Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
No, he gets grief for being consumed by ambition. Like Hunt or not (and I don’t), he put it serious time and effort at Health. Johnson is just a lazy blagger.
Hunt was not the worst Minister of Health that I have seen. I loathed Hewitt the most, and Milburn has a lot to answer for.
In particular after his Phyrric victory over the Junior Doctors, Hunt was astute enough not to actually implement much of it, and he quietly abandoned plans to revise other staff contracts.
It's this sort of nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place. 'Two world wars and one world cup' just makes us a laughing stock these days.
Oh, but it's fine for EU leaders to talk tough to play to the crowd then the next day roll it back with more diplomatic statements, see Macron and Tusk.
This is just one of those hypocritical 'woe is me Britain is uniquely bad' lines which are just plain false.
It's like when people complain about one party indulging in standard political rather than partisan unique behaviours, when the criticised thing happens with both.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
That’s my point though. There is no plan because there is a big gap between what she can get through Domestically and what the EU will accept. I do think she has a strategy - she went further than the headbangers would want on chequers - and beyond what the Tory associations want. Yet the EU won’t budge. That is strategy as she can say we tried to do a deal but Eurofanatics like Tusk want to punish us for wanting to leave.
Yes. Even if we accept the EU was reasonable in sticking to it's lines, which I can accept, May really had gone further to try to deal than she politically could. Talking up no deal isn't much of a strategy now but she did make major concessions in the last strategy and as everyone seems to accept nothing commands a majority. What strategy can she employ now other than play for time? She needs that to either step up, way late, no deal mitigation, or plot the mother of all capitulation. And the first step for both is talk tough to gain time.
The basic problem is that there is no Brexit that doesn't come with damage. Damage isn't just economic. It's also constitutional, diplomatic and above all political. No-one voted Leave with the intention of making things worse. May can't promote damage limitation as a strategy. So what does she do?
It's this sort of nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place. 'Two world wars and one world cup' just makes us a laughing stock these days.
Oh, but it's fine for EU leaders to talk tough to play to the crowd then the next day roll it back with more diplomatic statements, see Macron and Tusk.
This is just one of those hypocritical 'woe is me Britain is uniquely bad' lines which are just plain false.
It's like when people complain about one party indulging in standard political rather than partisan unique behaviours, when the criticised thing happens with both.
The EU have made a mess of this. Unfortunately that is still more Britain’s problem than theirs.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
This is Greece and Syrizia all over.
TBF they do actually negotiate, and they did with Syriza. But what the situations have in common with Greece and a few previous situations in the EU is that you can easily win elections and referendums by promising that other countries' governments will do incredibly generous things for you if you demand them. But they won't.
Excellent tactics from May yesterday; terrible strategy. She is now tied even closer to the English nationalist hard right and that makes getting any deal that does not inflict significant economic damage on the UK much harder. Abstract Cod Churchill clearly stirs the emotions of a portion of the population, but the reality of entirely self-inflicted job losses, spending cuts and even worse public services may be less appealing.
But that may be why she had to talk tough yesterday. Saves her position and a total collapse, so she can pivot away in a few weeks. The ERG would scream betrayal, not entirely unreasonably, but it would be on them to then act.
It was clearly a speech designed for domestic consumption. What you say makes sense, but my guess is that when push comes to shove enough Tory MPs will put party unity before national interest, meaning we’ll get the Brexit that the ERG and the Labour leadership both want.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
This is Greece and Syrizia all over.
Even now, May is still ruling out BINO, and a Hard Brexit. She is also ruling out a referendum.
That leaves Chequers - already rejected - or May herself must go.
Correct, the way out must be a General or. People s vote.
1. Deal or no deal, the UK will not be building infrastructure on the border. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
2. Deal or no deal, there will be no border in the Irish Sea that gives NI a different regime to England/Wales/Scotland. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
3. No deal means infrastructure on the Irish border to enforce that border. It will have to be built by Ireland, on the instructions of the EU. Is that your position, Brussels? (If so, don't expect a great deal of security assistance with terrorism across the EU, because our assets will be too busy tracking down the guys who keep blowing up your border infrastructure...)
4. If we can agree no infrastructure is to be built, the UK will work with you to ensure that goods entering/leaving across that border are monitored, by all manner of electronic means. It is in no-ones interest for it to be a smugglers paradise.
Is it really that hard?
I think if they will concede anywhere it will be that.
German press reported that Merkel was more worried about single market integrity than the Irish border question - and no deal would see Ireland hung out to dry with knobs on. Mr Varadkar has been either very clever or extremely foolhardy.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
No, he gets grief for being consumed by ambition. Like Hunt or not (and I don’t), he put it serious time and effort at Health. Johnson is just a lazy blagger.
Hunt was not the worst Minister of Health that I have seen. I loathed Hewitt the most, and Milburn has a lot to answer for.
In particular after his Phyrric victory over the Junior Doctors, Hunt was astute enough not to actually implement much of it, and he quietly abandoned plans to revise other staff contracts.
Also, Foxy's (very worthwhile) Twitter stream pointed out this scathing Spectator piece, which takes no prisoners in Britain, Hungary, Poland or anywhere else. Alastair in particular will like it.
I started reading the interesting article 'How Orban duped the Brexiteers' and got half way down before I was sidetracked by an article entitled ' How I was hounded off campus for saying 'women don't have penises'. This wasn't as disappointing as most of these eye catchers and had me laughing out loud. (but maybe I'm just being old fashioned?)
"..... Among the NUS’s more barmy proposals was calling for an end to ‘coercively assigning gender at birth’.
Some people, born with biological aspects of both sexes, are coercively assigned gender at birth. The NUS are abusing the concept.
How many such people are born as such? And how do you tell and categorise it when it "pops out" either with or without a winkle?
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
This is Greece and Syrizia all over.
TBF they do actually negotiate, and they did with Syriza. But what the situations have in common with Greece and a few previous situations in the EU is that you can easily win elections and referendums by promising that other countries' governments will do incredibly generous things for you if you demand them. But they won't.
One of the things that makes Brexit even more difficult to handle than other analogous situations is that many of the people who campaigned for it, let alone the people who voted for it, didn't realise that's what was happening.
Excellent tactics from May yesterday; terrible strategy. She is now tied even closer to the English nationalist hard right and that makes getting any deal that does not inflict significant economic damage on the UK much harder. Abstract Cod Churchill clearly stirs the emotions of a portion of the population, but the reality of entirely self-inflicted job losses, spending cuts and even worse public services may be less appealing.
But that may be why she had to talk tough yesterday. Saves her position and a total collapse, so she can pivot away in a few weeks. The ERG would scream betrayal, not entirely unreasonably, but it would be on them to then act.
It was clearly a speech designed for domestic consumption. What you say makes sense, but my guess is that when push comes to shove enough Tory MPs will put party unity before national interest, meaning we’ll get the Brexit that the ERG and the Labour leadership both want.
I agree, regrettably. But if the EU cannot or will not be more flexible I don't see another option being more likely.
I did as well. I was waiting for the '... and that's why I have decided to resign'. Then it became clear that she wasn't announcing anything, and it was all utterly pointless.
It sounded like a return to the unhinged performances she used to give when she was being remote controlled by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill.
If you're unhappy, then Theresa must be doing it right.
It's this sort of nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place. 'Two world wars and one world cup' just makes us a laughing stock these days.
Oh, but it's fine for EU leaders to talk tough to play to the crowd then the next day roll it back with more diplomatic statements, see Macron and Tusk.
This is just one of those hypocritical 'woe is me Britain is uniquely bad' lines which are just plain false.
It's like when people complain about one party indulging in standard political rather than partisan unique behaviours, when the criticised thing happens with both.
The EU have made a mess of this. Unfortunately that is still more Britain’s problem than theirs.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
This is Greece and Syrizia all over.
Even now, May is still ruling out BINO, and a Hard Brexit. She is also ruling out a referendum.
That leaves Chequers - already rejected - or May herself must go.
Unless May dumps Chequers to get a transition deal (she can resurrect it after in FTA negotiations) I am now of the view she will be dumped in a month in a vote of no confidence rather than the Tories risking the absurd position of getting No Deal because of Chequers which most of them loathe anyway.
The meeting of Baker and Grieve yesterday was a key point, it shows both the ERG and pro EEA Tories are uniting against Chequers, given both Baker and Grieve are close to Davis it suggests a David Davis coronation if May does lose a vote of no confidence with Davis agreeing the UK stays in the single market and customs union in the transition period to satisfy the pro EEA wing while trying to negotiate a Canada style FTA in the transition period to satisfy the ERG as he had planned to do before Chequers which he loathed from the start and knew the EU would not accept, hence his Cabinet resignation
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
No, he gets grief for being consumed by ambition. Like Hunt or not (and I don’t), he put it serious time and effort at Health. Johnson is just a lazy blagger.
Hunt was not the worst Minister of Health that I have seen. I loathed Hewitt the most, and Milburn has a lot to answer for.
In particular after his Phyrric victory over the Junior Doctors, Hunt was astute enough not to actually implement much of it, and he quietly abandoned plans to revise other staff contracts.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
That’s my point though. There is no plan because there is a big gap between what she can get through Domestically and what the EU will accept. I do think she has a strategy - she went further than the headbangers would want on chequers - and beyond what the Tory associations want. Yet the EU won’t budge. That is strategy as she can say we tried to do a deal but Eurofanatics like Tusk want to punish us for wanting to leave.
Yes. Even if we accept the EU was reasonable in sticking to it's lines, which I can accept, May really had gone further to try to deal than she politically could. Talking up no deal isn't much of a strategy now but she did make major concessions in the last strategy and as everyone seems to accept nothing commands a majority. What strategy can she employ now other than play for time? She needs that to either step up, way late, no deal mitigation, or plot the mother of all capitulation. And the first step for both is talk tough to gain time.
The basic problem is that there is no Brexit that doesn't come with damage. Damage isn't just economic. It's also constitutional, diplomatic and above all political. No-one voted Leave with the intention of making things worse. May can't promote damage limitation as a strategy. So what does she do?
Beyond me. And when overly certain opinionate commentators cannot think of a solution, however poor, you know it is bad.
Anyway, time to enjoy the brisk, drizzly autumn air.
Of topic I can really recommend the move 'A Simple Favour' by the way - utterly silly and bonkers, but a lot of fun.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
1. Deal or no deal, the UK will not be building infrastructure on the border. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
2. Deal or no deal, there will be no border in the Irish Sea that gives NI a different regime to England/Wales/Scotland. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
3. No deal means infrastructure on the Irish border to enforce that border. It will have to be built by Ireland, on the instructions of the EU. Is that your position, Brussels? (If so, don't expect a great deal of security assistance with terrorism across the EU, because our assets will be too busy tracking down the guys who keep blowing up your border infrastructure...)
4. If we can agree no infrastructure is to be built, the UK will work with you to ensure that goods entering/leaving across that border are monitored, by all manner of electronic means. It is in no-ones interest for it to be a smugglers paradise.
Is it really that hard?
Reasonable points with the inescapable conclusion of full membership of the EU as the best outcome. Failing that, because we did have that referendum, the best other compromise is participation in EU programmes without membership of the organisation.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
No, he gets grief for being consumed by ambition. Like Hunt or not (and I don’t), he put it serious time and effort at Health. Johnson is just a lazy blagger.
Hunt was not the worst Minister of Health that I have seen. I loathed Hewitt the most, and Milburn has a lot to answer for.
In particular after his Phyrric victory over the Junior Doctors, Hunt was astute enough not to actually implement much of it, and he quietly abandoned plans to revise other staff contracts.
Who was the best?
I quite liked Frank Dobson.
He was only there for 18 months - what marked him out from the others?
Also, Foxy's (very worthwhile) Twitter stream pointed out this scathing Spectator piece, which takes no prisoners in Britain, Hungary, Poland or anywhere else. Alastair in particular will like it.
I started reading the interesting article 'How Orban duped the Brexiteers' and got half way down before I was sidetracked by an article entitled ' How I was hounded off campus for saying 'women don't have penises'. This wasn't as disappointing as most of these eye catchers and had me laughing out loud. (but maybe I'm just being old fashioned?)
"..... Among the NUS’s more barmy proposals was calling for an end to ‘coercively assigning gender at birth’.
Some people, born with biological aspects of both sexes, are coercively assigned gender at birth. The NUS are abusing the concept.
How many such people are born as such? And how do you tell and categorise it when it "pops out" either with or without a winkle?
The scientific term is intersex, and prevalence estimates vary, generally less than 1% though.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
No, he gets grief for being consumed by ambition. Like Hunt or not (and I don’t), he put it serious time and effort at Health. Johnson is just a lazy blagger.
Hunt was not the worst Minister of Health that I have seen. I loathed Hewitt the most, and Milburn has a lot to answer for.
In particular after his Phyrric victory over the Junior Doctors, Hunt was astute enough not to actually implement much of it, and he quietly abandoned plans to revise other staff contracts.
Who was the best?
I quite liked Frank Dobson.
He was only there for 18 months - what marked him out from the others?
He got rid of GP fundholding, and the internal market. Milburn reintroduced it. That and Iraq was why I left the Labour Party.
Also, Foxy's (very worthwhile) Twitter stream pointed out this scathing Spectator piece, which takes no prisoners in Britain, Hungary, Poland or anywhere else. Alastair in particular will like it.
I started reading the interesting article 'How Orban duped the Brexiteers' and got half way down before I was sidetracked by an article entitled ' How I was hounded off campus for saying 'women don't have penises'. This wasn't as disappointing as most of these eye catchers and had me laughing out loud. (but maybe I'm just being old fashioned?)
"..... Among the NUS’s more barmy proposals was calling for an end to ‘coercively assigning gender at birth’.
Some people, born with biological aspects of both sexes, are coercively assigned gender at birth. The NUS are abusing the concept.
How many such people are born as such? And how do you tell and categorise it when it "pops out" either with or without a winkle?
The scientific term is intersex, and prevalence estimates vary, generally less than 1% though.
I know what the scientific term is.
That didn't answer my question. How do you tell at the point of birth, and categorise it as such?
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
If we end up in a true constitutional crisis, we might even get the free vote on the Hunt that Theresa May originally promised, only instead of being about foxhunting it will be to appoint him leader of a government of national unity.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Forget it, Hunt is now so tied to Chequers it is wrapped around his navel, plus we have to agree a transition period first anyway.
If May goes Davis is her likely replacement as the only one able to unite the Grieve wing and ERG and the new leader would have to have a coronation to give time to get the withdrawal deal.
Davis would likely keep Hunt as Foreign Secretary though
Labour would fight a snap general election vowing to press ahead with Brexit, but secure better terms, John McDonnell has said, defying demands among party members for a referendum pledge to form part of any manifesto.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
Yes it is. Like any club, privileges are for members only. It really is not difficult to understand.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
If we end up in a true constitutional crisis, we might even get the free vote on the Hunt that Theresa May originally promised, only instead of being about foxhunting it will be to appoint him leader of a government of national unity.
But there is no Sir Tristram to ride to the rescue.
(Which is just as well as he was a right useless so and so.)
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
If we end up in a true constitutional crisis, we might even get the free vote on the Hunt that Theresa May originally promised, only instead of being about foxhunting it will be to appoint him leader of a government of national unity.
It's ridiculous that a rather small party full of backward lunatics (DUP) is now driving the negotiations on our behalf. We are well and truly f*cked.
Well, it’s called “democracy” and Mrs May is having to make the best of the hand the electorate (possibly deservedly) dealt her. I don’t mind all this “horse trading” and “she’ll never get this through Parliament” - it’s working as designed. And no, I don’t think this makes us a “laughing stock” (not that I care) - in its ramshackle disorganised way it’s all rather magnificent.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
This comment encapsulates the problem. To do a deal, each side must do so voluntarily and gain benefit from it, yes? But the EU is not seeking a deal, at least not one with the urgency that the UK has to: despite the conviction of many here that it will suffer irreparable loss, it's big enough to shrug it off. To oversimplify, the UK is not negotiating with the EU, it is asking it for a favour. Gardenwalker's phrasing, although tactless, was accurate.
And I do have to point out: if you regard the EU with such contempt, why are you seeking a deal with it?
It's ridiculous that a rather small party full of backward lunatics (DUP) is now driving the negotiations on our behalf. We are well and truly f*cked.
Yesterday you said you would behave. Maybe your last sentence could be re-worked though you are entitled to the sentiment maybe many would share
I apologise for the f word but not calling the DUP backward lunatics. I should also add they they are fairly stupid too - it is through their actions that an united Ireland is within touching distance.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
Yes it is. Like any club, privileges are for members only. It really is not difficult to understand.
Doing a deal with us must involve giving us something, so your statement makes no sense - if it was as clear as 'if you are in you get this, if you are out you do not' there would have been no negotation to undertake as far as the EU are concerned. I'll have to put you down as another pro EUer who thinks the EU are acting like fools. After all, they are offering us privileges of the club in seeking a deal with us.
Also, Foxy's (very worthwhile) Twitter stream pointed out this scathing Spectator piece, which takes no prisoners in Britain, Hungary, Poland or anywhere else. Alastair in particular will like it.
I started reading the interesting article 'How Orban duped the Brexiteers' and got half way down before I was sidetracked by an article entitled ' How I was hounded off campus for saying 'women don't have penises'. This wasn't as disappointing as most of these eye catchers and had me laughing out loud. (but maybe I'm just being old fashioned?)
"..... Among the NUS’s more barmy proposals was calling for an end to ‘coercively assigning gender at birth’.
Some people, born with biological aspects of both sexes, are coercively assigned gender at birth. The NUS are abusing the concept.
How many such people are born as such? And how do you tell and categorise it when it "pops out" either with or without a winkle?
The scientific term is intersex, and prevalence estimates vary, generally less than 1% though.
I know what the scientific term is.
That didn't answer my question. How do you tell at the point of birth, and categorise it as such?
The short answer is that at birth you very often cannot tell. Chromosomal, genetic and endocrinological tests are required and take some time.
Labour would fight a snap general election vowing to press ahead with Brexit, but secure better terms, John McDonnell has said, defying demands among party members for a referendum pledge to form part of any manifesto.
May has enemies all around, but actually .. right now I think she's doing a good job.of being PM. Very good speech ywsterday, I find the comments from Rochdale Pioneers (who voted leave iirc) very amusing Did you vote to leave to see us fold instantly ?
I'd strongly consider leaving if there was a 2nd ref now.tbh
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
Labour would fight a snap general election vowing to press ahead with Brexit, but secure better terms, John McDonnell has said, defying demands among party members for a referendum pledge to form part of any manifesto.
It's ridiculous that a rather small party full of backward lunatics (DUP) is now driving the negotiations on our behalf. We are well and truly f*cked.
We have the option of a Labour alternative.
Then it would be a large party led by backward lunatics.
Maybe but the difference is small and large. We have the absurd reality of a rag-tag group of 10 rather bizarre MPs driving our negotiation strategy. I would call that far from optimal.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
This comment encapsulates the problem. To do a deal, each side must do so voluntarily and gain benefit from it, yes? But the EU is not seeking a deal, at least not one with the urgency that the UK has to: despite the conviction of many here that it will suffer irreparable loss, it's big enough to shrug it off. To oversimplify, the UK is not negotiating with the EU, it is asking it for a favour. Gardenwalker's phrasing, although tactless, was accurate.
And I do have to point out: if you regard the EU with such contempt, why are you seeking a deal with it?
Not quite correct. The EU clearly does want a deal that protects its interests. Unfortunately, it sees those interests as purely political, indeed federalist, and we see them as economic.
Therefore, they either need us to stay in. Or leave and be so badly damaged nobody will follow. The latter might provoke a Eurozone crisis, but that in itself can be used to drive further integration. We, meanwhile, only want to trade freely. The two are clearly utterly incompatible.
It is a stupid, reprehensible, undemocratic, dangerous and ludicrous position to adopt, and therefore it was entirely predictable the EU's administration would do it.
I have said for a long time there will be a crash out. Salzburg should be the moment if we both want a deal when both sides realised they're talking past each other. Unfortunately it isn't, because they still really don't understand each others' positions. Therefore a crash out is now nearly certain.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
What's Canada+++ ? Is it cake?
It’s what the EU has offered - the fly in the ointment, to mix metaphors is the customs border in the Irish Sea (EU version) or whole U.K. in SM for goods (UK version).
It's ridiculous that a rather small party full of backward lunatics (DUP) is now driving the negotiations on our behalf. We are well and truly f*cked.
We have the option of a Labour alternative.
Then it would be a large party led by backward lunatics.
Maybe but the difference is small and large. We have the absurd reality of a rag-tag group of 10 rather bizarre MPs driving our negotiation strategy. I would call that far from optimal.
There are only about ten in Labour. It's just they happen to be in charge. I think you missed the significant word 'led.'
It's ridiculous that a rather small party full of backward lunatics (DUP) is now driving the negotiations on our behalf. We are well and truly f*cked.
Well, it’s called “democracy” and Mrs May is having to make the best of the hand the electorate (possibly deservedly) dealt her. I don’t mind all this “horse trading” and “she’ll never get this through Parliament” - it’s working as designed. And no, I don’t think this makes us a “laughing stock” (not that I care) - in its ramshackle disorganised way it’s all rather magnificent.
"C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas l'economique"
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
Yes it is. Like any club, privileges are for members only. It really is not difficult to understand.
Doing a deal with us must involve giving us something, so your statement makes no sense - if it was as clear as 'if you are in you get this, if you are out you do not' there would have been no negotation to undertake as far as the EU are concerned. I'll have to put you down as another pro EUer who thinks the EU are acting like fools. After all, they are offering us privileges of the club in seeking a deal with us.
The negotiation is on terms of leaving, and how 3rd party status is arrived at. When we are a 3rd party, there are a variety of possible relationships, helpfully summarised into a single powerpoint slide by Barnier. May's redlines then define that relationship.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
This comment encapsulates the problem. To do a deal, each side must do so voluntarily and gain benefit from it, yes? But the EU is not seeking a deal, at least not one with the urgency that the UK has to: despite the conviction of many here that it will suffer irreparable loss, it's big enough to shrug it off. To oversimplify, the UK is not negotiating with the EU, it is asking it for a favour. Gardenwalker's phrasing, although tactless, was accurate.
And I do have to point out: if you regard the EU with such contempt, why are you seeking a deal with it?
Not quite correct. The EU clearly does want a deal that protects its interests. Unfortunately, it sees those interests as purely political, indeed federalist, and we see them as economic.
Therefore, they either need us to stay in. Or leave and be so badly damaged nobody will follow. The latter might provoke a Eurozone crisis, but that in itself can be used to drive further integration. We, meanwhile, only want to trade freely. The two are clearly utterly incompatible.
It is a stupid, reprehensible, undemocratic, dangerous and ludicrous position to adopt, and therefore it was entirely predictable the EU's administration would do it.
I have said for a long time there will be a crash out. Salzburg should be the moment if we both want a deal when both sides realised they're talking past each other. Unfortunately it isn't, because they still really don't understand each others' positions. Therefore a crash out is now nearly certain.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
So the weird thing about this is that the whole premise of the story told by the Leave side was that the EU was an unbelievably lovely and charming organisation.
1. Deal or no deal, the UK will not be building infrastructure on the border. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
2. Deal or no deal, there will be no border in the Irish Sea that gives NI a different regime to England/Wales/Scotland. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
3. No deal means infrastructure on the Irish border to enforce that border. It will have to be built by Ireland, on the instructions of the EU. Is that your position, Brussels? (If so, don't expect a great deal of security assistance with terrorism across the EU, because our assets will be too busy tracking down the guys who keep blowing up your border infrastructure...)
4. If we can agree no infrastructure is to be built, the UK will work with you to ensure that goods entering/leaving across that border are monitored, by all manner of electronic means. It is in no-ones interest for it to be a smugglers paradise.
Is it really that hard?
Reasonable points with the inescapable conclusion of full membership of the EU as the best outcome. Failing that, because we did have that referendum, the best other compromise is participation in EU programmes without membership of the organisation.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
A half-way competent senior management at the EU would also have worked with us on Brexit. There are benefits to us participating in EU programmes without membership of the organisation. I'll concede that. It is certainy in their better interests to have us involved. What they really, really don't need is a super-Singapore moored just offshore, undercutting investment in the EU countries by having us offer cheaper taxes, less red tape and still only a 25 mile train journey away.
It is very easy to despair at the way our side have proceeded on Brexit. But both sides should be painted with seven shades of shit. The EU has already lost its second largest contributor and second/third largest economy. It has thrown Turkey's membership under the bus just to argue that the Leave campaign was xenophobic Little Englanders. It has moved Switzerland and Norway membership much further away. They have now ensured the club is as big as it can get, by pursuing a policy soley designed to keep the others from digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.
Any other enterprise, the shareholders would have slung them out.
John McDonnell said he was looking at whether break clauses in contracts could allow rail franchises to be taken into public hands before they expired.
He is planning to create a new unit in the Treasury to oversee the party's wider nationalisation plans.
It would advise on issues such as possible compensation for shareholders.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
This comment encapsulates the problem. To do a deal, each side must do so voluntarily and gain benefit from it, yes? But the EU is not seeking a deal, at least not one with the urgency that the UK has to: despite the conviction of many here that it will suffer irreparable loss, it's big enough to shrug it off. To oversimplify, the UK is not negotiating with the EU, it is asking it for a favour. Gardenwalker's phrasing, although tactless, was accurate.
And I do have to point out: if you regard the EU with such contempt, why are you seeking a deal with it?
Not quite correct. The EU clearly does want a deal that protects its interests. Unfortunately, it sees those interests as purely political, indeed federalist, and we see them as economic.
Therefore, they either need us to stay in. Or leave and be so badly damaged nobody will follow. The latter might provoke a Eurozone crisis, but that in itself can be used to drive further integration. We, meanwhile, only want to trade freely. The two are clearly utterly incompatible.
It is a stupid, reprehensible, undemocratic, dangerous and ludicrous position to adopt, and therefore it was entirely predictable the EU's administration would do it.
I have said for a long time there will be a crash out. Salzburg should be the moment if we both want a deal when both sides realised they're talking past each other. Unfortunately it isn't, because they still really don't understand each others' positions. Therefore a crash out is now nearly certain.
Which one of Norway for the UK or Canada for GB do you find totally unacceptable?
It's ridiculous that a rather small party full of backward lunatics (DUP) is now driving the negotiations on our behalf. We are well and truly f*cked.
Yesterday you said you would behave. Maybe your last sentence could be re-worked though you are entitled to the sentiment maybe many would share
I apologise for the f word but not calling the DUP backward lunatics. I should also add they they are fairly stupid too - it is through their actions that an united Ireland is within touching distance.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
When did the H fall off his forehead?
Now you've got this ear-worm running round in my head, you might as well all suffer too:
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Why would Germany want Associate membership? Germany effectively runs the EU and the Eurozone.
Even Macron has suggested associate membership for outer tier non Eurozone nations as a longer term goal
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
This
And I do have to point out: if you regard the EU with such contempt, why are you seeking a deal with it?
Not quite correct. The EU clearly does want a deal that protects its interests. Unfortunately, it sees those interests as purely political, indeed federalist, and we see them as economic.
Therefore, they either need us to stay in. Or leave and be so badly damaged nobody will follow. The latter might provoke a Eurozone crisis, but that in itself can be used to drive further integration. We, meanwhile, only want to trade freely. The two are clearly utterly incompatible.
It is a stupid, reprehensible, undemocratic, dangerous and ludicrous position to adopt, and therefore it was entirely predictable the EU's administration would do it.
I have said for a long time there will be a crash out. Salzburg should be the moment if we both want a deal when both sides realised they're talking past each other. Unfortunately it isn't, because they still really don't understand each others' positions. Therefore a crash out is now nearly certain.
Which one of Norway for the UK or Canada for GB do you find totally unacceptable?
Barniers position is the fairly simple one, we can have Canada*, or Norway, but not Norway privileges and Canada autonomy.
*Canada for GB, not NI though. If we refuse that, then WTO is the next step down that staircase. The only issue remaining seems to be whether that is planned WTO via Transition, or unplanned WTO in March 2019.
Lots of May haters on here unsurprisingly unhappy with her performance. Outside of political obsessives most people don’t really care. May hasn’t got many options if she is going to respect the referendum result and most people wouldn’t trust Corbyn to do any better.
If the EU want to do a deal or reverse the result, someone had better tell Tusk to stop taking the piss out of us - it’s poor form when Russia do it.
I don’t hate Theresa May. I find aspects of her admirable. But yesterday she blustered without a plan. She’s had no plan for a very long time and reality is biting now.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
What a lovely and charming organisation the EU is.
This comment encapsulates the problem. To do a deal, each side must do so voluntarily and gain benefit from it, yes? But the EU is not seeking a deal, at least not one with the urgency that the UK has to: despite the conviction of many here that it will suffer irreparable loss, it's big enough to shrug it off. To oversimplify, the UK is not negotiating with the EU, it is asking it for a favour. Gardenwalker's phrasing, although tactless, was accurate.
And I do have to point out: if you regard the EU with such contempt, why are you seeking a deal with it?
Not quite correct. The EU clearly does want a deal that protects its interests. Unfortunately, it sees those interests as purely political, indeed federalist, and we see them as economic.
Therefore, they either need us to stay in. Or leave and be so badly damaged nobody will follow. The latter might provoke a Eurozone crisis, but that in itself can be used to drive further integration. We, meanwhile, only want to trade freely. The two are clearly utterly incompatible.
Itn would do it.
I have said for a. Therefore a crash out is now nearly certain.
It is absolutely clear that Barnier is following the instructions the democratically elected leaders of the EU have given him. Agreeing to give the UK what it wants - all the advantages of EU membership with none of the downsides - would be economically disastrous for the EU27 precisely because it would give the UK all the advantages of EU membership with none of the downsides. No-one forced Theresa May to draw her red lines. She chose to do that. No-one forced her to trigger A50 when she did. That was her choice, too. No-one forced the Tories to fail to agree on a Brexit strategy. They did that all on their own. We are where we are for those reasons.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Why would Germany want Associate membership? Germany effectively runs the EU and the Eurozone.
Even Macron has suggested associate membership for outer tier non Eurozone nations as a longer term goal
Imagine an AfD government comes to power and says they're fed up of sending "vast annual payments" and wants a new deal to reflect their unique status. What should Europe do?
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Except, we aren't in the Euro. That made it far easier to justify, far easier to create an associate membership limited to those outside the Euro. So what if some other non-Euro members wanted it too? At least they would still be in the EU family, taking most of the rules, still paying a chunk of fees, not offering a competitve threat. And not getting in the way of Euro-country ever closer integration.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
If we end up in a true constitutional crisis, we might even get the free vote on the Hunt that Theresa May originally promised, only instead of being about foxhunting it will be to appoint him leader of a government of national unity.
Corbyn and McDonnell would sooner worship at Thatcher's grave than form a government of national unity with Jeremy Hunt who they both despise.
Unless Hunt committed to reversing Brexit or staying permanently in the single market and customs union them Umunna and Cable would not join him either
1. Deal or no deal, the UK will not be building infrastructure on the border. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
2. Deal or no deal, there will be no border in the Irish Sea that gives NI a different regime to England/Wales/Scotland. Whatever EU negotiators insist upon, it still ain't happening - UK politics mean it is impossible and just results in No Deal Brexit. Bad news for all. But especially bad for Ireland.
3. No deal means infrastructure on theblowing up your border infrastructure...)
4. If we can agree nosmugglers paradise.
Is it really that hard?
Reasonable points with the inescapable conclusion of full membership of the EU as the best outcome. Failing that, because we did have that referendum, the best other compromise is participation in EU programmes without membership of the organisation.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
A half-way competent senior management at the EU would also have worked with us on Brexit. There are benefits to us participating in EU programmes without membership of the organisation. I'll concede that. It is certainy in their better interests to have us involved. What they really, really don't need is a super-Singapore moored just offshore, undercutting investment in the EU countries by having us offer cheaper taxes, less red tape and still only a 25 mile train journey away.
It is very easy to despair at the way our side have proceeded on Brexit. But both sides should be painted with seven shades of shit. The EU has already lost its second largest contributor and second/third largest economy. It has thrown Turkey's membership under the bus just to argue that the Leave campaign was xenophobic Little Englanders. It has moved Switzerland and Norway membership much further away. They have now ensured the club is as big as it can get, by pursuing a policy soley designed to keep the others from digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.
Any other enterprise, the shareholders would have slung them out.
What you miss is that a super Singapore depends entirely on the EU permitting it and then the electorate voting for it. Neither is a given.
John McDonnell said he was looking at whether break clauses in contracts could allow rail franchises to be taken into public hands before they expired.
He is planning to create a new unit in the Treasury to oversee the party's wider nationalisation plans.
It would advise on issues such as possible compensation for shareholders.
If you were looking for a greater threat to inward investment to the UK than Brexit....
As Brexit is going to happen, a Corbyn Govt. is doubling up on the pain. How ironic - it will be Labour-voting Remainers who are going to make the pain of post-Brexit REALLY bad.....
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Except, we aren't in the Euro. That made it far easier to justify, far easier to create an associate membership limited to those outsidie th euro. So what if some other non-Euro members wanted it too? At least they would still be in the EU family, taking most of the rules, still paying a chunk of fees, not offering a competitve threat. And not getting in the way of Euro-country ever closer integration.
Really, really poor management by the EU.
People love to bandy around the term "associate membership" without defining it in a deliverable way. If it just amounts to having your cake and eating it, what makes you think that would ever be or should ever be negotiable?
Objectively speaking, what you say you wanted is exactly what Cameron got - full membership of the single market with a say in all the rules without any assumption of participation in the Eurozone or any related integrationist project that arise from it.
It's ridiculous that a rather small party full of backward lunatics (DUP) is now driving the negotiations on our behalf. We are well and truly f*cked.
Yesterday you said you would behave. Maybe your last sentence could be re-worked though you are entitled to the sentiment maybe many would share
I apologise for the f word but not calling the DUP backward lunatics. I should also add they they are fairly stupid too - it is through their actions that an united Ireland is within touching distance.
I do not disagree with any of that
This talk of United ireland is ignorant. It’s not going to happen and can’t happen for this reason. London gives more money to Northern Ireland each year, £11B, than to Brussels each year £9B. Dublin can’t match that. So no United Ireland.
The threat of Chequers to the EU single market is the bigger stumbling block. Once the Tessgasm is over (five days tops) the harsh reality is it’s Britain that has to backslide to avoid crash out.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Why would Germany want Associate membership? Germany effectively runs the EU and the Eurozone.
Even Macron has suggested associate membership for outer tier non Eurozone nations as a longer term goal
Imagine an AfD government comes to power and says they're fed up of sending "vast annual payments" and wants a new deal to reflect their unique status. What should Europe do?
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Why would Germany want Associate membership? Germany effectively runs the EU and the Eurozone.
Even Macron has suggested associate membership for outer tier non Eurozone nations as a longer term goal
Imagine an AfD government comes to power and says they're fed up of sending "vast annual payments" and wants a new deal to reflect their unique status. What should Europe do?
There is not going to be an AfD government, only last week they were on 18% in their best poll, still way below the 33% Le Pen got in the last French Presidential election (and even lower than her 21% first round score) and well below the 30% Salvini and Lega Nord are now polling.
As a result France and Italy would be more likely to leave the EU before Germany does, at which point the whole thing would collapse anyway. Germany is to the EU as England is to the UK, the most powerful force in the Union. Germany is as likely to vote to leave the EU as England is to vote to leave the UK
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
What's Canada+++ ? Is it cake?
It’s what the EU has offered - the fly in the ointment, to mix metaphors is the customs border in the Irish Sea (EU version) or whole U.K. in SM for goods (UK version).
When you add enough pluses to Canada you end up in Norway?
Not quite correct. The EU clearly does want a deal that protects its interests. Unfortunately, it sees those interests as purely political, indeed federalist, and we see them as economic.
Therefore, they either need us to stay in. Or leave and be so badly damaged nobody will follow. The latter might provoke a Eurozone crisis, but that in itself can be used to drive further integration. We, meanwhile, only want to trade freely. The two are clearly utterly incompatible.
It is a stupid, reprehensible, undemocratic, dangerous and ludicrous position to adopt, and therefore it was entirely predictable the EU's administration would do it.
I have said for a long time there will be a crash out. Salzburg should be the moment if we both want a deal when both sides realised they're talking past each other. Unfortunately it isn't, because they still really don't understand each others' positions. Therefore a crash out is now nearly certain.
"Crash out" is one of many misleading terms lifted from the perjorative language dictionary of Remainers, all designed to bolster Project Fear. In practice that outcome means that in early April we will continue to trade and interact generally with the EU on pretty well the same basis as Canada does now. By late April, should there have been any serious disruption to the EU's ability to continue to sell twice as much to the UK as we sell to them, expect a flurry of activity on the part of the EU which will become rather keen from its own perspective on the merits from its perspective of a Canada +++ deal and the absurdity of continuing to let the tail of the artificial NI border issue wag the dog.
It seems then Chequers is dead and Canada +++ is the great hope riding over the horizon. I'm a little bemused though - I know Davis is a fan but why hasn't that been Government policy rather than all this "Chequers" guff?
"If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is" goes the old saying so what's wrong with Canada +++? I presume the +++ bit might be a problem in terms of cherry-picking which the EU has already refused. The volumes of trade between Canada and the EU are so much smaller than the UK-EU trading volumes that I suppose CETA is by definition an easier concept to agree.
Could we really get the kind of preferential treatment for financial, aviation and energy that we would like? What would we have to concede in return?
I did read somewhere CETA was fine for goods but exempted services which are much more important to us. It took Canada and the EU seven years to negotiate CETA and even though there are aspects of it we can take off the peg I presume, as others have stated, we will be looking at a transitional period (during which we remain members of the EU with all the responsibilities and obligations) until CETA comes into effect.
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
This is Greece and Syrizia all over.
TBF they do actually negotiate, and they did with Syriza. But what the situations have in common with Greece and a few previous situations in the EU is that you can easily win elections and referendums by promising that other countries' governments will do incredibly generous things for you if you demand them. But they won't.
The difference being that we are not asking for incredible generosity. Brexit is a shitshow, and I voted against it, but pretending the EU is somehow not also to blame does not wash.
The amazing issue for me is the blind loyalty of those wanting to remain in the EU who never say a word of criticism against the EU. It is almost as if they worship at the altar of Brussels.They would be far more credible if they would express their opinions on the negatives arising from the EU and how it could be made more accountable.
I would be very surprised if next May's EU elections do not see a big move towards hard right and left MEP's being elected and if so they only have themselves to blame.
It is one of the great mysteries to me as to why Juncker is still in post. Any other CEO would have been sacked for utter incompetence but his legacy is forever tarnished in that he will be Commission President when the UK leave the EU
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Except, we aren't in the Euro. That made it far easier to justify, far easier to create an associate membership limited to those outsidie th euro. So what if some other non-Euro members wanted it too? At least they would still be in the EU family, taking most of the rules, still paying a chunk of fees, not offering a competitve threat. And not getting in the way of Euro-country ever closer integration.
Really, really poor management by the EU.
People love to bandy around the term "associate membership" without defining it in a deliverable way. If it just amounts to having your cake and eating it, what makes you think that would ever be or should ever be negotiable?
I see you have to fall back on "But it can't be done!" Ever the true Eurocrat....
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Except, we aren't in the Euro. That made it far easier to justify, far easier to create an associate membership limited to those outsidie th euro. So what if some other non-Euro members wanted it too? At least they would still be in the EU family, taking most of the rules, still paying a chunk of fees, not offering a competitve threat. And not getting in the way of Euro-country ever closer integration.
Really, really poor management by the EU.
People love to bandy around the term "associate membership" without defining it in a deliverable way. If it just amounts to having your cake and eating it, what makes you think that would ever be or should ever be negotiable?
I see you have to fall back on "But it can't be done!" Ever the true Eurocrat....
If you read my next paragraph you'll see I argue that it was done. If Dave's deal had a decent PR man behind it, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Why would Germany want Associate membership? Germany effectively runs the EU and the Eurozone.
Even Macron has suggested associate membership for outer tier non Eurozone nations as a longer term goal
Imagine an AfD government comes to power and says they're fed up of sending "vast annual payments" and wants a new deal to reflect their unique status. What should Europe do?
That would be an internal EU budgetary matter that happens regularly.
The amazing issue for me is the blind loyalty of those wanting to remain in the EU who never say a word of criticism against the EU. It is almost as if they worship at the altar of Brussels.They would be far more credible if they would express their opinions on the negatives arising from the EU and how it could be made more accountable.
I would be very surprised if next May's EU elections do not see a big move towards hard right and left MEP's being elected and if so they only have themselves to blame.
It is one of the great mysteries to me as to why Juncker is still in post. Any other CEO would have been sacked for utter incompetence but his legacy is forever tarnished in that he will be Commission President when the UK leave the EU
Not me Big_G. The EU has many flaws - but we are still better in than out!
Emails between Google employees appear to show them discussing ways to alter the company’s search engine algorithm so that results pages detailed ways of countering President Donald Trump’s travel ban, after his administration restricted immigration from several Middle Eastern and African countries in January 2017.
The fact that Google employees are even thinking of this is extremely concerning. But write a paper on possible reasons for gender inequality in tech and you will be out of the door faster than Corbyn when asked a tough question.
Rochdale “Parliament won't vote for exit to EEA. Won't vote for no deal (I expect a vote compelling the government not to accept a no deal scenario). Yet they are your choices...”
I need to have a nose at the legislation. How do you see that working? Parliament voted to trigger A50 which sets a timescale and includes no deal. If there is no deal and the two years expires what is the effect of a Parliamentary vote not to accept it?
Literally no deal would mean disaster, in the ways that the Government has been setting out in graphic detail. In practice a transitional fix would be applied to prevent total chaos. The problem would be that there would be no way forward, and in those circs I think a new election would be inevitable.
An election doesn’t solve it. No party can deliver a majority on any substantial Brexit policy.
The current deadlock is a bit of a fluke - normally one party actually wins. It then becomes easier to cajole/coerce backbenchers into supporting whatever deal can be reached. For example, the rabid obsession with not having some checks on farm produce for Northern Ireland (which is virtually the ENTIRE block on the NI issue) is largely a product of the Government being dependent on the DUP. A government with a majority would simply do it - what are the DUP going to do about it?
It is, I think, quite possible that the Tories would win a snap election called on that basis. But even as a Labour supporter I think I'd prefer either side to win over the current mess.
What you miss is that a super Singapore depends entirely on the EU permitting it and then the electorate voting for it. Neither is a given.
But the EU can't prevent us being super-Singpore if we have crash-out Brexit. They have no control over the tax rates we set, the minimal red tape.There means of stopping it is in a reasonable negotiation, where some of that freedom is negotiated away. Yet the EU strategy is currently so crap it is going to result in the very thing they fear.
This morning our electric kettle died and so we checked our local Debenhams for it's replacement and it is retailed at £60
Before we went into Town I checked Amazon for the same kettle and it is on line at £29.99 delivered tomorrow and not through Prime.
There is your High Street disaster in the starkest of terms
But it's not just the cost to you that matters. Not sure how Debenhams treats its staff but I am guessing it is far better than Amazon. Anyway, I never use Amazon but the Mrs does (though I am trying to pesuade her to not).
This morning our electric kettle died and so we checked our local Debenhams for it's replacement and it is retailed at £60
Before we went into Town I checked Amazon for the same kettle and it is on line at £29.99 delivered tomorrow and not through Prime.
There is your High Street disaster in the starkest of terms
Price is only one problem. Customer service and lack of knowledge is a real killer. Go to PC World and they normally have the square root of f##k all idea, especially if it is clear you have some knowledge about tech.
Interestingly in the US, Best Buy (the big box retailer equivalent to Currys / Pc World) is actually doing ok, because they have trained their staff well and offer consultancy / installation services, so people who aren't tech savvy get decent advice and assistant on setting up their home tech.
Reasonable points with the inescapable conclusion of full membership of the EU as the best outcome. Failing that, because we did have that referendum, the best other compromise is participation in EU programmes without membership of the organisation.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
A half-way competent senior management at the EU would also have worked with us on Brexit. There are benefits to us participating in EU programmes without membership of the organisation. I'll concede that. It is certainy in their better interests to have us involved. What they really, really don't need is a super-Singapore moored just offshore, undercutting investment in the EU countries by having us offer cheaper taxes, less red tape and still only a 25 mile train journey away.
It is very easy to despair at the way our side have proceeded on Brexit. But both sides should be painted with seven shades of shit. The EU has already lost its second largest contributor and second/third largest economy. It has thrown Turkey's membership under the bus just to argue that the Leave campaign was xenophobic Little Englanders. It has moved Switzerland and Norway membership much further away. They have now ensured the club is as big as it can get, by pursuing a policy soley designed to keep the others from digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.
Any other enterprise, the shareholders would have slung them out.
The EU isn't interested in a partnership of equals. It's a membership organisation setup for mutual benefit. In general organisations offer associate membership to those that don't qualify for full membership. It's always a lesser form where you derive less benefit.
So if the EU doesn't and really can't offer a partnership of equals, our choice is an unequal relationship or none at all. The second isn't viable.
Emails between Google employees appear to show them discussing ways to alter the company’s search engine algorithm so that results pages detailed ways of countering President Donald Trump’s travel ban, after his administration restricted immigration from several Middle Eastern and African countries in January 2017.
The fact that Google employees are even thinking of this is extremely concerning. But write a paper on possible reasons for gender inequality in tech and you will be out of the door faster than Corbyn when asked a tough question.
James Damore was an ass. And most of all, he was wrong.
Putting to one side that a half-way competent EU senior management would have worked with Cameron on a form of associate membership, that would have seen him win his referendum 60:40 and keeping us within a differently constitued EU...
Would it? If, say, the German government tried the same thing, do you think the rest of Europe should give them a special associate deal on their terms?
Why would Germany want Associate membership? Germany effectively runs the EU and the Eurozone.
Even Macron has suggested associate membership for outer tier non Eurozone nations as a longer term goal
Imagine an AfD government comes to power and says they're fed up of sending "vast annual payments" and wants a new deal to reflect their unique status. What should Europe do?
That would be an internal EU budgetary matter that happens regularly.
I see I'm not getting anywhere with this hypothetical...
Imagine it's not just a budgetary issue, but the AfD also want to end free movement and sign their own trade deal with Russia.
Not really, that'll go down well with Tory members when it comes to the leadership contest.
So what you’re saying is our chief diplomat is prioritising party over country. Surely it’s the job of the FO to lower tension and discover a way forward, not play to his leadership dream. The sort of nonsense you expect from Boris.
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but I agree Matthew Syed that Boris gets too much grief for being openly ambitious. The likes of Hunt covet the top job just as much but are probably not quite so blatant when it comes to posturing and positioning.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
What's Canada+++ ? Is it cake?
It’s what the EU has offered - the fly in the ointment, to mix metaphors is the customs border in the Irish Sea (EU version) or whole U.K. in SM for goods (UK version).
Once so many plus or minus added who knows what it actually means.
Canada minus maple syrup plus French cheese, and joint custody of Celine Dion at weekends?
The amazing issue for me is the blind loyalty of those wanting to remain in the EU who never say a word of criticism against the EU. It is almost as if they worship at the altar of Brussels.They would be far more credible if they would express their opinions on the negatives arising from the EU and how it could be made more accountable.
I would be very surprised if next May's EU elections do not see a big move towards hard right and left MEP's being elected and if so they only have themselves to blame.
It is one of the great mysteries to me as to why Juncker is still in post. Any other CEO would have been sacked for utter incompetence but his legacy is forever tarnished in that he will be Commission President when the UK leave the EU
Not me Big_G. The EU has many flaws - but we are still better in than out!
Yes - but the flaws will lead to it's demise.
If it was an association of Nations acting together for trade and it's citizens fine, but it is now a political construct moving accountability away from peoples to ever closer union into one federal block
I see you have to fall back on "But it can't be done!" Ever the true Eurocrat....
It's not just the Eurocrats saying this can't be done, it's the Prime Ministers of all the other member states. This is the part that should have sunk in over Salzburg: British Leave enthusiasts keep trying to do an end-run around Barnier and go straight to the member states, but it turns out the member states are even less inclined towards their cake+eat-it ideas than the Commission.
Emails between Google employees appear to show them discussing ways to alter the company’s search engine algorithm so that results pages detailed ways of countering President Donald Trump’s travel ban, after his administration restricted immigration from several Middle Eastern and African countries in January 2017.
The fact that Google employees are even thinking of this is extremely concerning. But write a paper on possible reasons for gender inequality in tech and you will be out of the door faster than Corbyn when asked a tough question.
James Damore was an ass. And most of all, he was wrong.
I didn't say he was right and he seems a weird dude (but lots of people in tech are), but IMO it seemed like a matter that could have been sorted with a discussion internally from the management.
But talking about manipulating search results is absolutely horrifying to me, even in "brain storm".
This morning our electric kettle died and so we checked our local Debenhams for it's replacement and it is retailed at £60
Before we went into Town I checked Amazon for the same kettle and it is on line at £29.99 delivered tomorrow and not through Prime.
There is your High Street disaster in the starkest of terms
Given the Internet will always have a bigger range to choose from than even the most diverse High Street that is no surprise. However business rate cuts would help High Street shops for those who like to still browse before they buy while enjoying a coffee or lunch at the same time
The amazing issue for me is the blind loyalty of those wanting to remain in the EU who never say a word of criticism against the EU. It is almost as if they worship at the altar of Brussels.They would be far more credible if they would express their opinions on the negatives arising from the EU and how it could be made more accountable.
I would be very surprised if next May's EU elections do not see a big move towards hard right and left MEP's being elected and if so they only have themselves to blame.
It is one of the great mysteries to me as to why Juncker is still in post. Any other CEO would have been sacked for utter incompetence but his legacy is forever tarnished in that he will be Commission President when the UK leave the EU
Yes, Cameron would certainly have resigned in 2014 had Scotland voted to Leave the UK.
The UK is at least the same percentage of the EU's population and economy as Scotland is of the UK, yet Juncker stays in post
The amazing issue for me is the blind loyalty of those wanting to remain in the EU who never say a word of criticism against the EU. It is almost as if they worship at the altar of Brussels.They would be far more credible if they would express their opinions on the negatives arising from the EU and how it could be made more accountable.
I would be very surprised if next May's EU elections do not see a big move towards hard right and left MEP's being elected and if so they only have themselves to blame.
It is one of the great mysteries to me as to why Juncker is still in post. Any other CEO would have been sacked for utter incompetence but his legacy is forever tarnished in that he will be Commission President when the UK leave the EU
This morning our electric kettle died and so we checked our local Debenhams for it's replacement and it is retailed at £60
Before we went into Town I checked Amazon for the same kettle and it is on line at £29.99 delivered tomorrow and not through Prime.
There is your High Street disaster in the starkest of terms
But it's not just the cost to you that matters. Not sure how Debenhams treats its staff but I am guessing it is far better than Amazon. Anyway, I never use Amazon but the Mrs does (though I am trying to pesuade her to not).
That is a very idealistic attitude but sadly the consumer will buy cheapest if all things are the same. Furthermore it benefits the 'just about managing' and I doubt employment issues are in the front of their minds
Not entirely fair. Chequers was a plan. However, she failed to understand that the EU does not do negotiation with supplicants.
This is Greece and Syrizia all over.
TBF they do actually negotiate, and they did with Syriza. But what the situations have in common with Greece and a few previous situations in the EU is that you can easily win elections and referendums by promising that other countries' governments will do incredibly generous things for you if you demand them. But they won't.
The difference being that we are not asking for incredible generosity. Brexit is a shitshow, and I voted against it, but pretending the EU is somehow not also to blame does not wash.
Oh hi we'd like out-compete you by undercutting your health and labour regulations, we can have complete access to your markets yes? Also we're going to inconvenience your citizens because we want control of our borders, but there's this one place where that doesn't work for us we're going to make a big hole in your border, so you're just going to agree to give up control of that one.
Rochdale “Parliament won't vote for exit to EEA. Won't vote for no deal (I expect a vote compelling the government not to accept a no deal scenario). Yet they are your choices...”
I need to have a nose at the legislation. How do you see that working? Parliament voted to trigger A50 which sets a timescale and includes no deal. If there is no deal and the two years expires what is the effect of a Parliamentary vote not to accept it?
Literally no deal would mean disaster, in the ways that the Government has been setting out in graphic detail. In practice a transitional fix would be applied to prevent total chaos. The problem would be that there would be no way forward, and in those circs I think a new election would be inevitable.
An election doesn’t solve it. No party can deliver a majority on any substantial Brexit policy.
The current deadlock is a bit of a fluke - normally one party actually wins. It then becomes easier to cajole/coerce backbenchers into supporting whatever deal can be reached. For example, the rabid obsession with not having some checks on farm produce for Northern Ireland (which is virtually the ENTIRE block on the NI issue) is largely a product of the Government being dependent on the DUP. A government with a majority would simply do it - what are the DUP going to do about it?
It is, I think, quite possible that the Tories would win a snap election called on that basis. But even as a Labour supporter I think I'd prefer either side to win over the current mess.
Isn’t the problem that both parties are split on Brexit. If you take a clear position you immediately lose your majority. Kinnock/Hoey, Mogg/Clarke do not agree.
Comments
In particular after his Phyrric victory over the Junior Doctors, Hunt was astute enough not to actually implement much of it, and he quietly abandoned plans to revise other staff contracts.
This is just one of those hypocritical 'woe is me Britain is uniquely bad' lines which are just plain false.
It's like when people complain about one party indulging in standard political rather than partisan unique behaviours, when the criticised thing happens with both.
Who was the best?
The meeting of Baker and Grieve yesterday was a key point, it shows both the ERG and pro EEA Tories are uniting against Chequers, given both Baker and Grieve are close to Davis it suggests a David Davis coronation if May does lose a vote of no confidence with Davis agreeing the UK stays in the single market and customs union in the transition period to satisfy the pro EEA wing while trying to negotiate a Canada style FTA in the transition period to satisfy the ERG as he had planned to do before Chequers which he loathed from the start and knew the EU would not accept, hence his Cabinet resignation
Waiting in the wings.
I'm going to be watching Jeremy Hunt and his odds very carefully over the next few weeks.
Anyway, time to enjoy the brisk, drizzly autumn air.
Of topic I can really recommend the move 'A Simple Favour' by the way - utterly silly and bonkers, but a lot of fun.
Wouldn’t mind a Hunt premiership - would give Magic Grandpa a run for his money - has May’s dedication, detail skills and work ethic - and much better presentational and people skills.
Then it would be a large party led by backward lunatics.
That didn't answer my question. How do you tell at the point of birth, and categorise it as such?
If May goes Davis is her likely replacement as the only one able to unite the Grieve wing and ERG and the new leader would have to have a coronation to give time to get the withdrawal deal.
Davis would likely keep Hunt as Foreign Secretary though
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/22/john-mcdonnell-labour-wants-to-push-ahead-with-brexit
Now I never trust anything McIRA says, but I wonder what all those who when polled think the Corbyn is anti-Brexit will make of this.
(Which is just as well as he was a right useless so and so.)
That really is a big conversion William
And I do have to point out: if you regard the EU with such contempt, why are you seeking a deal with it?
Did you vote to leave to see us fold instantly ?
I'd strongly consider leaving if there was a 2nd ref now.tbh
Therefore, they either need us to stay in. Or leave and be so badly damaged nobody will follow. The latter might provoke a Eurozone crisis, but that in itself can be used to drive further integration. We, meanwhile, only want to trade freely. The two are clearly utterly incompatible.
It is a stupid, reprehensible, undemocratic, dangerous and ludicrous position to adopt, and therefore it was entirely predictable the EU's administration would do it.
I have said for a long time there will be a crash out. Salzburg should be the moment if we both want a deal when both sides realised they're talking past each other. Unfortunately it isn't, because they still really don't understand each others' positions. Therefore a crash out is now nearly certain.
https://twitter.com/a_e_a_p/status/1042868782413303809?s=19
A half-way competent senior management at the EU would also have worked with us on Brexit. There are benefits to us participating in EU programmes without membership of the organisation. I'll concede that. It is certainy in their better interests to have us involved. What they really, really don't need is a super-Singapore moored just offshore, undercutting investment in the EU countries by having us offer cheaper taxes, less red tape and still only a 25 mile train journey away.
It is very easy to despair at the way our side have proceeded on Brexit. But both sides should be painted with seven shades of shit. The EU has already lost its second largest contributor and second/third largest economy. It has thrown Turkey's membership under the bus just to argue that the Leave campaign was xenophobic Little Englanders. It has moved Switzerland and Norway membership much further away. They have now ensured the club is as big as it can get, by pursuing a policy soley designed to keep the others from digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.
Any other enterprise, the shareholders would have slung them out.
He is planning to create a new unit in the Treasury to oversee the party's wider nationalisation plans.
It would advise on issues such as possible compensation for shareholders.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45609604
Bolded being the important words...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4TLto-nKfU
Even Macron has suggested associate membership for outer tier non Eurozone nations as a longer term goal
*Canada for GB, not NI though. If we refuse that, then WTO is the next step down that staircase. The only issue remaining seems to be whether that is planned WTO via Transition, or unplanned WTO in March 2019.
Really, really poor management by the EU.
Unless Hunt committed to reversing Brexit or staying permanently in the single market and customs union them Umunna and Cable would not join him either
As Brexit is going to happen, a Corbyn Govt. is doubling up on the pain. How ironic - it will be Labour-voting Remainers who are going to make the pain of post-Brexit REALLY bad.....
Objectively speaking, what you say you wanted is exactly what Cameron got - full membership of the single market with a say in all the rules without any assumption of participation in the Eurozone or any related integrationist project that arise from it.
The threat of Chequers to the EU single market is the bigger stumbling block. Once the Tessgasm is over (five days tops) the harsh reality is it’s Britain that has to backslide to avoid crash out.
As a result France and Italy would be more likely to leave the EU before Germany does, at which point the whole thing would collapse anyway. Germany is to the EU as England is to the UK, the most powerful force in the Union. Germany is as likely to vote to leave the EU as England is to vote to leave the UK
It seems then Chequers is dead and Canada +++ is the great hope riding over the horizon. I'm a little bemused though - I know Davis is a fan but why hasn't that been Government policy rather than all this "Chequers" guff?
"If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is" goes the old saying so what's wrong with Canada +++? I presume the +++ bit might be a problem in terms of cherry-picking which the EU has already refused. The volumes of trade between Canada and the EU are so much smaller than the UK-EU trading volumes that I suppose CETA is by definition an easier concept to agree.
Could we really get the kind of preferential treatment for financial, aviation and energy that we would like? What would we have to concede in return?
I did read somewhere CETA was fine for goods but exempted services which are much more important to us. It took Canada and the EU seven years to negotiate CETA and even though there are aspects of it we can take off the peg I presume, as others have stated, we will be looking at a transitional period (during which we remain members of the EU with all the responsibilities and obligations) until CETA comes into effect.
Brexit is a shitshow, and I voted against it, but pretending the EU is somehow not also to blame does not wash.
I would be very surprised if next May's EU elections do not see a big move towards hard right and left MEP's being elected and if so they only have themselves to blame.
It is one of the great mysteries to me as to why Juncker is still in post. Any other CEO would have been sacked for utter incompetence but his legacy is forever tarnished in that he will be Commission President when the UK leave the EU
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/google-staff-discussed-tweaking-search-results-after-trump-travel-ban.html
The fact that Google employees are even thinking of this is extremely concerning. But write a paper on possible reasons for gender inequality in tech and you will be out of the door faster than Corbyn when asked a tough question.
This morning our electric kettle died and so we checked our local Debenhams for it's replacement and it is retailed at £60
Before we went into Town I checked Amazon for the same kettle and it is on line at £29.99 delivered tomorrow and not through Prime.
There is your High Street disaster in the starkest of terms
It is, I think, quite possible that the Tories would win a snap election called on that basis. But even as a Labour supporter I think I'd prefer either side to win over the current mess.
Interestingly in the US, Best Buy (the big box retailer equivalent to Currys / Pc World) is actually doing ok, because they have trained their staff well and offer consultancy / installation services, so people who aren't tech savvy get decent advice and assistant on setting up their home tech.
So if the EU doesn't and really can't offer a partnership of equals, our choice is an unequal relationship or none at all. The second isn't viable.
This is the Brexit reality.
https://gizmodo.com/lets-be-very-clear-about-what-happened-to-james-damore-1822160852
Imagine it's not just a budgetary issue, but the AfD also want to end free movement and sign their own trade deal with Russia.
Canada minus maple syrup plus French cheese, and joint custody of Celine Dion at weekends?
If it was an association of Nations acting together for trade and it's citizens fine, but it is now a political construct moving accountability away from peoples to ever closer union into one federal block
But talking about manipulating search results is absolutely horrifying to me, even in "brain storm".
The UK is at least the same percentage of the EU's population and economy as Scotland is of the UK, yet Juncker stays in post