My concern is that the current level of uncertainty is damaging. Quite how damaging is hard to say. There has been a fall off in investment across western Europe, for example, it's not just us. Nevertheless I think it will be beneficial to have a clear set of rules within which businesses can operate as soon as possible. If the transition period is extended simply because we cannot agree what those rules should be and have no clear pathway to determining them then I do not think an extension is to our advantage, quite the reverse.
But presumably a longer transition would be less uncertain than no transition at all (and no settlement on lorries crossing the Chanel, planes flying, medicines being traded etc). It seems to me the current uncertainty is about no deal rather than what comes after a WA, and most business would have as long a transition as was needed to find a workable deal thereafter.
Most businesses would rather an everlasting transition than no deal
That is certainly true of our business, which exports and imports at rapid pace across the EU. We are hoping for a status quo translation of approximately 20 years.
A second referendum would be a defeat for anyone bothered about democracy (even if Leave won). The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.
If Remain won a re-run, do you think Leave voters would sit back and accept the result? You aint seen nuffin yet.
Politics in Westminster have reached complete dysfunction. NoneNo apart from May is serious about getting some sort of deal for Brexit, yet she is roundly castigated for it, especially within her own party.
So Tezza is going to offer "my (ie the EU's) deal or no deal".
What a master strategist.
Cos "her" deal as it relates to NI will send the Brexiters absolutely mental.
It will send the whole Tory party mental. She ruled out agreeing to the permanent backstop. It was not the Brexiteers who insisted on this - it was everyone.
She can't just agree to it now on the basis that all things considered in her view it probably is pretty unlikely that it would ever be used.
And yet here we are.
Sounds like there will only be two options. But that's fine because all the letters will be in by the end of the week and she'll be gone, replaced by JRM/Boris/Mad Nad.
Right?
I doubt it. The Brexiteers are all push and no piss.
fair to the voice of nearly 18 million patriotic Britain’s,
After BMI, the inability to use an apostrophe correctly is the most statistically reliable predictor of leave proclivities.
My BMI has gone down considerably since I accepted a second referendum which included a remain option might be necessary, so you may be on to something.
Labour will scrap the Academies system for schools brought in by Blair and extended by Cameron if Corbyn becomes PM Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner has announced
Mr. Recidivist, I'd be friendly too, if someone offered me £10bn in exchange for a year of cogitation.
Well if it is any help, I am pretty sure I secured some business from Portugal yesterday by casting doubt on whether Brexit will actually happen. Another year of putting off the damage will cover the extra subs and more in my opinion.
fair to the voice of nearly 18 million patriotic Britain’s,
After BMI, the inability to use an apostrophe correctly is the most statistically reliable predictor of leave proclivities.
My BMI has gone down considerably since I accepted a second referendum which included a remain option might be necessary, so you may be on to something.
Labour will scrap the Academies system for schools brought in by Blair and extended by Cameron if Corbyn becomes PM Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner has announced
On topic there was always going to be a crunch point in the discussions with the EU. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that one of the many, many mistakes made by May has been not to have a foot stomping walk out at an earlier stage when there was more time to play with and the opportunity to make proper preparations for a no deal Brexit.
In reality the EU has a choice. They can either accept one of the several UK proposals on NI that are currently on the table or they can accept that the UK will be leaving with no deal and a far harder border between the UK and Eire than anything that we are proposing at the moment. It is simply not possible for May to give any more on this because it would not pass the Commons.
One point arising from PMQs yesterday is that May said that the UK pays its debts and that we will be paying the £39bn whether there is a deal or not. I found that...interesting, not because I disagree with the proposition but because so many of her party, particularly in the ERG, will not.
One point that’s been barely commented upon (except by Guido, funnily enough) is that an extra year’s transition not only buys more time for the trade deal but also gifts the EU an extra £10bn.
I thus think it’s a UK concession to them to buy something else, like some movement on NI or flexibility on treating the UK more cohesively more broadly.
One thing I'm sure of is that Brexit will be very costly in hard cash. As we lose our vote and formal levers of influence we will need to buy off each and every member of the EU27. I wouldn't worry about the €10 billion.
Congratulations on the imminent new member of your family. It is a joy.
fair to the voice of nearly 18 million patriotic Britain’s,
After BMI, the inability to use an apostrophe correctly is the most statistically reliable predictor of leave proclivities.
My BMI has gone down considerably since I accepted a second referendum which included a remain option might be necessary, so you may be on to something.
A second referendum would be a defeat for anyone bothered about democracy (even if Leave won). The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.
If Remain won a re-run, do you think Leave voters would sit back and accept the result? You aint seen nuffin yet.
Will there be a third referendum, should Remain win the second, to determine whether or not we really meant the result of the second?
A referendum result only counting if the electorate agree with the political class rather defeats the point of having one. There's nothing democratic about asking the electorate their view, forcing them to vote again if they disagree with you, and only counting the result if they agree.
[As an aside, I do think it interesting that some, including me, reckon a Terrible Deal versus Remain is likelier to get a Remain win, whereas others, such as Mr. HYUFD, reckon No Deal versus Remain is likelier to get that].
A second referendum would be a defeat for anyone bothered about democracy (even if Leave won). The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.
If Remain won a re-run, do you think Leave voters would sit back and accept the result? You aint seen nuffin yet.
Why? On that basis only ever hold one General Election. You can't surely argue that people are not now better informed than before the referendum. People once believed the sun went around the earth. because they did once do we continue to do so. You can change your mind.
If remain won no I don't expect leavers would just sit back. They should carry on fighting for what they believe in. If leave won that I think would be an end to it for decades.
Mr. kjh, I think that argument doesn't hold water.
We have regular elections (idiotic, self-defeating ones aside) every 4-5 years. The alternative is doing away with democracy.
Taking a single specific decision on certain matters (such as altering the voting system or leaving the EU) may require a direct referendum, the result of which should be respected. If a referendum can be re-run if it disagrees with the political class but counts forever if it agrees with them, that's a sham of democracy.
If I ask you if you want a cheese sandwich or a ham sandwich, and you say 'cheese', but I refuse to make it and ask you again, and this continues until you starve to death or say 'ham', how free a choice is that?
Just watched Robert's latest video. I disagree with him about the Merkel's open door policy. If she was worried about demographics she'd have opened the door to all EU members when she became Chancellor in 2005.
FPT - I am pleased to announce my wife and I are doing our bit about the UK's demographics with our first due in early February next year.
Far more exciting and terrifying than Brexit in equal measure, and far more important.
Indeed! If you thought Brexit might upset your view of the world, that is nothing compared to having the FIRST child.
Congratulations!
(PS - I noticed another post saying "It's a girl". Do not call her "Beverley" - you do not want a Europhile in the family )
A second referendum would be a defeat for anyone bothered about democracy (even if Leave won). The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned...
Actually, that is exactly how democracy works. So why are you so bothered?
fair to the voice of nearly 18 million patriotic Britain’s,
After BMI, the inability to use an apostrophe correctly is the most statistically reliable predictor of leave proclivities.
My BMI has gone down considerably since I accepted a second referendum which included a remain option might be necessary, so you may be on to something.
Labour will scrap the Academies system for schools brought in by Blair and extended by Cameron if Corbyn becomes PM Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner has announced
If I ask you if you want a cheese sandwich or a ham sandwich, and you say 'cheese', but I refuse to make it and ask you again, and this continues until you starve to death or say 'ham', how free a choice is that?
But in this analogy, you were offered delicious cake, and when you said "I want that" the people offering it reneged.
"We never said you could have cake. It is up to someone else to secure you cake."
Now you know the cake you thought you ordered was never on the menu, is it undemocratic to ask you again?
Another option is being whispered about in private by cabinet ministers: a mitigated ‘no deal’. The UK would pay the EU money in exchange for a series of mini agreements that would ensure that the planes could keep flying, that customs checks were kept as manageable as possible, and the EU and the UK could trade together in the way that advanced economies do when they don’t have a trade agreement. It would be expensive. I understand that at cabinet this week Philip Hammond explicitly argued that the UK should pay the EU almost all of the £39 billion, even if it leaves without a deal, to facilitate these kinds of arrangements. An acrimonious no deal is still an option, with Mrs May reneging on whatever she promised last December — with significant disruption. Ironically, this would hit Ireland as hard, if not harder, than the United Kingdom.
Alastair - A very thought provoking article. Anyone picked, I think, would have to be, in the view of those from the other parties, as not a contender for the leadership of their own party after the grand coalition, so as not to give a boost to that party. And for similar reasons It can't be a LD as that would give them a boost that Lab/Con would not accept. Joint leaders is a possibility although could be messy. You can see all the smaller parties coming on board, but how do you orchestrate enough Tory/Lab MPs? Maybe that is Vince's role in life or someone outside of the commons like Major, Ashdown, etc, but not Blair who has too many enemies.
A second referendum would be a defeat for anyone bothered about democracy (even if Leave won). The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.
If Remain won a re-run, do you think Leave voters would sit back and accept the result? You aint seen nuffin yet.
On topic there was always going to be a crunch point in the discussions with the EU. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that one of the many, many mistakes made by May has been not to have a foot stomping walk out at an earlier stage when there was more time to play with and the opportunity to make proper preparations for a no deal Brexit.
In reality the EU has a choice. They can either accept one of the several UK proposals on NI that are currently on the table or they can accept that the UK will be leaving with no deal and a far harder border between the UK and Eire than anything that we are proposing at the moment. It is simply not possible for May to give any more on this because it would not pass the Commons.
One point arising from PMQs yesterday is that May said that the UK pays its debts and that we will be paying the £39bn whether there is a deal or not. I found that...interesting, not because I disagree with the proposition but because so many of her party, particularly in the ERG, will not.
One point that’s been barely commented upon (except by Guido, funnily enough) is that an extra year’s transition not only buys more time for the trade deal but also gifts the EU an extra £10bn.
I thus think it’s a UK concession to them to buy something else, like some movement on NI or flexibility on treating the UK more cohesively more broadly.
One thing I'm sure of is that Brexit will be very costly in hard cash. As we lose our vote and formal levers of influence we will need to buy off each and every member of the EU27. I wouldn't worry about the €10 billion.
What a wonderful institution the EU is! The made men, and the money and the whacking.
What I find curious is Left-leaning posters who, say, talk dreamily of reducing poverty. When a right-winger says, it can’t be done, that is just the way of the world, they shake their heads and look disdainfully at such hard-headedness.
But, when it comes to the EU, when someone says this is a corrupt and incompetent organisation, there must be a better way to organise the family of European nations, suddenly the Left-leaning poster becomes a hard-headed realist.
“Oh, no there is no better way. What do you expect. We’ve just got to take whatever the EU gives us. That is the way of the world”
It is the disconcerting way idealism gives way to flinty realism that I like.
Mr. kjh, I think that argument doesn't hold water.
We have regular elections (idiotic, self-defeating ones aside) every 4-5 years. The alternative is doing away with democracy.
Taking a single specific decision on certain matters (such as altering the voting system or leaving the EU) may require a direct referendum, the result of which should be respected. If a referendum can be re-run if it disagrees with the political class but counts forever if it agrees with them, that's a sham of democracy.
If I ask you if you want a cheese sandwich or a ham sandwich, and you say 'cheese', but I refuse to make it and ask you again, and this continues until you starve to death or say 'ham', how free a choice is that?
I would agree with you if that were the case MD, but I don't think it is. Using your analogy I am giving the person who ordered the cheese sandwich a sample and having tasted it would they like to think again. They might say yes it tasted really great or no I didn't like that so I will stick with ham please.
Will there be a third referendum, should Remain win the second, to determine whether or not we really meant the result of the second?
A referendum result only counting if the electorate agree with the political class rather defeats the point of having one. There's nothing democratic about asking the electorate their view, forcing them to vote again if they disagree with you, and only counting the result if they agree.
[As an aside, I do think it interesting that some, including me, reckon a Terrible Deal versus Remain is likelier to get a Remain win, whereas others, such as Mr. HYUFD, reckon No Deal versus Remain is likelier to get that].
If we get a Deal, any Deal there will be no EUref2.
That is only likely ultimately if No Deal and we have the polling on that, Remain 55% No Deal 45% ie about the same win for Remain as the Union won by in indyref 2014. No Deal has the same backing in the UK as Yes to independence in Scotland
As EU ultimately laugh at Britain at this summit, remember every sneer equates to British jobs lost in British industry, because the completely unnecessary no deal is a cut of investment into Britain, no deal is unnecessary, and every sneering comment about cherries is 40% Tariffs on our hard pressed farmers as they try to sell their cherries...
.. Snip..
The EU is true architect of all the coming pain, not the Brexit vote. No deal was always unnecessary if the EU behaved like a grown up. How dare anyone suggest otherwise! How dare anyone march for a people’s vote after today! Have you no pride? Have you no respect for 17.4 million of your brothers and sisters who saw what this 27 headed monster has become?
Its the bottom line today thats the killer, the agnostic and lofty EU should care for the culture and fears of the Ulster Unionists, not more but certainly no less than every other person and grouping in its Empire. It’s Because Europe will never be fashioned with flesh of God hating European citizens, but by the blood of her diverse people - otherwise it will always be a fake and crumbling Empire that cannot see this.
The term “unspoofable” is perhaps overused, but in this case, Sir, you fully deserve the accolade.
Yesterday we learned here that “politics” and Theresa May are to blame for the state of negotiations. Now we are told that it’s the other 27 EU members. How unfortunate that these unexpected elements have complicated matters. One day, perhaps the leave campaigners will publish their pre-referendum assessment of the complexities of Brexit and how they would be overcome.
Finally it's clear this final stage of the Brexit negotiations are faux drama. 90% of the Deal is done. Rhere are several options on Ireland and it's clear May/Robbins woukd sign up to several of them. And we still have loads of time to ratify a deal.
This is now purely about the nternal internal politics of the Tory Party. There will be a deal as we have no choice. It's going to be a dreadful deal because we have no choice. The deal will enrage most Remainers because it's Brexit and not a Unicorn. The deal will enrage most Brexiters it's not a Unicorn and thus not Brexit. The deal will be chronically unpopular because their is too little centre ground on this topic and it's too late to build one. Which Tory with a future will want to vote for May's deal ? Which Labour MP with a future will want to rescue May ?
May needs a Cabinet and a Commons majority of grey beards who are prepared to save the ship because they are innthe Autumn/Winter of their careers. The added problem is such figures tend to be exactly the sorts of folk who'll have the dimest view of Brexit innthe first place.
My instinct is the narrative has spent too much time on whether a deal will be done. It suggests doing a deal will bring closure. We've under analysed that the next Stage is that deal will be chronically unpopular.
In actual fact the polling is clear the median voter would rather May and BINO Brexit than either Corbyn or the ERG and No Deal
The more I think about it the more Cameron's concessions were what people wanted. The problem was he then offered a referendum that was blanket in / out when it should have been 3 options as we were / Cameron's slightly removed variation / out.
If the referendum had done that we wouldn't be in this mess...
Another option is being whispered about in private by cabinet ministers: a mitigated ‘no deal’. The UK would pay the EU money in exchange for a series of mini agreements that would ensure that the planes could keep flying, that customs checks were kept as manageable as possible, and the EU and the UK could trade together in the way that advanced economies do when they don’t have a trade agreement. It would be expensive. I understand that at cabinet this week Philip Hammond explicitly argued that the UK should pay the EU almost all of the £39 billion, even if it leaves without a deal, to facilitate these kinds of arrangements. An acrimonious no deal is still an option, with Mrs May reneging on whatever she promised last December — with significant disruption. Ironically, this would hit Ireland as hard, if not harder, than the United Kingdom.
She's not going to renege on anything. She is in the midst of doing a back me or the country gets it deal.
And all the so, so angry Brexiter poodles will fall in behind her or vote against whichever, and it will pass. And we will hear scheming and wailing and gnashing of teeth how still so very, very angry they all are. The tossers.
My concern is that the current level of uncertainty is damaging. Quite how damaging is hard to say. There has been a fall off in investment across western Europe, for example, it's not just us. Nevertheless I think it will be beneficial to have a clear set of rules within which businesses can operate as soon as possible. If the transition period is extended simply because we cannot agree what those rules should be and have no clear pathway to determining them then I do not think an extension is to our advantage, quite the reverse.
But presumably a longer transition would be less uncertain than no transition at all (and no settlement on lorries crossing the Chanel, planes flying, medicines being traded etc). It seems to me the current uncertainty is about no deal rather than what comes after a WA, and most business would have as long a transition as was needed to find a workable deal thereafter.
Most businesses would rather an everlasting transition than no deal
That is certainly true of our business, which exports and imports at rapid pace across the EU. We are hoping for a status quo translation of approximately 20 years.
I think this fails Occam's Razor. In any conceivable situation, Tory and Labour MPs will mostly in the middle of a crisis prefer a familiar solution - call an election, support a minority government, whatever - to something radically new. The government of national unity would de facto be a new party, and they've not got that off the ground even in rather propitious times.
Just had an SOS from my granddaughter that she needs her usb disc she has left at home so am about to do a 20 mile round trip for her. So even when you have had children, then grandchildren you still end up running after them, but it is a joy and privilege to be able to do so
On the EU summit it was reported on here that TM had offered the EU an extension of a further year and our own Brexiteers went into meltdown. This line was reported by 5 live at their 6.00 am news and then referred to their Europe correspondent who immediately told them it was the EU who had offered it to TM and that she had said it was something that could possibly be considered which would be been a polite way of responding.
So everyone just needs to calm down. TM has said this morning it was offered but even if it was considered it would only be for a few months.
Nick Boles was then interviewed and said it was unnecessary as we should immediately move into a Norway agreement and negotiate from there. He said that this was increasing in traction within the party and some members of ERG. He said replacing TM at this late stage would not be the right think to do
I would be pleased if TM would move towards the Norway option but we will need to see.
The one thing that everyone agreed at the EU meeting last night was that it was polite and respectful and the tone had been very good. Angela Merkel subsequently commenting that she was under pressure from business to do a deal and no deal was not acceptable.
It is not all doom and gloom
And now off I go on my mission to help my lovely granddaughter
On topic there was always going to be a crunch point in the discussions with the EU. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that one of the many, many mistakes made by May has been not to have a foot stomping walk out at an earlier stage when there was more time to play with and the opportunity to make proper preparations for a no deal Brexit.
In reality the EU has a choice. They can either accept one of the several UK proposals on NI that are currently on the table or they can accept that the UK will be leaving with no deal and a far harder border between the UK and Eire than anything that we are proposing at the moment. It is simply not possible for May to give any more on this because it would not pass the Commons.
One point arising from PMQs yesterday is that May said that the UK pays its debts and that we will be paying the £39bn whether there is a deal or not. I found that...interesting, not because I disagree with the proposition but because so many of her party, particularly in the ERG, will not.
One point that’s been barely commented upon (except by Guido, funnily enough) is that an extra year’s transition not only buys more time for the trade deal but also gifts the EU an extra £10bn.
I thus think it’s a UK concession to them to buy something else, like some movement on NI or flexibility on treating the UK more cohesively more broadly.
One thing I'm sure of is that Brexit will be very costly in hard cash. As we lose our vote and formal levers of influence we will need to buy off each and every member of the EU27. I wouldn't worry about the €10 billion.
What a wonderful institution the EU is! The made men, and the money and the whacking.
What I find curious is Left-leaning posters who, say, talk dreamily of reducing poverty. When a right-winger says, it can’t be done, that is just the way of the world, they shake their heads and look disdainfully at such hard-headedness.
But, when it comes to the EU, when someone says this is a corrupt and incompetent organisation, there must be a better way to organise the family of European nations, suddenly the Left-leaning poster becomes a hard-headed realist.
“Oh, no there is no better way. What do you expect. We’ve just got to take whatever the EU gives us. That is the way of the world”
It is the disconcerting way idealism gives way to flinty realism that I like.
I think the problem is anyone who tried to talked about wanting to reform the EU and gave it a realistic rating, say 7/10 rather than 10/10 would have their opponents jump on it for propaganda purposes.
On topic there was always going to be a crunch point in the discussions with the EU. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that one of the many, many mistakes made by May has been not to have a foot stomping walk out at an earlier stage when there was more time to play with and the opportunity to make proper preparations for a no deal Brexit.
In reality the EU has a choice. They can either accnteresting, not because I disagree with the proposition but because so many of her party, particularly in the ERG, will not.
One point that’s been barely commented upon (except by Guido, funnily enough) is that an extra year’s transition not only buys more time for the trade deal but also gifts the EU an extra £10bn.
I thus think it’s a UK concession to them to buy something else, like some movement on NI or flexibility on treating the UK more cohesively more broadly.
One thing I'm sure of is that Brexit will be very costly in hard cash. As we lose our vote and formal levers of influence we will need to buy off each and every member of the EU27. I wouldn't worry about the €10 billion.
What a wonderful institution the EU is! The made men, and the money and the whacking.
What I find curious is Left-leaning posters who, say, talk dreamily of reducing poverty. When a right-winger says, it can’t be done, that is just the way of the world, they shake their heads and look disdainfully at such hard-headedness.
But, when it comes to the EU, when someone says this is a corrupt and incompetent organisation, there must be a better way to organise the family of European nations, suddenly the Left-leaning poster becomes a hard-headed realist.
“Oh, no there is no better way. What do you expect. We’ve just got to take whatever the EU gives us. That is the way of the world”
It is the disconcerting way idealism gives way to flinty realism that I like.
I think the problem is anyone who tried to talked about wanting to reform the EU and gave it a realistic rating, say 7/10 rather than 10/10 would have their opponents jump on it for propaganda purposes.
That's true but by the same reasoning, a seasoned politician should be aware that campaigns are fought in primary colours, not shades. Hence while any sane person would give the EU 7/10 or thereabouts, out on the stump, there needs to be a more emphatic response.
Now, you may say this is all part of someone's essential honesty, but it is also politically naive.
Another option is being whispered about in private by cabinet ministers: a mitigated ‘no deal’. The UK would pay the EU money in exchange for a series of mini agreements that would ensure that the planes could keep flying, that customs checks were kept as manageable as possible, and the EU and the UK could trade together in the way that advanced economies do when they don’t have a trade agreement. It would be expensive. I understand that at cabinet this week Philip Hammond explicitly argued that the UK should pay the EU almost all of the £39 billion, even if it leaves without a deal, to facilitate these kinds of arrangements. An acrimonious no deal is still an option, with Mrs May reneging on whatever she promised last December — with significant disruption. Ironically, this would hit Ireland as hard, if not harder, than the United Kingdom.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
Another option is being whispered about in private by cabinet ministers: a mitigated ‘no deal’. The UK would pay the EU money in exchange for a series of mini agreements that would ensure that the planes could keep flying, that customs checks were kept as manageable as possible, and the EU and the UK could trade together in the way that advanced economies do when they don’t have a trade agreement. It would be expensive. I understand that at cabinet this week Philip Hammond explicitly argued that the UK should pay the EU almost all of the £39 billion, even if it leaves without a deal, to facilitate these kinds of arrangements. An acrimonious no deal is still an option, with Mrs May reneging on whatever she promised last December — with significant disruption. Ironically, this would hit Ireland as hard, if not harder, than the United Kingdom.
"I think the problem is anyone who tried to talked about wanting to reform the EU and gave it a realistic rating, say 7/10 rather than 10/10 would have their opponents jump on it for propaganda purposes.”
I think people have tried to reform the EU. In a very, very small way (science policy) I have tried to reform a very minor aspect of the EU.
Reform is almost impossible ( << 1/10 ).
Many leavers (like myself) would have preferred to stay in a reformed EU.
However, my point stands. Either one is an idealist or a hard-headed realist.
Many left-leaning Remainers would proclaim themselves idealists. But they justify the EU using arguments from the right like “Tough, That is the way the world is. “
I think this fails Occam's Razor. In any conceivable situation, Tory and Labour MPs will mostly in the middle of a crisis prefer a familiar solution - call an election, support a minority government, whatever - to something radically new. The government of national unity would de facto be a new party, and they've not got that off the ground even in rather propitious times.
I'm being devils advocate here as I suspect you are right, but does Occam's Razor apply? Have we been here before where both main parties are completely split and we have what looks like an unresolvable situation all at the same time? The last time I can remember both parties being split was the on the common market decision so we had a referendum to resolve it.
Been there done that and not resolved.
I've got a feeling that there are several examples I have forgotten now going to be brought up!
One point that’s been barely commented upon (except by Guido, funnily enough) is that an extra year’s transition not only buys more time for the trade deal but also gifts the EU an extra £10bn.
I thus think it’s a UK concession to them to buy something else, like some movement on NI or flexibility on treating the UK more cohesively more broadly.
One thing I'm sure of is that Brexit will be very costly in hard cash. As we lose our vote and formal levers of influence we will need to buy off each and every member of the EU27. I wouldn't worry about the €10 billion.
What a wonderful institution the EU is! The made men, and the money and the whacking.
What I find curious is Left-leaning posters who, say, talk dreamily of reducing poverty. When a right-winger says, it can’t be done, that is just the way of the world, they shake their heads and look disdainfully at such hard-headedness.
But, when it comes to the EU, when someone says this is a corrupt and incompetent organisation, there must be a better way to organise the family of European nations, suddenly the Left-leaning poster becomes a hard-headed realist.
“Oh, no there is no better way. What do you expect. We’ve just got to take whatever the EU gives us. That is the way of the world”
It is the disconcerting way idealism gives way to flinty realism that I like.
I think the problem is anyone who tried to talked about wanting to reform the EU and gave it a realistic rating, say 7/10 rather than 10/10 would have their opponents jump on it for propaganda purposes.
That's true but by the same reasoning, a seasoned politician should be aware that campaigns are fought in primary colours, not shades. Hence while any sane person would give the EU 7/10 or thereabouts, out on the stump, there needs to be a more emphatic response.
Now, you may say this is all part of someone's essential honesty, but it is also politically naive.
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
"The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.".
I suppose you don't see the difference. Sigh.
Edit: We need a new Wat Tyler. No triple votes for Richard II
My apologies for the misquote, but the point I was making still stands - any decision made by the electorate can be overturned by the electorate. If the "important people" keep putting it to us that we need to vote again, we can keep voting the same way if that is what the electorate wants
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
I do have to laugh. Manufacturing businesses were closed down endlessly under the EU framework and work transferred to Europe, People in the North and Midlands were told to suck it up and the politicians in some cases actually accelaerated the job losses through daft policies. Now that its a few banking jobs going its armageddon.
"I think the problem is anyone who tried to talked about wanting to reform the EU and gave it a realistic rating, say 7/10 rather than 10/10 would have their opponents jump on it for propaganda purposes.”
I think people have tried to reform the EU. In a very, very small way (science policy) I have tried to reform a very minor aspect of the EU.
Reform is almost impossible ( << 1/10 ).
Many leavers (like myself) would have preferred to stay in a reformed EU.
However, my point stands. Either one is an idealist or a hard-headed realist.
Many left-leaning Remainers would proclaim themselves idealists. But they justify the EU using arguments from the right like “Tough, That is the way the world is. “</p>
TBH I was using your post to jump off into a pro Corbyn post more than anything....
Surely it is best to be a realist at all times?
In terms of leaving the EU it clearly can be done, it may require a lot of damage to do so but it isn't impossible unless you set other conditions that have to met. A Brexit which does multiple contradictory things is impossible (or maybe just highly unlikely unless the WTO, EU and ROTW just let it happen)
I don't think anyone is claiming that we couldn't Brexit if people are happy with a hard border in N. Ireland and for us to trade with the EU on the same terms as a country without a trade deal. Planes flying and basic stuff should be doable as well.
The problem is I don't think the Tories want the electoral consequences of that as regardless of the original referendum some leave voters will feel they didn't vote for the (orderly version of) no deal scenario.
I don't think Brexit (a hard one) is unrealistic but a successful one in the short term with few negative consequences is.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
I do have to laugh. Manufacturing businesses were closed down endlessly under the EU framework and work transferred to Europe, People in the North and Midlands were told to suck it up and the politicians in some cases actually accelaerated the job losses through daft policies. Now that its a few banking jobs going its armageddon.
Remainers *still* don’t understand that many will care less about HQs moving than their local bank closing.
Economic threats don’t work against constitutional issues. Maybe we should put it on a bus so they’ll see it...
Regarding the moon landing stuff discussed on here last night, watch the below video from about 3.50 onwards. Can anyone explain why NASA astronauts on the space station are saying this stuff about leaving earth orbit ,clearly in their mind Apollo never happened.
I'm getting really bored with this Brexit lark. The Leavers, true to form, have made a right pig's ear of it. Let's just cut our losses. Theresa should just beg Mr Juncker to let us to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market. Okay, we won't have any influence over future policy making, but the Leavers always said we never had any influence anyway so where's the loss? Come on Theresa - just do it!
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
Another option is being whispered about in private by cabinet ministers: a mitigated ‘no deal’. The UK would pay the EU money in exchange for a series of mini agreements that would ensure that the planes could keep flying, that customs checks were kept as manageable as possible, and the EU and the UK could trade together in the way that advanced economies do when they don’t have a trade agreement. It would be expensive. I understand that at cabinet this week Philip Hammond explicitly argued that the UK should pay the EU almost all of the £39 billion, even if it leaves without a deal, to facilitate these kinds of arrangements. An acrimonious no deal is still an option, with Mrs May reneging on whatever she promised last December — with significant disruption. Ironically, this would hit Ireland as hard, if not harder, than the United Kingdom.
I fully expect minideals. I don't really know where the cost comes though, I would expect for example airspace rules to be cost neutral.
There have been some breathtakingly fatuous comments on aerospace:
“Any aircraft with British components will no longer be able to fly” - well that’s practically the whole world grounded ex-North Korea.
“British aircraft will not be able to overfly Ireland” - that’s a breach of the Chicago convention. What are they going to do? Shoot us down with the Air Force they don’t have?
“British aircraft won’t be able to land in the EU” - not EU aircraft in Britain, presumably?
Voters, not surprisingly are taking this with a very large pinch of salt. And possibly booking holidays to non-EU destinations.
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
It does, however, suit the reality of the situation. How exactly, "in recent years", has his view changed?
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
I do have to laugh. Manufacturing businesses were closed down endlessly under the EU framework and work transferred to Europe, People in the North and Midlands were told to suck it up and the politicians in some cases actually accelaerated the job losses through daft policies. Now that its a few banking jobs going its armageddon.
Its not even a few banking jobs going but rather suggestions of possible jobs losses at some time in the future at unnamed banks.
Meanwhile thousands of actual banking jobs go every year - but they're prole jobs in prole towns so don't seem to matter.
"I think the problem is anyone who tried to talked about wanting to reform the EU and gave it a realistic rating, say 7/10 rather than 10/10 would have their opponents jump on it for propaganda purposes.”
I think people have tried to reform the EU. In a very, very small way (science policy) I have tried to reform a very minor aspect of the EU.
Reform is almost impossible ( << 1/10 ).
Many leavers (like myself) would have preferred to stay in a reformed EU.
However, my point stands. Either one is an idealist or a hard-headed realist.
Many left-leaning Remainers would proclaim themselves idealists. But they justify the EU using arguments from the right like “Tough, That is the way the world is. “</p>
TBH I was using your post to jump off into a pro Corbyn post more than anything....
Surely it is best to be a realist at all times?
In terms of leaving the EU it clearly can be done, it may require a lot of damage to do so but it isn't impossible unless you set other conditions that have to met. A Brexit which does multiple contradictory things is impossible (or maybe just highly unlikely unless the WTO, EU and ROTW just let it happen)
I don't think anyone is claiming that we couldn't Brexit if people are happy with a hard border in N. Ireland and for us to trade with the EU on the same terms as a country without a trade deal. Planes flying and basic stuff should be doable as well.
The problem is I don't think the Tories want the electoral consequences of that as regardless of the original referendum some leave voters will feel they didn't vote for the (orderly version of) no deal scenario.
I don't think Brexit (a hard one) is unrealistic but a successful one in the short term with few negative consequences is.
The two most prosperous countries in Europe are outside the EU (Norway & Switzerland). By demonstration, it is clearly possible to be outside the EU & very prosperous.
The border between N. Ireland and RoI was created in 1921. The border between Norway & Sweden was created only 16 years earlier. The border between Switzerland and Germany is almost non-existent, as last summer my hike in the Bavarian Alps ended up with me crossing into Switzerland without initially realising it. There are plenty of existing borders between EU and non-EU countries that are not hard borders. By demonstration, it is clearly possible to fix the border issue.
Now of course, May & Co are supreme bunglers, which may explain the mess.
But, there is nothing in Brexit that requires either a hard border or desperate poverty.
Regarding the moon landing stuff discussed on here last night, watch the below video from about 3.50 onwards. Can anyone explain why NASA astronauts on the space station are saying this stuff about leaving earth orbit ,clearly in their mind Apollo never happened.
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
It does, however, suit the reality of the situation. How exactly, "in recent years", has his view changed?
That includes examples like voting for a referendum...
I wonder what other hardcore Brexiteers like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg may have proposed similar things at different times... Instead of looking at an article where someone outs committed remainers as hardcore Brexiteers for the purposes of declaring Corbyn one why don't we just look at his voting record.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
I do have to laugh. Manufacturing businesses were closed down endlessly under the EU framework and work transferred to Europe, People in the North and Midlands were told to suck it up and the politicians in some cases actually accelaerated the job losses through daft policies. Now that its a few banking jobs going its armageddon.
Its not even a few banking jobs going but rather suggestions of possible jobs losses at some time in the future at unnamed banks.
Meanwhile thousands of actual banking jobs go every year - but they're prole jobs in prole towns so don't seem to matter.
Yup. My local village had 3 hight street banks 10 years ago, at the end of this year the last one will close.
"The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.".
I suppose you don't see the difference. Sigh.
Edit: We need a new Wat Tyler. No triple votes for Richard II
My apologies for the misquote, but the point I was making still stands - any decision made by the electorate can be overturned by the electorate. If the "important people" keep putting it to us that we need to vote again, we can keep voting the same way if that is what the electorate wants
This is the essence of democracy.
The Prime Minister and leader of the Remain campaign explicitly told the public there would be no second referendum, and if we voted leave there was no going back. That is all there is to it.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Regarding the moon landing stuff discussed on here last night, watch the below video from about 3.50 onwards. Can anyone explain why NASA astronauts on the space station are saying this stuff about leaving earth orbit ,clearly in their mind Apollo never happened.
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
It does, however, suit the reality of the situation. How exactly, "in recent years", has his view changed?
That includes examples like voting for a referendum...
I wonder what other hardcore Brexiteers like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg may have proposed similar things at different times... Instead of looking at an article where someone outs committed remainers as hardcore Brexiteers for the purposes of declaring Corbyn one why don't we just look at his voting record.
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
It does, however, suit the reality of the situation. How exactly, "in recent years", has his view changed?
That includes examples like voting for a referendum...
I wonder what other hardcore Brexiteers like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg may have proposed similar things at different times... Instead of looking at an article where someone outs committed remainers as hardcore Brexiteers for the purposes of declaring Corbyn one why don't we just look at his voting record.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
Don't know about the bank but some companies are certainly moving out. EasyJet has moved the registration of more than 1/3 of its fleet from the UK to Austria and is setting up a European HQ there.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
It does, however, suit the reality of the situation. How exactly, "in recent years", has his view changed?
That includes examples like voting for a referendum...
I wonder what other hardcore Brexiteers like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg may have proposed similar things at different times... Instead of looking at an article where someone outs committed remainers as hardcore Brexiteers for the purposes of declaring Corbyn one why don't we just look at his voting record.
The two most prosperous countries in Europe are outside the EU (Norway & Switzerland). By demonstration, it is clearly possible to be outside the EU & very prosperous.
The border between N. Ireland and RoI was created in 1921. The border between Norway & Sweden was created only 16 years earlier. The border between Switzerland and Germany is almost non-existent, as last summer my hike in the Bavarian Alps ended up with me crossing into Switzerland without initially realising it. There are plenty of existing borders between EU and non-EU countries that are not hard borders. By demonstration, it is clearly possible to fix the border issue.
Now of course, May & Co are supreme bunglers, which may explain the mess.
But, there is nothing in Brexit that requires either a hard border or desperate poverty.
Are you disagreeing where I said it isn't realistic to have one without short term negative consequences?
That doesn't imply desperate poverty but surely even the most committed Brexiteer would have to admit a no deal scenario will include some disruption even if Brexit results in the UK becoming the land of milk and honey. It seems like a fairly reasonable statement but I suppose it doesn't really go along with the enthusiasm of the Brexit campaign...
I don't think Switzerland borders is the result of a no deal border either.
I think you are confusing multiple things. Britain acting unilaterally can do whatever the hell it wants, any one of a number of things is realistic. What is potentially unrealistic is demanding things which require the cooperation of other nations. Having borders like Switzerland does with the EU is only going to happen by working a deal with the EU.
If you want Brexit and you want other things like a Swiss style border but no FOM and no CU then yes you might be asking for unrealistic things.
A Brexit no deal with everything that entails is perfectly realistic. So yes Brexit itself is realistic. A Brexit which requires things which even if everyone in Britain wanted requires the agreement of other countries may not be.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
Don't know about the bank but some companies are certainly moving out. EasyJet has moved the registration of more than 1/3 of its fleet from the UK to Austria and is setting up a European HQ there.
I can tell you with some certainty that EasyJet is doing the absolute minimum necessary to ensure its planes - or as many as possible - stay in the air in the event of a hard Brexit.
Regarding the moon landing stuff discussed on here last night, watch the below video from about 3.50 onwards. Can anyone explain why NASA astronauts on the space station are saying this stuff about leaving earth orbit ,clearly in their mind Apollo never happened.
I'm not sure another person mouthing off meaningless soundbites they really didn't mean is what the remain campaign needed. It certainly didn't go down to well in the 2017 election. Admittedly previous elections might have indicated the May approach to be a better one and we are talking hypotheticals but I don't think Corbyn being insincere would have helped much, could well have been more harmful.
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
It does, however, suit the reality of the situation. How exactly, "in recent years", has his view changed?
That includes examples like voting for a referendum...
I wonder what other hardcore Brexiteers like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg may have proposed similar things at different times... Instead of looking at an article where someone outs committed remainers as hardcore Brexiteers for the purposes of declaring Corbyn one why don't we just look at his voting record.
The two most prosperous countries in Europe are outside the EU (Norway & Switzerland). By demonstration, it is clearly possible to be outside the EU & very prosperous.
The border between N. Ireland and RoI was created in 1921. The border between Norway & Sweden was created only 16 years earlier. The border between Switzerland and Germany is almost non-existent, as last summer my hike in the Bavarian Alps ended up with me crossing into Switzerland without initially realising it. There are plenty of existing borders between EU and non-EU countries that are not hard borders. By demonstration, it is clearly possible to fix the border issue.
Now of course, May & Co are supreme bunglers, which may explain the mess.
But, there is nothing in Brexit that requires either a hard border or desperate poverty.
It's an error to think that a hard border means an impenetrable border wall. Norway and Switzerland have both hard borders with the EU, and they are very closely tied with the EU system - their success is not achieved independently.
Don't know if this has been posted already but apparently Britain's having a hard time adjusting to its new post-influential status. The Home Office wouldn't give the Moldovan WTO guy a visa, and now he's getting revenge...
Well the issue is we know that actually Corbyn has always wanted out of the EU. So he was indeed being insincere with his 7/10. Now of course that is a bit of an "I wouldn't have started from here" issue as we can't make Corbyn suddenly have become an EU fan, however qualified, but he was certainly not being sincere in his approach. Using your logic he should have explained why he disliked the EU so much and why he has always wanted to leave it.
I think the issue is we don't know that at all, his views softened on the EU as the organisation itself changed and his voting record in recent years before the referendum reflects that. Many of the positive aspects of the EU that Corbyn talked about certainly chime with many of his own views. He isn't an unashamed cheer leader although neither were his alternatives in 2015.
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
It does, however, suit the reality of the situation. How exactly, "in recent years", has his view changed?
That includes examples like voting for a referendum...
I wonder what other hardcore Brexiteers like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg may have proposed similar things at different times... Instead of looking at an article where someone outs committed remainers as hardcore Brexiteers for the purposes of declaring Corbyn one why don't we just look at his voting record.
I want to purge all europhobes from public life. I had assumed Corbyn was on the list, but I am not so sure now?
My impression from reading far too much on the subject is Corbyn was heavily Eurosceptic early on. As the EU delved into some left wing hobby horses such as workers rights and environmental protections he softened / saw some good / came around to some aspects of it. For almost the opposite reasons the right began to turn against it more and more.
He will never be the enthusiast say Tony Blair was but listening to Steve Richards on the subject Corbyn is pretty similar to the other Labour leaders before him in regards to the EU outside of Tony who was a real cheerleader.
Regarding the moon landing stuff discussed on here last night, watch the below video from about 3.50 onwards. Can anyone explain why NASA astronauts on the space station are saying this stuff about leaving earth orbit ,clearly in their mind Apollo never happened.
Aren’t they talking about exiting LEO using reusable tech like the space shuttles?
The bit from 2.50 to 3.15 is interesting particularly the quote at 3.15. Not that I am a conspiracy theorist but I would like to know the explanation to that.
We once saw a documentary on this conspiracy and it was fascinating. We wind our son up that it never happened. I don't think he really believe that we believe that. The documentary showed pictures from two different locations that clearly showed rocks in the background that were the same. Now clearly it was probably just an archiving issue and NASA didn't help by refusing to answer that question. Presumably because they couldn't be arsed knowing no matter what they said it wasn't going to make any difference.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
I do have to laugh. Manufacturing businesses were closed down endlessly under the EU framework and work transferred to Europe, People in the North and Midlands were told to suck it up and the politicians in some cases actually accelaerated the job losses through daft policies. Now that its a few banking jobs going its armageddon.
Its not even a few banking jobs going but rather suggestions of possible jobs losses at some time in the future at unnamed banks.
Meanwhile thousands of actual banking jobs go every year - but they're prole jobs in prole towns so don't seem to matter.
Yup. My local village had 3 hight street banks 10 years ago, at the end of this year the last one will close.
4 Conservative clubs and no banks....that's Brexit for you.
Regarding the moon landing stuff discussed on here last night, watch the below video from about 3.50 onwards. Can anyone explain why NASA astronauts on the space station are saying this stuff about leaving earth orbit ,clearly in their mind Apollo never happened.
Heat/Temperature fail at the start (Think sauna vs vat of boiling water)
Yep. Pulpstar - do you know the answer to my post at 10.17 am. What the guy is saying in the video clip seems very odd and I can't see how it is taken out of context.
At least one bank that I know of is moving responsibility out of the UK and into the rEU. It isn't contingency, it's happening now and at pace. This year the responsibilities are transferred. Next year the budgets will be assigned over there and the jobs will follow.
People are very complacent.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
Don't know about the bank but some companies are certainly moving out. EasyJet has moved the registration of more than 1/3 of its fleet from the UK to Austria and is setting up a European HQ there.
I can tell you with some certainty that EasyJet is doing the absolute minimum necessary to ensure its planes - or as many as possible - stay in the air in the event of a hard Brexit.
Yes I'm sure that's right. But they are moving some operations out of the UK. I think banks take the same approach - they don't want to spend money moving people unnecessarily but some operations are going. I had a letter from a large insurance company only this week telling me that they are splitting themselves into separate UK and EU subsidiaries bceusae of Brexit. This will involve cost and, I guess, some movement of activity out of the UK.
FPT Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
I do have to laugh. Manufacturing businesses were closed down endlessly under the EU framework and work transferred to Europe, People in the North and Midlands were told to suck it up and the politicians in some cases actually accelaerated the job losses through daft policies. Now that its a few banking jobs going its armageddon.
Its not even a few banking jobs going but rather suggestions of possible jobs losses at some time in the future at unnamed banks.
Meanwhile thousands of actual banking jobs go every year - but they're prole jobs in prole towns so don't seem to matter.
Don't think local branches closing has much to do with the EU. People don't use them like they used to.
The non-eu bank I work at is expanding modestly in Frankfurt and Paris, doing some work to make sure they can service EU clients within EU structures, and delaying plans to do anything interesting in London until the situation is clearer. Also some emergency plans to move more at short notice. Mostly seeing clients following a similar strategy, or doing less business for now, and some obvious Brexit prep. Would be very surprised if this wasn't approximately what everyone else is doing. We follow the herd normally.
Another option is being whispered about in private by cabinet ministers: a mitigated ‘no deal’. The UK would pay the EU money in exchange for a series of mini agreements that would ensure that the planes could keep flying, that customs checks were kept as manageable as possible, and the EU and the UK could trade together in the way that advanced economies do when they don’t have a trade agreement. It would be expensive. I understand that at cabinet this week Philip Hammond explicitly argued that the UK should pay the EU almost all of the £39 billion, even if it leaves without a deal, to facilitate these kinds of arrangements. An acrimonious no deal is still an option, with Mrs May reneging on whatever she promised last December — with significant disruption. Ironically, this would hit Ireland as hard, if not harder, than the United Kingdom.
I fully expect minideals. I don't really know where the cost comes though, I would expect for example airspace rules to be cost neutral.
There have been some breathtakingly fatuous comments on aerospace:
“Any aircraft with British components will no longer be able to fly” - well that’s practically the whole world grounded ex-North Korea.
“British aircraft will not be able to overfly Ireland” - that’s a breach of the Chicago convention. What are they going to do? Shoot us down with the Air Force they don’t have?
“British aircraft won’t be able to land in the EU” - not EU aircraft in Britain, presumably?
Voters, not surprisingly are taking this with a very large pinch of salt. And possibly booking holidays to non-EU destinations.
AIrliens don't want to rely on the Chicago Convention. But the idea that flights would be grounded for weeks - a catastrophe that is entirely avoidable by perpetuation of the status quo - is ludicrous.
In addition, the CAA contributes about 40% of the technical resources needed for pan-European flight, across a wide range of options.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
Absolutely not.
If we had the Irish constitution, we would have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The Irish have a pretty sensible attitude to referendums.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Morning: 1) Congratulations to Casino Royale! After baby Royale's first weeks as an EU member, she'll be just old enough to vote Remain in the 2037 7th EU referendum between becoming a US state, floating into the mid-Atlantic and hiding there, accepting PM Dorries' deal ...or Remain. We have 2 young kids. I won't pretend I find it easy or always feel the joys of parent-hood but life will never be the same again and I wish you a safe arrival and peaceful sleep while you can.
2) Can anyone think of an example where a subsequent vote on a topic caused actual violence, or political disengagement? I can't think of any. Follow-ups such as general elections, Eu votes in Ireland are the cases I can think of - I can't recall any civil unrest about these.
3) We're actually bringing a people's vote motion (with appropriate apostrophe) to our Council next week - the key issues are around the mandate from 2016 wearing thin, as this is a million miles away from what was promised, and the need to bring the country back together which will need a much clearer-cut verdict: if we are going out let's get proper backing for it. Chances of further referendums would then depend on closeness of the result and how many people could live with where we ended up.
4) All this stuff about paying an extra £10bn for another year's transition horrible headlines, but if you see it as a stay of execution (and economically better for us) it becomes a bit more palatable?
"The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.".
I suppose you don't see the difference. Sigh.
Edit: We need a new Wat Tyler. No triple votes for Richard II
My apologies for the misquote, but the point I was making still stands - any decision made by the electorate can be overturned by the electorate. If the "important people" keep putting it to us that we need to vote again, we can keep voting the same way if that is what the electorate wants
This is the essence of democracy.
Or "the important people" could try doing as they have been bloody well told by the voters. Many of whom voted in the Referendum for the first time in ages, because (as we hear on the doorsteps at General Election time ) "What's the point of voting? They are all the same, just looking out for themselves, never listening to us...".
Instead our political class is writing its own epitaph. It's gravestone will read "Are you sure you want to get rid of us? Really? Don't want to think again? You're being stupid now...."
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
Absolutely not.
If we had the Irish constitution, we would have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The Irish have a pretty sensible attitude to referendums.
Apart from bundling lots of issues together into one vote.
Comments
A second referendum would be a defeat for anyone bothered about democracy (even if Leave won). The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.
If Remain won a re-run, do you think Leave voters would sit back and accept the result? You aint seen nuffin yet.
https://twitter.com/chiller/status/1052816987632455680
I doubt it. The Brexiteers are all push and no piss.
War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength
Congratulations on the imminent new member of your family. It is a joy.
Will there be a third referendum, should Remain win the second, to determine whether or not we really meant the result of the second?
A referendum result only counting if the electorate agree with the political class rather defeats the point of having one. There's nothing democratic about asking the electorate their view, forcing them to vote again if they disagree with you, and only counting the result if they agree.
[As an aside, I do think it interesting that some, including me, reckon a Terrible Deal versus Remain is likelier to get a Remain win, whereas others, such as Mr. HYUFD, reckon No Deal versus Remain is likelier to get that].
If remain won no I don't expect leavers would just sit back. They should carry on fighting for what they believe in. If leave won that I think would be an end to it for decades.
Satire.
We have regular elections (idiotic, self-defeating ones aside) every 4-5 years. The alternative is doing away with democracy.
Taking a single specific decision on certain matters (such as altering the voting system or leaving the EU) may require a direct referendum, the result of which should be respected. If a referendum can be re-run if it disagrees with the political class but counts forever if it agrees with them, that's a sham of democracy.
If I ask you if you want a cheese sandwich or a ham sandwich, and you say 'cheese', but I refuse to make it and ask you again, and this continues until you starve to death or say 'ham', how free a choice is that?
Congratulations!
(PS - I noticed another post saying "It's a girl". Do not call her "Beverley" - you do not want a Europhile in the family
"We never said you could have cake. It is up to someone else to secure you cake."
Now you know the cake you thought you ordered was never on the menu, is it undemocratic to ask you again?
Do we stop when we reach a certain number, or when a pro-EU decision is taken?
Another option is being whispered about in private by cabinet ministers: a mitigated ‘no deal’. The UK would pay the EU money in exchange for a series of mini agreements that would ensure that the planes could keep flying, that customs checks were kept as manageable as possible, and the EU and the UK could trade together in the way that advanced economies do when they don’t have a trade agreement. It would be expensive. I understand that at cabinet this week Philip Hammond explicitly argued that the UK should pay the EU almost all of the £39 billion, even if it leaves without a deal, to facilitate these kinds of arrangements. An acrimonious no deal is still an option, with Mrs May reneging on whatever she promised last December — with significant disruption. Ironically, this would hit Ireland as hard, if not harder, than the United Kingdom.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/divide-and-rule-how-the-eu-used-ireland-to-take-control-of-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
That's democracy...
What I find curious is Left-leaning posters who, say, talk dreamily of reducing poverty.
When a right-winger says, it can’t be done, that is just the way of the world, they shake their heads and look disdainfully at such hard-headedness.
But, when it comes to the EU, when someone says this is a corrupt and incompetent organisation, there must be a better way to organise the family of European nations, suddenly the Left-leaning poster becomes a hard-headed realist.
“Oh, no there is no better way. What do you expect. We’ve just got to take whatever the EU gives us. That is the way of the world”
It is the disconcerting way idealism gives way to flinty realism that I like.
You've slightly misquoted me.
This is the full sentence …
"The signal it would send is that any democratic decision can be delayed and possibly over-turned if enough 'important' people are against it.".
I suppose you don't see the difference. Sigh.
Edit: We need a new Wat Tyler. No triple votes for Richard II
That is only likely ultimately if No Deal and we have the polling on that, Remain 55% No Deal 45% ie about the same win for Remain as the Union won by in indyref 2014. No Deal has the same backing in the UK as Yes to independence in Scotland
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
Yesterday we learned here that “politics” and Theresa May are to blame for the state of negotiations. Now we are told that it’s the other 27 EU members. How unfortunate that these unexpected elements have complicated matters. One day, perhaps the leave campaigners will publish their pre-referendum assessment of the complexities of Brexit and how they would be overcome.
And all the so, so angry Brexiter poodles will fall in behind her or vote against whichever, and it will pass. And we will hear scheming and wailing and gnashing of teeth how still so very, very angry they all are. The tossers.
On the EU summit it was reported on here that TM had offered the EU an extension of a further year and our own Brexiteers went into meltdown. This line was reported by 5 live at their 6.00 am news and then referred to their Europe correspondent who immediately told them it was the EU who had offered it to TM and that she had said it was something that could possibly be considered which would be been a polite way of responding.
So everyone just needs to calm down. TM has said this morning it was offered but even if it was considered it would only be for a few months.
Nick Boles was then interviewed and said it was unnecessary as we should immediately move into a Norway agreement and negotiate from there. He said that this was increasing in traction within the party and some members of ERG. He said replacing TM at this late stage would not be the right think to do
I would be pleased if TM would move towards the Norway option but we will need to see.
The one thing that everyone agreed at the EU meeting last night was that it was polite and respectful and the tone had been very good. Angela Merkel subsequently commenting that she was under pressure from business to do a deal and no deal was not acceptable.
It is not all doom and gloom
And now off I go on my mission to help my lovely granddaughter
Now, you may say this is all part of someone's essential honesty, but it is also politically naive.
Could you please tell us the name of this bank.
"I think the problem is anyone who tried to talked about wanting to reform the EU and gave it a realistic rating, say 7/10 rather than 10/10 would have their opponents jump on it for propaganda purposes.”
I think people have tried to reform the EU. In a very, very small way (science policy) I have tried to reform a very minor aspect of the EU.
Reform is almost impossible ( << 1/10 ).
Many leavers (like myself) would have preferred to stay in a reformed EU.
However, my point stands. Either one is an idealist or a hard-headed realist.
Many left-leaning Remainers would proclaim themselves idealists. But they justify the EU using arguments from the right like “Tough, That is the way the world is. “
Been there done that and not resolved.
I've got a feeling that there are several examples I have forgotten now going to be brought up!
This is the essence of democracy.
Also (and even less my area) WWE has some event or other in Saudi Arabia. Could be some pressure to end those.
Surely it is best to be a realist at all times?
In terms of leaving the EU it clearly can be done, it may require a lot of damage to do so but it isn't impossible unless you set other conditions that have to met. A Brexit which does multiple contradictory things is impossible (or maybe just highly unlikely unless the WTO, EU and ROTW just let it happen)
I don't think anyone is claiming that we couldn't Brexit if people are happy with a hard border in N. Ireland and for us to trade with the EU on the same terms as a country without a trade deal. Planes flying and basic stuff should be doable as well.
The problem is I don't think the Tories want the electoral consequences of that as regardless of the original referendum some leave voters will feel they didn't vote for the (orderly version of) no deal scenario.
I don't think Brexit (a hard one) is unrealistic but a successful one in the short term with few negative consequences is.
Economic threats don’t work against constitutional issues. Maybe we should put it on a bus so they’ll see it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI
I realise it doesn't suit the official right wing line on Corbyn but Corbyn's EU views are fairly mainstream in Labour, generally for but with criticisms as well.
“Any aircraft with British components will no longer be able to fly” - well that’s practically the whole world grounded ex-North Korea.
“British aircraft will not be able to overfly Ireland” - that’s a breach of the Chicago convention. What are they going to do? Shoot us down with the Air Force they don’t have?
“British aircraft won’t be able to land in the EU” - not EU aircraft in Britain, presumably?
Voters, not surprisingly are taking this with a very large pinch of salt. And possibly booking holidays to non-EU destinations.
https://markpack.org.uk/153744/jeremy-corbyn-brexit/
The retail chains which are struggling might get a lot of publicity but there are others which are doing very well.
Meanwhile thousands of actual banking jobs go every year - but they're prole jobs in prole towns so don't seem to matter.
The border between N. Ireland and RoI was created in 1921. The border between Norway & Sweden was created only 16 years earlier. The border between Switzerland and Germany is almost non-existent, as last summer my hike in the Bavarian Alps ended up with me crossing into Switzerland without initially realising it. There are plenty of existing borders between EU and non-EU countries that are not hard borders. By demonstration, it is clearly possible to fix the border issue.
Now of course, May & Co are supreme bunglers, which may explain the mess.
But, there is nothing in Brexit that requires either a hard border or desperate poverty.
I wonder what other hardcore Brexiteers like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg may have proposed similar things at different times... Instead of looking at an article where someone outs committed remainers as hardcore Brexiteers for the purposes of declaring Corbyn one why don't we just look at his voting record.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/votes
Generally voted for more EU integration
55 votes for, 24 votes against, 44 absences, between 2006–2018
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Your statement is incorrect. He has not “generally voted for more EU integration".
That doesn't imply desperate poverty but surely even the most committed Brexiteer would have to admit a no deal scenario will include some disruption even if Brexit results in the UK becoming the land of milk and honey. It seems like a fairly reasonable statement but I suppose it doesn't really go along with the enthusiasm of the Brexit campaign...
I don't think Switzerland borders is the result of a no deal border either.
I think you are confusing multiple things. Britain acting unilaterally can do whatever the hell it wants, any one of a number of things is realistic. What is potentially unrealistic is demanding things which require the cooperation of other nations. Having borders like Switzerland does with the EU is only going to happen by working a deal with the EU.
If you want Brexit and you want other things like a Swiss style border but no FOM and no CU then yes you might be asking for unrealistic things.
A Brexit no deal with everything that entails is perfectly realistic. So yes Brexit itself is realistic. A Brexit which requires things which even if everyone in Britain wanted requires the agreement of other countries may not be.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/how-tiny-moldova-s-brexit-grudge-could-cost-u-k-1-7-trillion
He will never be the enthusiast say Tony Blair was but listening to Steve Richards on the subject Corbyn is pretty similar to the other Labour leaders before him in regards to the EU outside of Tony who was a real cheerleader.
We once saw a documentary on this conspiracy and it was fascinating. We wind our son up that it never happened. I don't think he really believe that we believe that. The documentary showed pictures from two different locations that clearly showed rocks in the background that were the same. Now clearly it was probably just an archiving issue and NASA didn't help by refusing to answer that question. Presumably because they couldn't be arsed knowing no matter what they said it wasn't going to make any difference.
The non-eu bank I work at is expanding modestly in Frankfurt and Paris, doing some work to make sure they can service EU clients within EU structures, and delaying plans to do anything interesting in London until the situation is clearer. Also some emergency plans to move more at short notice. Mostly seeing clients following a similar strategy, or doing less business for now, and some obvious Brexit prep. Would be very surprised if this wasn't approximately what everyone else is doing. We follow the herd normally.
In addition, the CAA contributes about 40% of the technical resources needed for pan-European flight, across a wide range of options.
If we had the Irish constitution, we would have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The Irish have a pretty sensible attitude to referendums.
1) Congratulations to Casino Royale! After baby Royale's first weeks as an EU member, she'll be just old enough to vote Remain in the 2037 7th EU referendum between becoming a US state, floating into the mid-Atlantic and hiding there, accepting PM Dorries' deal ...or Remain. We have 2 young kids. I won't pretend I find it easy or always feel the joys of parent-hood but life will never be the same again and I wish you a safe arrival and peaceful sleep while you can.
2) Can anyone think of an example where a subsequent vote on a topic caused actual violence, or political disengagement? I can't think of any. Follow-ups such as general elections, Eu votes in Ireland are the cases I can think of - I can't recall any civil unrest about these.
3) We're actually bringing a people's vote motion (with appropriate apostrophe) to our Council next week - the key issues are around the mandate from 2016 wearing thin, as this is a million miles away from what was promised, and the need to bring the country back together which will need a much clearer-cut verdict: if we are going out let's get proper backing for it. Chances of further referendums would then depend on closeness of the result and how many people could live with where we ended up.
4) All this stuff about paying an extra £10bn for another year's transition horrible headlines, but if you see it as a stay of execution (and economically better for us) it becomes a bit more palatable?
Instead our political class is writing its own epitaph. It's gravestone will read "Are you sure you want to get rid of us? Really? Don't want to think again? You're being stupid now...."