Scotland has no choice but to stay in the unhappy marriage and make the best of it. Northern Ireland lives with its "best of both" status and gets on with life until... ...the EU collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Which contradictions would they be?
The same contradictions that are undermining all late-era global capitalist projects. The richer capitalism makes us, the more everyone hates it.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked him three spots below the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter, Neo-Nazi Robert Bowers, and warned the Labour leader posed an ‘existential threat to Jews in the UK’.
Has anyone ever made such a claim about any other leader of a major party in the UK?
The British public do not care.
And the British voting public are ALWAYS right, apparently.
No 55% Yes 45%
Since you brought up the Scottish rather than the British public...
Remain 62% Leave 38%
Well, of course. Scotland was told voting No in IndyRef1 was a guarantee of Scotland staying in the EU. Oh, wait ...
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed but iass a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
If the WA fails to pass the Commons and May, as I suspect, switches to a policy of managed No Deal, will you continue to support the Government?
Second question, if the Government decides to introduce legislation revoking A50, would you support it even if it comes at an electoral price for the Conservatives?
"Managed no deal" is another unicorn. There is no such option. No deal means no deal, with any "management" from the EU side being designed to help the EU and trash the UK.
Na, there would undoubtedly be bilateral arrangements to keep things ticking over, unless you seriously think planes will not be able to land.
Insurance might be the issue that halts flights.
The UK might be uninsurable in the eyes of many companies given the lack of legal framework because we've effectively repealed the 1972 ECA and have nothing else in its place.
I mean how would it cover a EU citizen flying into the UK from a country that doesn't have a bilateral agreement?
Bilateral agreements will be put in place
But if necessary you have government sub underwriting
I won't speak to insurance, but I will speak to bilateralism. There is an ongoing assumption amongst many people, leavers and remainers alike, that bilateral arrangements will be installed to mitigate bad effects. I remind you that a) every attempt to bypass the EU since the ref was announced by speaking to the member states directly has failed, and b) if I understand correctly (Ivan Rogers?) any mitigation emplaced by the EU will be for the EUs benefit, not necessarily ours.
The EU wants to get the UK out with the least additional damage to itself. It also wants the stuff in the Withdrawal Agreement. The second is part of the first. The EU will push the UK heavily towards agreeing the money, citizens rights, Irish backstop and level playing field as part of any arrangement post Brexit. No Deal mitigation aims to give businesses time to move their operations out of the UK and into the rEU. The EU doesn't care about the UK's much bigger and self imposed damage.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked him three spots below the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter, Neo-Nazi Robert Bowers, and warned the Labour leader posed an ‘existential threat to Jews in the UK’.
Has anyone ever made such a claim about any other leader of a major party in the UK?
The British public do not care.
And the British voting public are ALWAYS right, apparently.
No 55% Yes 45%
Since you brought up the Scottish rather than the British public...
Remain 62% Leave 38%
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
The Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked him three spots below the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter, Neo-Nazi Robert Bowers, and warned the Labour leader posed an ‘existential threat to Jews in the UK’.
Has anyone ever made such a claim about any other leader of a major party in the UK?
The British public do not care.
And the British voting public are ALWAYS right, apparently.
No 55% Yes 45%
Since you brought up the Scottish rather than the British public...
Remain 62% Leave 38%
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
I suggest we honour the referendum result by dissolving the UK so that it is no longer a member of the EU.
The EU wants to get the UK out with the least additional damage to itself. It also wants the stuff in the Withdrawal Agreement. The second is part of the first. The EU will push the UK heavily towards agreeing the money, citizens rights, Irish backstop and level playing field as part of any arrangement post Brexit. No Deal mitigation aims to give businesses time to move their operations out of the UK and into the rEU. The EU doesn't care about the UK's much bigger and self imposed damage.
The WA should be read as a statement of intent of the absolute minimum the EU is prepared to allow the UK to have, post-Brexit.
You'll note, effectively, that the one thing the EU considers non-negotiable is the de jure and de facto regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland under permanent EU jurisdiction.
Everything else is allowable, provided the EU is able to extract its pound of flesh.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
This is why No Deal remains very likely. Many Leavers are so vitreolic that they believe that any Deal acceptable to the EU is a sellout to the enemy.
Foxy.....when you look back at 2010 when you voted Tory....do you still think that was a good choice?
I remember vividly many of my colleagues were pissed off with the bureaucracy, namby pamby interventionism of New Labour and dallied with the Tories. But fuck me they played with the devil and paid the price.
I take your point. I voted Cameron as he seemed to be a rare sane Tory leader, but I was happier still with the Coalition, which led to a golden era of competent government. I voted against him in 2015 so feel no responsibility for the chaos and incompetence of the last 2 1/2 years.
I cannot see myself voting Tory again. The party is now completely re-toxified.
The first job of any government is to defend us from our enemies and the Tories have achieved that.
The second job is to keep inflation under control - job done.
The third job is to keep unemployment low - job done.
You only miss these priorities when you don't have them.
Knowing that Churchill is the political hero of Boris Johnson, and that the former swapped political parties a couple of times, I wonder whether it is feasible that the latter might consider a similar manoeuvre. Is he the only politician who might heal the divide in the country by making his own journey across it?
And go where? Who would want him? (Assuming you accept that UKIP are not a real party anymore).
I'm afraid I wasn't clear. The divide I referred to was the Leave/Remain divide mentioned by Alastair in the thread header. I wasn't envisaging Boris crossing a party political divide, but reconciling a large fraction of Leavers to Remaining by making that change himself.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
If the WA fails to pass the Commons and May, as I suspect, switches to a policy of managed No Deal, will you continue to support the Government?
Second question, if the Government decides to introduce legislation revoking A50, would you support it even if it comes at an electoral price for the Conservatives?
May's dalliance with no deal is a tremendous bluff, intended to frighten the troops. No sensible PM could ever take the country there, and Mrs M is more sensible than many.
I'm not sure her party realise this.
It's a double bluff.
May is aiming for a WTO Brexit but can't do that openly - hence the stealth.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked him three spots below the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter, Neo-Nazi Robert Bowers, and warned the Labour leader posed an ‘existential threat to Jews in the UK’.
Has anyone ever made such a claim about any other leader of a major party in the UK?
The British public do not care.
And the British voting public are ALWAYS right, apparently.
No 55% Yes 45%
Since you brought up the Scottish rather than the British public...
Remain 62% Leave 38%
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
I am surprised the SNP does not support independence for the Uk as well as for Scotland since Scotland is in the UK.
The EU wants to get the UK out with the least additional damage to itself. It also wants the stuff in the Withdrawal Agreement. The second is part of the first. The EU will push the UK heavily towards agreeing the money, citizens rights, Irish backstop and level playing field as part of any arrangement post Brexit. No Deal mitigation aims to give businesses time to move their operations out of the UK and into the rEU. The EU doesn't care about the UK's much bigger and self imposed damage.
The WA should be read as a statement of intent of the absolute minimum the EU is prepared to allow the UK to have, post-Brexit.
You'll note, effectively, that the one thing the EU considers non-negotiable is the de jure and de facto regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland under permanent EU jurisdiction.
Everything else is allowable, provided the EU is able to extract its pound of flesh.
I don't think the EU wants regulatory annexation of NI. It wants what it says it wants, which are no hard borders in Ireland. On the whole it prefers the UK to stay aligned. The requirement however is for NI to stay aligned to the extent that it minimises the land border.
The other items are pretty important to the EU too, especially the level playing fields provisions. And you're right. "May's Deal" is a starter for ten under any Brexit arrangement. The EU will demand (and get) a lot more, "May's Deal" or no.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
This is why No Deal remains very likely. Many Leavers are so vitreolic that they believe that any Deal acceptable to the EU is a sellout to the enemy.
I am personally in favour of Theresa's deal, however, even though it's crap and she's rubbish at negotiating there's no realistic alternative. No deal would be a disaster economically and politically and Remain would result in a generation of political and social upheaval and the only way to get remain is to do it without a public vote, the alternative puts no deal on a ballot paper which the government will never do.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Broadly May's deal - or what we'd perhaps do better to think of as the EU's deal - ought to satisfy both those majorities.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Economic and politics yes.
Trade and politics no.
Unless you think Japan is politically integrating with Australia, or Mexico with USA etc. No reason we can't have a European trade agreement that is trade without politics like North America, TransPacific, South America etc all have.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
They are fully aware that their relationship involves political integration.
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
Norway is interesting because they have effectively depoliticised their trade policy and a large part of their economic and foreign policies by outsourcing them to a third party. This stuff doesn't get discussed in the Norwegian parliament because they don't decide on it.
That's an option for us, and I think the most likely one. But it's not going to be comfortable for a country used to thinking it has influence.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
They are fully aware that their relationship involves political integration.
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
Obviously there is integration in terms of trading relationships. Political integration is different from free trade.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
They are fully aware that their relationship involves political integration.
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
Required reading for understanding how Brexit will play out. A key point is that EU rules and EU legal oversight protect Norway from arbitrary actions by EU member states against it, even if Norway has no say in what those rules are.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
They are fully aware that their relationship involves political integration.
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
Obviously there is integration in terms of trading relationships. Political integration is different from free trade.
Truly free trade implies harmonised regulation which implies shared political institutions. Opting out of decision-making responsibility doesn't change the reality.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
They are fully aware that their relationship involves political integration.
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
Obviously there is integration in terms of trading relationships. Political integration is different from free trade.
EU membership with opt outs is a lot closer to that then Brexit.
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
They are fully aware that their relationship involves political integration.
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
Obviously there is integration in terms of trading relationships. Political integration is different from free trade.
Truly free trade implies harmonised regulation which implies shared political institutions. Opting out of decision-making responsibility doesn't change the reality.
I suppose you added the second sentence precisely because you realised the first wasn't true!
I reckon that - although "Leave" and "Remain" are fairly evenly balanced - if the questions of political integration and trading relations were separated, there would be settled majorities against the politics and for the trade.
Economics and politics are inherently linked. A single market is a political construct, and those who think the two could be separated are deluding themselves.
Tell that to the Norwegians.
They are fully aware that their relationship involves political integration.
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
Obviously there is integration in terms of trading relationships. Political integration is different from free trade.
Truly free trade implies harmonised regulation which implies shared political institutions. Opting out of decision-making responsibility doesn't change the reality.
I suppose you added the second sentence precisely because you realised the first wasn't true!
Comments
You'll note, effectively, that the one thing the EU considers non-negotiable is the de jure and de facto regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland under permanent EU jurisdiction.
Everything else is allowable, provided the EU is able to extract its pound of flesh.
The second job is to keep inflation under control - job done.
The third job is to keep unemployment low - job done.
You only miss these priorities when you don't have them.
May is aiming for a WTO Brexit but can't do that openly - hence the stealth.
The other items are pretty important to the EU too, especially the level playing fields provisions. And you're right. "May's Deal" is a starter for ten under any Brexit arrangement. The EU will demand (and get) a lot more, "May's Deal" or no.
Broadly May's deal - or what we'd perhaps do better to think of as the EU's deal - ought to satisfy both those majorities.
Trade and politics no.
Unless you think Japan is politically integrating with Australia, or Mexico with USA etc. No reason we can't have a European trade agreement that is trade without politics like North America, TransPacific, South America etc all have.
https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/eu/nou2012_2_chapter27.pdf
The core of the Norwegian “model” of participation in the European integration process is in other words integration without co-determination. This was the solution chosen when opting for the EEA Agreement in 1992, and it has subsequently been applied, with some variation, to the Schengen Agreement and the other agreements that Norway has entered into with the EU.
That's an option for us, and I think the most likely one. But it's not going to be comfortable for a country used to thinking it has influence.
Oh, it's Blanchflower.