Whatever else she has done wrong in the Brexit process, including waiting wsy too long to decide what to ask for, May can truthfully say that over the last few months she really has tried. She's accepted concessions, she has tried to sell a climbdown to her party in the face of huge opposition, so she hasn't simply been bloody minded and not played ball.
Disagree. All May has done is act as a conduit for the EU to tell Britain what the EU will and will not accept. Brexit has been all about her willingness to make concessions, for which she has received no quid pro quo from the EU, and her trying to browbeat her party into accepting them. That is not what I call trying.
Not to say it won't happen but since when has leaving a club given the leaving member the right to change the rules of that club?
If we offered CETA, we would not be asking to change the rules. But the EU are asking us to change the rules of our Union for their convenience. So your point is not valid.
AmpfieldAndy is quite right. She said a division in the Union was completely unacceptable; then she sends her chief negotiator off to agree it hoping she can ram it through Cabinet. At every stage, all she has done is find out what concession is necessary to keep the show on the road - but kicking the can was always going to lead us to where we are now; the fundamentals of the deal the EU wants is unacceptable.
In judging the likelihood of a delayed Brexit it is worth considering things from the other side for a moment.
At present the EU have:
* 2 increasingly fascist governments in Poland and Hungary who are refusing to comply with the democratic norms of the club and are in the process of removing their independent judiciary.
* An Italian government that has set a budget unacceptable to the ECB as it increases yet further their unsustainable debt ratios.
* Greece still in the land of make believe with no one accepting the bill for the inevitable default. This land is not sunshine and roses, however, it is an economic disaster.
* A changing of the guard in Germany as the main rock of stability for the last decade edges towards the door.
* An increasing crisis in France as Macron is finding walking on water involves getting seriously wet leaving the EU as leaderless as it has ever been.
In an ideal world the EU would have liked the UK to pay a constructive role in dealing with many of these problems but instead they are a source of yet further problems by insisting on Brexit, significantly reducing the available budget, materially reducing the EU's economic weight internationally and threatening a recession by substantially reducing exports at a time of weak demand.
The EU simply cannot be paralysed by Brexit for another 6 months to a year. There is simply too much else needing attention. I think they will want this done.
And reports that Putin is engineering migration from Libya to try and destabilise the Southern EU.
Hmm. I wonder. I know this is probably optimism, but are the DUP Theresa's best chance of a good deal. - They provide convenient cover for both sides. - Their intransigence is legendary, witness: "it's about who blinks first, and we've cut off our eyelids". - The EU believed the UK would cave the reality and the pressure to avert a crash-out. The DUP would actually allow a calamitous Brexit rather than bend an iota more. Their whole USP is stubbornness. - Thus Theresa/Raab/Robbins being able to say "these are red lines" are now actually credible. Those lines are drawn from the blood of the Troubles. - So the 'opponent' Barnier et al face has, in reality, changed. Previous behaviour is no guide to future behaviour and rather than appear to have failed - a very personal defeat for Barnier and probably the end of his rise in Euro-circles - perhaps he will break open the continental selection of fudge?
After I had bid everyone good night I listened to 5 live as I often do and the host was Stephen Nolan who of course comes from Belfast.
He interviewed Andrew Bridgen over the Irish border and it was the most embarrassing car crash interview I have heard from a conservative mp. He said the English were entiled to apply for Irish passports and then compounded it by saying Irish citizens living in Ireland could vote in GB elections.
Nolan, in utter disbelief, took him apart and Bridgen hung up. A discussion followed with Irish commentators who condemned Bridgen's utter lack of knowledge of Irish issues and not only the horlicks he made of the passports and voting rights but his utter shambles in describing how a border could be avoided when the UK leaves the EU. He was scrambling for credible suggestions and all the time sinking deeper into the mire.
A conservative telephoned in to say how ashamed he was over Bridgen's ignorance and to be honest I could hardly listen to the programme with a conservative mp taking such a shellacking on the media.
He needs to be kept away from any media interviews for his own sake and my party
Recommend anyone interested should catch up on Nolan 5 live show last night
ERG doesn't seem to do a lot of actual research does it?
European Making It Up As We Go Along Group - EMIUAWGAG - was a bit of a mouthful...
Possibly riskier for the Tories. Even if for example there is a perfect 50-50 split on blame then those who blame the Tories for any negatives would be more likely to have their vote affected by it than those who blame Europe. Also those who spread the blame between the EU and Conservatives would only (in a GE) be able to vote against (or withhold support from) one of those 2.
If Lbour changed to someone more credible then I would lend them my vote. The state of British politics at the moment is shocking. We make Italy look like a paragon of democratic virtue and stability
I’m struggling to think of any posts you’ve contributed on here where you sound like a Tory.
Guess we’ll have to take your word for it.
I have seen quite a few. Brexit is not the entirety of politics, and a significant minority of Tory members and voters are pro-Remain.
Both BigG and I are Tory members who voted Remain but will accept Brexit but only with a Deal
Depending on which side is being more obstreperous, I'm oscillating between:
1. We voted Leave so we should leave. The EU is being deliberately unhelpful and if we can't do a deal on sensible terms then we shouldn't do a deal at all. We certainly shouldn't just sign up to whatever the EU puts in front of us because of the blackmail of an induced No Deal, and while we're at it, if they're going to take a Trump-like transactional zero-sum attitude to it, let's throw in Nato membership and intelligence co-operation to the mix, and see how that affects thinking on the Baltic;
and
2. FFS, 48% voted Remain, almost certainly 60%+ would be happy with some form of Single Market arrangement, there'd probably be a majority for Remain now in a re-run of the first vote, and it'd be bloody stupid to go for a deeply damaging Crash Brexit, which of itself has slimmish support (and support which would probably ebb away once the reality hit), over an outcome people would on balance prefer. Let's sign up to EEA, which at least honours the letter of EURef1 while protecting co-operation, trade and growth.
Currently leaning towards (2), though if Martin Selmayr manages to upset me more than Andrea Jenkyns (what is it about people with silly Ys in their name?), that could flip again.
So you didn't hear Andrew Bridgen on Nolan last night. Jenkyns and Bridgen do their cause enormous damage.
After I had bid everyone good night I listened to 5 live as I often do and the host was Stephen Nolan who of course comes from Belfast.
He interviewed Andrew Bridgen over the Irish border and it was the most embarrassing car crash interview I have heard from a conservative mp. He said the English were entiled to apply for Irish passports and then compounded it by saying Irish citizens living in Ireland could vote in GB elections.
Nolan, in utter disbelief, took him apart and Bridgen hung up. A discussion followed with Irish commentators who condemned Bridgen's utter lack of knowledge of Irish issues and not only the horlicks he made of the passports and voting rights but his utter shambles in describing how a border could be avoided when the UK leaves the EU. He was scrambling for credible suggestions and all the time sinking deeper into the mire.
A conservative telephoned in to say how ashamed he was over Bridgen's ignorance and to be honest I could hardly listen to the programme with a conservative mp taking such a shellacking on the media.
He needs to be kept away from any media interviews for his own sake and my party
Recommend anyone interested should catch up on Nolan 5 live show last night
Actually, IIRC, under the 1949 Act, Irish citizens could vote in UK elections and UK citizens in Irish elections. I do not know if this has been repealed, but it never granted citizenship. For that you had to be born "on the Island of Ireland including Northern Ireland" (it is actually a bit more complex, but those are the basics)
After I had bid everyone good night I listened to 5 live as I often do and the host was Stephen Nolan who of course comes from Belfast.
He interviewed Andrew Bridgen over the Irish border and it was the most embarrassing car crash interview I have heard from a conservative mp. He said the English were entiled to apply for Irish passports and then compounded it by saying Irish citizens living in Ireland could vote in GB elections.
Nolan, in utter disbelief, took him apart and Bridgen hung up. A discussion followed with Irish commentators who condemned Bridgen's utter lack of knowledge of Irish issues and not only the horlicks he made of the passports and voting rights but his utter shambles in describing how a border could be avoided when the UK leaves the EU. He was scrambling for credible suggestions and all the time sinking deeper into the mire.
A conservative telephoned in to say how ashamed he was over Bridgen's ignorance and to be honest I could hardly listen to the programme with a conservative mp taking such a shellacking on the media.
He needs to be kept away from any media interviews for his own sake and my party
Recommend anyone interested should catch up on Nolan 5 live show last night
ERG doesn't seem to do a lot of actual research does it?
On topic, I think OGH makes a good point. In order to get a deal May has to agree something with the EU that Is acceptable to
A the cabinet B the Tory party C the DUP D Parliament
In the 28 months since the referendum she has not yet managed to get something acceptable to the Cabinet, let alone the other groups whose support she needs. It seem very unlikely that she can get all of them on board in the five months that are left.
In judging the likelihood of a delayed Brexit it is worth considering things from the other side for a moment.
At present the EU have:
* 2 increasingly fascist governments in Poland and Hungary who are refusing to comply with the democratic norms of the club and are in the process of removing their independent judiciary.
* An Italian government that has set a budget unacceptable to the ECB as it increases yet further their unsustainable debt ratios.
* Greece still in the land of make believe with no one accepting the bill for the inevitable default. This land is not sunshine and roses, however, it is an economic disaster.
* A changing of the guard in Germany as the main rock of stability for the last decade edges towards the door.
* An increasing crisis in France as Macron is finding walking on water involves getting seriously wet leaving the EU as leaderless as it has ever been.
In an ideal world the EU would have liked the UK to pay a constructive role in dealing with many of these problems but instead they are a source of yet further problems by insisting on Brexit, significantly reducing the available budget, materially reducing the EU's economic weight internationally and threatening a recession by substantially reducing exports at a time of weak demand.
The EU simply cannot be paralysed by Brexit for another 6 months to a year. There is simply too much else needing attention. I think they will want this done.
And reports that Putin is engineering migration from Libya to try and destabilise the Southern EU.
There is a whole crop of problems on the EU's boundaries which need attention and effort to create/maintain a united and credible front in addition to the internal issues I have listed.
Before clicking, I thought there was a very high likelihood that he had been misquoted/misunderstood. I was wrong.
Why do they keep letting this ignorant twat go on the radio?
They may have assumed he couldn't tie his shoe laces so wouldn't get out of the house...
Of course technically if he were to move to Ireland (no restriction), take up residence (no restriction) and live there for five years (no restriction) he could apply for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport. But I very much doubt thats what he meant.
I doubt this particular back door route to EU citizenship for UK nationals will survive the post Brexit fallout.
If we did get no deal, it would depend where blame was seen to lie. It could be seen as Conservative incompetence, or the UK defying the hostile demands of a foreign power. (Of course, it'd likely be seen as both, with diehard supporters either side lining up for/against the blues and the floating voter determining which side is in the majority).
Possibly riskier for the Tories. Even if for example there is a perfect 50-50 split on blame then those who blame the Tories for any negatives would be more likely to have their vote affected by it than those who blame Europe. Also those who spread the blame between the EU and Conservatives would only (in a GE) be able to vote against (or withhold support from) one of those 2.
Even though I am a Tory, I will blame the Tories. Sadly there is not a credible opposition leader. However stupid the Tories have been over Brexit, and however I hate Johnson, Davis and the disgraced GP, I will not vote for a party with an intellectually lightweight, anti-Semite, quasi-Communist for its leader.
If Labour changed to someone more credible then I would lend them my vote. The state of British politics at the moment is shocking. We make Italy look like a paragon of democratic virtue and stability
I’m struggling to think of any posts you’ve contributed on here where you sound like a Tory.
Guess we’ll have to take your word for it.
I have seen quite a few. Brexit is not the entirety of politics, and a significant minority of Tory members and voters are pro-Remain.
Both BigG and I are Tory members who voted Remain but will accept Brexit but only with a Deal
I do have respect for BigG. But really what this is saying is that you will only accept the referendum result if there is a deal, even if this deal is actively harmful to the UK (as permanent CU membership certainly would be).
This is not a defendable position. You either accept the referendum result, or you do not. I would suggest that in Remainer's shock at losing, they simply cling to the 'we must have a deal' line because it allows them the feeling of some control. What we are seeing is that the deal that they desire is going to be far more harmful to the UK than no deal. Being a member of the EU CU without remaining in the EEA is sure economic suicide; at least no deal has options that could make it a success.
After I had bid everyone good night I listened to 5 live as I often do and the host was Stephen Nolan who of course comes from Belfast.
He interviewed Andrew Bridgen over the Irish border and it was the most embarrassing car crash interview I have heard from a conservative mp. He said the English were entiled to apply for Irish passports and then compounded it by saying Irish citizens living in Ireland could vote in GB elections.
Nolan, in utter disbelief, took him apart and Bridgen hung up. A discussion followed with Irish commentators who condemned Bridgen's utter lack of knowledge of Irish issues and not only the horlicks he made of the passports and voting rights but his utter shambles in describing how a border could be avoided when the UK leaves the EU. He was scrambling for credible suggestions and all the time sinking deeper into the mire.
A conservative telephoned in to say how ashamed he was over Bridgen's ignorance and to be honest I could hardly listen to the programme with a conservative mp taking such a shellacking on the media.
He needs to be kept away from any media interviews for his own sake and my party
Recommend anyone interested should catch up on Nolan 5 live show last night
Actually, IIRC, under the 1949 Act, Irish citizens could vote in UK elections and UK citizens in Irish elections. I do not know if this has been repealed, but it never granted citizenship. For that you had to be born "on the Island of Ireland including Northern Ireland" (it is actually a bit more complex, but those are the basics)
Bridgen was saying Irish citizens living and domicilled in Ireland could vote in GB elections and was taken apart by Nolan
In judging the likelihood of a delayed Brexit it is worth considering things from the other side for a moment.
At present the EU have:
* 2 increasingly fascist governments in Poland and Hungary who are refusing to comply with the democratic norms of the club and are in the process of removing their independent judiciary.
* An Italian government that has set a budget unacceptable to the ECB as it increases yet further their unsustainable debt ratios.
* Greece still in the land of make believe with no one accepting the bill for the inevitable default. This land is not sunshine and roses, however, it is an economic disaster.
* A changing of the guard in Germany as the main rock of stability for the last decade edges towards the door.
* An increasing crisis in France as Macron is finding walking on water involves getting seriously wet leaving the EU as leaderless as it has ever been.
In an ideal world the EU would have liked the UK to pay a constructive role in dealing with many of these problems but instead they are a source of yet further problems by insisting on Brexit, significantly reducing the available budget, materially reducing the EU's economic weight internationally and threatening a recession by substantially reducing exports at a time of weak demand.
The EU simply cannot be paralysed by Brexit for another 6 months to a year. There is simply too much else needing attention. I think they will want this done.
Spot on Mr L
we spend too much time focused on the UK and not enough looking at what is happening around us. The EU we would remain in is different than the one we voted to leave. With both good and bad things for the UK.
Mr. Topping, to be fair, Prince President or President Prince sounds like quite the title.
Mrs C, in the Golden Age of Imperial Rome, in the 2nd century, heirs were usually nominated and adopted. This ended with Commodus (although there's a suspicion he may not have been Marcus Aurelius' real son). So there still wouldn't be a sixth in line to the throne.
Before clicking, I thought there was a very high likelihood that he had been misquoted/misunderstood. I was wrong.
Why do they keep letting this ignorant twat go on the radio?
They may have assumed he couldn't tie his shoe laces so wouldn't get out of the house...
Of course technically if he were to move to Ireland (no restriction), take up residence (no restriction) and live there for five years (no restriction) he could apply for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport. But I very much doubt thats what he meant.
I doubt this particular back door route to EU citizenship for UK nationals will survive the post Brexit fallout.
Its involved in the CTA - which I would have thought Dublin unwilling to unwind....
So the EU is sticking to negotiating in bad faith, and is putting us on notice it will keep us hooked into the EU, by continuing to negotiate in bad faith until the clock runs down.
Foxtrot Oscar.
This is the second time they have retraded on a big issue. You can’t negotiate with someone like that
We had been led to believe that May had gotten the EU to swap the NI backstop for a whole UK backstop. But this suggests that there are two backstops - the underlying NI backstop and an overlying UK backstop.
This makes sense, because if the EU aim to offer CETA, there would never be a solution to the NI border so the UK would have to remain in the CU forever. But what the EU seem to be saying is that if the UK want CETA, they will have to waive the UK backstop and leave NI separated in their backstop.
Being blunt, if this this true, there is no chance whatsoever for a deal.
In judging the likelihood of a delayed Brexit it is worth considering things from the other side for a moment.
At present the EU have:
* 2 increasingly fascist governments in Poland and Hungary who are refusing to comply with the democratic norms of the club and are in the process of removing their independent judiciary.
* An Italian government that has set a budget unacceptable to the ECB as it increases yet further their unsustainable debt ratios.
* Greece still in the land of make believe with no one accepting the bill for the inevitable default. This land is not sunshine and roses, however, it is an economic disaster.
* A changing of the guard in Germany as the main rock of stability for the last decade edges towards the door.
* An increasing crisis in France as Macron is finding walking on water involves getting seriously wet leaving the EU as leaderless as it has ever been.
In an ideal world the EU would have liked the UK to pay a constructive role in dealing with many of these problems but instead they are a source of yet further problems by insisting on Brexit, significantly reducing the available budget, materially reducing the EU's economic weight internationally and threatening a recession by substantially reducing exports at a time of weak demand.
The EU simply cannot be paralysed by Brexit for another 6 months to a year. There is simply too much else needing attention. I think they will want this done.
That’s a very good point.
But it also provides an opening for the UK to reverse its decision before the end of March, were we willing to do so. It would be a relief to the EU if there was not this break - particularly a messy one - because no-one can be sure what the consequences will be and no amount of planning can mitigate everything that might happen.
And it seems to me that the Brexiteers simply have no idea what sort of Brexit they want that is achievable in the real world and/or are willing to court disaster as part of some willy-waving contest. It is absurd and dangerous. Continuing on such a course is stupid. The idea that we should end up with No Deal because of the Tory party’s internal arguments and its arguments with 10 Northern Irish MPs who don’t even represent the majority view of the people of Northern Ireland is outrageous.
After I had bid everyone good night I listened to 5 live as I often do and the host was Stephen Nolan who of course comes from Belfast.
He interviewed Andrew Bridgen over the Irish border and it was the most embarrassing car crash interview I have heard from a conservative mp. He said the English were entiled to apply for Irish passports and then compounded it by saying Irish citizens living in Ireland could vote in GB elections.
Nolan, in utter disbelief, took him apart and Bridgen hung up. A discussion followed with Irish commentators who condemned Bridgen's utter lack of knowledge of Irish issues and not only the horlicks he made of the passports and voting rights but his utter shambles in describing how a border could be avoided when the UK leaves the EU. He was scrambling for credible suggestions and all the time sinking deeper into the mire.
A conservative telephoned in to say how ashamed he was over Bridgen's ignorance and to be honest I could hardly listen to the programme with a conservative mp taking such a shellacking on the media.
He needs to be kept away from any media interviews for his own sake and my party
Recommend anyone interested should catch up on Nolan 5 live show last night
Actually, IIRC, under the 1949 Act, Irish citizens could vote in UK elections and UK citizens in Irish elections. I do not know if this has been repealed, but it never granted citizenship. For that you had to be born "on the Island of Ireland including Northern Ireland" (it is actually a bit more complex, but those are the basics)
Irish and UK citizens can vote in each other's elections if they are resident in the country they wish to vote in. Bridgen is wrong that Irish citizens living in Ireland can vote in UK general elections.
I'm amazed that a royal baby has been planned for after Brexit what with pestilence and plague sweeping the nation.
The plan* is for the baby to be born in the USA, so will be a natural born citizen. In a few decades time then we have a Royal POTUS.
*or so some bloke on twitter says...
The yanks would love a POTUS Windsor.
Re-unification. The long lost colony would return to it's right up owner.
Do we want a nation half-full of creationists and religious nutjobs e.g. Westboro baptists? I mean, we already have the DUP...
And whatever else you think of Mrs May, at least we have not elected Boris a Trump look-a-like to the highest office.
President Trump does not seem very religious. Of our recent prime ministers, Gordon Brown and Theresa May were son and daughter of the manse, as was Margaret Thatcher as near as damn it since her father was an active lay preacher. For all that, it was Tony Blair, of course, who had a direct line to the almighty.
In judging the likelihood of a delayed Brexit it is worth considering things from the other side for a moment.
At present the EU have:
* 2 increasingly fascist governments in Poland and Hungary who are refusing to comply with the democratic norms of the club and are in the process of removing their independent judiciary.
* An Italian government that has set a budget unacceptable to the ECB as it increases yet further their unsustainable debt ratios.
* Greece still in the land of make believe with no one accepting the bill for the inevitable default. This land is not sunshine and roses, however, it is an economic disaster.
* A changing of the guard in Germany as the main rock of stability for the last decade edges towards the door.
* An increasing crisis in France as Macron is finding walking on water involves getting seriously wet leaving the EU as leaderless as it has ever been.
In an ideal world the EU would have liked the UK to pay a constructive role in dealing with many of these problems but instead they are a source of yet further problems by insisting on Brexit, significantly reducing the available budget, materially reducing the EU's economic weight internationally and threatening a recession by substantially reducing exports at a time of weak demand.
The EU simply cannot be paralysed by Brexit for another 6 months to a year. There is simply too much else needing attention. I think they will want this done.
That’s a very good point.
But it also provides an opening for the UK to reverse its decision before the end of March, were we willing to do so. It would be a relief to the EU if there was not this break - particularly a messy one - because no-one can be sure what the consequences will be and no amount of planning can mitigate everything that might happen.
And it seems to me that the Brexiteers simply have no idea what sort of Brexit they want that is achievable in the real world and/or are willing to court disaster as part of some willy-waving contest. It is absurd and dangerous. Continuing on such a course is stupid. The idea that we should end up with No Deal because of the Tory party’s internal arguments and its arguments with 10 Northern Irish MPs who don’t even represent the majority view of the people of Northern Ireland is outrageous.
We should be asked if we agree to this.
One might wonder with all this bad stuff going on, why would we want to be part of it....
After I had bid everyone good night I listened to 5 live as I often do and the host was Stephen Nolan who of course comes from Belfast.
He interviewed Andrew Bridgen over the Irish border and it was the most embarrassing car crash interview I have heard from a conservative mp. He said the English were entiled to apply for Irish passports and then compounded it by saying Irish citizens living in Ireland could vote in GB elections.
Nolan, in utter disbelief, took him apart and Bridgen hung up. A discussion followed with Irish commentators who condemned Bridgen's utter lack of knowledge of Irish issues and not only the horlicks he made of the passports and voting rights but his utter shambles in describing how a border could be avoided when the UK leaves the EU. He was scrambling for credible suggestions and all the time sinking deeper into the mire.
A conservative telephoned in to say how ashamed he was over Bridgen's ignorance and to be honest I could hardly listen to the programme with a conservative mp taking such a shellacking on the media.
He needs to be kept away from any media interviews for his own sake and my party
Recommend anyone interested should catch up on Nolan 5 live show last night
Actually, IIRC, under the 1949 Act, Irish citizens could vote in UK elections and UK citizens in Irish elections. I do not know if this has been repealed, but it never granted citizenship. For that you had to be born "on the Island of Ireland including Northern Ireland" (it is actually a bit more complex, but those are the basics)
UK citizens couldnt vote in RoI elections until 1984, which seemed a bit mean of them.
So the EU is sticking to negotiating in bad faith, and is putting us on notice it will keep us hooked into the EU, by continuing to negotiate in bad faith until the clock runs down.
Foxtrot Oscar.
This is the second time they have retraded on a big issue. You can’t negotiate with someone like that
So the EU is sticking to negotiating in bad faith, and is putting us on notice it will keep us hooked into the EU, by continuing to negotiate in bad faith until the clock runs down.
Foxtrot Oscar.
This is the second time they have retraded on a big issue. You can’t negotiate with someone like that
Except we have to.
Technically inaccurate.
We can negotiate or we cannot negotiate. I make that an option outside the remit of having to negotiate with them.
"Our study does not consider the one-time costs faced by government and business of adjusting to Brexit, nor does the model capture the sector-specific impact on deeply integrated UK-EU supply chains, such as on the automotive sector, which is likely to be negative."
Before clicking, I thought there was a very high likelihood that he had been misquoted/misunderstood. I was wrong.
Why do they keep letting this ignorant twat go on the radio?
They may have assumed he couldn't tie his shoe laces so wouldn't get out of the house...
Of course technically if he were to move to Ireland (no restriction), take up residence (no restriction) and live there for five years (no restriction) he could apply for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport. But I very much doubt thats what he meant.
I doubt this particular back door route to EU citizenship for UK nationals will survive the post Brexit fallout.
You can get Irish citizenship if you have a parent or grandparent who is Irish. According to the Irish authorities, there has been a notable increase in the number of English citizens taking up this option since the referendum. I doubt the Irish will close off this route.
And if you are English and married to an EU citizen you have the same rights as them to live and work within the EU, so I understand.
"Our study does not consider the one-time costs faced by government and business of adjusting to Brexit, nor does the model capture the sector-specific impact on deeply integrated UK-EU supply chains, such as on the automotive sector, which is likely to be negative."
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
We had been led to believe that May had gotten the EU to swap the NI backstop for a whole UK backstop. But this suggests that there are two backstops - the underlying NI backstop and an overlying UK backstop.
This makes sense, because if the EU aim to offer CETA, there would never be a solution to the NI border so the UK would have to remain in the CU forever. But what the EU seem to be saying is that if the UK want CETA, they will have to waive the UK backstop and leave NI separated in their backstop.
Being blunt, if this this true, there is no chance whatsoever for a deal.
what conditions to the implementation of the first UK-wide backstop are there?
The whole point of the backstop is that there are no conditions.
Before clicking, I thought there was a very high likelihood that he had been misquoted/misunderstood. I was wrong.
Why do they keep letting this ignorant twat go on the radio?
They may have assumed he couldn't tie his shoe laces so wouldn't get out of the house...
Of course technically if he were to move to Ireland (no restriction), take up residence (no restriction) and live there for five years (no restriction) he could apply for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport. But I very much doubt thats what he meant.
I doubt this particular back door route to EU citizenship for UK nationals will survive the post Brexit fallout.
I doubt the Irish will close off this route.
Given 8% of Ireland's population lives in the UK, while 0.4% of the UK's population live in Ireland, no, it would be a strange decision to take.
So the EU is sticking to negotiating in bad faith, and is putting us on notice it will keep us hooked into the EU, by continuing to negotiate in bad faith until the clock runs down.
Foxtrot Oscar.
This is the second time they have retraded on a big issue. You can’t negotiate with someone like that
Except we have to.
You can’t have meaningful negotiations with someone like that
Feels to me the EU is digging in, misunderstanding the British psyche again
I don’t think they *want* no deal but it’s the consequence of their approach
"Our study does not consider the one-time costs faced by government and business of adjusting to Brexit, nor does the model capture the sector-specific impact on deeply integrated UK-EU supply chains, such as on the automotive sector, which is likely to be negative."
I mean you have to wonder why they bothered then.
Seriously? The big issues around No Deal Brexit being totally ignored (and the impacts on deeply integrated supply chains are going to end up forming the starting point for any evolution beyond that point - so glossing over it means that everything beyond that point is up in the air.
That ain't an analysis. It's an item of propaganda. And the problem with that is that if we do have a No Deal Brexit (which looks plausible; estimates of the probability are unknowable and vary dependent on our assumptions, which vary dependent on what each of us want to be true), handwaving ain't going to do any good. We'll actually be living it. And the people selling this shit will have to be the ones carrying the can.
So the EU is sticking to negotiating in bad faith, and is putting us on notice it will keep us hooked into the EU, by continuing to negotiate in bad faith until the clock runs down.
Foxtrot Oscar.
This is the second time they have retraded on a big issue. You can’t negotiate with someone like that
Except we have to.
You can’t have meaningful negotiations with someone like that
Feels to me the EU is digging in, misunderstanding the British psyche again
I don’t think they *want* no deal but it’s the consequence of their approach
If so, they will have wargamed it a lot more than we seem to have.
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
The Tories are not the only actors in the play. With my betfair position the DUP, Barnier, Varadkar and Labour about, best for them to remain united for the moment.
So the EU is sticking to negotiating in bad faith, and is putting us on notice it will keep us hooked into the EU, by continuing to negotiate in bad faith until the clock runs down.
Foxtrot Oscar.
This is the second time they have retraded on a big issue. You can’t negotiate with someone like that
Except we have to.
You can’t have meaningful negotiations with someone like that
Feels to me the EU is digging in, misunderstanding the British psyche again
I don’t think they *want* no deal but it’s the consequence of their approach
You could ask the electorate something along the lines of this question: 'Do you accept a border between Mainland and NI?' in two ways:
The first way is as the free choice of the UK electorate: The second is as a consequence of (real or perceived) EU dogma or intransigence.
I believe you will get two very different results to the same basic question dependant on where the impetus for the change originates.
The EU simply cannot be paralysed by Brexit for another 6 months to a year. There is simply too much else needing attention. I think they will want this done.
That’s a very good point.
But it also provides an opening for the UK to reverse its decision before the end of March, were we willing to do so. It would be a relief to the EU if there was not this break - particularly a messy one - because no-one can be sure what the consequences will be and no amount of planning can mitigate everything that might happen.
And it seems to me that the Brexiteers simply have no idea what sort of Brexit they want that is achievable in the real world and/or are willing to court disaster as part of some willy-waving contest. It is absurd and dangerous. Continuing on such a course is stupid. The idea that we should end up with No Deal because of the Tory party’s internal arguments and its arguments with 10 Northern Irish MPs who don’t even represent the majority view of the people of Northern Ireland is outrageous.
We should be asked if we agree to this.
One might wonder with all this bad stuff going on, why would we want to be part of it....
Bad stuff in Europe has a tendency to affect us. If we can help avoid problems by being involved we all win.
I don’t particularly like the EU and have some very serious reservations about their behaviour and direction of travel and default instincts. I don’t think that the UK fits in easily. There is a case for Brexit done sensibly and slowly and intelligently.
That is not what we are getting.
But there is also a dangerous world out there - with Putin and Trump tearing up the rules - and Britain can - and should - play its part with its neighbours to try and make the world less dangerous, more secure and better for its citizens. So at this point - because of the unbelievably inept way the Brexit process is being managed and because of what is happening beyond these shores - on balance I think we should remain.
Sure, we will probably survive a No Deal Brexit. I hope so. But we should as a country aim for more than just survival, no? That is not what we were promised, was it? There is no shame in changing our minds as the facts change, is there?
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The EU simply cannot be paralysed by Brexit for another 6 months to a year. There is simply too much else needing attention. I think they will want this done.
That’s a very good point.
But it also provides an opening for the UK to reverse its decision before the end of March, were we willing to do so. It would be a relief to the EU if there was not this break - particularly a messy one - because no-one can be sure what the consequences will be and no amount of planning can mitigate everything that might happen.
And it seems to me that the Brexiteers simply have no idea what sort of Brexit they want that is achievable in the real world and/or are willing to court disaster as part of some willy-waving contest. It is absurd and dangerous. Continuing on such a course is stupid. The idea that we should end up with No Deal because of the Tory party’s internal arguments and its arguments with 10 Northern Irish MPs who don’t even represent the majority view of the people of Northern Ireland is outrageous.
We should be asked if we agree to this.
One might wonder with all this bad stuff going on, why would we want to be part of it....
Bad stuff in Europe has a tendency to affect us. If we can help avoid problems by being involved we all win.
I don’t particularly like the EU and have some very serious reservations about their behaviour and direction of travel and default instincts. I don’t think that the UK fits in easily. There is a case for Brexit done sensibly and slowly and intelligently.
That is not what we are getting.
But there is also a dangerous world out there - with Putin and Trump tearing up the rules - and Britain can - and should - play its part with its neighbours to try and make the world less dangerous, more secure and better for its citizens. So at this point - because of the unbelievably inept way the Brexit process is being managed and because of what is happening beyond these shores - on balance I think we should remain.
Sure, we will probably survive a No Deal Brexit. I hope so. But we should as a country aim for more than just survival, no? That is not what we were promised, was it? There is no shame in changing our minds as the facts change, is there?
EU citizens with a valid identity card or passport may:
Enter another EU country, as may their family members - whether EU citizens or not - without requiring an exit or entry visa.
Interestingly, the answer to LEAVE's immigration obsession is a few lines further down - an option we seemingly chose never to use.
Live in another EU country for longer than 3 months subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host country. Those who are employed or self-employed do not need to meet any other conditions. Students and other people not working for payment, such as those in retirement, must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family, so as not to be a burden on the host country’s social assistance system, and comprehensive sickness insurance cover.
"Our study does not consider the one-time costs faced by government and business of adjusting to Brexit, nor does the model capture the sector-specific impact on deeply integrated UK-EU supply chains, such as on the automotive sector, which is likely to be negative."
I mean you have to wonder why they bothered then.
Seriously? The big issues around No Deal Brexit being totally ignored (and the impacts on deeply integrated supply chains are going to end up forming the starting point for any evolution beyond that point - so glossing over it means that everything beyond that point is up in the air.
That ain't an analysis. It's an item of propaganda. And the problem with that is that if we do have a No Deal Brexit (which looks plausible; estimates of the probability are unknowable and vary dependent on our assumptions, which vary dependent on what each of us want to be true), handwaving ain't going to do any good. We'll actually be living it. And the people selling this shit will have to be the ones carrying the can.
These bosses at car manufacturers can't be much cop if they can't lobby EU governments to keep their supply chains running smoothly.
Why don't they be more proactive than reactive - isn't that why they get paid the big bucks ?
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
Until tomorrow...May will tell the Cabinet that it won't happen and will go straight back to trying to make it happen. It is what she does.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Mr. P, in the 9th century kings were determined by the choice of the Witan, so there was no sixth in line to the throne.
Peston is wrong.
Worth noting that in the 9th century, England (never mind the wider world) was not yet one country and different kingdoms had different traditions at different times. There was one period (877-883, IIRC) when Jorvik operated peacefully without any king at all.
Andrea Jenkyns: "It is better to go down fighting and honouring the democratic decision of our British people". What an utter tool. I don't remember "go down fighting" on the ballot paper. Or in the campaign. Or ever talked about.
And what is she advocating? Specifically? What does "go down" mean - the end of jobs? A viable economy? Food and medicines readily available? She thinks the people of Morley will thank her for that?
Its some kind of psychosis. Having offered people a better future if they vote to leave they seem insistent that people voted to destroy all they currently have. That national triumph would be national ruin. Because in "go down fighting" she isn't even in denial about what is to come. She knows it will be a catastrophe, but somehow thinks this self-inflicted catastrophe will make people wave the flag and vote Conservative in gratitude. She has a majority of 2,104
And to think such a muppet replaced Ed Balls. I was never his greatest fan but by comparison to her he’s a giant.
To add to her chances she is married to an MP in Bristol and lives with him in London.
More than that - look how they got together, she flaunted their affair in front of his (then) wife. And that's before we get to the fashion choices of those elf outfits.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
"Our study does not consider the one-time costs faced by government and business of adjusting to Brexit, nor does the model capture the sector-specific impact on deeply integrated UK-EU supply chains, such as on the automotive sector, which is likely to be negative."
I mean you have to wonder why they bothered then.
Seriously? The big issues around No Deal Brexit being totally ignored (and the impacts on deeply integrated supply chains are going to end up forming the starting point for any evolution beyond that point - so glossing over it means that everything beyond that point is up in the air.
That ain't an analysis. It's an item of propaganda. And the problem with that is that if we do have a No Deal Brexit (which looks plausible; estimates of the probability are unknowable and vary dependent on our assumptions, which vary dependent on what each of us want to be true), handwaving ain't going to do any good. We'll actually be living it. And the people selling this shit will have to be the ones carrying the can.
The thought of Johnson, JRM and co being skewered on TV as planes are grounded and food shortages worsen is the only bright spot in the no deal scenario.
"Our study does not consider the one-time costs faced by government and business of adjusting to Brexit, nor does the model capture the sector-specific impact on deeply integrated UK-EU supply chains, such as on the automotive sector, which is likely to be negative."
I mean you have to wonder why they bothered then.
Seriously? The big issues around No Deal Brexit being totally ignored (and the impacts on deeply integrated supply chains are going to end up forming the starting point for any evolution beyond that point - so glossing over it means that everything beyond that point is up in the air.
That ain't an analysis. It's an item of propaganda. And the problem with that is that if we do have a No Deal Brexit (which looks plausible; estimates of the probability are unknowable and vary dependent on our assumptions, which vary dependent on what each of us want to be true), handwaving ain't going to do any good. We'll actually be living it. And the people selling this shit will have to be the ones carrying the can.
The thought of Johnson, JRM and co being skewered on TV as planes are grounded and food shortages worsen is the only bright spot in the no deal scenario.
JRM is in charge of no deal planning ? This is news...
Actually, IIRC, under the 1949 Act, Irish citizens could vote in UK elections and UK citizens in Irish elections. I do not know if this has been repealed, but it never granted citizenship. For that you had to be born "on the Island of Ireland including Northern Ireland" (it is actually a bit more complex, but those are the basics)
Irish and UK citizens can vote in each other's elections if they are resident in the country they wish to vote in. Bridgen is wrong that Irish citizens living in Ireland can vote in UK general elections.
Even if we can't agree a solution as per the current dialogue, there are other options - like EEA / EFTA in a transition period as proposed by Nick Boles, ahead of negotiating something broader.
Justifying no deal on the basis of "we want to go down fighting" is masochistic stupidity of the highest order.
So if Dave is supposed to be the worst PM evah on account of the referendum, what does that make May on account of the GE?
Dave was merely a lightweitght compared to the damage done by his two predecessors
The global financial crisis started in America. Brexit, however you view its merits, was entirely self-inflicted.
I can well understand your shame in Labours huge mismanagment of the UK economy, Bexit is simply a breeze compared to the hurricane of destruction Blair and Brown caused, and even Brexit couldnt have happened without the fetid hand of Blair on immigration.
We had been led to believe that May had gotten the EU to swap the NI backstop for a whole UK backstop. But this suggests that there are two backstops - the underlying NI backstop and an overlying UK backstop.
This makes sense, because if the EU aim to offer CETA, there would never be a solution to the NI border so the UK would have to remain in the CU forever. But what the EU seem to be saying is that if the UK want CETA, they will have to waive the UK backstop and leave NI separated in their backstop.
Being blunt, if this this true, there is no chance whatsoever for a deal.
what conditions to the implementation of the first UK-wide backstop are there?
The whole point of the backstop is that there are no conditions.
Or is it just the time-limited part?
From what I can assume from this, the NI only backstop will exist permanently, unless the EU agree to release it.
My guess is that May is going to try and have a UK wide backstop that we can choose to enter and leave. However, if we ever want to have CETA (which is all we will be offered), we will have to leave the UK backstop but the NI backstop remains. This is exactly the same outcome that she said 'no PM could ever agree with'.
Of course, the only way out of this would be to agree to EEA+CU later, which is of course why the ERG and Leavers and DUP know it is a stitch up by Robbins and moved to block it.
I have no idea if May has any idea what she is doing. Presumably she will say the problem will be solved by Chequers, and expect people to take her seriously.
If this is the path she is going down, there is no way it can lead to a deal that she can pass.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
I don't understand your logic. You seem to admit that Leave voters were made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition which (just) beat the Remainers. Now that we may be getting a crystallised version of Leave it is quite reasonable to set that against the option of staying and even of crashing out with No Deal in a new referendum. It is pure masochism to say that we have to leave because we just about said so 2 years ago even though we now know that there will be considerable damage to the UK and there is no longer a majority for doing so.
EU citizens with a valid identity card or passport may:
Enter another EU country, as may their family members - whether EU citizens or not - without requiring an exit or entry visa.
Interestingly, the answer to LEAVE's immigration obsession is a few lines further down - an option we seemingly chose never to use.
Live in another EU country for longer than 3 months subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host country. Those who are employed or self-employed do not need to meet any other conditions. Students and other people not working for payment, such as those in retirement, must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family, so as not to be a burden on the host country’s social assistance system, and comprehensive sickness insurance cover.
The 3 month thing has been very difficult to use because of a line of Article 20 non-discrimination cases.
The only countries with any success have been those that impose significant restrictions on their own benefits seekers.
Even if we can't agree a solution as per the current dialogue, there are other options - like EEA / EFTA in a transition period as proposed by Nick Boles, ahead of negotiating something broader.
Justifying no deal on the basis of "we want to go down fighting" is masochistic stupidity of the highest order.
EEA lifeboat won't work - the EU will want the backstop for this as well, in case we leave the EEA later (which is what we are saying would happen).
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
I don't understand your logic. You seem to admit that Leave voters were made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition which (just) beat the Remainers. Now that we may be getting a crystallised version of Leave it is quite reasonable to set that against the option of staying and even of crashing out with No Deal in a new referendum. It is pure masochism to say that we have to leave because we just about said so 2 years ago even though we now know that there will be considerable damage to the UK and there is no longer a majority for doing so.
Weren't Remainers made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition that lost fair and square to the Leavers?
How do we know there is no longer a majority for doing so?
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The ERG have been VERY successful. Every time they’ve pushed, they’ve succeeeded in getting their position accepted by the leadership, both before and since the referendum.
Can anyone point out to me who said that we would be able to leave the EU on the same terms? I know someone on here said that a Leave campaigner said it, but I’ve googled it and cannot find it.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I thought David Davis and Dominic Raab were committed leavers?
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
I don't understand your logic. You seem to admit that Leave voters were made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition which (just) beat the Remainers. Now that we may be getting a crystallised version of Leave it is quite reasonable to set that against the option of staying and even of crashing out with No Deal in a new referendum. It is pure masochism to say that we have to leave because we just about said so 2 years ago even though we now know that there will be considerable damage to the UK and there is no longer a majority for doing so.
Weren't Remainers made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition that lost fair and square to the Leavers?
How do we know there is no longer a majority for doing leaving?
No! Remainers wanted to remain - the status quo, which everyone understood.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I thought David Davis and Dominic Raab were committed leavers?
People who think Leaving is a bad idea have the final say
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Comments
AmpfieldAndy is quite right. She said a division in the Union was completely unacceptable; then she sends her chief negotiator off to agree it hoping she can ram it through Cabinet. At every stage, all she has done is find out what concession is necessary to keep the show on the road - but kicking the can was always going to lead us to where we are now; the fundamentals of the deal the EU wants is unacceptable.
- They provide convenient cover for both sides.
- Their intransigence is legendary, witness: "it's about who blinks first, and we've cut off our eyelids".
- The EU believed the UK would cave the reality and the pressure to avert a crash-out. The DUP would actually allow a calamitous Brexit rather than bend an iota more. Their whole USP is stubbornness.
- Thus Theresa/Raab/Robbins being able to say "these are red lines" are now actually credible. Those lines are drawn from the blood of the Troubles.
- So the 'opponent' Barnier et al face has, in reality, changed. Previous behaviour is no guide to future behaviour and rather than appear to have failed - a very personal defeat for Barnier and probably the end of his rise in Euro-circles - perhaps he will break open the continental selection of fudge?
As I said, probably wishful thinking, but...
As far as I am concerned Norway is fine
Peston is wrong.
One aims to please.
And whatever else you think of Mrs May, at least we have not elected Boris a Trump look-a-like to the highest office.
Its the top story on:
https://www.foxnews.com
https://www.smh.com.au
https://nypost.com
And on the front page of many others....
A the cabinet
B the Tory party
C the DUP
D Parliament
In the 28 months since the referendum she has not yet managed to get something acceptable to the Cabinet, let alone the other groups whose support she needs. It seem very unlikely that she can get all of them on board in the five months that are left.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1051755594456227840
This is not a defendable position. You either accept the referendum result, or you do not. I would suggest that in Remainer's shock at losing, they simply cling to the 'we must have a deal' line because it allows them the feeling of some control. What we are seeing is that the deal that they desire is going to be far more harmful to the UK than no deal. Being a member of the EU CU without remaining in the EEA is sure economic suicide; at least no deal has options that could make it a success.
we spend too much time focused on the UK and not enough looking at what is happening around us. The EU we would remain in is different than the one we voted to leave. With both good and bad things for the UK.
Always amuses* me when Trump supporters chant ‘Jews will not replace us’.
*Amuse is probably not the right verb.
Mrs C, in the Golden Age of Imperial Rome, in the 2nd century, heirs were usually nominated and adopted. This ended with Commodus (although there's a suspicion he may not have been Marcus Aurelius' real son). So there still wouldn't be a sixth in line to the throne.
https://twitter.com/MichelleMone/status/1051513052825362433
We had been led to believe that May had gotten the EU to swap the NI backstop for a whole UK backstop. But this suggests that there are two backstops - the underlying NI backstop and an overlying UK backstop.
This makes sense, because if the EU aim to offer CETA, there would never be a solution to the NI border so the UK would have to remain in the CU forever. But what the EU seem to be saying is that if the UK want CETA, they will have to waive the UK backstop and leave NI separated in their backstop.
Being blunt, if this this true, there is no chance whatsoever for a deal.
But it also provides an opening for the UK to reverse its decision before the end of March, were we willing to do so. It would be a relief to the EU if there was not this break - particularly a messy one - because no-one can be sure what the consequences will be and no amount of planning can mitigate everything that might happen.
And it seems to me that the Brexiteers simply have no idea what sort of Brexit they want that is achievable in the real world and/or are willing to court disaster as part of some willy-waving contest. It is absurd and dangerous. Continuing on such a course is stupid. The idea that we should end up with No Deal because of the Tory party’s internal arguments and its arguments with 10 Northern Irish MPs who don’t even represent the majority view of the people of Northern Ireland is outrageous.
We should be asked if we agree to this.
Doesn't it carry tax obligations ?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6868577/meghan-markle-pregnant-baby-name-rules/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1539591443
We can negotiate or we cannot negotiate. I make that an option outside the remit of having to negotiate with them.
I mean you have to wonder why they bothered then.
And if you are English and married to an EU citizen you have the same rights as them to live and work within the EU, so I understand.
The whole point of the backstop is that there are no conditions.
Or is it just the time-limited part?
Feels to me the EU is digging in, misunderstanding the British psyche again
I don’t think they *want* no deal but it’s the consequence of their approach
The big issues around No Deal Brexit being totally ignored (and the impacts on deeply integrated supply chains are going to end up forming the starting point for any evolution beyond that point - so glossing over it means that everything beyond that point is up in the air.
That ain't an analysis. It's an item of propaganda.
And the problem with that is that if we do have a No Deal Brexit (which looks plausible; estimates of the probability are unknowable and vary dependent on our assumptions, which vary dependent on what each of us want to be true), handwaving ain't going to do any good. We'll actually be living it. And the people selling this shit will have to be the ones carrying the can.
'Do you accept a border between Mainland and NI?' in two ways:
The first way is as the free choice of the UK electorate:
The second is as a consequence of (real or perceived) EU dogma or intransigence.
I believe you will get two very different results to the same basic question dependant on where the impetus for the change originates.
I don’t particularly like the EU and have some very serious reservations about their behaviour and direction of travel and default instincts. I don’t think that the UK fits in easily. There is a case for Brexit done sensibly and slowly and intelligently.
That is not what we are getting.
But there is also a dangerous world out there - with Putin and Trump tearing up the rules - and Britain can - and should - play its part with its neighbours to try and make the world less dangerous, more secure and better for its citizens. So at this point - because of the unbelievably inept way the Brexit process is being managed and because of what is happening beyond these shores - on balance I think we should remain.
Sure, we will probably survive a No Deal Brexit. I hope so. But we should as a country aim for more than just survival, no? That is not what we were promised, was it? There is no shame in changing our minds as the facts change, is there?
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
EU citizens with a valid identity card or passport may:
Enter another EU country, as may their family members - whether EU citizens or not - without requiring an exit or entry visa.
Interestingly, the answer to LEAVE's immigration obsession is a few lines further down - an option we seemingly chose never to use.
Live in another EU country for longer than 3 months subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host country. Those who are employed or self-employed do not need to meet any other conditions. Students and other people not working for payment, such as those in retirement, must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family, so as not to be a burden on the host country’s social assistance system, and comprehensive sickness insurance cover.
Why don't they be more proactive than reactive - isn't that why they get paid the big bucks ?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3371182/In-jumpers-Cameron-cutie-married-Tory-MP-Pair-flaunted-relationship-Christmas-lunch-introduced-father-three-boyfriend.html
I recognise that moralising over politicians is a minority sport and dangerous game - but a really nasty piece of work all round.
Even if we can't agree a solution as per the current dialogue, there are other options - like EEA / EFTA in a transition period as proposed by Nick Boles, ahead of negotiating something broader.
Justifying no deal on the basis of "we want to go down fighting" is masochistic stupidity of the highest order.
See £39Bn for details.
My guess is that May is going to try and have a UK wide backstop that we can choose to enter and leave. However, if we ever want to have CETA (which is all we will be offered), we will have to leave the UK backstop but the NI backstop remains. This is exactly the same outcome that she said 'no PM could ever agree with'.
Of course, the only way out of this would be to agree to EEA+CU later, which is of course why the ERG and Leavers and DUP know it is a stitch up by Robbins and moved to block it.
I have no idea if May has any idea what she is doing. Presumably she will say the problem will be solved by Chequers, and expect people to take her seriously.
If this is the path she is going down, there is no way it can lead to a deal that she can pass.
You seem to admit that Leave voters were made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition which (just) beat the Remainers.
Now that we may be getting a crystallised version of Leave it is quite reasonable to set that against the option of staying and even of crashing out with No Deal in a new referendum.
It is pure masochism to say that we have to leave because we just about said so 2 years ago even though we now know that there will be considerable damage to the UK and there is no longer a majority for doing so.
The only countries with any success have been those that impose significant restrictions on their own benefits seekers.
How do we know there is no longer a majority for doing so?
Remainers wanted to remain - the status quo, which everyone understood.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
Brexiteers: own your sh*t!
https://twitter.com/tvcritics/status/1050889914794070021?s=19
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.