The shiteness of the Deal was also the factor that pushed me over to Leave, never to return. I would have voted Remain, with a heavy heart, if he'd got one solid and truly significant concession.
You, me - and I suspect enough to have thwarted Brexit.
Let's rerun it without Cameron's deal. Sounds like it will be in the bag for Remain.
How many reruns do you want?
We could do it regularly like the Ashes. Burn the Withdrawal Agreement and put it in an urn that we can play for by turning EU referendums into a kind of national debating society event.
He's just repeating himself, and the obvious. The compromise - according to Twitter - is WHO will decide when the backstop is no longer needed. It might be some "independent" arbitrator. That's how they will try and fudge it. Whether it will pass the Commons is another matter.
But the Irish/EU position is that the backstop is always required up until such point as they agree that it isn't. The simple question is "can the UK and Ireland go separate ways in terms of trade policy and regulation of goods and services". London believes that it should be able to. Dublin and Brussels believe that it cannot*. No deal is possible unless at least one side shifts its position on that question.
* Technically, not quite true but as long as they believe that an open NI/RoI border is a sine qua non, and that an open border is incompatible with Britain diverging from Ireland on trade and regulations, and as long as London will not countenance an intra-UK regulatory border, it amounts to the same thing.
It is pretty pathetic that a land border is an insurmountable issue. You would have thought that almost any issue appertaining to a land border would have had a resolution by now. A land border is hardly a new concept. They have been around for a few years.
The EU wanting to make it impossible for the UK to leave the backstop means the backstop is harder to leave than the EU, and has no say over the rules, no veto power. It's a retrograde step, even without considering the reprehensible desire to commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory, imposing a customs barrier within a non-EU country.
The UK can leave the backstop any time it wants to. It would be just like a hard Brexit. What we can't do is unilaterally leave the backstop and declare "all is well" and retain the other benefits of the deal.
Precisely. In what way is it then a 'retrograde step' ?
presumably thats the army that was never on the EU radar
"Europe must defend itself, with regard to China, Russia, and even the USA". Note "Even the USA". Dear God.
Well I wouldn't be fighting for it. I fact I'd do everything in my power to undermine the bloody thing.
An EU army would not be a bad thing providing that there was proper political democratic control over it.
The world is and always will be governed by the great powers of the day, and that governance is exercised, ultimately, through the willingness to deploy and use force. At present, no European power except Russia is really able to do that - hence why Russia is busy annexing bits of eastern Europe and no-one is stopping it.
He's just repeating himself, and the obvious. The compromise - according to Twitter - is WHO will decide when the backstop is no longer needed. It might be some "independent" arbitrator. That's how they will try and fudge it. Whether it will pass the Commons is another matter.
But the Irish/EU position is that the backstop is always required up until such point as they agree that it isn't. The simple question is "can the UK and Ireland go separate ways in terms of trade policy and regulation of goods and services". London believes that it should be able to. Dublin and Brussels believe that it cannot*. No deal is possible unless at least one side shifts its position on that question.
* Technically, not quite true but as long as they believe that an open NI/RoI border is a sine qua non, and that an open border is incompatible with Britain diverging from Ireland on trade and regulations, and as long as London will not countenance an intra-UK regulatory border, it amounts to the same thing.
It is pretty pathetic that a land border is an insurmountable issue. You would have thought that almost any issue appertaining to a land border would have had a resolution by now. A land border is hardly a new concept. They have been around for a few years.
Around for a long time with widely understood ways of operation which are bound into a plethora of treaties and agreements.
We're trying to create something new which flies in the face of hundreds of years of precedent with little more than hand-waving and 'technology'.
The shiteness of the Deal was also the factor that pushed me over to Leave, never to return. I would have voted Remain, with a heavy heart, if he'd got one solid and truly significant concession.
It might also have provided a clue as to how the withdrawal deal negotiations were likely to go.
The EU wanting to make it impossible for the UK to leave the backstop means the backstop is harder to leave than the EU, and has no say over the rules, no veto power. It's a retrograde step, even without considering the reprehensible desire to commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory, imposing a customs barrier within a non-EU country.
The UK can leave the backstop any time it wants to. It would be just like a hard Brexit. What we can't do is unilaterally leave the backstop and declare "all is well" and retain the other benefits of the deal.
Precisely. In what way is it then a 'retrograde step' ?
Beats me. Something to do with flags and perfidious foreigners, I imagine.
He's just repeating himself, and the obvious. The compromise - according to Twitter - is WHO will decide when the backstop is no longer needed. It might be some "independent" arbitrator. That's how they will try and fudge it. Whether it will pass the Commons is another matter.
But the Irish/EU position is that the backstop is always required up until such point as they agree that it isn't. The simple question is "can the UK and Ireland go separate ways in terms of trade policy and regulation of goods and services". London believes that it should be able to. Dublin and Brussels believe that it cannot*. No deal is possible unless at least one side shifts its position on that question.
* Technically, not quite true but as long as they believe that an open NI/RoI border is a sine qua non, and that an open border is incompatible with Britain diverging from Ireland on trade and regulations, and as long as London will not countenance an intra-UK regulatory border, it amounts to the same thing.
It is pretty pathetic that a land border is an insurmountable issue. You would have thought that almost any issue appertaining to a land border would have had a resolution by now. A land border is hardly a new concept. They have been around for a few years.
Around for a long time with widely understood ways of operation which are bound into a plethora of treaties and agreements.
We're trying to create something new which flies in the face of hundreds of years of precedent with little more than hand-waving and 'technology'.
He's just repeating himself, and the obvious. The compromise - according to Twitter - is WHO will decide when the backstop is no longer needed. It might be some "independent" arbitrator. That's how they will try and fudge it. Whether it will pass the Commons is another matter.
But the Irish/EU position is that the backstop is always required up until such point as they agree that it isn't. The simple question is "can the UK and Ireland go separate ways in terms of trade policy and regulation of goods and services". London believes that it should be able to. Dublin and Brussels believe that it cannot*. No deal is possible unless at least one side shifts its position on that question.
* Technically, not quite true but as long as they believe that an open NI/RoI border is a sine qua non, and that an open border is incompatible with Britain diverging from Ireland on trade and regulations, and as long as London will not countenance an intra-UK regulatory border, it amounts to the same thing.
It is pretty pathetic that a land border is an insurmountable issue. You would have thought that almost any issue appertaining to a land border would have had a resolution by now. A land border is hardly a new concept. They have been around for a few years.
Not in Ireland (barring the Troubles, but that was always possible to write off as exceptional).
The problem is not the border per se; it's what the border represents, which is a question of identity.
It is pretty pathetic that a land border is an insurmountable issue. You would have thought that almost any issue appertaining to a land border would have had a resolution by now. A land border is hardly a new concept. They have been around for a few years.
Around for a long time with widely understood ways of operation which are bound into a plethora of treaties and agreements.
We're trying to create something new which flies in the face of hundreds of years of precedent with little more than hand-waving and 'technology'.
So you're right, but also very, very wrong.
Changes are possible where there is a will.
Sadly international trade negotiation is not a faith-based activity.
presumably thats the army that was never on the EU radar
"Europe must defend itself, with regard to China, Russia, and even the USA". Note "Even the USA". Dear God.
Well I wouldn't be fighting for it. I fact I'd do everything in my power to undermine the bloody thing.
An EU army would not be a bad thing providing that there was proper political democratic control over it.
The world is and always will be governed by the great powers of the day, and that governance is exercised, ultimately, through the willingness to deploy and use force. At present, no European power except Russia is really able to do that - hence why Russia is busy annexing bits of eastern Europe and no-one is stopping it.
Proper democratic control- yes, but provided that's by an entity you feel loyalty to.
I don't really fancy being "QMV'd" into war with the China because Macron and whoever Merkel's successor is think it's a bright idea, because I feel no overarching loyalty to any such country called Europe.
We'd be like the Czech's of 1914 stuck in an empire they felt little loyalty to dragged into wars by foreign master over whom they had no veto. It's a nightmare scenario.
presumably thats the army that was never on the EU radar
"Europe must defend itself, with regard to China, Russia, and even the USA". Note "Even the USA". Dear God.
Well I wouldn't be fighting for it. I fact I'd do everything in my power to undermine the bloody thing.
An EU army would not be a bad thing providing that there was proper political democratic control over it.
The world is and always will be governed by the great powers of the day, and that governance is exercised, ultimately, through the willingness to deploy and use force. At present, no European power except Russia is really able to do that - hence why Russia is busy annexing bits of eastern Europe and no-one is stopping it.
There would have to be a willingness among Europeans to take casualties, in order to enforce their will against others.
presumably thats the army that was never on the EU radar
"Europe must defend itself, with regard to China, Russia, and even the USA". Note "Even the USA". Dear God.
Well I wouldn't be fighting for it. I fact I'd do everything in my power to undermine the bloody thing.
An EU army would not be a bad thing providing that there was proper political democratic control over it.
The world is and always will be governed by the great powers of the day, and that governance is exercised, ultimately, through the willingness to deploy and use force. At present, no European power except Russia is really able to do that - hence why Russia is busy annexing bits of eastern Europe and no-one is stopping it.
Proper democratic control- yes, but provided that's by an entity you feel loyalty to.
I don't really fancy being "QMV'd" into war with the China because Macron and whoever Merkel's successor is think it's a bright idea, because I feel no overarching loyalty to any such country called Europe.
We'd be like the Czech's of 1914 stuck in an empire they felt little loyalty to dragged into wars by foreign master over whom they had no veto. It's a nightmare scenario.
It is. But then again, the Czechs got their independence after that war and little good did it do them once the great powers started throwing their weight around.
An excellent thread header. I suppose my first thought is, “is there a right decision to be made?” Would staying in the EU have been a mistake like answering a general knowledge question incorrectly? No.
I think leaving it to the experts (and private industry in my opinion) works in most cases. The one area where I don’t think it works particularly well is economics. I think leaving interest rates at 0.5% for as long as they did was a big mistake which I actually think contributed to Brexit.
The problem is there will always be winners and losers from a decision. You’d think independent central banks would do the right thing more often than politicians, but the evidence of the last 10 years suggests otherwise.
Proper democratic control- yes, but provided that's by an entity you feel loyalty to.
I don't really fancy being "QMV'd" into war with the China because Macron and whoever Merkel's successor is think it's a bright idea, because I feel no overarching loyalty to any such country called Europe.
We'd be like the Czech's of 1914 stuck in an empire they felt little loyalty to dragged into wars by foreign master over whom they had no veto. It's a nightmare scenario.
So you'll be campaigning for us to leave NATO given the provisions of Article V?
Did we cover this on here last week? [I was on holiday in Scotland.] It makes a pretty compelling argument that Mueller may have already subpoenaed Trump.
There are possible signs of movement now, but I'm not sure what "bones" the Irish have been offering in past months.
Chicken bone shiv maybe.....
The rather ridiculous bone tennis he alludes to masks and hides the rather more non diplomatic part of the message that I assume means they can't deal with us now: There’s no belief that we can trust the British for a second. That’s where things are.
As for leadership skills: consider if he had won. Having done exactly the same as he did, he'd have been lauded as a great politician and brilliant leader, taking the Conservative Party out of its obsession with Europe and achieving a new settlement. Wasn't to be, but that's politics.
Consid
It wasn't "politics" that sank Cameron. It was bad politics.
Whatever. The main point is that we're extremely unlikely to see another PM as good as him in my lifetime and yours. We've already seen one worse and we're at not insignificant risk of seeing one so bad that everything else will pale into insignificance, with no obvious pool of better talent available in either main party. Better get used to it - the UK is going to be worse governed for the next decade or two than it was 2010-2016, and probably even worse than 1997-2010.
Actually, as a rightwinger, I am happy to concede that the New Labour government was pretty good (by today's standards) from about 1997 til 2003 (and Iraq). The country grew, debt was contained.
After that it all went pear shaped, especially in Iraq. Then came over-borrowing and the Crash. But that government was definitely a tale of two halves, and the first half was quite successful.
Yes, I agree, with the proviso that the bungled restructuring of financial regulation in 1997 was a really major blunder, as we discovered when it was tested in 2008/9. Of course, for the first few years they were following Ken Clarke's economic plans quite closely.
We look back on 1997-2003 as good - but growth was fuelled by personal debt that stored up problems. We have to row our economy and pay down our debt.
Comments
You would have thought that almost any issue appertaining to a land border would have had a resolution by now.
A land border is hardly a new concept. They have been around for a few years.
In what way is it then a 'retrograde step' ?
The world is and always will be governed by the great powers of the day, and that governance is exercised, ultimately, through the willingness to deploy and use force. At present, no European power except Russia is really able to do that - hence why Russia is busy annexing bits of eastern Europe and no-one is stopping it.
We're trying to create something new which flies in the face of hundreds of years of precedent with little more than hand-waving and 'technology'.
So you're right, but also very, very wrong.
https://twitter.com/CPSThinkTank/status/1059819411794726918
https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/181105085949-MakeWorkPay.pdf
Gobbling them up and then throwing them back. No wonder they are annoyed with us.
Does that involve firing them out of your arse?
The problem is not the border per se; it's what the border represents, which is a question of identity.
I don't really fancy being "QMV'd" into war with the China because Macron and whoever Merkel's successor is think it's a bright idea, because I feel no overarching loyalty to any such country called Europe.
We'd be like the Czech's of 1914 stuck in an empire they felt little loyalty to dragged into wars by foreign master over whom they had no veto. It's a nightmare scenario.
I think leaving it to the experts (and private industry in my opinion) works in most cases. The one area where I don’t think it works particularly well is economics. I think leaving interest rates at 0.5% for as long as they did was a big mistake which I actually think contributed to Brexit.
The problem is there will always be winners and losers from a decision. You’d think independent central banks would do the right thing more often than politicians, but the evidence of the last 10 years suggests otherwise.
NEW THREAD
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/has-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-222060
There’s no belief that we can trust the British for a second. That’s where things are.