It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
The EU have an obligation to reach a deal with the leaving party under the Article 50 procedure. The EU are ignoring their obligations....tells you all you need to know.
I don't know if that's an exact interpretation (if memory serves, it's "negotiate the future shape" or some such gubbins) but taking it on face value for the moment, there's a difference between "offering a deal" and "offering a deal that you like".
Everybody has been banging on about "They must give us a good deal otherwise they'll die", and now it's mutated to "The EU are rotters for not giving us what we want". This has happened a lot over the past two years, and it really should stop.
From the very beginning it should have been "What can we do without their consent" and "How do we make them do what we want?". We know how to do this: we deny them what they need, give them what they like, charm them and coerce them. Find out what is important to them and squeeze.
But we didn't do that: we whined every time they didn't do what we wanted and we are still doing that.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
As long as we leave part of our country behind. Slight caveat to their offers.
The Good Friday Agreement was made (and made possible) because both Eire and the UK were in the EU. It was obvious it would be a problem if we wanted to leave.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
What does that even mean? We are members of the club, which we have played a big part in shaping. Now we've decided to leave. How is that is possibly the EU's fault?
Because they are insisting on the impossible.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
You've got that arse about face. They're not stringing us along; we're stringing them along. They're trying to negotiate with a party that cannot decide on what it wants; that is hopelessly split. Whomever the EU talks to gives them a different position and demands.
The EU are trying to deal with a stroppy toddler.
A stroppy toddler. That's what Brexit has made us into.
Very well worth reading, particularly the last 5 paragraphs.
The old "reform from within" argument?
Cameron tried that and they weren't interested.
A large majority (I suspect) would support an EU based on Cameron's Bloomberg speech
If the EU were interested in reform, they'd be doing it now.
They aren't.
EU members all agree the need for reform. They don't agree on what that reform should be. France, Germany and the UK all had incompatible reform agendas, to take just three of the countries. Should the EU be more centralised with greater democratic accountability? Should it be more devolved? Should it be looser? It's pretty arrogant to assume only the UK's agenda is the reforming one.
If we have a people's vote and stay in the EU, does this mean that David Cameron's deal with the EU is restated, or is it lost?
Lost. Juncker made that clear the day after.
Subject to discussion. Several EU leaders have made it clear that we'd be welcome back on similar terms to those previously agreed (including the rebate etc.). Where I think they'd be sticky would be an insistence that we agree to commit to membership for at least 15-20 years. I can't see them wanting to repeat this business in a few years' time. No Government can bind its successors but a statement of intent would be needed.
Suspect the British public would agree, including many Leavers -they'd rather leave, but wouldn't want to repeat the whole of the last two years any time soon.
No, the EU want nothing less than our total and unconditional surrender.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
The aviation industry expects a brief period of chaos, maybe 2-3 weeks, until a new arrangement is found.
“Brief chaos”. Listen to yourselves.
Edit - I have heard differently, but your view assumes sanity and pragmatism. There’s precious little evidence of that.
The very comment s/he's replying to calls this situation "tantamount to an act of war".
No - it's if the *deliberate intent* of the EU is to achieve this - and they have been frustrating the planning process (e.g. by insisting that the CAA can't apply to reregister directly to the global body until after the UK leaves the EU) - then it is tantamount to an act of war.
If it's *just* the result of incompetent politicians then so be it
All this "you can't plan for Brexit until after Brexit" nonsense is ludicrous and we should have refused to talk about money until it was dropped. The CAA should have been able to apply to re-register with a date agreed for 30 March 2019 for it to become active - that surely should have been the whole point of the 2 years of Article 50.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
As long as we leave part of our country behind. Slight caveat to their offers.
The Good Friday Agreement was made (and made possible) because both Eire and the UK were in the EU. It was obvious it would be a problem if we wanted to leave.
Only as big as it’s become because Varadkar’s stymied any thought of a technical solution, and the EU are conveniently forgetting the other half of the GFA where there shouldn’t be any additional barriers between NI and GB.
Given a no deal it will be “interesting “ to see how the Irish deal with putting up the “no border, border”.
Mr. Jessop, May's prevarication/capitulation is to blame. 'We' haven't changed. The political leadership itself, and through delegating to people May appointed who weren't up to the task, is the problem.
That might also apply to his making a presidential bid, but that the risk/return calculation for both him and the Democrats would be far less compelling.
Thanks.
And there is this:
" “Texas has been four years away from being competitive for 40 years,” said Peter Ernaut, a veteran Republican strategist who has advised Nevada Gov. "
And it will be a whole different ballgame running against longstanding and popular senior senator John Cornyn in 2020. He won by 27% in 2014 - compared to a lead of only 16% for Cruz two years earlier.
Clearly who the candidates are matters - as the Republican Governor won by 13 per cent compared to Cruz's lead of only 3 per cent in the same state on Tuesday.
Beto may not find it so easy against Cornyn. We will never quite know how much was a pro Beto or anti Cruz vote - as 400,000 fewer Texans voted Republican in the senate vs the Governorship.
Beto may wait to run for Texas Governor in 2022 and just stay in the House of Representatives for now
O Rourke wasn't allowed to run for re-election to the House as he was running for the Senate - so will cease to be a member of Congress in January. So he is a free agent.
He still will likely wait until 2022 and the Texas governorship race ( though candidates have run for President before and stayed Senators and I do not believe there is a constitutional bar to staying in the House while running for the Senate)
O'Rourke's father in law is a billionaire so he also has plenty of family cash for future campaigns
Very well worth reading, particularly the last 5 paragraphs.
The old "reform from within" argument?
Cameron tried that and they weren't interested.
A large majority (I suspect) would support an EU based on Cameron's Bloomberg speech
If the EU were interested in reform, they'd be doing it now.
They aren't.
EU members all agree the need for reform. They don't agree on what that reform should be. France, Germany and the UK all had incompatible reform agendas, to take just three of the countries. Should the EU be more centralised with greater democratic accountability? Should it be more devolved? Should it be looser? It's pretty arrogant to assume only the UK's agenda is the reforming one.
If the answer to the question "why isn't the EU reforming?" is because nobody can agree how, then I think that demonstrates that no reform is possible. The member states have created their own being, with its own objectives, separate from theirs, over which they no longer have control.
They insisted on a commitment to no hard border in Ireland as part of the withdrawal agreement
That makes any option apart from Remain/Norway impossible.
Anyone who knows Irish history appreciates that subtlety and fudge is what works there'
Norway isn't in the customs union so has a customs border with Sweden. I was at Oslo airport just last week - and in the middle of the concourse you pass through a secure customs area (with no return!) for international flights. So it doesn't solve the NI border issue either.
Hence the government is looking at customs union options outside the single market - which is closer to the Turkey model.
Mr. Jessop, May's prevarication/capitulation is to blame. 'We' haven't changed. The political leadership itself, and through delegating to people May appointed who weren't up to the task, is the problem.
That's quite an incredible comment. May has been put in an impossible situation: it isn't just remain versus leave; it's one leave faction against another.
If leavers refuse to agree on what they want, and are telling the EU different things, how can May provide a united front?
Very well worth reading, particularly the last 5 paragraphs.
The old "reform from within" argument?
Cameron tried that and they weren't interested.
A large majority (I suspect) would support an EU based on Cameron's Bloomberg speech
If the EU were interested in reform, they'd be doing it now.
They aren't.
EU members all agree the need for reform. They don't agree on what that reform should be. France, Germany and the UK all had incompatible reform agendas, to take just three of the countries. Should the EU be more centralised with greater democratic accountability? Should it be more devolved? Should it be looser? It's pretty arrogant to assume only the UK's agenda is the reforming one.
If the answer to the question "why isn't the EU reforming?" is because nobody can agree how, then I think that demonstrates that no reform is possible. The member states have created their own being, with its own objectives, separate from theirs, over which they no longer have control.
Fair enough. It was Charles who claimed the UK was pushing reform and no-one was interested. When in fact they are interested but they have different ideas of what that reform should be..
Mr. Jessop, May's prevarication/capitulation is to blame. 'We' haven't changed. The political leadership itself, and through delegating to people May appointed who weren't up to the task, is the problem.
Mrs May appointed prominent Leavers to senior positions. Just saying ....
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
The EU have an obligation to reach a deal with the leaving party under the Article 50 procedure. The EU are ignoring their obligations....tells you all you need to know.
Really they don't. Article 50 is simply an opportunity to agree stuff on a simplified, accelerated process. We can agree as much or as little as both parties want. We seem to be passing up the opportunity and so make things even more difficult for later on.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
The EU have an obligation to reach a deal with the leaving party under the Article 50 procedure. The EU are ignoring their obligations....tells you all you need to know.
Really they don't. Article 50 is simply an opportunity to agree stuff on a simplified, accelerated process. We can agree as much or as little as both parties want. We seem to be passing up the opportunity and so make things even more difficult for later on.
I should also say the Article 50 process does assume the counterparty is motivated by rational self interest. That assumption has not kicked in for us, yet.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
As long as we leave part of our country behind. Slight caveat to their offers.
The Good Friday Agreement was made (and made possible) because both Eire and the UK were in the EU.
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
Amazingly enough we aren't going to solve the Brexit conundrum on PB. Idiot politicians predict Bad Things if they don't get their own way. Turns out was just politician hot air and became "Project Fear". Which it was.
Now we have actual experts and professionals describing detailed and practical major issues, and this time its different idiot politicians and the idiot members of the public who listen to them who insist its all "Project Fear". Well, we may soon find out if PB Brexiteers know more about logistics than logistics professionals. I think this time around its not Project Fear so much as Project Stupid.
It promises to be an interesting time to need to find a new job! Happily my abrupt departure from my old job came with a year's cash as a please-walk-the-plank bribe, so I have something of a buffer to tide me over should things get sticky.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
As long as we leave part of our country behind. Slight caveat to their offers.
The Good Friday Agreement was made (and made possible) because both Eire and the UK were in the EU.
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
Stupid question. Study some Irish history. Of course both Eire and NI being in the EU helped.
Mr. Jessop, May's prevarication/capitulation is to blame. 'We' haven't changed. The political leadership itself, and through delegating to people May appointed who weren't up to the task, is the problem.
That's quite an incredible comment. May has been put in an impossible situation: it isn't just remain versus leave; it's one leave faction against another.
If leavers refuse to agree on what they want, and are telling the EU different things, how can May provide a united front?
It's time for leavers to grow up and be adults.
Yes May has made mistakes but she has made a better fist of a realistic deal than almost any of the alternatives within the government. It is odd that so many on the leave side simply do not understand this. The result may well be that they lose everything and this is sad for those who supported them in the referendum and does not bode well for British politics in the future. There are going to be no winners in this process.
Amazingly enough we aren't going to solve the Brexit conundrum on PB. Idiot politicians predict Bad Things if they don't get their own way. Turns out was just politician hot air and became "Project Fear". Which it was.
Now we have actual experts and professionals describing detailed and practical major issues, and this time its different idiot politicians and the idiot members of the public who listen to them who insist its all "Project Fear". Well, we may soon find out if PB Brexiteers know more about logistics than logistics professionals. I think this time around its not Project Fear so much as Project Stupid.
It promises to be an interesting time to need to find a new job! Happily my abrupt departure from my old job came with a year's cash as a please-walk-the-plank bribe, so I have something of a buffer to tide me over should things get sticky.
Check the paper work if it is over the stated minimum on your work contract then if you get another job withing the 12 months, they may have the right to ask for the balance back.
Mr. Jessop, May has had ministers both strongly Remain and strongly Leave resign in protest at her maladroit attempts to negotiate. That doesn't speak of proficiency in strategic thinking, or silky smooth diplomacy.
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
The conflict was ultimately about whether Northern Ireland should be ruled from itself or from Dublin or from London. it was originally ruled from itself but that failed and control was transferred to London. The various Nationalists wanted control transferred to Dublin and tried to make that happen, frequently violently, and were answered with same.
As the years progressed, both sides concluded that the question could not be resolved violently, and a new answer had to be found. The adoption by the UK and Ireland of human rights oversight by European bodies meant that the locus of control became less important and that transnational bodies could be created. This meant that the cassus belli became irrelevant - the same laws would broadly pertain whether ruled from London or Dublin - and the forces could lay down their arms.
The Irish border became an irrelevancy, merely an object of interest as mobile phone signals changing when one crosses. And the violence faded into history...
Then the Leavers, with their lack of care and poor knowledge of history, arrived...
Mrs C, May chose who, and where, and totally undercut Davis herself.
Mr. JohnL, do you mean in qualifying? A tow is helpful, if tricky to co-ordinate. In the race, possible but unlikely.
In the race. Hamilton's already got the championship so it might be a nice way to repay Bottas for help throughout the season. It would not be entirely unprecedented.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
What does that even mean? We are members of the club, which we have played a big part in shaping. Now we've decided to leave. How is that is possibly the EU's fault?
Because they are insisting on the impossible.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
You've got that arse about face. They're not stringing us along; we're stringing them along. They're trying to negotiate with a party that cannot decide on what it wants; that is hopelessly split. Whomever the EU talks to gives them a different position and demands.
The EU are trying to deal with a stroppy toddler.
A stroppy toddler. That's what Brexit has made us into.
The EU should only be talking to the government.
The fact that they choose to listen to various other individuals who have no locus to negotiate on behalf of the UK is their own decision
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
The aviation industry expects a brief period of chaos, maybe 2-3 weeks, until a new arrangement is found.
“Brief chaos”. Listen to yourselves.
Edit - I have heard differently, but your view assumes sanity and pragmatism. There’s precious little evidence of that.
The very comment s/he's replying to calls this situation "tantamount to an act of war".
No - it's if the *deliberate intent* of the EU is to achieve this - and they have been frustrating the planning process (e.g. by insisting that the CAA can't apply to reregister directly to the global body until after the UK leaves the EU) - then it is tantamount to an act of war.
If it's *just* the result of incompetent politicians then so be it
All this "you can't plan for Brexit until after Brexit" nonsense is ludicrous and we should have refused to talk about money until it was dropped. The CAA should have been able to apply to re-register with a date agreed for 30 March 2019 for it to become active - that surely should have been the whole point of the 2 years of Article 50.
Yes.
I don't know why the government agreed to that sort of stuff. It's just idiotic (the same with the WTO rules)
Mr. Jessop, May has had ministers both strongly Remain and strongly Leave resign in protest at her maladroit attempts to negotiate. That doesn't speak of proficiency in strategic thinking, or silky smooth diplomacy.
May is ghastly of course, but the fact is that Brexit as sold is undeliverable. Only the most cretinous haven’t worked that out after all this time.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
As long as we leave part of our country behind. Slight caveat to their offers.
The Good Friday Agreement was made (and made possible) because both Eire and the UK were in the EU.
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
Stupid question. Study some Irish history. Of course both Eire and NI being in the EU helped.
The Good Friday agreement specifically made it easier to fudge some of the aspects.
But I believe that peace was made because both sides were tired of fighting.
If one or other of us hadn't been in the EU then some different accommodation would have been reached
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
The conflict was ultimately about whether Northern Ireland should be ruled from itself or from Dublin or from London. it was originally ruled from itself but that failed and control was transferred to London. The various Nationalists wanted control transferred to Dublin and tried to make that happen, frequently violently, and were answered with same.
As the years progressed, both sides concluded that the question could not be resolved violently, and a new answer had to be found. The adoption by the UK and Ireland of human rights oversight by European bodies meant that the locus of control became less important and that transnational bodies could be created. This meant that the cassus belli became irrelevant - the same laws would broadly pertain whether ruled from London or Dublin - and the forces could lay down their arms.
The Irish border became an irrelevancy, merely an object of interest as mobile phone signals changing when one crosses. And the violence faded into history...
Then the Leavers, with their lack of care and poor knowledge of history, arrived...
Here's a few of the things that change when you cross that 'irrelevant' border:
The currency The tax system The legal system The speed limit
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
The conflict was ultimately about whether Northern Ireland should be ruled from itself or from Dublin or from London. it was originally ruled from itself but that failed and control was transferred to London. The various Nationalists wanted control transferred to Dublin and tried to make that happen, frequently violently, and were answered with same.
As the years progressed, both sides concluded that the question could not be resolved violently, and a new answer had to be found. The adoption by the UK and Ireland of human rights oversight by European bodies meant that the locus of control became less important and that transnational bodies could be created. This meant that the cassus belli became irrelevant - the same laws would broadly pertain whether ruled from London or Dublin - and the forces could lay down their arms.
The Irish border became an irrelevancy, merely an object of interest as mobile phone signals changing when one crosses. And the violence faded into history...
Then the Leavers, with their lack of care and poor knowledge of history, arrived...
Here's a few of the things that change when you cross that 'irrelevant' border:
The currency The tax system The legal system The speed limit
Fair point, but those things also change when you cross the England-Scotland border.
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
The conflict was ultimately about whether Northern Ireland should be ruled from itself or from Dublin or from London. it was originally ruled from itself but that failed and control was transferred to London. The various Nationalists wanted control transferred to Dublin and tried to make that happen, frequently violently, and were answered with same.
As the years progressed, both sides concluded that the question could not be resolved violently, and a new answer had to be found. The adoption by the UK and Ireland of human rights oversight by European bodies meant that the locus of control became less important and that transnational bodies could be created. This meant that the cassus belli became irrelevant - the same laws would broadly pertain whether ruled from London or Dublin - and the forces could lay down their arms.
The Irish border became an irrelevancy, merely an object of interest as mobile phone signals changing when one crosses. And the violence faded into history...
Then the Leavers, with their lack of care and poor knowledge of history, arrived...
Here's a few of the things that change when you cross that 'irrelevant' border:
The currency The tax system The legal system The speed limit
Fair point, but those things also change when you cross the England-Scotland border.
Well you learn something new everyday - I was under the impression that both England and Scotland used the pound sterling and drove in mph.
And I guess the tax and legal systems are rather closer than they are between the two Irelands.
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
The conflict was ultimately about whether Northern Ireland should be ruled from itself or from Dublin or from London. it was originally ruled from itself but that failed and control was transferred to London. The various Nationalists wanted control transferred to Dublin and tried to make that happen, frequently violently, and were answered with same.
As the years progressed, both sides concluded that the question could not be resolved violently, and a new answer had to be found. The adoption by the UK and Ireland of human rights oversight by European bodies meant that the locus of control became less important and that transnational bodies could be created. This meant that the cassus belli became irrelevant - the same laws would broadly pertain whether ruled from London or Dublin - and the forces could lay down their arms.
The Irish border became an irrelevancy, merely an object of interest as mobile phone signals changing when one crosses. And the violence faded into history...
Then the Leavers, with their lack of care and poor knowledge of history, arrived...
Here's a few of the things that change when you cross that 'irrelevant' border:
The currency The tax system The legal system The speed limit
Fair point, but those things also change when you cross the England-Scotland border.
Well you learn something new everyday - I was under the impression that both England and Scotland used the pound sterling and drove in mph.
And I guess the tax and legal systems are rather closer than they are between the two Irelands.
As I said above, the currency bit is a bit of a stretch. But the legal system point is legit (pun not intended). It's its own jurisdiction. Try buying a house in Scotland and you'll see what I mean.
The fact that they choose to listen to various other individuals who have no locus to negotiate on behalf of the UK is their own decision
Yes, they should. Unfortunately the other individuals are shouting and screaming from the rooftops like jabbering idiots. And if the EU were to ignore them, they'll just screech about being ignored.
Besides, it's clear to anyone observing the situation in the UK at the moment that, from our perspective, Brexit could mean anything. It's common sense for the EU to look at all the potential angles on the way we might turn by talking to the different parties. They wouldn't need to if we actually had a position.
Blaming the EU for our not being able to agree is perverse and stupid. It is our fault, and it is leavers' responsibility.
Mr. Jessop, May has had ministers both strongly Remain and strongly Leave resign in protest at her maladroit attempts to negotiate. That doesn't speak of proficiency in strategic thinking, or silky smooth diplomacy.
It's hilarious seeing leavers accusing others of being unable to negotiate: they can't even negotiate amongst themselves. How the hell do you expect May to negotiate a deal with them?
And then you have the complexities added by people like Boris, who will do and say anything to get May's job.
The fact that they choose to listen to various other individuals who have no locus to negotiate on behalf of the UK is their own decision
Yes, they should. Unfortunately the other individuals are shouting and screaming from the rooftops like jabbering idiots. And if the EU were to ignore them, they'll just screech about being ignored.
Besides, it's clear to anyone observing the situation in the UK at the moment that, from our perspective, Brexit could mean anything. It's common sense for the EU to look at all the potential angles on the way we might turn by talking to the different parties. They wouldn't need to if we actually had a position.
Blaming the EU for our not being able to agree is perverse and stupid. It is our fault, and it is leavers' responsibility.
Fundamentally the EU has made a proposition they know is unacceptable.
Sure May should have walked away.
But the EU doesn't want a deal - that's quite clear because of their refusal to think about alternative solutions.
I suspected that might be the case when I saw them forcing the UK to negotiate against itself. It's quite a good tactic, but there comes a point where you have to call an end to it. (I was in a similar situation earlier this year where the only buyer for an asset was playing games. It was only when we threatened to terminate discussions that they moved).
The fact that they choose to listen to various other individuals who have no locus to negotiate on behalf of the UK is their own decision
Yes, they should. Unfortunately the other individuals are shouting and screaming from the rooftops like jabbering idiots. And if the EU were to ignore them, they'll just screech about being ignored.
Besides, it's clear to anyone observing the situation in the UK at the moment that, from our perspective, Brexit could mean anything. It's common sense for the EU to look at all the potential angles on the way we might turn by talking to the different parties. They wouldn't need to if we actually had a position.
Blaming the EU for our not being able to agree is perverse and stupid. It is our fault, and it is leavers' responsibility.
Fundamentally the EU has made a proposition they know is unacceptable.
Sure May should have walked away.
But the EU doesn't want a deal - that's quite clear because of their refusal to think about alternative solutions.
I suspected that might be the case when I saw them forcing the UK to negotiate against itself. It's quite a good tactic, but there comes a point where you have to call an end to it. (I was in a similar situation earlier this year where the only buyer for an asset was playing games. It was only when we threatened to terminate discussions that they moved).
See it from their perspective: what's the point in throwing much meat to us when we're acting like spoilt, quarrelling children? They're not forcing the UK to negotiate against itself; we're doing it to ourselves.
Now, if you were to say the EU could have done things differently with hindsight, then I agree. But they were dealing with us, and our internal struggles and arguments made their situation very difficult. And that's down to us. Or more accurately, the Brexiteers.
Leavers realise they've fucked up, and they're looking to blame anyone but themselves. It's pathetic.
The fact that they choose to listen to various other individuals who have no locus to negotiate on behalf of the UK is their own decision
Yes, they should. Unfortunately the other individuals are shouting and screaming from the rooftops like jabbering idiots. And if the EU were to ignore them, they'll just screech about being ignored.
Besides, it's clear to anyone observing the situation in the UK at the moment that, from our perspective, Brexit could mean anything. It's common sense for the EU to look at all the potential angles on the way we might turn by talking to the different parties. They wouldn't need to if we actually had a position.
Blaming the EU for our not being able to agree is perverse and stupid. It is our fault, and it is leavers' responsibility.
Fundamentally the EU has made a proposition they know is unacceptable.
Sure May should have walked away.
But the EU doesn't want a deal - that's quite clear because of their refusal to think about alternative solutions.
I suspected that might be the case when I saw them forcing the UK to negotiate against itself. It's quite a good tactic, but there comes a point where you have to call an end to it. (I was in a similar situation earlier this year where the only buyer for an asset was playing games. It was only when we threatened to terminate discussions that they moved).
If they don't want a deal, how does walking away confound them?
Very well worth reading, particularly the last 5 paragraphs.
The old "reform from within" argument?
Cameron tried that and they weren't interested.
A large majority (I suspect) would support an EU based on Cameron's Bloomberg speech
If the EU were interested in reform, they'd be doing it now.
They aren't.
EU members all agree the need for reform. They don't agree on what that reform should be. France, Germany and the UK all had incompatible reform agendas, to take just three of the countries. Should the EU be more centralised with greater democratic accountability? Should it be more devolved? Should it be looser? It's pretty arrogant to assume only the UK's agenda is the reforming one.
If the answer to the question "why isn't the EU reforming?" is because nobody can agree how, then I think that demonstrates that no reform is possible. The member states have created their own being, with its own objectives, separate from theirs, over which they no longer have control.
The UK is clearly in need of reform. Why is it not reforming?
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
As long as we leave part of our country behind. Slight caveat to their offers.
The Good Friday Agreement was made (and made possible) because both Eire and the UK were in the EU.
If that's the case, why did the IRA insurgency continue for more than 20 years AFTER the UK and Ireland joined the EC (as was)?
There are lots of possible answers to that question. One of the more convincing ones that I have seen is that Adams was waiting for the fighters (terrorists, army - pick your word) to fight for long enough without success that he could win an argument inside the IRA that a political solution was the only way.
Comments
Everybody has been banging on about "They must give us a good deal otherwise they'll die", and now it's mutated to "The EU are rotters for not giving us what we want". This has happened a lot over the past two years, and it really should stop.
From the very beginning it should have been "What can we do without their consent" and "How do we make them do what we want?". We know how to do this: we deny them what they need, give them what they like, charm them and coerce them. Find out what is important to them and squeeze.
But we didn't do that: we whined every time they didn't do what we wanted and we are still doing that.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/11/brazil-pre-qualifying-2018.html
The EU are trying to deal with a stroppy toddler.
A stroppy toddler. That's what Brexit has made us into.
Given a no deal it will be “interesting “ to see how the Irish deal with putting up the “no border, border”.
They insisted on a commitment to no hard border in Ireland as part of the withdrawal agreement
That makes any option apart from Remain/Norway impossible.
Anyone who knows Irish history appreciates that subtlety and fudge is what works there'
Norway isn't in the customs union so has a customs border with Sweden. I was at Oslo airport just last week - and in the middle of the concourse you pass through a secure customs area (with no return!) for international flights. So it doesn't solve the NI border issue either.
Hence the government is looking at customs union options outside the single market - which is closer to the Turkey model.
If leavers refuse to agree on what they want, and are telling the EU different things, how can May provide a united front?
It's time for leavers to grow up and be adults.
Now we have actual experts and professionals describing detailed and practical major issues, and this time its different idiot politicians and the idiot members of the public who listen to them who insist its all "Project Fear". Well, we may soon find out if PB Brexiteers know more about logistics than logistics professionals. I think this time around its not Project Fear so much as Project Stupid.
It promises to be an interesting time to need to find a new job! Happily my abrupt departure from my old job came with a year's cash as a please-walk-the-plank bribe, so I have something of a buffer to tide me over should things get sticky.
Local election results
Ealing LB, Dormers Wells
Lab 1868 [72.1%; +2.9%]
Con 429 [16.6%; +0.7%]
LD Nigel Bakhai 188 [7.3%; +2.7%]
Green 106 [4.1%; -3.2%]
Turnout 26%
Lab Hold
Percentage change from 2018
Harlow DC, Bush Fair
Labour 543 [45.0%; +0.0%]
Con 460 [38.1%; -0.8%]
UKIP 103 [8.5%; -2.5%]
Harlow Alliance 63 [5.2%; +5.2%]
LD Lesley Rideout 39 [3.2%; -1.8%]
Turnout 21.77%
Lab Hold
Percentage change from 2018
Torridge DC, Holsworthy
Conservative 698 [56.4%; +11.5%]
Ind 314 [25.4%; +25.4%]
LD Christopher Styles-Power 151 [12.2%; -5.3%]
Lab 75 [6.1%; +6.1%]
Turnout 35.04%
Con Hold
Percentage change from 2015
Harlow BC, Nettleswell
Labour 497 [50.2%; -0.7%]
Con 254 [25.6%; -13.0%]
Harlow Alliance 99 [10.0%; +10.0%]
UKIP 98 [9.9%; +3.6%]
LD Robert Thurston 43 [4.3%; +0.2%]
Turnout 18.1%
Lab Hold
Percentage change from 2015
Of course both Eire and NI being in the EU helped.
Mr. JohnL, do you mean in qualifying? A tow is helpful, if tricky to co-ordinate. In the race, possible but unlikely.
As the years progressed, both sides concluded that the question could not be resolved violently, and a new answer had to be found. The adoption by the UK and Ireland of human rights oversight by European bodies meant that the locus of control became less important and that transnational bodies could be created. This meant that the cassus belli became irrelevant - the same laws would broadly pertain whether ruled from London or Dublin - and the forces could lay down their arms.
The Irish border became an irrelevancy, merely an object of interest as mobile phone signals changing when one crosses. And the violence faded into history...
Then the Leavers, with their lack of care and poor knowledge of history, arrived...
The fact that they choose to listen to various other individuals who have no locus to negotiate on behalf of the UK is their own decision
I don't know why the government agreed to that sort of stuff. It's just idiotic (the same with the WTO rules)
The currency
The tax system
The legal system
The speed limit
Not that it matters one way of another.
And I guess the tax and legal systems are rather closer than they are between the two Irelands.
Besides, it's clear to anyone observing the situation in the UK at the moment that, from our perspective, Brexit could mean anything. It's common sense for the EU to look at all the potential angles on the way we might turn by talking to the different parties. They wouldn't need to if we actually had a position.
Blaming the EU for our not being able to agree is perverse and stupid. It is our fault, and it is leavers' responsibility.
And then you have the complexities added by people like Boris, who will do and say anything to get May's job.
Sure May should have walked away.
But the EU doesn't want a deal - that's quite clear because of their refusal to think about alternative solutions.
I suspected that might be the case when I saw them forcing the UK to negotiate against itself. It's quite a good tactic, but there comes a point where you have to call an end to it. (I was in a similar situation earlier this year where the only buyer for an asset was playing games. It was only when we threatened to terminate discussions that they moved).
Now, if you were to say the EU could have done things differently with hindsight, then I agree. But they were dealing with us, and our internal struggles and arguments made their situation very difficult. And that's down to us. Or more accurately, the Brexiteers.
Leavers realise they've fucked up, and they're looking to blame anyone but themselves. It's pathetic.