That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
The size of population is not particularly relevant; the issue is the size of the quotas and the nations they are traded into. If the UK picks up a disproportionately large quota of imported trade from - let's say, Canada, because it does - what happens once we have left? Canada's deal is with the EU, not Britain - so does the remainder of the EU have to absorb all the quota that the UK was taking? What is the repercussion of all these extra imports to the EU?
Many of the quotas are under used,NZ Lamb for example. Reallocating the TRQs and dividing them between UK and EU is already a contentious matter, and requires the consent of each 3rd country. It is not for us to just divy them up as we choose.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
The size of population is not particularly relevant; the issue is the size of the quotas and the nations they are traded into. If the UK picks up a disproportionately large quota of imported trade from - let's say, Canada, because it does - what happens once we have left? Canada's deal is with the EU, not Britain - so does the remainder of the EU have to absorb all the quota that the UK was taking? What is the repercussion of all these extra imports to the EU?
Many of the quotas are under used,NZ Lamb for example. Reallocating the TRQs and dividing them between UK and EU is already a contentious matter, and requires the consent of each 3rd country. It is not for us to just divy them up as we choose.
We are not diving them up on our own, we are working hand in glove with the EU because it is in their interest to do that,
Grievance doesn't fill your belly or make you feel good about yourself.
Apparently, blue passports and the knowledge that Brexit is entirely self inflicted will make it all worthwhile ... eventually ... errr....
In 50 years we will start to see improvements according to JRM, though I will see my Telegram from the Palace first.
You and me both ...
Of course, Her Majesty is likely to have shuffled off this mortal coil by then
That is why I specified Palace rather than Queen.
Though since Telegrams have gone into history, I think it is just a card now.
The Palace also used to do them for diamond weddings too, my Granny was quite chuffed to get one, though Grandpa Fox was less bothered. He did have rather radical ideas.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
The size of population is not particularly relevant; the issue is the size of the quotas and the nations they are traded into. If the UK picks up a disproportionately large quota of imported trade from - let's say, Canada, because it does - what happens once we have left? Canada's deal is with the EU, not Britain - so does the remainder of the EU have to absorb all the quota that the UK was taking? What is the repercussion of all these extra imports to the EU?
Many of the quotas are under used,NZ Lamb for example. Reallocating the TRQs and dividing them between UK and EU is already a contentious matter, and requires the consent of each 3rd country. It is not for us to just divy them up as we choose.
We are not diving them up on our own, we are working hand in glove with the EU because it is in their interest to do that,
We are at present.
There is quite a space between an amicable No Deal Brexit and a hostile one. In reality "No Deal" requires a minimal Deal.
Yes, no deal means we lose all EU trade agreements, but that does not mean we will not sign our own bilateral's and with the EU's blessing. to "grandfather" those agreements to be operative, 1 sec after brexit. The EU has a large interest in us taking our percentage of the quotas and keeping their trade partners happy.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
The size of population is not particularly relevant; the issue is the size of the quotas and the nations they are traded into. If the UK picks up a disproportionately large quota of imported trade from - let's say, Canada, because it does - what happens once we have left? Canada's deal is with the EU, not Britain - so does the remainder of the EU have to absorb all the quota that the UK was taking? What is the repercussion of all these extra imports to the EU?
Many of the quotas are under used,NZ Lamb for example. Reallocating the TRQs and dividing them between UK and EU is already a contentious matter, and requires the consent of each 3rd country. It is not for us to just divy them up as we choose.
We are not diving them up on our own, we are working hand in glove with the EU because it is in their interest to do that,
We are at present.
There is quite a space between an amicable No Deal Brexit and a hostile one. In reality "No Deal" requires a minimal Deal.
Look it is really simple, at the WTO the EU and the UK are working hand in glove together to get this sorted. I am amazed a leaver says we are working well together and a remainer says those nasty EU people refuse to work with us and want to shaft us. It beggars belief.
Yes, no deal means we lose all EU trade agreements, but that does not mean we will not sign our own bilateral's and with the EU's blessing. to "grandfather" those agreements to be operative, 1 sec after brexit. The EU has a large interest in us taking our percentage of the quotas and keeping their trade partners happy.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
So in this distopian scenario, the planes stop, the ferries stop, economic activity “ceases” all due to the away and support for the EU will go up?
I think not.
I don't think they are bothered about post Brexit British sympathies.
Well they really should be. We will still be off the north coast of France for a few hundred million years yet.
They have other interests. The Brexiteers will have managed a feat unmanaged in 2000 years, to isolate us with no allies on the continent, and with half the nation blaming the EU and half blaming the Tories.
Welcome to the dystopian future Britain. Like Belarus with more rain.
dont be daft, this country has regularly been isolated with no continental allies.
True, but it is not an altogether happy precedent. The first time we ended up losing our first Empire, and in the second we were reduced to a warrior satellite of the USA, undefeated but bankrupt.
Brexit won’t be that bad.
Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are all prospering outside the EU so it is typical Remoaner rubbish anyway.
Compare their situation to the 20% unemployment in Eurozone Greece, the 15% unemployment in Eurozone Spain and the 11% unemployment in Eurozone Italy
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
The size of population is not particularly relevant; the issue is the size of the quotas and the nations they are traded into. If the UK picks up a disproportionately large quota of imported trade from - let's say, Canada, because it does - what happens once we have left? Canada's deal is with the EU, not Britain - so does the remainder of the EU have to absorb all the quota that the UK was taking? What is the repercussion of all these extra imports to the EU?
Many of the quotas are under used,NZ Lamb for example. Reallocating the TRQs and dividing them between UK and EU is already a contentious matter, and requires the consent of each 3rd country. It is not for us to just divy them up as we choose.
We are not diving them up on our own, we are working hand in glove with the EU because it is in their interest to do that,
We are at present.
There is quite a space between an amicable No Deal Brexit and a hostile one. In reality "No Deal" requires a minimal Deal.
Look it is really simple, at the WTO the EU and the UK are working hand in glove together to get this sorted. I am amazed a leaver says we are working well together and a remainer says those nasty EU people refuse to work with us and want to shaft us. It beggars belief.
The direction of travel is away from no deal Boris style and JRM to BINO or if pushed too hard a peoples vote which would only add to chaos and may not resolve anything.
Better to bank a BINO and work from that over years and general elections to either a full break or re join and I am relaxed by either under that process
Yes, no deal means we lose all EU trade agreements, but that does not mean we will not sign our own bilateral's and with the EU's blessing. to "grandfather" those agreements to be operative, 1 sec after brexit. The EU has a large interest in us taking our percentage of the quotas and keeping their trade partners happy.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
It does challenge your point because grandfathering requires the cooperation of the EU (ie deal) where it has much less skin in the game than we do.
Yes, no deal means we lose all EU trade agreements, but that does not mean we will not sign our own bilateral's and with the EU's blessing. to "grandfather" those agreements to be operative, 1 sec after brexit. The EU has a large interest in us taking our percentage of the quotas and keeping their trade partners happy.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
It does challenge your point because grandfathering requires the cooperation of the EU (ie deal) where it has much less skin in the game than we do.
The EU's biggest export destination post Brexit will be the UK
This is what Hammond said about the possibility of closed airspace / grounded planes
Hammond added that he did not think "anyone seriously believes" this would occur
Quite
There are 2 major European countries (both with populations of over 40 m) between which there are not currently any flights. It is not inconceivable that the UK may be in a similar position post a no deal Brexit, should that be the consequence of an acrimonious collapse of talks with the EU.
Yes, no deal means we lose all EU trade agreements, but that does not mean we will not sign our own bilateral's and with the EU's blessing. to "grandfather" those agreements to be operative, 1 sec after brexit. The EU has a large interest in us taking our percentage of the quotas and keeping their trade partners happy.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
It does challenge your point because grandfathering requires the cooperation of the EU (ie deal) where it has much less skin in the game than we do.
I write the "EU and the UK are working together" You write it needs the cooperation of the EU,
Er? What do you not understand the term working together or the word cooperation?
Macron said he wanted a strong relationship with London but did not want a deal that undermined the EU, Chequers is designed in such a way not to undermine the EU
Yes, no deal means we lose all EU trade agreements, but that does not mean we will not sign our own bilateral's and with the EU's blessing. to "grandfather" those agreements to be operative, 1 sec after brexit. The EU has a large interest in us taking our percentage of the quotas and keeping their trade partners happy.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
It does challenge your point because grandfathering requires the cooperation of the EU (ie deal) where it has much less skin in the game than we do.
I write the "EU and the UK are working together" You write it needs the cooperation of the EU,
Er? What do you not understand the term working together or the word cooperation?
You said No Deal. There will be a deal, specifically the Withdrawal Agreement with £40+ billion payments and NI backstop. There will be a transition period but no.end state agreement. That will come later. If that's in place the EU will cooperate on grandfathering third country agreements. Unless and until it is in place, it won't.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturing. It's what the EU does. In the end the Federalist ideologues will be overruled by Merkel and Macron, and Jacob Rees Mogg will be outvoted in the Commons.
A fairly crappy botched deal will result, planes will fly, cars will be exported, the City will suffer (but nowhere near as badly as predicted). And then the real long term UK-EU haggling will begin, and continue forever, cf Switzerland.
We will have absented ourselves from most of EU lawmaking (but not all). Freedom of Movement will be significantly qualified, but not abolished. The UK will still pay the EU, but pay less, for access to the SM. We will at last be out of the CAP and the CFP. We will stay in Erasmus and Horizon (but pay for it)
It won't be ideal. There is no ideal. It will honour the referendum, in the main.
The big question will then arise: will any government try and take us back into the SM and CU? (I cannot ever envisage us wholly rejoining via a referendum). I doubt it. I think we will slowly drift further from Brussels over time. The ratchet will, crucially, have been reversed.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, no deal means we lose all EU trade agreements, but that does not mean we will not sign our own bilateral's and with the EU's blessing. to "grandfather" those agreements to be operative, 1 sec after brexit. The EU has a large interest in us taking our percentage of the quotas and keeping their trade partners happy.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
It does challenge your point because grandfathering requires the cooperation of the EU (ie deal) where it has much less skin in the game than we do.
I write the "EU and the UK are working together" You write it needs the cooperation of the EU,
Er? What do you not understand the term working together or the word cooperation?
You said No Deal. There will be a deal, specifically the Withdrawal Agreement with £40+ billion payments and NI backstop. There will be a transition period but no.end state agreement. That will come later. If that's in place the EU will cooperate on grandfathering third country agreements. Unless and until it is in place, it won't.
The UK can have no deal with the EU, but can have legal letters that say the EU deals with third countries that the UK currently has via the EU, the terms and quotas (percentage for the UK) continue for a period of years after we leave the EU. The only countries that need to agree that deal are the UK and the third country.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturing. It's what the EU does. In the end the Federalist ideologues will be overruled by Merkel and Macron, and Jacob Rees Mogg will be outvoted in the Commons.
A fairly crappy botched deal will result, planes will fly, cars will be exported, the City will suffer (but nowhere near as badly as predicted). And then the real long term UK-EU haggling will begin, and continue forever, cf Switzerland.
We will have absented ourselves from most of EU lawmaking (but not all). Freedom of Movement will be significantly qualified, but not abolished. The UK will still pay the EU, but pay less, for access to the SM. We will at last be out of the CAP and the CFP. We will stay in Erasmus and Horizon (but pay for it)
It won't be ideal. There is no ideal. It will honour the referendum, in the main.
The big question will then arise: will any government try and take us back into the SM and CU? (I cannot ever envisage us wholly rejoining via a referendum). I doubt it. I think we will slowly drift further from Brussels over time. The ratchet will, crucially, have been reversed.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
Do you have a prediction for the Swedish general election?
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturing. It's what the EU does. In the end the Federalist ideologues will be overruled by Merkel and Macron, and Jacob Rees Mogg will be outvoted in the Commons.
A fairly crappy botched deal will result, planes will fly, cars will be exported, the City will suffer (but nowhere near as badly as predicted). And then the real long term UK-EU haggling will begin, and continue forever, cf Switzerland.
We will have absented ourselves from most of EU lawmaking (but not all). Freedom of Movement will be significantly qualified, but not abolished. The UK will still pay the EU, but pay less, for access to the SM. We will at last be out of the CAP and the CFP. We will stay in Erasmus and Horizon (but pay for it)
It won't be ideal. There is no ideal. It will honour the referendum, in the main.
The big question will then arise: will any government try and take us back into the SM and CU? (I cannot ever envisage us wholly rejoining via a referendum). I doubt it. I think we will slowly drift further from Brussels over time. The ratchet will, crucially, have been reversed.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
I'm a Remainer, but the Euro is turning into a disaster that will consume the whole project, as many of us predicted.
That overstates the EU's interest. If we remain in its customs union it gets the extra heft of being a 500 million person trading block.rather than a 450.million one. Apart from that helping us to roll over third party agreements is a favour it can provide at no cost to itself. We need them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
It does challenge your point because grandfathering requires the cooperation of the EU (ie deal) where it has much less skin in the game than we do.
I write the "EU and the UK are working together" You write it needs the cooperation of the EU,
Er? What do you not understand the term working together or the word cooperation?
You said No Deal. There will be a deal, specifically the Withdrawal Agreement with £40+ billion payments and NI backstop. There will be a transition period but no.end state agreement. That will come later. If that's in place the EU will cooperate on grandfathering third country agreements. Unless and until it is in place, it won't.
The UK can have no deal with the EU, but can have legal letters that say the EU deals with third countries that the UK currently has via the EU, the terms and quotas (percentage for the UK) continue for a period of years after we leave the EU. The only countries that need to agree that deal are the UK and the third country.
No. You need to read that article I linked. There is a bigger requirement on the EU than that. It has effectively to remain a party to that "bilateral" for the terms to carry over. Also its influence on the third party is quite useful.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturin.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
Do you have a prediction for the Swedish general election?
Another Coalition which just about manages to exclude the hard right. But the moment of truth edges ever closer.
Sweden is in deep shit. We don't hear about most of it. I had lunch in rural Skane on the Wanas estate with a nice arty Swedish lady from Malmo, who said the other day she walked out of her flat to hear gunshots around the corner. It was an armed migrant gang fight. She shrugged it off as normal. Because it is. For her.
This is SWEDEN. A lot of Swedes are REALLY unhappy about this shit.
eed them much more than they need us on this. The nature of the ask reflects that.
You have not understood the situation at all.
This paper, especially the linked PDF, explains the issues with grandfathering existing EU preferential trade agreements. Success isn't guaranteed with EU cooperation, because it is ultimately up to the third country. However without the EU"s cooperation grandfathering gets difficult. The EU keeps its third country agreement whether we grandfather it or not. Hence it is effectively a favour we are asking of the EU. Of course it will want something in return.
It does not challenge my point, it may be difficult, but the fact is that the EU and the UK are working together to get this sorted because it is in both the EU's and the UK's interest to do that.
It does challenge your point because grandfathering requires the cooperation of the EU (ie deal) where it has much less skin in the game than we do.
I write the "EU and the UK are working together" You write it needs the cooperation of the EU,
Er? What do you not understand the term working together or the word cooperation?
You said No Deal. There will be a deal, specifically the Withdrawal Agreement with £40+ billion payments and NI backstop. There will be a transition period but no.end state agreement. That will come later. If that's in place the EU will cooperate on grandfathering third country agreements. Unless and until it is in place, it won't.
The UK can have no deal with the EU, but can have legal letters that say the EU deals with third countries that the UK currently has via the EU, the terms and quotas (percentage for the UK) continue for a period of years after we leave the EU. The only countries that need to agree that deal are the UK and the third country.
No. You need to read that article I linked. There is a bigger requirement on the EU than that. It has effectively to remain a party to that "bilateral" for the terms to carry over. Also its influence on the third party is quite useful.
If the requirement is on the EU why is it the UK's problem? Perhaps this is why the EU are working so closely with the UK because all the problems are on the EU side?
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturing. It's wlly, have been reversed.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
I'm a Remainer, but the Euro is turning into a disaster that will consume the whole project, as many of us predicted.
The EU could just about survive the collapse of the euro (or its near collapse, as in Greece, Cyprus and maybe Italy). What it maybe cannot survive is the combined crisis of the euro AND the crisis of migration, especially Muslim migration and allied terrorism, aided and abetted by Merkel's insane mistake to let in 1.5m migrants unvetted.
As this unravels, the EU will fracture (indeed it already is, see Hungary and Poland). I do not expect it to fall apart, but it will necessarily restructure and be less puissant. The UK is dealing with a fake superpower already, arguably, on the decline, before it even properly started.
Indeed this deep self-doubt explains, I think, a lot of the overly hostile negotiations towards us, during Brexit. The eurocrats are panicked. In their minds we MUST be seen to suffer - and suffer badly - for leaving - or the whole thing could crumble. It's not anti-British, per se, it's self preservation by a neurotic euro-elite.
A calm and self-confident EU would give us a mutually decent deal tomorrow.
A calm and self-confident EU could have given Cameron a mutually decent deal in 2016.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturin.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
Do you have a prediction for the Swedish general election?
Another Coalition which just about manages to exclude the hard right. But the moment of truth edges ever closer.
Sweden is in deep shit. We don't hear about most of it. I had lunch in rural Skane on the Wanas estate with a nice arty Swedish lady from Malmo, who said the other day she walked out of her flat to hear gunshots around the corner. It was an armed migrant gang fight. She shrugged it off as normal. Because it is. For her.
This is SWEDEN. A lot of Swedes are REALLY unhappy about this shit.
If the Swedes are unhappy there isn't much sign of it in polling for next months election. Over 75 per cent are likely to vote for parties of the traditional centre right and centre left and perhaps up to 25 per cent of the 'really angry' will back a party which allies itself to the UK Tories in Brussels!
The social democrats may end up getting their lowest vote share since the war but they will still almost certainly be the largest party and probably remain with the Premiership to keep the Tories allies out of government.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturing. It's wlly, have been reversed.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
I'm a Remainer, but the Euro is turning into a disaster that will consume the whole project, as many of us predicted.
The EU could just about survive the collapse of the euro (or its near collapse, as in Greece, Cyprus and maybe Italy). What it maybe cannot survive is the combined crisis of the euro AND the crisis of migration, especially Muslim migration and allied terrorism, aided and abetted by Merkel's insane mistake to let in 1.5m migrants unvetted.
As this unravels, the EU will fracture (indeed it already is, see Hungary and Poland). I do not expect it to fall apart, but it will necessarily restructure and be less puissant. The UK is dealing with a fake superpower already, arguably, on the decline, before it even properly started.
Indeed this deep self-doubt explains, I think, a lot of the overly hostile negotiations towards us, during Brexit. The eurocrats are panicked. In their minds we MUST be seen to suffer - and suffer badly - for leaving - or the whole thing could crumble. It's not anti-British, per se, it's self preservation by a neurotic euro-elite.
A calm and self-confident EU would give us a mutually decent deal tomorrow.
The UK leaving may well have hastened the Euro end, as we offered an enormous alternative ballast to the Euro nations.
I skimmed the story earlier and could not make head nor tail of it. The aide still works for the MP. There is some discrepancy over what was covered by insurance and what should be repaid. There seemed to be a triangle of complaints with a second MP as the third side. What?
Does it matter? Seriously, why is this U-turn by Trump more significant than any of his others, which is not at all? After the Florida school shooting, Trump was briefly in favour of gun control until he wasn't. In the Obamacare repeal, Trump wanted a replacement, till he didn't (and it was killed by McCain iirc). There is a new trade deal with Mexico that does not depend on a wall. None of this matters because Trump is Trump. So why is this statement -- which incidentally shows Trump will not attend McCain's funeral -- significant after all the other nonsense?
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturin.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
Do you have a prediction for the Swedish general election?
Another Coalition which just about manages to exclude the hard right. But the moment of truth edges ever closer.
Sweden is in deep shit. We don't hear about most of it. I had lunch in rural Skane on the Wanas estate with a nice arty Swedish lady from Malmo, who said the other day she walked out of her flat to hear gunshots around the corner. It was an armed migrant gang fight. She shrugged it off as normal. Because it is. For her.
This is SWEDEN. A lot of Swedes are REALLY unhappy about this shit.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturing. It's what the EU does. In the end the Federalist ideologues will be overruled by Merkel and Macron, and Jacob Rees Mogg will be outvoted in the Commons.
A fairly crappy botched deal will result, planes will fly, cars will be exported, the City will suffer (but nowhere near as badly as predicted). And then the real long term UK-EU haggling will begin, and continue forever, cf Switzerland.
We will have absented ourselves from most of EU lawmaking (but not all). Freedom of Movement will be significantly qualified, but not abolished. The UK will still pay the EU, but pay less, for access to the SM. We will at last be out of the CAP and the CFP. We will stay in Erasmus and Horizon (but pay for it)
It won't be ideal. There is no ideal. It will honour the referendum, in the main.
The big question will then arise: will any government try and take us back into the SM and CU? (I cannot ever envisage us wholly rejoining via a referendum). I doubt it. I think we will slowly drift further from Brussels over time. The ratchet will, crucially, have been reversed.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
I'm a Remainer, but the Euro is turning into a disaster that will consume the whole project, as many of us predicted.
The Euro is a big problem bus mass migration is adding to the tensions - witness the Eastern European nations are openly rebelling against the EU stance.
Does it matter? Seriously, why is this U-turn by Trump more significant than any of his others, which is not at all? After the Florida school shooting, Trump was briefly in favour of gun control until he wasn't. In the Obamacare repeal, Trump wanted a replacement, till he didn't (and it was killed by McCain iirc). There is a new trade deal with Mexico that does not depend on a wall. None of this matters because Trump is Trump. So why is this statement -- which incidentally shows Trump will not attend McCain's funeral -- significant after all the other nonsense?
You are probably right, although for what it is worth, I think this one is more personal to him and so will hurt more.
McCain is everything Trump isn't. Most of all someone who didn't get his Dad to pull the draft notice to serve in Vietnam.
For an alpha-male wannabe like Trump, that has gotta hurt somewhere deep.
There were three squadrons of Americans in the Battle of Britain.
I'm not sure if you're satirising the US inclination to claim that they won WWII, but there definitely weren't three squadrons of septics in the BoB.
I never said there were. I'm not sure why they were septic anyway. Maybe a lack of baths?
There were however three squadrons of American fighter pilots. They were called 'Eagle' squadrons. They transferred to the USAF in 1943.
You know that thing about dates...
'Three Eagle Squadrons were formed between September 1940 and July 1941.'
One could take the German view... The British officially recognise the battle's duration as being from 10 July until 31 October 1940, which overlaps the period of large-scale night attacks known as the Blitz, that lasted from 7 September 1940 to 11 May 1941.[18] German historians do not accept this subdivision and regard the battle as a single campaign lasting from July 1940 to June 1941, including the Blitz.[19] (Wikipedia)
Otherwise the number of US pilots could be counted on the fingers of both hands.
If it was really the US and Russia who ‘won’ WWII, we at the very least prevented its being lost back in 1940.
Not sure if this got an airing at any point last couple of days, although I disagree with him politically this shows the measure of the man's character.
There were three squadrons of Americans in the Battle of Britain.
I'm not sure if you're satirising the US inclination to claim that they won WWII, but there definitely weren't three squadrons of septics in the BoB.
I never said there were. I'm not sure why they were septic anyway. Maybe a lack of baths?
There were however three squadrons of American fighter pilots. They were called 'Eagle' squadrons. They transferred to the USAF in 1943.
You know that thing about dates...
'Three Eagle Squadrons were formed between September 1940 and July 1941.'
One could take the German view... The British officially recognise the battle's duration as being from 10 July until 31 October 1940, which overlaps the period of large-scale night attacks known as the Blitz, that lasted from 7 September 1940 to 11 May 1941.[18] German historians do not accept this subdivision and regard the battle as a single campaign lasting from July 1940 to June 1941, including the Blitz.[19] (Wikipedia)
Otherwise the number of US pilots could be counted on the fingers of both hands.
If it was really the US and Russia who ‘won’ WWII, we at the very least prevented its being lost back in 1940.
'Britain provided the time, America the money, and Russia the blood.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
My God. When Chequers came out you quickly realised that it was utterly hopeless and a betrayal of the Leave vote. You actually made some good posts at the time.
Now you have gone back to true Tory by backing this pile of poo and re-pledging your loyalty to May.
There will be a big fucking heap of steaming fudge which will please no one, but be grudgingly acceptable to most. That's it.
Actually May is so crap, her fudge wont even be steaming, as it is stone cold.
May is actually inching towards a Deal that still respects the Leave vote in a way probably no other current politician could
You may be right, I was attempting humour. I suspect we only know at the 11th hour.
It's all posturin.
I think this partly depends on the EU. It could all collapse in an inferno of populist, anti-migrant, anti Euro rage within a few years.
Yes, I think that is an underestimated risk. The collapse of the whole Project. Cf the race riots in Chemnitz this week, and the speedy rise of the populist right in Sweden (where I have just been, and felt the tension)
Do you have a prediction for the Swedish general election?
Another Coalition which just about manages to exclude the hard right. But the moment of truth edges ever closer.
Sweden is in deep shit. We don't hear about most of it. I had lunch in rural Skane on the Wanas estate with a nice arty Swedish lady from Malmo, who said the other day she walked out of her flat to hear gunshots around the corner. It was an armed migrant gang fight. She shrugged it off as normal. Because it is. For her.
This is SWEDEN. A lot of Swedes are REALLY unhappy about this shit.
If the Swedes are unhappy there isn't much sign of it in polling for next months election. Over 75 per cent are likely to vote for parties of the traditional centre right and centre left and perhaps up to 25 per cent of the 'really angry' will back a party which allies itself to the UK Tories in Brussels!
The social democrats may end up getting their lowest vote share since the war but they will still almost certainly be the largest party and probably remain with the Premiership to keep the Tories allies out of government.
The Tories allies in the International Democratic Union are the Moderates, the Swedish Democrats are the Swedish UKIP
“But I discovered Mike Smithson Polling Betting founder and Lib Dem activist voted Labour in 2017 but won’t do next because of Brexit policy. What bewilders me is Labour’s manifesto said ‘out of FoM and CU. So what’s changed for him to change his mind. I have my own views but I voted Labour aware of the position and I’m not suddenly vote for someone else because of their position when I voted for them knowing what it was. The policy didn’t change. Mike still doesn’t like the policy. So what’s changed”
Like many Lib Dems, Mike Smithson is a self-important relic who still seems to be living in the era when waving “Winning Here” placards and publishing dodgy barcharts won them improbable by-elections on sensational swings. Today such people just look like weird saddos refusing to accept the world has moved on. The fact that the party remains dominated by people like him is a major reason why they haven’t broken out of their miniscule 7-9% vote share despite the gargantuan space available in the centre ground of politics today.
Though I feel strongly about Brexit it did not impact my vote in 2017 and I’m guessing that’s true for most of the electorate. I don’t blame T May for Brexit, though a Remainer herself she has to respect the referendum result and same goes for J Corbyn. Were Boris or Mogg to lead the Tories I might think differently. My wife did switch from Con to LD over Brexit in 2017 but I’m now glad I didn’t. In general I think men find it harder to switch their vote.
Comments
Reallocating the TRQs and dividing them between UK and EU is already a contentious matter, and requires the consent of each 3rd country. It is not for us to just divy them up as we choose.
Though since Telegrams have gone into history, I think it is just a card now.
The Palace also used to do them for diamond weddings too, my Granny was quite chuffed to get one, though Grandpa Fox was less bothered. He did have rather radical ideas.
There is quite a space between an amicable No Deal Brexit and a hostile one. In reality "No Deal" requires a minimal Deal.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/grandfathering-eu-ftas/amp/
I am amazed a leaver says we are working well together and a remainer says those nasty EU people refuse to work with us and want to shaft us. It beggars belief.
Compare their situation to the 20% unemployment in Eurozone Greece, the 15% unemployment in Eurozone Spain and the 11% unemployment in Eurozone Italy
Better to bank a BINO and work from that over years and general elections to either a full break or re join and I am relaxed by either under that process
You listen to him and look at him wonder how did that happen....
Not often I get to agree with him.
Nothing will happen until the end of the year unless an October/November agreement is reached
You write it needs the cooperation of the EU,
Er? What do you not understand the term working together or the word cooperation?
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1034170513755725826
https://twitter.com/skwawkbox/status/1034175678302900224
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403857-trump-issues-statement-on-mccains-death
https://twitter.com/SussexFriends/status/1034196906212118528
The betting should be in football - does Mourinho last longer than xmas
Next week would be too long for me.
Anyway, time yet again to wish everyone a good nights rest
Good night folks
The social democrats may end up getting their lowest vote share since the war but they will still almost certainly be the largest party and probably remain with the Premiership to keep the Tories allies out of government.
As are several other European nations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/opinion/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-britain.html
McCain is everything Trump isn't. Most of all someone who didn't get his Dad to pull the draft notice to serve in Vietnam.
For an alpha-male wannabe like Trump, that has gotta hurt somewhere deep.
The British officially recognise the battle's duration as being from 10 July until 31 October 1940, which overlaps the period of large-scale night attacks known as the Blitz, that lasted from 7 September 1940 to 11 May 1941.[18] German historians do not accept this subdivision and regard the battle as a single campaign lasting from July 1940 to June 1941, including the Blitz.[19] (Wikipedia)
Otherwise the number of US pilots could be counted on the fingers of both hands.
If it was really the US and Russia who ‘won’ WWII, we at the very least prevented its being lost back in 1940.
Not sure if this got an airing at any point last couple of days, although I disagree with him politically this shows the measure of the man's character.
Now you have gone back to true Tory by backing this pile of poo and re-pledging your loyalty to May.
No wonder the Conservative party is such a mess.
“But I discovered Mike Smithson Polling Betting founder and Lib Dem activist voted Labour in 2017 but won’t do next because of Brexit policy. What bewilders me is Labour’s manifesto said ‘out of FoM and CU. So what’s changed for him to change his mind. I have my own views but I voted Labour aware of the position and I’m not suddenly vote for someone else because of their position when I voted for them knowing what it was. The policy didn’t change. Mike still doesn’t like the policy. So what’s changed”
Like many Lib Dems, Mike Smithson is a self-important relic who still seems to be living in the era when waving “Winning Here” placards and publishing dodgy barcharts won them improbable by-elections on sensational swings. Today such people just look like weird saddos refusing to accept the world has moved on. The fact that the party remains dominated by people like him is a major reason why they haven’t broken out of their miniscule 7-9% vote share despite the gargantuan space available in the centre ground of politics today.
Though I feel strongly about Brexit it did not impact my vote in 2017 and I’m guessing that’s true for most of the electorate. I don’t blame T May for Brexit, though a Remainer herself she has to respect the referendum result and same goes for J Corbyn. Were Boris or Mogg to lead the Tories I might think differently. My wife did switch from Con to LD over Brexit in 2017 but I’m now glad I didn’t. In general I think men find it harder to switch their vote.