengthening of bonds to Britain.
The attitude towards Western culture is, in any case, ambivalent. Sex, alcohol and football both repel and attract. For some who cleave to their faith, the vacuum created by the loss of Indian or Pakistani roots, as Zaffer Khan observes, draws them into an alternative Arabic culture – a more austere version of Islam than was ever found in the fertile soil of south Asia. '
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
Dubbed “the parachute” by some officials in Brussels, the provisions would in effect stagger the most severe effects of Britain’s March 2019 departure by using special arrangements for transport, financial services and customs. .... Any unilateral EU provisions would be tailored to the bloc’s interests and would remain in force only until the EU develops the infrastructure to enforce rules for a no-deal Brexit that could last for years.
I think this has gone on long enough. We need to cancel Brexit until there's actually a plan for implementing it.
Yep. Triggering A50 without any pre-planning looks like a decision that will put May in the top handful of worst PMs of all time.
Triggering Article 50 at all (thereby putting a two-year clock on it) was the mistake.
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
The EU point blank refused to negotiate, or even have preliminary talks, or look at proposals, prior to triggering Article 50. As for suspending payments, it isn't as simple as flicking a switch or Cameron would have done it to bring them to their senses earlier.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
The EU understood from the beginning that the talk of German Car makers demanding a good deal was nonsense and that the UK was in a very weak position and are acting accordingly. Sadly the Brexiteers believed their own myths.
The New Yorker article I linked to down thread makes the point that brexiteers expected UK to be treated as an "exception" by the EU. The EU has not done that, nor is it likely it will.
twitter.com/DExEUgov/status/1022872865035702273
Is that DExEU presentation for real? It beggars belief that they could be so crass.
We're joining in an American military exercise on the Russian border? Is that supposed to be good news?
Oh dear lord!!
Russia exercises on the Estonian border regularly - maybe it is better if NATO just stops, all of Europe disarms and we let the Russians know we’re sorry for daring to have a border and stump up some Danegeld to compensate Russia for the distress.
Comments
Brexit means Brexit!
Also, "sensible Brexiteers"...
The UK would've loved the economic aspects without the politics. That wasn't on offer, and isn't now.
His view was that we had been comprehensively screwed over by age station of politicians - but that we were far enough in that it was impossible to unravel (he would have voted against Lisbon but viewed that as the last chance)
http://www.wockhardt.co.uk/product-catalogue.aspx?query=Insulin
(And before you say it, they’ve suspended bovine insulin but still make porcine insulin)
You're also a fan of federalism.
See the connection?
I only hear dyed in the wool remainers talking about humiliation.
There clearly was Russian interference, though the Donald denies there was actual collusion. It is idle to deny it. More worryingly for next time, there have been reported efforts to hack online voting machines.
My badly phrased why was intended to question the PM. Why has he done it if it doesn't make sense?
To make nice with the EU?
As anotherrichard has pointed out, this is a foolish enterprise....
I was blamelessly driving along when suddenly the sun disappeared and a load of water fell out of the sky.
Very disturbing. Does anyone know if this phenomenon has a name?
Surely it would've been much better for us to tell the EU that we wouldn't be triggering A50, that we insisted on negotiations happening without the two-year deadline, and that, if the EU didn't agree to negotiations without the "Article 50 route", we would stop paying Budget contributions until they came to the negotiating table. It almost certainly would've taken longer for us to leave that way, but I'm pretty sure we would've gotten a better deal out of it.
Expect far more of this next time.
This is clearly the work of witches. They must be found and burned forthwith.
Which is gratifying as I took my own advice. For once.
It has always been clear to me ( and others) that "Breaks-it" would be many power of ten more complicated, better compared to a hat box full of molecules say. Isn't it ironic that the very force so important to capitalism and the Tory party, individual egoism, is now responsible for the "Breaks-up" difficulties?
Corresponding to the bulk properties of a hat box full of molecules---temperature, pressure,etc---there are, for me, reasons to stay the course and try to improve the EU.
With theories like this, you almost make flat earthers sound rational...
On the contrary, without Article 50, no-one would ever successfully leave.
Imagine there was no time limit on negotiations. We would still be talking in 2022. Then there'd be a change of government. Then the negotiations would begin again. At some point, and for some reason, you'd end up with a pro-EU party in power, who would notionally be in favour of leaving, but who wouldn't progress talks at all. And then suddenly the referendum was more than a decade ago, and - hey - does it still have any democratic legitimacy?
The mistake we made was simple. We should have made all the preparations - which is a multi-year process - for No Deal before we triggered Article 50. We should have published our tariff schedule at that point. We should have a soft implementation of our Irish border technology. We should have had customs staff hired, and new building at Dover. We should have had a published - and acceptable - alternative to the dispute resolution measures on EU trade treaties.
In this way, we would credibly have been able to walk into negotiations from a position of relative strength. Instead, we're eight months from leaving the EU and have done none of these things.
So, the choice we have is increasingly stark: accept what we're offered, or crash out to something we're totally unprepared for. One will potentially split the Conservative Party, the other likely lead to a nasty recession - for which the government will be blamed.
The reason was of course the EU believed we wouldn't trigger it, precisely because it would leave us in this mess. Their total inability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion since may be due to their utter shock that May wasn't bluffing.
...I thought they were tough up north?
Your comment about charity boats picking up migrants is unfair. The number crossing the Med has collapsed since 2015, with the number down about 95% from the peak. There are about 200 people coming a day compare to 4,000 at the same time three years ago.
https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1022740432000831488
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
https://twitter.com/SirSocks/status/1023233414458167297
Both parties seek to gain control of the process, as it determines most of the shape of the outcome.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/30/theresa-mays-impossible-choice
The Brexit case has been found to be utterly delusional.
Whether you believe that having the vote was a good idea in principle or not, the salient fact is that he didn't - but he called it anyway.
Perhaps he didn't expect to win outright, that there'd need to be another Coalition, and that Clegg would get him off the hook? If so, then things didn't run entirely according to plan...
The psychology it goes into on May is intriguing, but as of course Sam Knight didn't speak to her himself it's a bit second hand - a more detailed version of PB comments?
I was a business process improvement consultant.
It’s a funny old world.
We're talking about the future of the nations that make up the UK - there is a degree to which we can be confident that it'll not end in doom and gloom.
The outcome could be bad, it could be very bad, but it's not some sort of an apocalypse.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the Remain advocates are free to tell us what we're going to miss, but when they resort to the stupid scare-mongering that in part lost them the referendum in the first place I think there's a line to be drawn. The really disappointing thing is that they can't agree on one or two important issues to press their case on - instead it's 'lets have all our cake back please'.
Whatever the divisions and daftness associated with the Leave campaign, in my view those that wish us not to leave have fallen short even of those standards.
This bit was interesting:
' Over time, young people have lost their connection with south Asia, and are no longer fluent in Urdu, Punjabi or Gujarati. But this has not always coincided with a strengthening of bonds to Britain.
The attitude towards Western culture is, in any case, ambivalent. Sex, alcohol and football both repel and attract. For some who cleave to their faith, the vacuum created by the loss of Indian or Pakistani roots, as Zaffer Khan observes, draws them into an alternative Arabic culture – a more austere version of Islam than was ever found in the fertile soil of south Asia. '